chickenlil.org

U.S. military wants to own the weather
By Leonard David, Space.com
Posted 10/31/2005 7:02 PM

The one-two hurricane punch from Katrina and Wilma along with
predictions of more severe weather in the future has scientists
pondering ways to save lives, protect property and possibly even
control the weather.

While efforts to tame storms have so far been clouded by failure,
some researchers aren't willing to give up the fight. And even if
changing the weather proves overly challenging, residents and
disaster officials can do a better job planning and reacting.

In fact, military officials and weather modification experts could be
on the verge of joining forces to better gauge, react to, and
possibly nullify future hostile forces churned out by Mother Nature.

While some consider the idea farfetched, some military tacticians
have already pondered ways to turn weather into a weapon.

Harbinger of things to come?

The U.S. military reaction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that
slammed the U.S. Gulf coast might be viewed as a harbinger of things
to come. While in this case it was joint air and space operations to
deal with after-the-fact problems, perhaps the foundation for how to
fend off disastrous weather may also be forming.

Numbers of spaceborne assets were tapped, among them:

• Navigation and timing signals from the Global Positioning System
(GPS) of satellites;

• The Global Broadcast Service, a one-way, space-based, high-capacity
broadcast communication system;

• The Army's Spectral Operations Resource Center to exploit
commercial remote sensing satellite imagery and prepare high-
resolution images to civilian and military responders to permit a
better understanding of the devastated terrain;

• U.S. Air Force Space Command's Space and Missile Systems Center
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites that
compared "lights at night" images before and after the disaster to
provide data on human activity.

Is it far-fetched to see in this response the embryonic stages of an
integrated military/civilian weather reaction and control system?

Mandate to continually improve

The use of space-based equipment to assist in clean-up operations —
with a look toward future prospects — was recently noted by General
Lance Lord, Commander, Air Force Space Command at an October 20th
Pacific Space Leadership Forum in Hawaii.

"We saw first hand the common need for space after the December 2004
tsunami in the Indian Ocean," Lord said. "Natural disasters don't
respect international boundaries. Space capabilities were leveraged
immediately after the tsunami to help in the search and rescue effort…
but what about before the disaster?"

Lord said that an even better situation is to have predicted the
coming disaster and warned those in harm's way. "No matter what your
flag or where you wave it from...the possibility of saving hundreds
of thousands of people is a mandate to continually improve," he
advised.

The U.S. Air Force is also looking at ways to make satellites and
satellite launches cheaper and also reduce the amount of time it
takes to launch into space from months to weeks to days and hours,
Lord said. Having that capability will increase responsiveness to
international needs, he said, such as the ability to send up a
satellite to help collect information and enhance communications when
dealing with international disasters.

Thunderbolts on demand

What would a military strategist gain in having an "on-switch" to the
weather?

Clearly, it offers the ability to degrade the effectiveness of enemy
forces. That could come from flooding an opponent's encampment or
airfield to generating downright downpours that disrupt enemy troop
comfort levels. On the flipside, sparking a drought that cuts off
fresh water can stir up morale problems for warfighting foes.

Even fooling around with fog and clouds can deny or create
concealment — whichever weather manipulation does the needed job.

In this regard, nanotechnology could be utilized to create clouds of
tiny smart particles. Atmospherically buoyant, these ultra-small
computer particles could navigate themselves to block optical
sensors. Alternatively, they might be used to provide an atmospheric
electrical potential difference — a way to precisely aim and time
lightning strikes over the enemy's head — and thereby concoct
thunderbolts on demand.

Perhaps that's too far out for some. But some blue sky thinkers have
already looked into these and other scenarios in "Weather as a Force
Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" – a research paper written by
a seven-person team of military officers and presented in 1996 as
part of a larger study dubbed Air Force 2025.

Global stresses

That report came with requisite disclaimers, such as the views
expressed were those of the authors and didn't reflect the official
policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of
Defense, or the United States government. Furthermore, the report was
flagged as containing fictional representations of future situations
and scenarios.

On the other hand, Air Force 2025 was a study that complied with a
directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force "to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will
require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future."

"Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will
offer anyone who has the necessary resources the ability to modify
weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the
local scale," the authors of the report explained. "Current
demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global
stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or
groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability."

Pulling it all together

The report on weather-altering ideas underscored the capacity to
harness such power in the not too distant future.

"Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes
weather-modification, its use in our national military strategy will
naturally follow. Besides the significant benefits an operational
capability would provide, another motivation to pursue weather-
modification is to deter and counter potential adversaries," the
report stated. "The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it
all together," the authors noted.

In 2025, the report summarized, U.S. aerospace forces can "own the
weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing
development of those technologies to war-fighting applications.

"Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the
battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities
to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is
pertinent to all possible futures," the report concluded.

But if whipping up weather can be part of a warfighter's tool kit,
couldn't those talents be utilized to retarget or neutralize life,
limb and property-destroying storms?

All-weather worries

"It is time to provide funds for application of the scientific method
to weather modification and control," said Bernard Eastlund, chief
technical officer and founder of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises
Corporation in San Diego, California.

Eastlund's background is in plasma physics and commercial
applications of microwave plasmas. At a lecture early this month at
Penn State Lehigh Campus in Fogelsville, Pennsylvania, he outlined
new concepts for electromagnetic wave interactions with the
atmosphere that, among a range of jobs, could be applied to weather
modification research.

"The technology of artificial ionospheric heating could be as
important for weather modification research as accelerators have been
for particle physics," Eastlund explained.

In September, Eastland filed a patent on a way to create artificial
ionized plasma patterns with megawatts of power using inexpensive
microwave power sources. This all-weather technique, he noted, can be
used to heat specific regions of the atmosphere.

Eastlund's research is tuned to artificial generation of acoustic and
gravitational waves in the atmosphere. The heating of steering winds
to help shove around mesocyclones and hurricanes, as well as
controlling electrical conductivity of the atmosphere is also on his
investigative agenda.

Carefully tailored program plan

Eastlund said that the reduction in severity or impact of severe
weather could be demonstrated as part of a carefully tailored program
plan.

"In my opinion, the new technology for use of artificial plasma
layers in the atmosphere: as heater elements to modify steering
winds, as a modifier of electrostatic potential to influence
lightning distribution, and for generation of acoustic and
gravitational waves, could ultimately provide a core technology for a
science of severe weather modification," Eastlund told Space.com.

The first experiments of a program, Eastlund emphasized, would be
very small, and designed for safety. For example, a sample of air in
a jet stream could be heated with a pilot experimental installation.
Such experiments would utilize relatively small amounts of power,
between one and ten megawatts, he pointed out.

Both ground-based and space weather diagnostic instruments could
measure the effect. Computer simulations could compare these results
with predicted effects. This process can be iterated until reliable
information is obtained on the effects of modifying the wind.

Computer simulations of hurricanes, Eastlund continued, are designed
to determine the most important wind fields in hurricane formation.
Computer simulations of mesocyclones use steering wind input data to
predict severe storm development.

After about 5 years of such research, and further development of
weather codes, a pilot experiment to modify the steering winds of a
mesocylone might be safely attempted. Such an experiment would
probably require 50 to 100 megawatts, Eastlund speculated.

"I estimate this new science of weather modification will take 10 to
20 years to mature to the point where it is useful for controlling
the severity and impact of severe weather systems as large as
hurricanes," Eastlund explained.

Inadvertent effects?

Another reason for embarking on this new science could be to make
sure inadvertent effects of existing projects, such as the heating of
the ionosphere and modifications of the polar electrojet, are not
having effects on weather, Eastlund stated.

As example, Eastlund pointed to the High frequency Active Auroral
Research Program (HAARP). This is a major Arctic facility for upper
atmospheric and solar-terrestrial research, being built on a
Department of Defense-owned site near Gakona, Alaska.

Eastlund wonders if HAARP does, in fact, generate gravity waves. If
so, can those waves in turn influence severe weather systems?

