[prez_usa_exile] SPECIAL: A Life in the Day 10/16/6
prez_usa_exile
Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's
Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
Via <pr...@usa-exile.org>
October 16, 2006
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Sam Lwin's effort here is tremendously important to all of us.
It's appalling that the quaint US anti-war movement still is unable to
understand the value of merging with the 9/11 Truth Movement so more
folks can come to understand that the Bush Junta engineered 9/11 to
have a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. It's as though the
anti-war movement is determined to remain weak!
The best umbrella for bringing US movements together now is the
War Against Nature. This allows the greens and the environmental
movement to join the anti-war and 9/11 Truth people.
The use of "Depleted" Uranium munitions in Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere certainly is one of the most vicious elements of the War
Against Nature. The steadily intensifying concentrations of
greenhouse gases in our earthly atmosphere are of course another
monumentally vicious element.
Yours for all species,
Keith Lampe, Ro-Non-So-Te,
Ponderosa Pine
Transition Prez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: s culver <s...@lmi.net>
Date: October 15, 2006 6:51:46 PM EST
Subject: "9/11 is a racket": Message to the Anti-war Movement by a Vet
for Truth
<sniplet:> "It saddens and angers me that so many people in the antiwar
movement refuse to examine the evidence of 9/11. We should ask them to do
at least one thing. Watch the movie we just saw, "911 Mysteries." And if
after watching it, they still want to continue believing the official BS,
so be it. But for people to say that they want peace and at the same time
adamantly deny the direct connection between 9/11 and the current wars is
irresponsible. Many anti-war people unquestioningly accept the official
version, without even looking at the overwhelming evidence which the 9/11
Truth movement has laboriously collected over the years."
------------
October 14, 2006 at 22:16:17
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sam_lwin_061012_9_2f11_2c_our_satyagraha.htm
9/11, Our Satyagraha: Message to
the Anti-War Movement
By Sam Lwin
Speech given at St. Mark's Church in NYC, October 1, 2006
I am Sam Lwin, an ex-Marine, a conscientious objector and an anti-war
activist from the first Gulf war. I would like to say a few words
about the
connection between 9/11 and war.
In the fall of 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush mobilized troops
for the first Gulf War. I was a Marine reservist and a senior at the New
School. Knowing that it was an oil war and finding out the various
deceptions used by our government to gain support of the masses at
anti-war
rallies, I, as a conscientious Marine, refused to go. So did twenty-five
other Marines, eight of them from here in New York City. We were all
court-martialed and did time in the brig at Camp Lejeune in North
Carolina.
Many people supported us. They sent us letters and books to read and our
prison sentences were shortened, in some cases by two years, due to public
pressure through anti-war groups like Hands Off! and War Resisters League.
During that time, one of the Marine resisters mentioned to me the name of
Smedley Butler.
Smedley Butler was a Marine general who twice won the Congressional Medal
of Honor. In 1933, he published a booklet called "War Is a Racket." I
would
like to read a few sentences from it. "War is just a racket. A racket is
best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about.
It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."
And he continued, "I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a
member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I
served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General.
And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle
man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was
a racketeer for capitalism."
The whole ordeal in the first Gulf war made me realize that things are not
always what they seem to be. Yet, a decade later, on the morning of
September 11th immediately after the towers fell, even though I intuited
that the Bush administration was behind the attacks, I chose to
believe the
official story, because I did not dare to believe otherwise.
It wasn't until the Bush administration started incessantly insisting that
Iraq had WMDs, that I realized that something was not right. In early
2002,
I began to search for answers on the Internet, never thinking that I would
spend five to six hours daily for the next four years.
So now we know. We know that, just like war, 9/11 is a racket, a military
false flag psy-op, a highly deceptive series of events conducted to gain
the support of the population for wars in the Middle East. Let me read
General Smedley Butler's definition again:
"A racket is best described as something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about.
It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."
War is a racket. 9/11 is a racket.
It saddens and angers me that so many people in the antiwar movement
refuse
to examine the evidence of 9/11. We should ask them to do at least one
thing. Watch the movie we just saw, "911 Mysteries." And if after watching
it, they still want to continue believing the official BS, so be it. But
for people to say that they want peace and at the same time adamantly deny
the direct connection between 9/11 and the current wars is irresponsible.
Many anti-war people unquestioningly accept the official version, without
even looking at the overwhelming evidence which the 9/11 Truth
movement has
laboriously collected over the years.
Three weeks ago we all went down to Ground Zero to mark the fifth
anniversary of the so-called terrorist attacks. That memorable day--Sept
11, 2006--was also the 100th anniversary of Gandhi's first act of
nonviolent civil disobedience, a movement he called "satyagraha." In
Sanscrit, satya means "truth", agraha translates to "effort or endeavor."
Combined, Satyagraha means "work for truth, in pursuit of truth."
I propose that our brothers and sisters in the anti-war movement, whom I
thank a great deal from my experience in the first Gulf war, join with us
in the 9/11 Truth movement, to courageously pursue the truth with us--our
Satyagraha--to bring into reality a truly independent investigation into
the events of 9/11. And through our collective efforts, we can begin to
dismantle the authority of this traitorous, treasonous, and illegitimate
administration in the current wars and their nefarious plans for wider
wars
in the Middle East and elsewhere. Only when the truth of 9/11 comes into
light, on a national and international arena, will we be able to stop
their
immoral, unethical, and unconscionable rackets.
Thank you.
