More governments around the world are moving to accept natural medicine: Could this be the beginning of a healthy future?

by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer http://www.naturalnews.com/054038_holistic_healthcare_natural_medicine_Switzerland.html

(NaturalNews) In Switzerland, health insurance plans are on the cusp of covering homeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture, holistic care and traditional Chinese medicine. In 2009, two-thirds of the Swiss spoke out in favor of incorporating these important and long suppressed healthcare strategies into their healthcare system. By May 2017, all these great healthcare methods will be included in Switzerland's constitutional list of paid health services.

Will health insurance plans around the world begin competing to incorporate holistic healthcare strategies?

Health insurance plans have long been used to cover the costs of only interventions and drugs, encouraging system dependency. If more of these payment plans started covering preventative medicine and holistic approaches, pharmaceutical drug use and medical interventions would be drastically reduced, thus lowering the cost of healthcare for all. Could Switzerland's powerful change in health insurance coverage be the beginning of a healthy future for millions?

For far too long, people have been left in the dark about the array of healing molecules in plant-based extracts. The only "medicines" that get studied and legitimized as "scientific," are the synthetic creations of drug inventors. Even though these synthetic arrangements don't work in harmony with the body's natural systems, they are perpetually pumped out and capitalized on.

If patients were treated as individuals and healthcare providers approached each situation holistically, then perhaps patient health could be restored as a whole. By understanding nutrition utilization and putting it to work in an individual's body, healthcare professionals could prevent the use of high cost interventions that don't always work for cancer and other diseases. By understanding the signs of nutritional imbalances, healthcare systems could respond by helping patients incorporate the right whole foods into their diets instead of prescribing them pills to suppress the body's natural communication.

What if health insurance plans started covering gym memberships, encouraging people to take action to activate their bodies' lymph systems, an important part of maintaining immunity to disease?

Will the inclusion of cannabidiols in medicine open up scientific study on nature's vast array of plant molecules?

What if the government recognized the therapeutic anti-inflammatory benefit of curcuminoids in turmeric root, the antioxidant qualities of catechins in cocoa and green tea, or the liver protective glycyrrhizin in licorice root? Real medicine is synthesized directly by nature and works in harmony with the body.

Healing and healthcare is everywhere, whether in the form of polyacetylene, an electrically conductive, anti-fungal property of burdock root, or in the pain-relieving and nervous system-restoring cannabidiols in hemp. Pharmaceutical drugs today have vicious side effects, but nature's foods, like blackberries, bilberries and olives contain powerful properties like quercetin, which relax the vascular system, calming the heart. The question we should all be asking is: "Where has real science education gone?"

In Brazil, the government is making huge strides, approving use of Medical Marijuana, Inc.'s Real Scientific Hemp Oil (RSHO) to treat epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and chronic pain. Stuart W. Titus, PhD and Chief Executive Officer of Medical Marijuana, Inc. says, "Brazil is a shining example of how a national government has responded to humanitarian interests and has swiftly and diligently passed favorable legislation on behalf of the health and well-being of its people – children in particular."

Will other countries follow suit? The United States, which touts its system as the most scientifically advanced, is far behind in terms of incorporating nature's vast medicine palette. In America in particular, antibiotic overuse is causing the evolution of superbugs that are both deadly and hard to eradicate. What if doctors started working with patients' natural microbiomes to promote diversity and strength of the good bacteria in their guts? What if we worked with each individual's natural chemistry and microbial co-hosts so that the body could protect itself and more readily adapt to its environment?

With healthcare systems bent and broken and doing more harm than good, there's only room for improvement, a need to bring a holistic approach and a model of compassionate, individualized care back to the forefront. As cannabidiols become accepted in Brazil to treat life-altering conditions, there can only be an increased awakening to the healing benefits of plant-based healing molecules.

Sources include:

NaturalNews.com

SwissInfo.ch

NaturalNews.com

Gallup: Americans Want Socialized Healthcare

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, May 17, 2016

Region: USA

Theme: Poverty & Social Inequality

Most Americans want Obamacare to be replaced by what Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes and what both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump oppose: “Replacing the ACA [Affordable Care Act — Obamacare] with a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.” That’s 58% of Americans in the survey. Only 37% were opposed. 5% had “No opinion.”
Clinton proposes to build upon Obama’s ACA, but 51% in this Gallup survey say they want it repealed; only 45% want it to continue in any form (other than, presumably, socialized medicine, which, as was just noted, 58% of Americans want). Consequently, one of the, if not the, main, reason(s), why Americans want ACA repealed, is in order to obtain socialized healthcare (a possibility that candidate Obama had promised as a possibility in his ‘public option’, which he never even tried to include in his actual healthcare law, the ACA).
Donald Trump proposes to repeal ACA and simply go back to the old system, but in a form which requires all insurers to provide plans in all states.
On 19 August 2008, shortly after Obama had won the Democratic Presidential nomination, the Wall Street Journal bannered “Obama Touts Single-Payer System for Health Care,” and reported: “‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,’ Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy,” which was held as a campaign-event in Albuquerque. This statement by Obama was bold; he was at that time appealing for votes not just in a Democratic primary, but now in the general Presidential race, where he had to appeal not merely to liberals, but to a broader cross-section of voters. But he also promised there a ‘public option’ to be included in his plan, and yet even that promise was abandoned by him the very moment he entered the White House — he never pushed for it, and he selected Max Baucus in the Senate to draft his plan: Baucus was firmly opposed to including any “public option”; that’s one of the reasons why Obama picked him.
Britain’s Independent offered the scientific evidence about this policy-issue, when it bannered, on 15 August 2009, “The Brutal Truth About America’s Healthcare,” and presented actual statistics from WHO and OECD in 2009:
Health spending as share of GDP: US 16%; UK 8.4%
Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare): US 45%; UK 82%.
Per-capita healthcare spending [including both public & private]: US $7,290; UK $2,992.
Practising physicians per 1,000 people: US: 2.4; UK 2.5.
Nurses per 1,000 people: US 10.6; UK 10.0.
Acute care hospital beds per 1,000 people: US 2.7; UK 2.6.
Life expectancy: US 78; UK 80.
Infant mortality per 1,000 live births: US 6.7; UK 4.8.
On 26 October 2009, Reuters headlined “Healthcare System Wastes Up To $800 Billion a Year,” and reported: “The U.S. healthcare system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies,” such as “fraud,” “duplicate tests,” and “redundant paperwork.” Moreover, “The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada [which has comprehensive socialized health insurance].” And yet Republicans were accusing the new Democratic President of threatening to bankrupt the country by pressing to change the U.S. system of health insurance; and opinion polls showed that lots of Americans were terrified of such change.
Just a week later, The New York Times bannered on November 5th, “Costs Surge for Medical Devices, but Benefits Are Opaque,” and Barry Meier reported how the major medical device manufacturers had blocked an attempt by the Federal Government to measure the effectiveness of stents, artificial hips, and other medical devices; and how these manufacturers managed to achieve phenomenal profit margins, ranging from a low of 23% to a high of 30%: the combination of kickbacks to doctors, plus a lack of objective measures of effectiveness, was the “invisible hand” at work — Adam Smith’s economics in the real world, where the top pickpockets are actually the aristocracy. (Smith’s patronhappened to be the Duke of Buccleuch — Henry Scott.)
Reuters headlined on 14 March 2012, “Factbox: Healthcare by the Numbers,” and reported the latest “Health at a Glance 2011 – OECD Indicators.” The U.S was “1st in Spending … 17.9 percent of U.S. annual gross domestic product, or $8,402” per person. Though we had the highest medical costs, the U.S. was at or near the bottom in terms of healthcare delivered: 25th in Preventing Death from Heart Disease, 27th in Life Expectancy, 29th in Number of Practicing Doctors (per 1,000 population), 29th in Doctor Consultations, 30th in Hospital Beds, 30th in Medical Graduates, 31st in Health Coverage (insurance), 31st in Infant Mortality, and 31st in Preventing Premature Death.
In other words: The U.S. paid the most, but got the least. And it’s true even now, three years after the ACA went into effect.
A CBS/NYT poll taken 4-7 December 2014 asked “Would you favor or oppose a single-payer health care system, in which all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan that is financed by taxes?” 50% opposed it; only 43% favored it then.
But, a year later, on 1-7 December 2015, the Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked “Now, please tell me if you favor or oppose having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all.” And 58% favored that; only 34% opposed it.
The wording of such polls is important, because many Americans, especially older ones, have been taught and deeply ingrained to think that the word “socialist” means “communist,” and even some who know that many countries in Europe are democratic socialist nations and aren’t at allcommunist, retain that trained negative mental association, which was promulgated by the U.S. aristocracy during the Cold War but was never true: democratic socialists were just as opposed to communism as were democratic capitalists. The distinction isn’t between communism versus capitalism but between democracy versus dictatorship (rule by an aristocracy). It was always American propaganda. The Kaiser poll avoided that propaganda-indoctrination, by using the phrase “Medicare-for-all.”
In fact, the same CBS/NYT poll taken 4-7 December 2014 had also asked “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?” And, 59% said yes, only 34% said no. Moreover, this question had a history in that poll: the question had actually been asked nine times in 2009 (while Obamacare was being drafted), and the percentages favoring that option ranged between 60% at the low end to 72% at the high end, who wanted it; so, the only reason why President Obama assigned his Obamacare to be drawn up by Max Baucus (instead of to Ted Kennedy who wanted to draft it in his committee and who strongly favored the public option, which Baucus strongly opposed) is that Obama had been lying throughout his 2008 campaign, when he said he would include a public option in his plan. Hillary Clinton now is likewise promising to include a public option, so as to gain votes.
It’s not because the U.S. is a democracy that the U.S. is the only developed country that lacks healthcare as a right, not merely as a privilege for those who are healthy or otherwise can pay for the healthcare they need in order to be productive citizens. It’s instead because the U.S. isn’t a democracy, that only the U.S. builds its healthcare system upon the private-profit and private-charity model. Like the study that’s linked-to there shows (based upon a detailed analysis of 1,779 public-policy issues since 1980), “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” The study found that the only influence the public has is when parts of what a public majority want, get taken up by this or that wing of the oligarchy, which then hires lobbyists and politicians, to get it passed into law, because they’ve figured out some way they can personally profit from it. At least on healthcare, it’s extremely inefficient, from the standpoint of providing maximum benefit to the public at a minimum cost to the public.
This is not opinion, it is fact; it is news-reporting not news-commentary: Basically, the privatized system rips off the public for the benefit of the elite, at least on healthcare, if not perhaps also on education and other products and services that are essential in order to be able to have a maximally productive economy.
On 9 February 2016, CNN headlined, “Why Americans Don’t Live as Long as Europeans”, and reported, “‘it seems staggering that we get two fewer years of life just for living here,” said Andrew Fenelon, a senior service fellow at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics and senior author of the study, which was published on Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”
Because the U.S. is falling behind in those types of products and services, the U.S. is declining. “Nationwide, the median income of U.S. households in 2014 stood at 8% less than in 1999, a reminder that the economy has yet to fully recover from the effects of the Great Recession of 2007-09. The decline was pervasive, with median incomes falling in 190 of 229 metropolitan areas examined.” That’s from a study released by the Pew Research Center, on 11 May 2016, which was titled, “America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas.” The sub-title was “The middle class lost ground in nearly nine-in-ten U.S. metropolitan areas examined.”
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2016

Will the Transatlantic Trade Agreement (TTIP) Harm Your Health?

Will Food, Drugs, Cosmetics, Pesticides Escape Regulation?

By Celia Wexler

Global Research, May 16, 2016

Who What Why.