Started in 1990, the unclassified HAARP program is jointly managed by
the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval
Research. Researchers at the site make use of a high-power
ionospheric research instrument to temporarily excite a limited area
of the ionosphere for scientific study, observing and measuring the
excited region using a suite of devices.

The fundamental goal of research conducted at the facility is to
study and understand natural phenomena occurring in the Earth's
ionosphere and near-space environment. According to the HAARP
website, those scientific investigations will have major value in the
design of future communication and navigation systems for both
military and civilian use.

Messing with Mother Nature

Who best to have their hands on the weather control switches?

The last large hurricane modification experiments — under Project
Stormfury — were carried out by the U.S. Air Force, Eastlund
said. "It is likely the Department of Defense would be the lead
agency in any new efforts in severe storm modification."

Additionally, federal laboratories with their extensive computational
modeling skills would also play a lead role in the development of a
science of weather modification. NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would find their respective niches
too. The satellite diagnostic capabilities in those agencies would
play a strong role, Eastlund suggested.

It appears that only modest amounts of government dollars have been
spent on weather modification over the last five years.

"Hurricane Katrina could cost $300 billion by itself," Eastlund
said. "In my opinion, it is time for a serious scientific effort in
weather modification."

"Global warming appears to be a reality, and records could continue
to fall in the hurricane severity sweepstakes," Eastlund said. "When
I first suggested the use of space-based assets for the prevention of
tornadoes, many people expressed their displeasure with 'messing with
Mother Nature'. I still remember hiding in the closet of our house in
Houston as a tornado passed overhead. It is time for serious,
controlled research, with the emphasis on safety, for the good of
mankind," he concluded.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-10-31-military-
weather_x.htm?csp=34

Exposing President Bush's Plans for Massive Psychiatric Screening of the USA Wins a "Project Censored" Alternative Media Award

Project Censored is considered the "alternative Pulitzer Prize" by some journalists. This Saturday, 22 Oct., Project Censored awarded the "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006" -- important news that mainstream media covers up.

Number 11 in the Top 25 is journalist Jeanne Lenzer whose series of articles in the _British Medical Journal_ showed how President Bush is calling for "mental health screening" for children and adults in the USA in a plan that could result in hundreds of thousands of more citizens being placed on psychiatric drugs without adequate protection of human rights.

Even though President Bush calls for making this psychiatric screening "common practice" throughout the USA the corporate mainstream media has largely refused to inform their readers.

BELOW is the forwarded announcement from Project Censored including an UPDATE from Jeanne Lenzer:

MindFreedom International News - 24 Oct. 2005 http://www.MindFreedom.org - please forward

...

#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights

Sources:

Asheville Global Report (British Medical Journal),No. 284, June 24-30, 2004

Title: “Bush Plans To Screen Whole U.S. Population For Mental Illness”

Author: Jeanne Lenzer

http://www.agrnews.org/issues/284/#2

Truth News, September 13,2004

Title: “Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto”

Congressman Ron Paul

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2004090078.htm

Faculty Evaluator: David Van Nuys Ph.D.

Student Researchers: John Ferritto, Matt Johnson

In April of 2002, President Bush appointed a 22 member commission called the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in order to “identify policies that could be implemented by Federal, State and local governments to maximize the utility of existing resources, improve coordination of treatments and services, and promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance.”1 Members of this commission include physicians in the mental health field and at least one (Robert N. Postlethwait) former employee of pharmaceutical giant Ely Lilly and Co.

In July of 2003 the commission published the results of their study. They found that mental health disorders often go undiagnosed and recommended to the President that there should be more comprehensive screening for mental illnesses for people of all ages, including pre-school age children. In accordance with their findings, the commission recommended that schools were in a “key position” to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adult employees of our nation’s schools.2

The commission also recommended linking the screenings with treatment and support. They recommended using the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a model treatment system.3 TMAP, which was implemented in Texas’ publicly funded mental health care system while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,4 is a disease management program that aids physicians in prescribing drugs to patients based on clinical history, background, symptoms, and previous results. It was the first program in the United States aimed at establishing medication guidelines for treating mental health illnesses.5 Basically, it is an algorithm that recommends specific drugs which should be used to treat specific diseases. Funding for TMAP was provided by a Robert Wood-Johnson Grant as well as several major drug companies. The project began in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from pharmaceutical companies, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas.6