Sam Lwin is an ex-Marine, anti-war & 9/11 Truth activist.
========================================================================================================================================
PRISON PLANET.com Copyright ) 2002-2006 Alex Jones
All rights reserved.
Scientific
Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable
according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement
has the huge majority of opinion
How will the Bush Cabal react?
Steve Watson & Alex Jones / Prisonplanet.com | October 14 2006
A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares
that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government
explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.
According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of
Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the
intelligence prior to the attacks:
"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the
truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they
mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"
The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A
Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%.
Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public
with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.
A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the
Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York
and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past
four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen
exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the
population.
It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the
fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation. It has
only take five years for MORE Americans to wake up to the fact that
9/11 was an inside job on behalf of the Neoconservative crime
syndicate within the US.
Reference to past polls show that in the last five years there has
been an explosion in numbers of those who do not buy the official line.
In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers
believed there was a cover up.
In May of this year another Zogby poll indicated that around half of
ALL Americans did not buy the official story.
The latest poll also shows a massive awakening has occurred recently
given that previous estimates indicated that around 34% still believed
the official story and around 30% were oblivious altogether.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TerrorStorm sets a new standard in documentary filmmaking. Alex Jones
knocks it out of the park yet again." -- Dylan Avery, Director,
"Loose Change" - Click here to get the DVD or click here to watch
online now!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Jones declared that the Truth movement has cause to celebrate
this evening as it is now beyond any doubt that the vast majority of
Americans know that the official story of 19 Saudis with box cutters
is ludicrous.
The diligence of those who have worked to educate the world on 9/11
truth from day one cannot be underestimated. We are now seeing the
fruits of this hard and at times extremely trying labor hit home.
We would add though that although this is a major victory for the
truth movement it does not mean that the hard work can stop.
The next step is to use the majority opinion as leverage towards
officially changing the record of what happened on 9/11, forcing the
mainstream media into addressing the issue, not as a quirky news item,
but as a serious re-defining of the state of the nation and the world
today.
We have not taken the country back yet and the cabal that has taken
control of the government continues to systematically use 9/11 and the
war on terror as an excuse to destroy the Constitutional foundations
of law and order in America.
As it becomes clearer that more and more Americans KNOW that their
government is lying to them on the most fundamental issue of their
lifetimes, we must consider what kind of reaction the government will
undertake.
Remember that the majority of American voters now believe the Sept. 11
terrorist attack was a more significant historical event than the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
In July 2001 Alex jones issued an emergency warning that there was
going to be a massive false flag terrorist attack in New York to be
blamed on Osama Bin Laden. At that time there was not enough activism
among the population to prevent it going ahead.
In August of 2006 Alex Jones issued a second emergency warning that
all the factors pointed towards an imminent attack. The activism that
occurred in the wake of this warning and that of others was
exponential and may indeed have helped stave off another attack.
Our next warning is this, desperate times call for desperate measures.
The criminal elements of the government now know that they have been
totally exposed and are reviled by the majority of free thinking
Americans. Will their response be to vamp up the crackdown on that
free thinking itself?
In essence Americans have outright REJECTED giving up their liberty
for security in the wake of 9/11. The only security IS liberty itself,
and the only way to stay secure is to constantly defend liberty.
Prison Planet.tv: The Premier Multimedia Subscription Package:
Download and Share the Truth!
=========================================================================================================================================
Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials Question
9/11 Commission Report
October 16, 2006
Many respected senior members of the U.S. military, intelligence
services, and government have expressed significant criticism of the
9/11 Commission Report. Some even allege government complicity in the
terrible acts of 9/11. Below are the highly revealing statements on
this vital topic of over 50 prominent public servants with links for
verification and further investigation.
The collective voices of these respected senior officials give
credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically
flawed. These dedicated individuals from both political parties cannot
be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy
theory. Their sincere concern, backed by decades of service to their
country, demonstrate that criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is
not only reasonable and responsible, it is in fact a patriotic duty.
To read full article and statements of senior officials: CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink
address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's
copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites,
contact: crge...@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you
wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use"
you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crge...@yahoo.com
) Copyright , wanttoknow.info, 2006
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061016&articleId=3499
========================================================================================================================
NOTE: This pimp/whore LA Times piece understates the general impact
of "the dust of 9/11"--but at least it provides a poignant sketch of
an individual victim. -- kl, pp
From: Joe Stokes <joes...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: October 15, 2006 4:13:42 PM EST
Subject: [911TruthAction] Lost in the Dust of 9/11, LA TIMES 10/14
Lost in the Dust
of 9/11
From society's margins, janitors
were drafted for an epic cleanup around ground zero. Then 'the cough'
racked their lives.
By Ellen Barry, Times Staff Writer
October 14, 2006
NEW YORK There is no voice left in Manuel Checo's voice. He speaks
in a granular rasp that fades, occasionally, to whispery puffs of air.
Sometimes, for periods as long as two days, he is unable to speak at all.
When that happens, Checo carries a pad of paper with him so he can
scribble down notes if he needs something. But for the most part, he
will simply disappear into his rented room, ignoring his cellphone
when it rings.
Checo, a janitor, spent six months cleaning dust from office
buildings around ground zero after the World Trade Center attack. Five
years later, the lining of his lungs is pocked with scars and
densities that do not belong there possibly a sign of a disease that
can cause lung tissue to become so stiff that it can no longer carry
oxygen, wrote a radiologist who examined a scan of his lungs last year.