Region: Europe

Theme: Environment, Global Economy, Science and Medicine

Image: FDA microbiologist working in a biosafety laboratory Photo credit: US Food and Drug Administration / Wikimedia
This article was first published by Who What Why
In 1960, one courageous Food and Drug Administration official refused to approve a drug that had already been used widely abroad. Frances Kelsey insisted she needed more information before she could be satisfied it was safe. The drug maker accused her of being a petty bureaucrat. But Kelsey was right to be cautious. That drug was thalidomide and pregnant women who took the sedative gave birth to thousands of children with terrible birth defects in Europe, the UK, Canada, and the Middle East. Because of Kelsey’s vigilance, however, America was spared that tragedy.
If the US and EU agree on a new trade deal in the works — the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) — it would be very difficult for one watchdog on either side of the Atlantic to have the same life-saving impact.
Instead, business interests would wield far greater influence on the quality of our food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, and the presence of toxic chemicals in our environment. It would be very difficult for any regulator to resist that corporate influence, or to buck the collective judgment of more compliant regulators in other countries.
How corporations will wield that influence is suggested in the fine print of trade proposals advanced by the US Trade Representative (USTR) and strongly endorsed by the international business community.
The proposed trade deal would affect 820 million consumers, and thousands of the corporations doing business in the 28 EU countries and the United States.
It should come as no surprise  that the agreement has been largely shaped by business interests. As The Washington Post reported in 2014, 85 percent of the individuals serving as trade advisors to the USTR represented either corporations or business trade groups.
Americans may have grown used to trade deals dominated by multinational corporations, such as NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been in effect since 1994). This deal, however, is focused not on trade barriers like tariffs, but on regulations — rules that health, safety and environmental advocates call “public protections” and that businesses term “trade irritants.”
My experience on the trade deal came through my work as a public-interest lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which I left one month ago. UCS did not take a position on trade per se, but actively opposed efforts in Congress to make it much more difficult for government agencies to use science to inform their regulations, without fear of political or corporate influence.

Image: US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue, and US Trade Representative Michael Froman  Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from House.gov and USTR.gov
The US Chamber of Commerce has made regulatory “coherence” a huge part of its agenda. The Chamber and the USTR both insist that more collaborative rule-making between the US and EU could save companies the costs of complying with two sets of rules, and could make the entire process work more effectively, without harming public health and safety and the environment.
Completing the TTIP trade agreement is a major goal of the Obama Administration and the EU. Negotiations, underway for the past three years, are now ramping up, in an attempt to seal the deal before Obama leaves office.
The USTR does not publicly disclose the proposals it has made to the EU, and negotiated trade texts are kept secret. But Greenpeace Netherlands recently released a leaked copyof some of these proposals, including a chapter on “regulatory cooperation.”
The term sounds benign, but it could have dramatic consequences. If the EU accepts the US proposals, it would mean that regulators will no longer consider the public interest their first priority. Instead, they will have to weigh how much any protective rule will cost business, and whether those costs can be justified by the benefits the rule offers to the public at large.
Regulators will also be asked to consider other alternatives to a proposed rule, including the option  of doing nothing, and to explain why such alternatives are not acceptable. And they will, for the first time, have to evaluate  the potential impact of proposed regulations on trade. This new requirement could greatly complicate the work of developing and implementing new regulations, including safety rules, for both the EU and the US.
Robert Weissman, president of the public-interest group Public Citizen, warned that the leaked documents were evidence that multinationals were out to undermine the public protections that Europeans are accustomed to.
The EU quickly rebutted these concerns. Cecilia Malmström, the European Commissioner for Trade, insisted that the leaked texts are merely proposals that do not represent the final agreement between the trading partners. She also repeated a pledge that the EU would never surrender its high standards of public health and safety in order to do a trade deal.
Business groups and a number of European officials also downplayed any potential harm an agreement could cause, while touting its potential to increase jobs and prosperity.
But consumer, public health and environmental advocates on both sides of the Atlantic believe that TTIP will lead to lowest-common-denominator regulations — with possibly dire consequences.
For the EU, this could mean far less protection from toxic chemicals, pesticides, cosmetics and food that Europe currently does not permit but the US allows, such as chicken rinsed in chlorine. The EU banned chlorine baths in the 1990s, concerned about the procedure’s  possible links to cancer.
For the US, anti-TTIP advocates worry that the trade deal will make it more difficult for regulators to keep potentially dangerous drugs and devices currently approved in Europe out of the US market, risking a repeat of the thalidomide crisis.
There is also concern that the TTIP will keep state governments in the US from imposing stricter regulations when federal agencies fail to act, whether in matters of food safety, labeling of toxic chemicals, or banning dangerous materials.

Image: Demonstration against TTIP and CETA in Berlin  Photo credit: More democracy / Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Both US and EU officials deny that standards will be relaxed. But the US experience with regulation seems to belie those assertions. Critics charge that the US regulatory process has helped ensure that crucial public protections often are delayed for years, and are weakened through political interference from the White House Office of Management and Budget, and through corporate lobbying.
Increasingly, rulemaking in the US is subject to cost-benefit analysis. When the focus is on making it cheaper for corporations to comply, safety concerns are downplayed. Consider this recent example. In 2009, a commuter plane crashed into a home in Buffalo, New York, killing 45 passengers, four crew members, and one person on the ground. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that pilot error likely was linked to sleep deprivation.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed rules to ensure that pilots were sufficiently rested before they took the helm of an airplane. Business stakeholders lobbied the White House, seeking to weaken the regulation. They succeeded. When the FAA issued new rules to prevent pilot fatigue, cargo pilots were excluded. The reason? Cost-benefit analysis.
A crash of a passenger plane could result in dozens, if not hundreds of deaths, each one with a dollar cost.  But the crash of a cargo plane likely would kill only the pilot. So the cost of complying with the rule for the cargo companies could be greater than the benefit of saving one pilot’s life.
Up until now, the EU largely makes rules based on the precautionary principle, or, in layman’s terms, “Better safe than sorry.” It is the precautionary principle, for example, that underlies the EU’s strict process for approving chemicals: chemical makers have to prove that a chemical is safe before it can be sold.
In the US, it’s the other way around. The Environmental Protection Agency has to prove that a chemical is dangerous before its use can be restricted. As a consequence, many toxic chemicals that are banned or restricted in Europe remain on the market in this country.
“If we try to export our current regulatory regime to Europe, it could undermine science-based public health, safety, and environmental protections across the Atlantic, and most likely at home too.” said Weissman of Public Citizen. He painted a grim picture of TTIP’s potential  impact:

“This trade deal could expand the current broken system in the US and create even more opportunities for corporate interests to spread misinformation, weaken critical public protections, and challenge important health and safety standards, even at the state level and local level.”