Critics of mental health screening and TMAP claim that it is a payoff to Pharmaceutical companies. Many cite Allen Jones, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General. He was fired when he revealed that many key officials who have influence over the medication plan in his state received monetary perks and benefits from pharmaceutical companies, which benefited from their drugs being in the medication algorithm. TMAP also promotes the use of newer, more expensive anti-psychotic drugs. Results of studies conducted in the United States and Great Britain found that using the older, more established anti-psychotic drugs as a front line treatment rather than the newer experimental drugs makes more sense. Under TMAP, the Ely Lilly drug olanzapine, a new atypical antipsychotic drug, is used as a first line treatment rather than a more typical anti-psychotic medication. Perhaps it is because Ely Lilly has several ties to the Bush family, where George Bush Sr. was a member of the board of directors. George W. Bush also appointed Ely Lilly C.E.O. Sidney Taurel to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Of Ely Lilly’s $1.6 million political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Republicans and George W. Bush.7

In November of 2004, Congress appropriated $20 million8 to implement the findings of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. This would include mandatory screening by schools for mental health illnesses. Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas introduced an amendment to the appropriations bills which would withhold funding for mandatory mental health screenings and require parental consent and notification. His amendment, however, was voted down by a wide margin (95-315 in the House of Representatives).9 Paul, a doctor and long-time member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) states, “At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents.” Paul says the allegation “that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment is patently false,” and warns that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with established doctrine. Paul further warns that an obvious major beneficiary of this legislation is the pharmaceutical industry. The AAPS has decried this legislation, which they say will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America without parental consent, and “heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects.”

Update by Jeanne Lenzer: Whether it’s the pills we take or the oil we use, it would be reassuring to know that the information used to develop new medicines or to utilize natural resources wisely is based on science—not corporate spin.

But blandishments from Big Pharma to politicians and doctors have a profound effect on health care in the U.S., making medical research closer to propaganda than science at times.

One way drug companies, in collusion with doctors, increase their market share is to expand the definition of diseases. When diagnostic criteria were liberalized for attention deficit disorder in 1991, the number of children diagnosed jumped by about 60 percent.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) acknowledged in the July 2004 issue of Advocacy News that, “The BMJ story has gained some traction in derivative reports on the Internet.” But, they boasted, “mainstream media have not touched the story, in part thanks to APA’s work, for which the [Bush] Administration is appreciative.”10

The APA’s boast is curious. The article was the most downloaded article in the history of the BMJ. It clearly struck a nerve with a public wary of doctors and politicians whose pockets are lined with drug company money.

Given the interest in the BMJ story, it would seem that the APA, instead of attempting to keep the story out of the mainstream media, would be anxious to counter the widely circulated statements in the article. It would also seem that the mainstream press could provide the Administration and the APA the best possible vehicle to counter these supposed factual errors in the BMJ article.

But, the facts might prove difficult to square with the public. More than one in every 100 toddlers and preschoolers in the United States are on powerful psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac, according to a study published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Joseph T. Coyle, M.D., wrote in an accompanying editorial, “It appears that behaviorally disturbed children are now increasingly subjected to quick and inexpensive pharmacologic fixes, as opposed to informed mutimodal therapy.” He concluded, “These disturbing prescription practices suggest a growing crisis in mental health services to children and demand more thorough investigation.”

But instead of issuing warnings about overmedication or inappropriate prescribing, the experts on the New Freedom Commission warn ominously that too few children are receiving treatment for mental illness. They cite escalating numbers of toddlers expelled from daycare as evidence of potentially serious psychological problems—problems to be diagnosed and cured with mental health screening and pills. Social and economic reasons for the rise in kiddie expulsions are left unexamined.

As bad as this is for those put on drugs and labeled “mentally ill,” the far bigger concern is the creation of a disease for every drug, a situation made possible by the hand-in-glove relationship between industry and the government.