The son of a general in the Dominican Republic, Checo, 54, irons his
shirts with military precision. When he meets a woman on the street,
he kisses her hand. But the truth is that when he discovered that he
was too weak to work again, his life veered terribly off course. He
was evicted from his apartment and slept in his car for six months.
Acquaintances didn't understand his racking cough and thought he had
tuberculosis or AIDS.
Whoever he was before Sept. 12, 2001 when a supervisor from his
company called to tell him there was work near ground zero he is a
different man now. Sometimes he is overwhelmed by the feeling that he
has lost his way.
"I get up, I get dressed," he said, in Spanish, through a translator.
"And then I say to myself, 'Where am I going?' "
The dust around ground zero, we now know, contained caustic, finely
pulverized concrete, trillions of microscopic fibers of glass, and
particles of lead, mercury and arsenic, as well as carcinogens like
asbestos and dioxin. Five years out, the "World Trade Center cough"
has started to look like a persistent and in some cases disabling
respiratory condition....
=========================================================================================================================================
From: Kevin Lee Hammond <exposethene...@yahoo.com>
Date: October 13, 2006 10:56:05 PM EST
To: 911trut...@yahoogroups.com, caom...@yahoo.com
Subject: [911TruthAction] Fwd: [ParanoidTimes] O'Reilly Equates 9/11
Scholars With Terrorists
Roger <enigm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To: Parano...@yahoogroups.com
From: "Roger" <enigm...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:34:41 -0000
Subject: [ParanoidTimes] O'Reilly Equates 9/11 Scholars With Terrorists
O'Reilly Equates 9/11 Scholars With Terrorists
Threatens Truth Professors With FBI Investigation
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, Prison Planet.com
October 14 2006
During Professor Jim Fetzer's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor
Thursday night, O'Reilly equated the 9/11 Scholars with terrorists
and threw his weight behind a move to have them investigated
by the FBI, in a similar vein to a previous case in which his false
charges led to the arrest of another professor and charges of
supporting terrorism which were later dismissed.
Continues at:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/141006oreillyequates.htm
=========================================================================================================================================
NOTE: This is a brilliant piece--perhaps the most insightful ever to
appear at effete salon.com -- kl, pp
From: "Stephanie Sutton" <ssu...@phisciences.com>
Date: October 16, 2006 12:24:07 AM EST
To: "'Stephanie Sutton'" <ssu...@phisciences.com>
Subject: Bill Maher: The real menace to American kids
In case you missed Bill last Friday night..here are his exact words.
Brace yourself.
Steph
The Real Menace to American Kids
We demonize Mark Foley but ignore the industries medicating children
and making
them fat, and even open our schools to people trying to kill them --
military
recruiters.
By Bill Maher
Oct. 13, 2006
If you think the worst thing Congress doesn't protect young people
from is Mark
Foley, wake up and smell the burning planet. The ice caps are
cracking, the
coral reefs are bleaching, and we're losing two species an hour. The
birds have
bird flu, the cows have mad cow, and our poisoned groundwater has
turned spinach
into a side dish of mass destruction. Our schools are shooting
galleries, our
beaches are cancer wards, and under George W. Bush -- for the first
time in 45
years -- our country's infant mortality rate actually went up.
Read the labels on your food. It turns out the healthiest thing you
can put in
your body is Mark Foley's penis. He was probably the first fruit
those pages
ever came into contact with that wasn't drenched in pesticide.
But that's America for you -- a red herring culture, always scared of
the wrong
things. The fact is, there are a lot of creepy middle-aged men out
there lusting
for your kids. They work for MTV, the pharmaceutical industry,
McDonald's,
Marlboro and K Street. And recently, there's been a rash of strangers
making
their way onto school campuses and targeting our children for death.
They're
called military recruiters.
More young Americans were crippled in Iraq last month than in any
month in the
past three years. And the scandal is that Mark Foley wants to show
them a good
time before they go? When will our closeted gay congressmen learn?
Our boys
aren't for pleasure. They're for cannon fodder. They shouldn't be
another notch
on your bedpost. They should be a comma in Bush's war. If I hear a
zipper, it
had better be on a body bag.
Why aren't Democrats and the media hammering away every day about who
we're
supposed to be fighting for over there and what the plan is. Yes,
Mark Foley was
wrong to ask teenagers how long their penises were -- but at least
someone on
Capitol Hill was asking questions. We're the predators. Because we
have an
entire economy built on asking young people what they want, making
the cheapest,
sleaziest form of it they'll accept, and selling it to them until
they choke on
it and die.
You know who's grabbing your kids at too young an age? Merck, Pfizer and
GlaxoSmithKline, by convincing you they're depressed, hyperactive or
suffering
from attention-deficit disorder and so they must all get medicated.
The drug
dealers hooking your kids aren't in South America, they're in the
halls of
Congress handing out campaign donations to your congressmen. Mark
Foley says he
never slept with those kids, and I believe him, because American
children are so
hopped up on pills I doubt any of them could get it up.
From 1995 to 2002, the number of children prescribed antipsychotic drugs
increased by over 400 percent. Either our children are going insane
-- which we
might look on as a problem -- or, more likely, we have, for profit,
created a
nation of little junkies. So stop already with the righteous moral
indignation
about predators -- this whole country is trying to get inside your
kid's pants
because that's where he keeps the money Daddy gave him to stay out of
his hair.