Regulatory lawyer James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Progressive Reform, was even blunter in assessing the leaked trade document. “To see such bad policy written down shocks the conscience,” he said.
Celia Wexler was a public interest lobbyist for twenty years, serving first as vice president for advocacy for the good-government group, Common Cause, and then as Senior Washington Representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists. She now has returned to her first profession, journalism.

The original source of this article is Who What Why.

Copyright © Celia Wexler, Who What Why., 2016

US TO MOVE SPACE ASSETS INTO DEEP SPACE, AND A STRANGE GOLDMAN SACHS ...

Posted on May 17, 2016 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2016/05/us-move-space-assets-deep-space-strange-goldman-sachs-commercial/

Yesterday I blogged about the continuing emergence of details about the recent visit of President Obama to a summit meeting with the newly elected President Macri of Argentina in San Carlos di Bariloche, a location that hardly needs any introduction to readers of my books, and particularly of The Nazi International. In yesterday's blog, you'll recall, I referenced a strange article that connected some very unlikely dots, namely: (1) the secret Chinese space base in that region of Argentina, (2) the Falklands Islands and a recent UN report that lists the Falklands as falling within Argentina's territorial waters (3) President Obama's summit meeting with Senor Macri, and the fact that a virtual battalion of NASA people was part of Mr. Obama's entourage, (4) the speculations that the Falklands played some sort of role in American plans for the region, and finally, (5) that all of this was somehow related to Moon mining and secrets and secret activity in Antarctica.
Well, today put all that into yet another context, as the steady trickle of space-related news stories seems to get more and more bizarre on an almost daily basis. Consider this article, shared by Mr. T.M., and(in what is an unusual procedure for us on this website) this video "commercial" by a Goldman Sachs analyst about space:

US to move more assets into deep space over next 4 years
You'll note that in the article, there's very little explanation of why the US is moving its space assets into higher and deeper orbits, but a clue is provided by the fact that reference is made to the privatization of LOE(Low Earth Orbit) launches of commercial satellites. Thus, the "assets" being referred to are military. The question is, why move them further out? The answer, in part, is provided by growing American concerns about Chinese anti-satellite capability, for recall just a few years ago that the Chinese demonstarted their capability to knock out a satellite in low earth orbit with ground launched anti-satellite missiles.
But I suggest there's another context from which this should be viewed, and that is the context suggested yesterday: Moon mining, and the looming Chinese-US competitution to mine the moon for Helium-3, a valuable isotope for fusion power, which in turn, as we've also seen, has been a growing presence in recent stories, with all the implications for a radical change in the world's energy systems, and hence, for a radical change in the world's financial system. At two minutes and ten seconds into the Goldman "New Frontier" video, the militarization of space and the challenges from nations "not our allies" is mentioned.
So what's going on? My high octane speculation for today reiterates something I've suggested in many previous blogs: with the commmercialization of space comes the inevitable necessity of protecting those national assets, but with the mining of space and local celestial bodies like the Moon, comes the necessity of protecting those assets, and the "sea lanes" to them. And that requires not only the need to re-position American assets currently available further out, it also requires new military-space assets to be positioned further out. One can even go so far as to envision "seleno-synchronous" orbits for satellites around the Moon, and occupying various layered orbits between the Earth and the Moon.  If this reading of these stories be correct, then this means the USA and China - and therefore inevitably Japan, india, Europe, and Russia - are about to embark on a massive increase in space-related activity, both military and commercial. This possibility in turn puts all those recent announcements about fusion power, and even the Saudi announcements and Rockefeller announcements about transitioning their national and foundational investments away from petroleum into a very interesting context. And of course, lurking in the background of all of this, is that these looming investments have to be protected, not only from potential interdiction from terrestrial competitors, but perhaps also from "someone else."

THAT BARILOCHE VISIT… AGAIN: STRANGE GOINGS ON IN SPACE, ...

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Joseph P. Farrell •http://gizadeathstar.com/2016/05/bariloche-visit-strange-goings-space-antarctica/

This very unusual story was shared by Mr. K.L. a regular reader and contributor of articles here, and this one I have to pass along, for it deals directly with President Obama's recent visit to Argentina, and a summit with newly-elected Argentine President Macri in - you guessed it - San Carlos di Bariloche. I don't need to rehearse the significance of Bariloche for this readership, but siffice it to say, that visit raised my suspicion meter into the red zone. But this story perhaps sheds a bit more light on the behind-the-scenes reasons for the summit's odd location, for as many discovered, Mr. Obama was not the first or only high-ranking American leader to visit the resort city and Patagonia:

China and U.S. to set up shop, secret Now, as I pointed out in a previous blog when this story first broke, the presence of a secret Chinese presence in Argentina, plus its willingness to negotiate a multi-billion dollar deal with that country in aid of its space program and moon mining aspirations, is one obvious reason for Mr. Obama's visit.
However, now in this latest article, it is made clear that space, and Antarctica, were at the height and center of Mr. Obama's visit, since he took a virtual battalion of NASA representatives in tow:

On March 23, on the 40th anniversary of the U.S.-backed coup that led to seven years of hell in Argentina, President Barack Obama and over 1000 U.S. Government officials from NASA and other agencies, along with businessmen, arrived in Argentina and met with members of the Argentinian government in an attempt to smooth over damage created by the instigation of coup and martial law upon the country in 1976. Among the super secret attendees were U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson and the First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama.