NOTES

1. http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/.

2. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

4. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

5. http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3084.

6. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

7. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078.

8. http://www.truthnews.net/world/2004090078.htm.

9. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41606.

10. See Medicating Aliah: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/medicating_ aliah.html.

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm#11

POLLY WANT A FLU SHOT?
by Andrew W. Saul

My daughter's parakeet is in grave danger.

Need you ask why? Because the Bird Flu is coming!

With all this terrifying talk about bird flu, I have a lingering
question: Has anyone thought about protecting the birds? Living near
Lake Ontario, I regularly feed entirely too many seagulls. They come
inland as well. Just this weekend, I fed a characteristically
ravenous flock of them at an interstate highway parking lot. The
gulls encircled me like a Hitchcock movie. Another time, I was
ungraciously harassed by a renegade herd of emus that I was, perhaps
unwisely, attempting to feed. I had to climb up onto some boulders to
get out of range.

Nice ol' birds; they just wanted a nosh.

Too bad they are all going to die. And soon, too.

Yes, every one of them. There will not be a gull (or at the lake, a
bouy) left standing. Surely, now, if bird flu is truly dangerous, the
birds are at terrible risk. All of them. No more starlings. No more
pigeons. Goodbye, Mr. Hawk. Goodbye, Mrs. Robin. No more Woody; no
more "Beep-Beeps"; Donald is doomed.

And then there's all the gorgeous song birds, all those tiny little
dickie birds, like the ones I've held in my hand while they were
being banded: they are all dead meat.

What's that you say? That I'm exaggerating? That all the world's bird
species are NOT condemned to get Bird Flu? Then I say, Ask yourself
how that can be.

After all, no shots means no chance. Or at least that is the gist of
our pharmaphilic government's and media's clanging presentations to
the public.

Truth be told, this is nothing new. They've tried this before with
the colossal Swine Flu panic some thirty years ago. Remember?

The U.S. Government cannot say without qualification that flu shots
are either safe or essential.

Here is what the government of the United States said about the
infamous Swine Flu vaccine, in a 1976 mass-distributed FDA Consumer
Memo on the subject:

"Some minor side effects - tenderness in the arm, low fever,
tiredness - will occur in less than 4% of (vaccinated) adults.
Serious reactions from flu vaccines are very rare."

So much for blanket claims of safety, for many persons well remember
the very numerous and very serious side effects of Swine Flu vaccine
that forced the federal immunization program to a halt.

As far as being essential, in the same memo the FDA said this of the
same vaccine:

"Question: What can be done to prevent an epidemic? Answer: The only
preventive action we can take is to develop a vaccine to immunize the
public against the virus. This will prevent the virus from
spreading."

This was seen to be totally false; after all; the public immunization
program was abruptly halted and still there was no epidemic of Swine
Flu. If vaccination were the only defense, literally tens of
millions of Americans should have been struck down with the Swine
Flu, for a large percentage of the population of the U.S. was not
vaccinated.

Surely there are other factors involved in prevention of illness or
epidemic. But try telling that to allopathically-oriented health
commissioners and doctors. You'd think that monks and nuns who work
with the sick would have to get their patients' diseases... but they
seldom do. Did the elderly and diminutive Mother Theresa die from
leprosy? From AIDS?

If germs or viruses are all around us, why aren't we all dead, or at
least deathly ill? And how come crows and vultures regularly eat
diseased and decaying road kill, pressing their faces into a maggoty
mess, and then fly happily away?

And, as my friends and I used to so energetically search railroad
underpasses for sick and injured pigeons to take to our treehouse and
nurse back to health, well, I now wonder how we survived at all.

But as for you, you non-bird you, the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and the medical media say that without a shot, you are a
sitting duck for bird flu.

It seems to me, by logical extension, that without vaccinations for
all birds, all birds are goners. Ducks included, sitting or
otherwise. Without flu shots for birds, there will be no birds.
Silent spring.