I don't care if Mark Foley had been asking boys to describe their penises
because I have some sad news for you: Your kid is so larded out on
Cheetos and
Yoo-hoo, he can't even see his penis. We live in a country where the
ultimate
consumer is an obese 16-year-old hooked up at one end to a Big Gulp
and at the
other to a PlayStation. So many of our kids today are fat drug
addicts, it's
almost as if Rush Limbaugh had had puppies.
In conclusion, we can pretend that the biggest threat to "our
children" is some
creep on the Internet, or we can admit it's Mom and Dad. When your
son can't
find France on a map, or touch his toes with his hands, or understand
that the
ads on TV are lying -- including the one in which the Marine turns
into Lancelot
-- then the person fucking him is you.
-- By Bill Maher
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/13/foley_kids/print.html
=========================================================================================================================================
From: Peter Myers <my...@cyberone.com.au>
Date: October 16, 2006 5:33:08 AM EST
Subject: Drug companies settle out of Court, then impose Gag Orders
(1) Drug companies settle out of Court, then impose Gag Orders
(2) Judt faces "tsunami of hate mail" from Jews
(3) AIPAC tops Congressional travel spending - down to $1.34 million,
after scandals
Drug Companies Settle out of
Court, Then Impose Gag Orders
From: "Gary Kohls" gko...@cpinternet.com Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006
14:24:00 -0500
PPEN # 277: Damning Evidence About Paxil's Addictiveness and Other
Potentially Lethal Qualities
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 277
Damning Court Documents Concerning Glaxo's Addicting and Potentially
Lethal Drug Paxil Are Revealed: BigPharma Corporations, Rather Than
Losing Court Cases, Routinely Settle Out of Court and Then Impose
Unethical Gag Orders on Plaintiffs to Hide the Truth
April 25, 2006. By Evelyn Pringle -
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/paxil.html
Secrecy agreements in litigation hide information about defective
products or a company's negligence, and sometimes go so far as to
prohibit the parties from discussing that there ever was a lawsuit.
Such is the case with Paxil and as a result, unwitting patients
continued to take the drug long after its dangers were known to
GlaxoSmithKline.
Many lawsuits filed against Glaxo have been settled out of court, with
confidentiality agreements that prevent the public from knowing about
the harmful effects of Paxil.
Previously sealed documents and internal company memos suppressed with
protective orders, prove that Glaxo knew about the problems with Paxil
before it received FDA approval, but continued to sell the drug for
over a decade without warning consumers.
Long overdue legislation is currently pending in both the US House of
Representatives and the Senate known as Sunshine in Litigation Act of
2005, which basically says that a court shall not enter an order
restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery,
an order approving a settlement agreement that would restrict the
disclosure of such information, or an order restricting access to
court records in a civil case
Glaxo currently faces thousands of lawsuits over Paxil side effects
related to addiction, dependence, and a severe withdrawal syndrome.
SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) like Paxil, are not
addictive in the sense that "an individual would mortgage their
livelihoods and all they hold dear for further supplies of the drug,"
according to Dr David Healy MD, FRCPsych, North Wales Department of
Psychological Medicine
SSRIs can hook patients in the sense of making you "physically
dependent," he explains.
Dr Healy is considered an expert on Paxil and has had access to
confidential studies from the Glaxo archives. The common symptoms of
withdrawal, he says, break down into two groups. The first group may
be unlike anything you have had before, he warns, to include:
Dizziness Headache Muscle Spasms Tremor Electric Shock-like Sensations
(Including "Brain Zaps") Other Strange Tingling or Painful Sensations
Nausea, Diarrhoea, Flatulence Dreams, including Vivid Dreams
Agitation/Akathisia (even leading to suicidality)
The second group overlaps with general nervousness, Dr Healy says, and
may lead you or your physician to think that all you have are features
of your original problem. These symptoms include:
Depression (possibly leading to suicidality) Lability of Mood
Irritability Agitation (sometimes leading to irrational thinking or
actions) Akathisia (possibly leading to suicidality) Confusion
Fatigue/Malaise Flu-like Symptoms Insomnia (sleep deprivation) and/or
Daytime Drowsiness Mood Swings Sweating Feelings of
Unreality/Psychotic Thinking Feelings of being Hot or Cold
These drut-withdrawal symptoms appear in 20% to 50% of patients taking
SSRIs, Dr Healy says, sometimes within hours of the last dose.
In the class action case against Glaxo settled in 2005, In re: Paxil
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No 1574, CD Calif, the plaintiffs
were forever silenced by a strict confidentiality clause incorporated
into the settlement agreement.
This author obtained a copy of the lawsuit's complaint, dated August
23, 2001, as well as a copy of the settlement agreement with a secrecy
clause that states in relevant part:
Plaintiffs and their attorneys, "will not make any statements, either
directly or indirectly, by implication or innuendo, to anyone,
including but not limited to consultants, experts, the press or media,
concerning the amount or other terms of such settlement or
settlements, or the nature and substance of settlement negotiations,
or describing or characterizing the settlement in any way."
Plaintiffs and their attorneys "will not, either directly or
indirectly, publicize the fact of the settlement and that any inquiry
into the settlement, its amount, meaning, interpretation or
comparative value, or the negotiations leading to the settlement by
anyone, including but not limited to the press or media, will be met
only by a statement that the case has been resolved, and will decline
any requests for interviews by the press or media regarding the
settlement, its history or its terms."
The gag rule clause even extends to the internet specifically in that
plaintiffs and attorneys "will not maintain and instead will
discontinue any website references to Paxil discontinuation or
withdrawal."