And strangely, the visit conjured memories of the British-Argentine Falkland Islands war of the early 1980s, when then junta leader Galtieri invaded the Falklands, prompting then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to launch a military expedition to eject the invaders and restore British rule over the islands, long claimed by Argentina. The focus of this is a recent UN report apparently acknowledging the Argentine claims over the Falklands - doubtless without British consent:

The release of a UN report, a few days after the Obama visit, suddenly pronounced that Argentina’s territorial waters had, under its reckoning, increased by 35 percent, to include the Falkland Islands, which are British.
The timing of the release of the report from the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) was hardly coincidental. Or, rather, the timing of the Obama visit. The report had been completed by March 11, and was released on March 28.

It’s thought by some that the UN’s report was indeed designed to somehow thwart China’s presence in the region and may be part of a much larger plan to tie up China in international court while the U.S. and private companies move in for the kill, ultimately setting up shop to mine the moon and explore secret findings in Antarctica, using the Falkland Islands as a base.

Now this may be news to Great Britain: that the US would "move in for the kill" and use the Falklands as a base, to my knowledge, has not been the discussion of any recent Anglo-American talks. In other words, there is to my knowledge no known recent story out there connecting the Falklands with US exploration efforts in Antarctica.
Then we have this "revelation" at the very end of the article:

Additionally it’s important to note that a secret 56 square mile complex in Antarctica has been hidden on Google Earth and may be one of the reasons the two governments interest.

The problem here is that the alleged "secret 56 square mile complex" that has allegedly been hidden by Google Earth doesn't seem to be named. Whose complex is it? The Russians? Perhaps: after all, they have been somewhat less than forthcoming with their goings-on at Lake Vostok. THe Americans? The British? Or.... someone else? Who knows.
So for purposes of today's high octane speculation, assume for the sake of argument and speculation that all these revelations are true, that the US is attempting to head off further Chinese intervention in Argentina, and that this has something to do with space mining the Moon, and Antarctica. The implications would then seem to be clear: whatever is going on on the Earth's southern-most and most mysterious continent, has something to with space, or, perhaps, it may be the other way around: that whatever the space-related plans regarding Patagonia are, they may have something to do with Antarctica. And this, of course, ramps up the continued speculations in the alternative community that there have been space-related discoveries in Antarctica. Indeed, something strange does appear to be going on in Antarctica, for as I pointed out in the final chapter of my book Roswell and the Reich, a German researcher recorded very strange highly anomalous and wild seismic readings in that continent.
The bottom line here is that this is one to watch.

The Florida/Hollywood Mob Connection, the CIA and O.J. Simpson By Alex Constantine

http://www.whale.to/b/constantine.html             

MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 9
================================================================
     V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"
================================================================

Notes:

The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
the author.

Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unedited.

The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editor unless
otherwise noted.

Editor: Mike Coyle 


Contributing Editors: Walter Bowart
                      Harlan Girard

Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler

================================================================

Excerpted from:

The Florida/Hollywood Mob Connection, the CIA and O.J. Simpson 

By Alex Constantine

[...]

III: The Catspaw Precursor - A Mirror Image of the Simpson Case

        Because the Simpson case is a carefully-concerted
re-creation of another double-murder: Before the legal throes of
O.J. Simpson, there was Murray Gold.
        The Brentwood slaughter was foreshadowed in
September, 1974 when 71 year-old Irving Pasternak and his
wife Rhoda were brutally stabbed to death in Waterbury,
Connecticut. All in a few moments. There were no witnesses.
        Mr. Pasternak, before his retirement, was legal counsel
to the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America
(MPPDA), a Hollywood labor union once run by Pat Casey, an
"undercover agent" of mob boss Johnny Rosselli (Moldea). (Already
the Catspaw case has struck familiar territory: Murderville).
        Rosselli, like Lansky, had one foot in the underworld,
the other in Langley, Virginia. He was, by his own testimony
before the Church Committee in 1974, once handed a CIA contract
on the lives of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and other Latin
American rebels. Rosselli went on to link Las Vegas casino
interests with Howard Hughes, Moe Dalitz and Jimmy Hoffa (Kohn).
        John Rosselli was, like Meyer Lansky, an asset of the
Combination, by his own admission before Church Committee on
Assassinations. Charles Rappleye, in his biography of Rosselli,
describes the gangster's initial appearance as Congress
attempted to unravel criminal interconnections of the Watergate
debacle.
        Hoping to get to the bottom of the Nixon administration
burglaries, the Watergate prosecutors turned to John Rosselli.
Leslie Scherr, the Washington D.C., attorney who appeared with
Rosselli at the closed hearing, recalled, "It was so convoluted,
you really had to be John Le Carre' to follow it." But judging
from the questions posed to Rosselli, Scherr said, the
prosecutors felt that "the reason why the break-in occurred at
the Democratic Party headquarters was because Nixon or somebody
in the Republican Party suspected the Democrats had information
as to Nixon's involvement with the CIA's original contract with
Rosselli" (Rappleye & Becker).
        In July, 1976 his dismembered body was found -- shortly
after his Congressional appearance -- stuffed into a 55-gallon oil
drum, bobbing in the intercoastal waters of Biscayne Bay, off
Miami, near Donald Aronow's speedboat factory.
        Lansky and Aronow were both questioned by police about
the murder (Burdick,).
        The indictment of Murray Gold, a Jewish survivor of the
Holocaust and former son-in-law of the Pasternaks, hung entirely
on circumstantial evidence. There was, for one thing, the
telltale slash on the index finger of Gold's left hand. The
prosecution made a fuss over the finger. They argued in court
that Gold had injured himself in the course of dispatching the
Pasternaks. His defense team -- an assemblage of world famous
attorneys, soon to include F. Lee Bailey -- ushered to the stand
an expert witness who testified that it was improbable a slasher
could frenetically wound his victims and stab himself
without inflicting more damage than a minor flesh
wound.
        Witnesses passing the Pasternak home the night of the
murders gave police a description bearing no resemblance to
Murray Gold.
        Bruce Sanford, a friend of the Pasternak's daughter who
enjoyed sleeping in graveyards, fit the description in all
particulars. Sanford was known to wear Catspaw boots consistent
with the feral heelprints stamped in the blood of the Pasternaks.
Sanford had a long, sordid criminal history: a heroin addict, he
once attempted suicide by eating glass, admired Charles Manson
and belonged to a motorcycle gang called the "Peddlers of Death."
On two occasions he openly confessed to friends of committing the
murders, yet Waterbury authorities covered for him, at one point
going so far as to testify in the courtroom that Sanford had been
cabbaged away in a jail cell the night of the murders when, the
defense learned, he hadn't.
        Yet the name Sanford did not turn up on the list of
suspects because on December 12, 1974 he cut his own
throat. Murray Gold argued that police and prosecutors had
set him up and were deliberately overlooking Sanford's guilt to
win a false conviction.
        The prosecution dogged Murray Gold through five murder
trials before a guilty verdict was finally handed down -- ten
years after the crime took place.
        On the jury sat a secretary for the Attorney General of
Connecticut (the same department that indicted Gold), a woman
with two first cousins on the police force, another who admitted
upon questioning to have "extensive "contact" with the police, a
juror who spent "23 years in government service," an employee of
a state agency, and an alternate with a son employed as a
"corrections officer."
        Yet Gold's claim that he was the target of a police
conspiracy was lightly dismissed by the state's prosecutrix,
Marcia Smith, as so much paranoid invention.
        The jury found him guilty of the murders, but at a
post-trial hearing the verdict was set aside with a finding that
Gold was mentally crippled -- that an irrational
fear of courtroom "conspiracies" had decimated his sanity. The
judge concluded that he was entitled to a sixth trial. In the
meantime, evidence that Sanford committed the murders mounted.
Gold was released after a defense argument about suppressed
evidence at the post-trial hearing.