Birds are seemingly such frail little creatures. Their permanently
feverish bodies are already around 104 degrees Fahrenheit every day.
A bird with a real fever must be one hot little number indeed. Yet,
every year, tiny little chickadees spend entire frigid winters in my
backyard. Gale force subzero winds and our typical eight to ten feet
of snowfall do not stop them. And they do not have vaccinations. Not
a one. They don't even have heated socks. How on earth do they do it?

So: Shall I have my daughter's little green budgie vaccinated? All
the more reason, really, since the parakeet is also at risk from all
the human flu strains. Yes, Virginia, all those zillions of Human Flu
viruses are out there, just waiting to kill your 'keet. And you with
it.

Influenza is a serious disease, and historically, has been the
Reaper's scythe. About 10 million soldiers were killed in World War
I, charging machine guns and getting mowed down month after month.
There were nearly a million casualties at the Somme and another
million at Verdun. A terrible slaughter went on for four years.
Yet, in just the two years following the war, over 20 million people
died from influenza. That is more than twice as many deaths from the
flu in one-half the time it took the machine guns. There is no way to
make light of that.

On the other hand, there is ample reason to now, finally, end our
wishful belief that flu shots stop the flu, because generally they
don't, not even in the elderly, their target audience.

NBC and the Associated Press (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9438511/)
reported on Sept 22, 2005 that

"A new analysis of 40 years of research provides more evidence that
flu shots are not as effective in the elderly as commonly believed.
But health officials said older people should still be
vaccinated. . . The findings are similar to those of a study done by
U.S. National Institutes of Health that found flu shots for the
elderly in the United States had not saved lives."

And then they add: "Flu shots may be required in all nursing homes.
Federal officials urging flu shots for all this year."

Will Rogers sure was right: with stuff like this in the papers, who
needs a comedy writer? Congress writes farce so very well, and the
news obligingly tosses it straight into to our living rooms.

But wait: there's more!

An interesting if not downright revealing article at medicinenet.com
(1) says, in part:

"According to a study appearing in the Sept. 22 online issue of The
Lancet, vaccines against influenza are only "modestly effective" in
people in long-term care facilities and even less effective for
elderly people still living in the community. . . "The vaccine
doesn't work very well at all," said study author Dr. Tom Jefferson,
an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Vaccines Field in Rome. "Vaccines
are being used as an ideological weapon. What you see every year as
the flu is caused by 200 or 300 different agents with a vaccine
against two of them. That is simply nonsense." Dr. Marc Siegel,
author of "False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear,"
agreed. "We have set up a situation where a fear is created, and then
we try to create the treatment for this fear. The public gets the
idea that the flu is going to kill them and the vaccine will save
them. Neither is true," he said."

For the record, both these critics are medical doctors.

With our century's worth of accumulated scientific hindsight, we must
today ask this: Was a lack of vaccinations really the cause of those
flu deaths, or was it really wartime stress, and especially war-
induced malnutrition, that set the stage in 1918? And now, once
again, we have an alarming and rather similar scenario: between
nutrient-poor processed convenience foods, McNothing meals and TV
news scare stories, we have the basic ingredients for an epidemic.

But we now also have a simple, safe and effective answer. First, the
nutrition solution: eat a good, healthy, whole foods natural diet,
and take lots and lots of vitamin C. And second: relax! De-stress
your life, take it easy, and cheer up. It has been very well said
that you are of much more value than any number of birds. You are
factory-equipped with a kick-ass mammalian immune system that is a
true marvel of nature. To maximize your resistance to any viral
disease, including any strain of flu, I think you would do well to
stop eating processed junk food, and load up on ascorbate.

You too can be chipper and chirping away, ignoring swine flu hype,
SARS scares, bird flu panics, or any other viral bogeymen being used
to scare you into a coerced relationship with a flu shot.

Reference:
1. Gardner A. Flu vaccine only mildly effective in elderly. HealthDay
Reporter, Sept 21, 2005. http://www.medicinenet.com

MEDICAL DOCTOR CONFIRMS: VITAMIN C CURES BIRD FLU
The best presentation I have ever seen on just how vitamin C
megadoses prevent and cure avian influenza is posted for free reading
at the website of Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.:
http://orthomed.com/bird.htm