And, it says, they "agree to refrain from any future internet postings
regarding Paxil discontinuation or withdrawal."
Paragraph 5 of the lawsuit's complaint says that over a 2 year period,
"plaintiffs' attorneys have been individually contacted by
approximately 500 Paxil withdrawal victims."
And, the pain and suffering experienced by each individual is the
direct result of Glaxo's "failure to warn users of Paxil's addictive
nature, the drug's inducement of physical or psychological dependency,
and its infliction of dependency/withdrawal syndrome when the
patient's Paxil dosage is reduced or terminated," the complaint states.
Paragraph 16, lists withdrawal reactions that "can be summed up as one
or more of the following complaints: jolting electric "zaps,"
dizziness, light headedness, vertigo, incoordination, gait
disturbances, sweating, extreme nausea, vomiting, high fever,
abdominal discomfort, flu symptoms, anorexia, diarrhea, agitation,
tremulousness, irritability, aggression, sleep disturbance,
nightmares, tremor, confusion, memory and concentration difficulties,
lethargy, malaise, weakness, fatigue, paraesthesias, ataxia, and/or
myalgia."
Paragraph 7, says: "These reactions are "unexpected" to the victims
and even their physicians because the manufacturer has deliberately
failed to properly warn of this."
"Both physician and patient unwittingly use Paxil without knowing the
drug's addictive traits," the complaint says.
Paragraph 8, charges that because Glaxo has suppressed the
information, patients and physicians are fooled into thinking that the
reactions are caused by another condition, such as relapse into
depression, thus prompting incorrect and unnecessary medical
treatment, including increased dosages of Paxil.
While researchers have acknowledged the potential for withdrawal
reactions with all SSRIs, Paxil is by far the worst. Citing data from
the World Health Organization, the lawsuit's complaint states: "Paxil
has the highest incidence rate of withdrawal adverse experiences of
any antidepressant drug in the world."
Starting in December 2001, Glaxo finally added a minimizing precaution
to Paxil's label of some possible "discontinuation" side effects
affecting "2 percent or greater" of patients based on studies.
However, documents reveal that Glaxo has always known about the
withdrawal syndrome. For instance, in 1993, in a report that occurred
5 months after Paxil arrived on the market, Stoker and Eric noted
Paxil withdrawal at the American Psychiatric Association's annual
meeting in San Francisco, May 22-27, 1993.
The authors of the study conducted 2 week tapering off periods for 186
patients in 6 to 12 week doubled blinded comparative studies. Low dose
and high dose groups were studied. Paxil's low dose group actually did
worse than the high dose group, suffering 42% withdrawal rate,
compared to 38% in the high dose group. And, both occurred even though
the tapering off regime was initiated during dosage reduction.
The lawsuit's complaint specifically describes close to 10 studies
that reveal a high rate of withdrawal symptoms since Paxil came on the
market that Glaxo was fully aware of.
A fact well-evidenced in internal company documents. A previously
suppressed, May 1, 1997, Glaxo memo to, "Paxil Selling Team," on the
"discontinuation syndrome," defines the withdrawal syndrome as, "a
class effect that can occur when an SSRI is stopped abruptly. Symptoms
may include astheni (weakness), flu-like symptoms, fatigue, dizziness,
nausea, and sleep disturbances (insomnia, vivid dreams or nightmares)."
However, the memo instructs Glaxo sales representatives to avoid using
the term and says: "instead of 'withdrawal syndrome,' which implies
addictive properties, try to refer to this phenomenon as
'discontinuation symptoms.'"
Eight months later, in a December 1, 1997, "Business Plan Guide,"
sales representatives were instructed to "minimize concerns
surrounding discontinuation symptoms," and told to explain to doctors
that the "discontinuation incident rate is two in 1,000 patients."
However, according to a 1997 review, one study found that 25% of
patients experienced at least one discontinuation symptoms, verses
5.9% taking a placebo. In another study of patients with major
depression, 42% experienced at least 1 discontinuation symptom.
Another internal memo kept hidden with a protective order, states:
"Discontinuation: why this is an issue," followed by, "'97
Seroxat/Paxil sales to end Sept already exceed $1 Billion".
This particular memo carries a cartoon-like picture of a big black
money-bag.
In Paxil literature, Glaxo flat-out lied to patients and specifically
said that the drug was not addictive. For example, a pamphlet made
available at doctors' offices and disseminated to patients, asked the
question: "Is Paxil addictive?"
The pamphlet then states: "Paxil has been studied both in short-and
long-term use and is not associated with dependence or addiction."
The withdrawal syndrome is real and in fact, it is now known that
infants of women who take SSRIs in the last 3 months of pregnancy, may
experience symptoms of withdrawal, including convulsions, according to
a study published in the February 4, 2005 issue of the journal Lancet.
In addition, experts warn against the use of Paxil and other SSRIs
with children. According to Fred Baughman Jr*, MD, an adult and child
neurologist in private practice for 35 years, "most antidepressants
have not proved effective in treating depression in children and some
studies suggest they may cause some children to become acutely suicidal."
Yet in 2002, Dr Baughman says, "nearly 11 million prescriptions for
the drugs were given to children, 2.7 million of them to children
under 12."
A report by an expert witness, previously sealed with a protective
order, reveals how Glaxo concealed and manipulated data concerning
Paxil-induced suicidality and how suicide attempts in studies by
patients on Paxil were underreported and attempts by people taking a
placebo were inflated.