IV: A Killer's Brain Frequencies, a Few Words About CIA/Mafia
    Clean-Up Operations

        Gold was not the slasher -- But he was an ideal cut-out
for a Combination wet job. Gold once held a top-security position
at Grumman Aerospace. He had worked on secret defense projects.
He had access to classified records (Nizer). Grumman's personnel
office kept a comprehensive file on Gold. His history would be an
open book to any intelligence operative -- including the period
when he was incarcerated at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York,
where he received shock treatments for depression.
        Mount Sinai shares with other leading hospitals around
the country the distinction of employing psychiatrists
moonlighting in the grim netherworld of CIA mind control. Dr.
Harold Abramson (hand-picked for the sensitive mind control
program by Sidney Gottleib of the CIA's Technical Services
Division) conducted LSD research at Mount Sinai -- unusual in
itself because Abramson had no formal training in psychiatry
(Marks). His research was funded by the Macy Foundation, a CIA
shell (Marks). Abramson is best known as biochemical warfare
specialist Frank Olson's therapist -- before the most famous of
the CIA's mind control subjects plummeted from a tenth-floor
office window.
        At Mount Sinai, too, the Agency would have easy access to
detailed information concerning Murray Gold. His professional and
psychiatric profile spelled p-a-t-s-y.
        Twenty-one years later, a mythic Heiseman Trophy winner
was manipulated into a reprise of the Gold case. Like Murray
Gold, he cut his finger at the time of the killings, possibly the
result of a post-hypnotic or, more likely these days, remote
telemetric signal.
        "Simpson," says a clinical psychologist in Encino,
California who specializes in treating mind control victims, "is
a multiple personality -- I suspect he's a pro--grammed
multiple." She arrived at this conclusion after interviewing a
psychologist who'd counseled Nicole Simpson.
        The hidden presence of CIA mind control in the case would
explain the break-in at the office of Dr. Ameli and other
therapists retained to temper the emotional aches of the Simpson
crowd.
        A chilling indication that the CIA's mind control
fraternity exercised a hidden influence on the trial was the
breakdown of juror Tracy Hampton in early May, 1995. Before she
was released by Judge Ito, Ms. Hampton had been observed sitting
motionless in the jury box, staring into space, Other jurors
reported that she had taken to gaping for long periods at a blank
television screen -- apparently  comatose. Hampton was removed
from the jury on May 3, after complaining to Judge Ito, "I can't
take it anymore."
        Hard Copy reported that Hampton had been "hearing
voices," a detail overlooked in newspaper accounts. The CIA's
mind control fraternity has, for at least 20 years, transmitted
words to subjects snared for experimentation in mental
institutions, prisons elsewhere. After she was ousted from the
courtroom, Hampton tried to commit suicide by eating glass -- an
allusion to the Catspaw case, specifically the attempted
self-immolation of suspect Bruce Sanford, who also bolted down a
mouthful of glass. Paramedics carried from her home on a
stretcher. She was hospitalized.
        There has since been no press coverage of her condition.

[...]

Masonic Ritual Murders AKA Jack the Ripper

Masonic Ritual Murders AKA Jack the Ripper http://www.whale.to/b/jack.html                    

by Uri Dowbenko Copyright © 2001

“Jack the Ripper is a misnomer," writes Stephen Knight beginning his landmark book, "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution." "The name conjures up visions of a lone assassin, stalking his victims under the foggy gaslight of Whitechapel. It is just this mistaken notion, inspired almost solely by that terrifying nickname, which rendered the murders of five East End prostitutes in 1888 insoluble. For Jack the Ripper was not one man, but three, two killers and an accomplice. The facts surrounding their exploits have never before been teased from the confused skeins of truths, half-truths and lies which have been woven around this case." Likewise, the film "From Hell," partially based on Knight's book, is a horror movie and occult thriller-murder mystery, directed by Albert and Allen Hughes ("Menace II Society", "Dead Presidents") and written by Terry Hayes and Rafael Yglesias.