Excerpts from the report were published by psychiatrist Peter Breggin,
MD, in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, (Volume 8, Spring
2006, pp. 77-84). Dr Breggin is a founder of the International Center
for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP [www.icspp.org]) and
the author of Toxic Psychiatry, Your Drug May Be Your Problem, Talking
Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin, Brain-Disabling Treatments in
Psychiatry and The Antidepressant Fact Book.
His report also documents how Glaxo hid the incidence of akathisia
(agitation with hyperactivity) and stimulation, which he says, are
known risk factors for suicidality and violence.
Dr Breggin's original report was based on a 3-day review of Glaxo's
sealed files, and was written for the California case of Lacuzong v
GSK, and attached to a July 21, 2001, affidavit submitted in a case
filed by the widow of a man who drowned their two children and himself
in a tub after taking Paxil for three days.
At Glaxo's insistence, the report remained sealed. However, in the
more recent case of Moffett v Glaxo, in the US District Court for the
South District of Mississippi, the report was filed in the public record.
"The drug companies," says Dr Breggin, "settle almost all legal cases
brought against them in order to seal incriminating scientific data."
"The publication of a previously sealed medical expert report is a
rare event," he explains, "the first in my experience."
In the book, The Antidepressant Solution, author Dr Joseph
Glenmullen*, a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical
School, recommends tapering off antidepressants by following a 5-Step
Antidepressant Tapering Program, to reduce both the incidence and
severity of withdrawal reactions.
"Research has shown that when patients stop antidepressants cold
turkey they can have high rates of withdrawal reactions," Dr
Glenmullen advises, "which vary depending on the particular drug."
"In studies involving hundreds of patients, 66 percent of patients
stopping Paxil," he says, "have withdrawal reactions."
=========================================================================================================================================
From: "Chihaya" <chi...@aapt.net.au>
Date: October 16, 2006 9:47:43 AM EST
Subject: Another victim of the
"war on terror"...
I don't know much about her case, yet I think I heard that 1993 WTC
bombing was another set-up.
Therefore, Lynne Stewart, who wanted to support the "culprit" of that
case, could have well been doing absolutely the right thing, yes?
Anyhow, 30 years is so ridiculous, just like 7 years which Donna
Mulhearn and her friends are facing now in Alice Springs, when some
murderers come out of jail after only 6 or 7 years in some cases. This
is just another scare campaign, telling human rights lawyers to back
up and do nothing that they should do.
Ah, there you go!
http://www.lynnestewart.org/
All 'performance' to scare us.
Hope she gets no jail term....
Lawyer Is Due for Sentencing in Terror Case
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: October 16, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/nyregion/16stewart.html?ref=nyregion
Lynne F. Stewart, the firebrand lawyer known for defending unsavory
criminals, now faces the possibility of living out her life like many
of them, in maximum-security lockdown in a federal prison.
Today, 20 months after she was convicted on terror charges, Ms.
Stewart and two co-defendants who were convicted of conspiring with
her will be sentenced in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
Prosecutors, arguing that Ms. Stewart repeatedly flouted the law to
aid the violent designs of an imprisoned terrorist client, have asked
Judge John G. Koeltl to condemn her to 30 years in prison.
That would be a life sentence for Ms. Stewart, who turned 67 last
week. Long an abrasive advocate of anti-government causes, these days
she is not defiant. She is mournful about what she said were her
failures as a lawyer.
Her dread of prison deepened unexpectedly, Ms. Stewart said, during
the long period after a jury found her guilty on Feb. 10, 2005, of
providing material aid to terrorism. She has recently recovered from
breast cancer, but fears it will return in prison.
And if the judge comes down hard, she could be held in solitary
confinement with limited visits, the same conditions as Sheik Omar
Abdel Rahman, the terrorist she was convicted of aiding.
All three defendants have had to wait for sentencing while Ms. Stewart
was treated for cancer. She has finished radiation treatments, she
said, and her doctors have declared that she is cancer-free. But she
worries about the medical care in prison.
"I feel very threatened by it," Ms. Stewart said. "I know too much
about the way they deal with you in prison."
Ms. Stewart's sentencing will culminate a case the Bush administration
cites as a major counter-terrorism achievement. Former Attorney
General John Ashcroft, who brought the indictment, devoted a full
chapter to the case in his new memoir.
Ms. Stewart still denies that she acted to further any violent goals
of the sheik, a blind Islamic cleric from Egypt who is serving a life
sentence for a thwarted 1993 plot to bomb New York City landmarks.
Whatever the sentence, her lawyers have said they will appeal the case.
But in documents they submitted to persuade Judge Koeltl to be lenient
and give her no prison time, Ms. Stewart is newly remorseful about
"ill-advised" moves on behalf of her client.
"I still believe it was justifiable but perhaps not in the way that
I did it," Ms. Stewart said in a sober interview in a borrowed room in
the Manhattan offices where she used to practice law. She was speaking
of her actions in June 2000 to violate strict prison rules, known as
special administrative measures, by publicizing a message from the
sheik to his militant followers in Egypt.
The government's call for a 30-year sentence jolted her, she said,
into deeper self-criticism.
"Stewart's criminal conduct, which lasted more than two years, was
both extremely dangerous and devious," two assistant United States
attorneys, Andrew Dember and Robin Baker, wrote in their sentencing
motion. Her actions, they said, "should be offensive to those actually
zealously defending criminal defendants within the bounds of the law."
There was never any question during the eight-month trial that Ms.
Stewart had broken the rules by releasing the sheik's statement, which
said he no longer supported a cease-fire by his followers in Egypt.
Another defendant, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, 47, a Staten Island postal
worker, was convicted of negotiating with the militants by telephone
to promote an end to the cease-fire.
The government wants a life sentence for Mr. Sattar. It is seeking 20
years for Mohamed Yousry, the Arabic translator who was convicted of
helping Ms. Stewart smuggle Mr. Abdel Rahman's messages out of prison.
These days, Ms. Stewart says, what stings is that she agrees with some
of prosecutors' claims about her faulty legal work.
In her trial testimony, she said she believed that she could stretch
the prison rules because she regarded them as unconstitutional. But
the argument was weak because, as prosecutors noted, she never made a
formal legal challenge.
She said that she completely misjudged how prosecutors viewed the
sheik and the leeway she could take in defending him, as terrorism
became an increasing threat to the United States. "To me, the sheik
was part of the demonized other," she said, "part of a continuum" with
other violent radicals she had defended more successfully, including
members of the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.
She admits that she became too close to the sheik, insisting it was
because of his deteriorating health and sanity after years in solitary
confinement, not any affinity with his Islamic fundamentalism.
"I ignored any warning signs," Ms. Stewart said. "I led with my heart
instead of my head and thought it would be all right."
While Ms. Stewart says she regrets some of her actions, one
co-defendant, Mr. Yousry, is not offering any apologies to the judge.
"I wish to God I can say I'm sorry," he said in an interview. "But I'm
not guilty and I'm not going to say I'm sorry for something that I
didn't do."
In the past months, Mr. Yousry, 51, has gone from bewildered to angry,
reliving the trial in his mind. He was fired from a teaching job at
the City University of New York when he was indicted and can no longer
find work as a translator. Out on bail, he spends his time at home in
Bridgeport, Conn.
Mr. Yousry said he keeps coming back to the fact that he, unlike Ms.
Stewart, never signed an agreement to uphold the rules that restricted
communication with the sheik. The evidence confirmed that he acted on
specific instructions from Ms. Stewart. Prosecutors acknowledge that
Mr. Yousry, who is not a practicing Muslim, did not support the
sheik's ideas or violence. They have called him the "least culpable"
defendant.
In a letter to the judge, Michael Gasper, a history professor at Yale,
said Mr. Yousry had long shown an "obvious and unconcealed distaste
for any brand of Islamic activism."
Mr. Yousry has never broken rank with Ms. Stewart. But his voice rose
when he discussed how she handled the sheik's case.
"My job wasn't to tell the lawyer what to do," he said. "Lynne is
known as an in-your-face kind of lawyer. She lives for the moment when
she can stand up to the government and challenge them on issues.
That's her thing. That's Lynne Stewart, not Mohamed Yousry."
There was little sympathy for Ms. Stewart among mainstream lawyers
during the trial. But more than 400 letters she submitted to Judge
Koeltl about her sentence include many from law professors and
criminal defense lawyers who said that her actions never caused actual
harm and warned of a chilling effect on lawyers who defend terrorists
if she receives a long sentence. Her lawyers cite her long service as
a government-appointed lawyer for rebels, mobsters and murderers.
Jo Ann Harris, a former assistant attorney general who authorized the
1994 indictment of Mr. Abdel Rahman, wrote that the terrorism counts
against Ms. Stewart were "unwarranted overkill."
Ms. Stewart's failing, she wrote, was that she "didn't have a clue
that the stick she was poking in the government's eye was going to
have consequences beyond her imagination."
The author Gore Vidal wrote to ask the judge to "side with our Bill of
Rights" by not imprisoning Ms. Stewart.
Ms. Stewart said that while her radical leftist views have not
changed, she will continue to fight within the system. "I really think
that my patriotism if you'll excuse the expression and my love of
this profession demand that I have to stay and fight."
=========================================================================================================================================
Headwinds for the US Economy
By Rodrigue Tremblay
October 15, 2006
TheNew AmericanEmpire.com
"In the long run, we are all dead." John M. Keynes (1883-1946)
Fourth sorrow: "There is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its
economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and
shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its
citizens."Chalmers Johnson, (Sorrows of Empire)
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in
Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world,
precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic
turmoil to our people." Ron Paul, U.S. Representative (R - TX)
In 2004, it was revealed that Saudi Prince Bandar had promised
President George W. Bush that Saudi Arabia would increase oil
production and lower oil prices in the months before the 2004
presidential electionto ensure that the U.S. economy was strong on
election day. This was exposed in Washington journalist Bob Woodward's
2004 book "Plan of Attack.". In the weeks leading up to the November 7
(2006) midterm elections, there is renewed optimism that falling oil
and commodities prices, coupled with a soft housing market, will
persuade the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates next year, and
not raise them further. The bond market, while also sending messages
that inflation is not an immediate threat, seems to forecast slower
economic growth in the coming years, and possibly negative growth for
one quarter, while the risk of a recession (two consecutive quarters
with negative growth) is not negligible. The downturn in the housing
market alone would account for a big chunk of this decline in economic
growth, as capital spending slows down and as banks see their mortgage
business contract.
Because of the aggressive low interest rate policy that the Fed
pursued after 2001 and because of such financial innovations as
interest-only mortgages, construction and its related industries are
one of the three economic sectors which have created new employment
since 2002, the other two being the health and military sectors.