Based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, "From Hell" is a richly sculpted, fictionalized version of the suppressed history of England - how a cabal of Freemasons orchestrated the so-called "Jack the Ripper" murders.
In the movie, Inspector Fred Abberline (Johnny Depp) tries to make sense of the serial murders in a lower-class London ghetto plagued by poverty and violence. When he's not on the job, Abberline tries to deal with the death of his wife by soaking his sorrows in absinthe and opium. Chasing the dragon, he's stoned again, when he sees the grisly murders through his astral vision - a drug-induced psychic journey through the netherworld.
Tracking him down to an opium den, his obese sidekick Peter Godley (Robbie Coltrane) brings him back to consensus reality with a well-placed bitch slap.
Meanwhile, Mary Kelly (Heather Graham) and her hooker friends are being extorted by a gang of thugs.
Abberline follows the clues, leading him to a conspiracy at the highest levels of Government and Freemasonry -- Sir William Gull (Ian Holm), the Queen's physician, and Sir Charles Warren (Ian Richardson), Commissioner of Police and member of the Ars Quator Coronatorum Masonic Lodge - confidants to Queen Victoria herself.
A gripping, well-styled movie, "From Hell" is a bold revision of history based on Knight's ground-breaking research.
Historically, this cabal of high-level Masons was determined to "protect" the Monarchy - and preserve their own control of the Government.
After all, conspiracies of States are always informative because of the depths of depravity that show what men will do to preserve the status quo of the Ruling Class and Power Elite. In this case, the movie deftly illustrates that xenophobia and unvarnished hypocrisy are the hallmarks of the outwardly prim and proper Victorian Age. The flood of immigrants. The rising tide of socialism. The perceived threat of Catholicism to the Crown. The possibility of working-class uprising. These were all political factors in an age when the debauchery of the Ruling Class was a fact of life, as were the ruthlessness and corruption of the Crown.
"A great deal is at stake if the Establishment considers it necessary to operate a full scale cover-up," writes Knight. "For the truth of the Jack the Ripper affair to have been painstakingly concealed can mean nothing less than State security was at risk, or that someone high in the Government or the Royal Family was involved."
Author Stephen Knight, in his out of print masterpiece, "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution," explains how Britain's entire political system at the end of the 19th century was threatened by the hidden facts -- Prince Albert Victor ("Eddy") was not only bisexual, but he had married a Roman Catholic girl and fathered a child with her. Evidently these debaucheries were so scandalous that the Ruling Class would not abide even the slightest hint of this revelation.
When a group of working girls (Annie Chapman, Marie Kelly, Elizabeth Stride and Mary Nichols) decided to blackmail the Royals, the Marquess of Salisbury, then Prime Minister, had to take care of the problem. He entrusted Sir William Gull, physician and abortionist to the Royal Family, for the mission.
One of the country's most prominent Freemasons, Gull understood that "Freemasonry was the power behind the Government and it was the unseen influence of the Masonic elders which dictated major policies, not the pleasing façade of Commons debate."
The deliberately engineered panic, i.e., the murder of five prostitutes, was done according to Masonic ritual. The ritual murder and disembowelment "met with such ghastly success because of the audacity with which they were executed," said Walter Sickert, Knight's informant whose painter-father had intimate knowledge of the Cleveland Street murders. This so-called "audacity" is a trademark of Masonic "mischief-making."
"Freemasons applaud violence, terror and crime, provided it is carried out in a crafty manner," writes Knight. "Humor is all important and the most appalling crimes may be committed under its cloak."
In fact, one of the key Masonic insights into human nature, says Knight, is the reaction of people to terrorism and serial ritual murders executed with great skill. In other words, people will marvel and say, "What a dirty trick, but how skillfully executed. What a swindle, but how well and with what courage it has been done."
This macabre sense of humor (or base insanity) is the trademark of Masonic Magick - to cause an effect, by an act so devilish yet cunning, that the entire world pays attention - while it's virtually terrorized and traumatized in the same collective gasp of horror.
"Ghoulish murders with a Puckish sense of fun" characterizes these atrocities.
(For example - how could they possibly drive those planes into the towers?)
"If Masonic supremacy appears in jeopardy, it is reestablished by a show of strength, by crimes of violence, perpetrated to demonstrate the continuing power of Freemasons for the benefit of Brothers abroad," writes Knight. "Crimes of violence would have been committed to reestablishing Masonic authority in the eyes of Masons everywhere."
"All Jack the Ripper victims were dispatched according to age-old Masonic ritual," Knight continues. The mutilations of the "unfortunates" were done according to Masonic tradition, the standard way of dealing with "traitors." In fact, the oath recited by initiates promises a ghastly death and mutilation -- in the case of "betrayal."
"From Hell" actually shows a Masonic ritual of initiation, and the candidate's recited vow of promised retribution in the case of his "betrayal" sounds like a dictation from the devil himself.
It is, after all, the standard Illuminati Two Fer (Two, Two, Two for the Price of One). In this case, Number One is to eliminate the blackmailers and witnesses, the prostitutes who knew about Eddie's indiscretions. And Number Two is to instill terror in the general populace by horrific murders (and "unsolved mysteries"), which traumatize the people into deeper submission and subconscious programming.
The "deliberately engineered panic" to which Knight refers has been used historically to shift the paradigm from a scam which is about to be uncovered to a new collective "concern."
The movie "Wag the Dog," of course, illustrates this concept with unsurpassed brilliance. Divert attention from a potential scandal (the President's sexual indiscretions) to a greater potential problem (a "manufactured" war) and the entire population is once again under a "hoodwink."
As Dr. Albert Mackey, a 33rd Degree Freemason writes in "The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry," a hoodwink is "a symbol of the secrecy, silence and darkness in which the mysteries of the art should be preserved from the unhallowed gaze of the profane."
In other words, when attention is diverted even for a nanosecond, the con artist (shell game practitioner, or magician) once again confuses his mark. The street-wise expression is simply "The House Always Wins."
Knight maintains that Inspector Abberline was historically part of the cover-up himself, and that the real "hero" was actually Ernest Parke, a twenty nine year old editor of the North London Press, "who pinpointed in his newspaper the deliberate mishandling of the brothel investigation and trial. He attacked the police not only for allowing one of the conspirators to escape to the Continent, but also for giving him so much time in which to do so that he managed to take his furniture with him. He attacked the court for passing a sentence of four months for Veck, who has been one of the worst offenders in an unsavory case."
Then Parke himself was charged with criminal libel in an unrelated case and sentenced to a year's imprisonment, effectively silencing him for probing much too deeply.
Though finding out that the "Jack the Ripper" murders, masterminded by Freemasons and perpetrated according to Masonic ritual, is an astonishing revelation to many people, the Whitechapel Murders are not the first to be attributed to Masonic skullduggery.
Freemason Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who left the brotherhood in his later years, was allegedly poisoned for his "betrayal," as well as for revealing their esoteric secrets in "The Magic Flute."
William Morgan, author of a major 19th century expose of the Brotherhood called "Freemasonry Exposed," was murdered.
Film director Stanley Kubrick mysteriously died after his ritual-obsessed movie "Eyes Wide Shut" was completed.
And yes, Stephen Knight, author of "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" mysteriously died after his best-selling expose' "The Brotherhood: The Secret World of the Freemasons" was published in 1984.
The Craft is alive and (very) well on Planet Earth.
As a fictionalized account of the Ripper killings, "From Hell" gets closer to true history than any other work of fiction -- or even so-called "history" itself. It even shows the genesis of today's voodoo science and its bizarre obsession with psycho-surgery or lobotomies as well as cut-and-burn AMA-sanctioned "medicine."
Most importantly, "From Hell" shows, in gruesome detail, the deep long-standing connection between the world's most mysterious society and the world's most mysterious murders.
Conspiracy, after all, is not just "Business-As-Usual;" it's also "Government-As-Usual."