However, as a consequence, many over-leveraged homeowners risk being
caught in a 'negative equity' trap in the coming months, when the
value of their mortgaged assets is not sufficient to cover the amounts
borrowed. In the past, such squeezing has resulted in increased
foreclosures and banking difficulties.
A downturn in construction would have the negative impact of removing
one of the three pillars of employment growth in the U.S. Therefore,
we can understand why the Fed is weary of raising interest rates
further. The Fed, in fact, is caught in a dilemma: it cannot raise
interest rates much higher for fear of creating an unmanageable
collapse in the housing market. However, the U.S. is running large
current account external deficits ($-791,5 billion in 2005). And,
because the American economy needs to draw a large amount of capital
from abroad to finance its deficit spending, American interest rates
must remain competitive.
Indeed, under the Bush administration, a combination of large tax cuts
and large increases in military outlays to wage costly wars abroad
have stimulated the economy, in a Keynesian way. However, this has
also pushed the U.S. budget deficit to record current-dollar levels.
In five years, from 2002 to 2006, the cumulative federal budget
deficit has exceeded one and a half trillion (1.5 trillion) dollars.
Since the rest of the U.S. economy was also in deficit, the only exit
was to borrow abroad the necessary cash. The United States is still
borrowing abroad more than $2 billion a day just to keep this binge of
expenses going. From whom? Mainly from China, Japan and some oil-rich
Middle East countries which hold tons of U.S. dollars.
As a consequence, foreigners own an increasing share of the federal
public debt, that share presently being estimated at $2.1 trillion or
about 42 percent of all the public debt held outside the government
(about $5.0 trillion in a total debt of $8.6 trillion). These foreign
holdings represent an amount that is 17 percent of GDP ($12.3
trillion), a share that is increasing fast toward 20 percent of GDP.
Keep in mind that this percentage was less than 1.5 percent in 1970
and less than 1 percent in 1946.
What does it all mean for the U.S. dollar? As a reserve currency,
there is a built-in demand for the dollar from central banks and from
worldwide operators, such as oil traders, who deal in dollars and who
are big buyers of U.S. securities. These purchases have the double
benefit of shoring up the dollar and of keeping U.S. interest rates
low. That is why the foreign demand for U.S. dollars is not going to
collapse overnight, even if relative American interest rates were to
stay flat for a while. In this sense, it can be said that the U.S
dollar has some resilience. This is one of the "seigniorage" benefits
that accrue to the United States because its currency is held abroad
as a reserve currency. In the short run, measured in months, the U.S.
dollar should continue its rebound against other major currencies, as
long as oil and commodities prices are soft and as long as U.S.
interest rates remain firm. However, in the longer run, measured in
years, the dire external financial situation of the United States
should begin to weigh more heavily on the dollar.
One currency against which the U.S. dollar is expected to decline is
the Chinese yuan. Since July 2005, the yuan tracks a basket of
currencies that includes the yen, the euro, the Hong Kong dollar and
the South Korean won. Previously "pegged" to the dollar at the rate of
about eight yuans for one dollar, the yuan has begun a slow
appreciation toward the dollar and stands at a value of 7.9 yuans for
one dollar, or at a price of about 12.6 US".
But, at this rate, the yuan is way undervalued and should be revalued
substantially more to reflect China's huge external trade surpluses.
Indeed, China has accumulated foreign exchange reserves in excess of
$950 billion, which are invested roughly three-quarters in U.S.
Treasury bills and other dollar-denominated assets, the rest being
invested in other currencies. However, the Chinese government has
expressed a wish to diversify somewhat its pool of foreign exchange
reserves toward the euro or the yen and even increase its strategic
stocks of oil.
In 2005, China attempted to spend some of its U.S. dollars to buy an
American oil company, Unocal, for about $18.5 billion. However, the
Chinese offer was unceremoniously rebuffed by the U.S. Congress.
A similar fate was met by Dubai-owned Dubai Ports World in early 2006,
when it bought a British company (Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Co or P&O for $6.8 billion) that happened to manage six
U.S. ports. The company was forced to disinvest itself from its
American interests by the U.S. Congress. The message sent to foreign
lenders was loud and clear: if you accumulate American dollars,
deposit the money in our banks or buy U.S. government securities
(Treasury bills), but do not attempt to invest them in
income-generating real American industrial assets. How long will that
scam last? Nobody knows. But, it most likely won't last forever.
The central question is how long will confidence in the U.S. dollar
hold in the face of all these factors. If you add the widespread
unpopularity that the Bush administration has bestowed upon the United
States around the world, it is more likely than not that the value of
the U.S. dollar, after the current show of strength, will continue
eroding in the coming years. A lower currency translates into more
imported inflation and makes it difficult to maintain low interest
rates. The stage would then be set for a bout of stagflation, that is
to say creeping higher inflation and slower economic growth..
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University
of Montreal and can be reached at tremblay...@yahoo.ca. He is
the author of the book The New American Empire.
Visit his blog site at: www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog
Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink
address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's
copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites,
contact: crge...@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you
wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use"
you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crge...@yahoo.com
) Copyright Rodrigue Tremblay, TheNew AmericanEmpire.com, 2006
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=TRE20061015&articleId=3495
=======================================================================================================================
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prez_usa_exile/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prez_usa_exile/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:prez_usa_e...@yahoogroups.com
mailto:prez_usa_exil...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
prez_usa_exil...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/