A Freemason Speaks http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Masonic_Ritual_Murders.htm

Author Stephen Knight wrote one of the seminal books on freemasonry called 'The Brotherhood' in 1983. During the course of his research for this book he was introduced to a man known as 'Christopher', a mason of the highest 33rd degree ranking. In the Cafe Royal, London, Christopher showed him the papers demonstrating the authenticity of his masonic rank and told Knight that he was keen to "stop the rot" in freemasonry. Stephen Knight asked him what a person might have to fear from a group of influential freemasons if circumstances made him, for instance, a threat to them in the business world; or if he discovered they were using masonry for corrupt purposes; or had fallen a victim of their misuse of freemasonry and would not heed warnings not to oppose them.
'Christopher', 33rd degree mason: "It is not difficult to ruin a man and I will tell you how it is done time and again. There are more than half a million brethren under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge. Standards have been falling for twenty or thirty years. It is too easy to enter the Craft, so many men of dubious morals have joined. The secrecy and power attract such people, and when they come the decent leave. The numbers of people who would never have been considered for membership in the fifties are getting larger all the time. If only five per cent of freemasons use - abuse - the Craft for selfish or corrupt ends it means there are 25,000 of them. The figure is much closer to twelve or thirteen per cent now."
Stephen Knight: "Christopher explained that masonry's nationwide organization of men from most walks of life provided one of the most efficient private intelligence networks imaginable. Private information on anybody in the country could normally be accessed very rapidly through endless permutations of masonic contacts - police, magistrates, solicitors, bank managers. Post Office staff, doctors, government employees. Bosses of firms. A dossier of personal data could be built up on anybody very quickly. When the major facts of an individual's life were known, areas of vulnerability would become apparent. Perhaps he is in financial difficulties; perhaps he has some social vice - if married he might 'retain a mistress' or have a proclivity for visiting prostitutes; perhaps there is something in his past he wishes keep buried, some guilty secret, a criminal offence (easily obtainable through freemason police of doubtful virtue), or other blemish on his character: all these and more could be discovered via the wide-ranging masonic network of 600,000 contacts, a great many of whom were indisposed to do favours for one another because that had been their prime motive for joining. Even decent masons could often be 'conned' into providing information on the basis that 'Brother Smith needs this to help the person involved'. The adversary would even sometimes be described as a fellow mason to the Brother from whom information was sought - perhaps someone with access to his bank manager. The 'good' mason would not go to the lengths of checking with Freemason's Hall whether or not this was so. If the 'target' was presented as a Brother in distress by a fellow mason, especially a fellow lodge member, that would be enough for any upright member of the craft. Sometimes this information gathering process - often involving a long chain of masonic contacts all over the country and possibly abroad - would be necessary. Enough would be known in advance about the adversary to initiate any desired action against him.
'Christopher', the 33rd degree mason: "Solicitors are very good at it. Get your man involved in something legal - it need not be serious - and you have him."
Stephen Knight: "Masons can bring about the situation where credit companies and banks withdraw credit facilities from individual clients and tradesmen, said my informant. Banks can foreclose. People who rely on the telephone for their work can be cut off for long periods. Masonic employees of local authorities can arrange for a person's drains to be inspected and extensive damage to be reported, thus burdening the person with huge repair bills; workmen carrying out the job can 'find' - in reality cause - further damage. Again with regard to legal matters, a fair hearing is hard to get when a man in ordinary circumstances is in financial difficulties. If he is trying to fight a group of unprincipled freemasons skilled in using the 'network' it will be impossible because masonic DHSS and Law Society officials can delay applications for Legal Aid endlessly."
'Christopher', 33rd degree mason: "Employers, if they are freemasons or not, can be given private information about a man who has made himself an enemy of masonry. At worst he will be dismissed (if the information is true) or consistently passed over for promotion. Masonic doctors can also be used. But for some reason doctors seem to be the least corruptible men. There are only two occurrences of false medical certificates issued by company doctors to ruin the chances of an individual getting a particular job which I know about. It's not a problem that need greatly worry us like the rest.
"Only the fighters have any hope of beating the system once it's at work against them. Most people, fighters or not, are beaten in the end, though. It's.... you see, I... you finish up not knowing who you can trust. You can get no help because your story sounds so paranoid that you are thought a crank, one of those nuts who think the whole world is a conspiracy against them. It is a strange phenomenon. By setting up a situation that most people will think of as fantasy, these people can poison every part of person's life. If they give in they go under. If they don't give in it's only putting off the day because if they fight, so much unhappiness will be brought to the people around them that there will likely come a time when even their families turn against them out of desperation. When that happens and they are without friends wherever they look, they become easy meat. The newspapers will not touch them. "There is no defense against an evil which only the victims and perpetrators know exists."