||Images Of Poliomyelitis||
Rationale for Industrial Poisoning
The fundamental concept for industrial toxicology is attributed to the pharmacologist Paracelsus, "Toxicity is only a matter of dosage." The industrial (polluting variety) toxicologists claim there are no toxins, no poisons, that there are only dosages. Water and arsenic are the same. That view benefits polluting industries.
Yet, Paracelsus was an insane pharmacologist, pulled out of early renaissance history to support industrial dogmatism. Industrial toxicologists are a fiction, a misnomer, as they are actually dosologists. Down their nose, they sarcastically refer to poison, in quotes, "poison".
Industrial toxicologists claim toxic compounds are beneficial to life forms that ingest them. Below, Hayes and Laws, and other writers, promote that idea with a noble tone. They can be deconstructed to an admission that, "Toxicity can increase profits if surreptitiously applied to others."
Arsenic has no known nutritional benefit. Water is essential to life. Low dose arsenic is a toxic drug that destabilizes and accelerates the victim towards a torturous death. Arsenic's momentary high is sold by medicos as a "cure" or "treatment". Pharmacologists sell other poisons as a cure for arsenic's inevitable health damage.
Dosologists call high-dose water a "poison", but the resulting ill-health is by forced mechanical application to the subject. That process is not poisoning. If a ladder falls on you, it is not an overdose. Such stupidity is foisted upon the world by professors. Students pay much to learn dosology, as if it were toxicology.
Here are my analyses of various items from pages 59 and 232 in the Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Hayes and Laws, 1991 (bolding is mine):
Pg/S Hayes and Laws HARpub Comments 59a Beneficial Effects Of Small Dosages Subtitle 59a ...bacteriologist Hueppe (1896) stated the rule that has come to bear his name. "Every substance that kills and destroys protoplasm in certain concentrations inhibits development in lower concentrations, but acts as a stimulus and increases the potential of life at even lower concentrations beyond a point of neutrality." A historical precedent is set. This phenomena observed by Hueppe is also seen in the 1925 studies of Carrel, et al. Low concentrations suppressed cell division, while very low concentrations produced rapid growth and/or cancer. In vivo and in vitro. These studies (at least 30) became unknown to experts in subsequent decades. They were purposely buried from on high, by Thomas Rivers, the military commander of Rockefeller Institute's Department of Bacteriology.
Missing from the "discovered principle", is the increased potential for death and disease.
59a In stating this principle, Hueppe mentioned certain apparent exceptions. He also acknowledged the independent discovery of the rule by Arndt and Schultz. Setting up the false argument with the usual tone of selfless objectivity. The "principle" and "rule" are called "discoveries", as if they existed in nature, awaiting discovery. 59c1 As reviewed by Townsend and Luckey (1960) and in a very different way by Smyth (1967), evidence has continued to accumulate that small dosages of many compounds are beneficial even though larger dosages of the same compounds are injurious. Beneficial poisoning without consequences? Sounds like bad science, without complete divulgence of discovered data, studies likely driven by drug and pesticide companies.
Beneficial to whom? The poisoned subject or the subject's exploiter?
59c2 The phenomenon of benefit from small dosages may extend to cell cultures and involve pesticides such as dimethoate, disulfoton, and malathion (Gabiliks et al., 1967). Pesticides can confer benefits? -- for the poisoned or the poisoner? Is this why New York City region was sprayed with malathion by helicopter in 1999? 59d1 The term "hormoligosis" (from the Greek hormao, rouse or set in motion, and oligos, small) was proposed (Luckey, 1956) to indicate the more general process by which a small amount of anything, regardless of its toxicity, produces stimulation. The above is elegantly repeated with Greek. The reader begs to be let into this club. 59d1 The same author used the term "hormoligant" to indicate something that stimulates when given in a small amount. More repetition in Greek. This is a religious ceremony. Prepare to have your monk-brain filled win incantations. 59d The term "sufficient challenge" introduced by Smyth (1967) refers to the entire range of phenomena and emphasizes the need of the organism for some measure of stress, whether it be a small amount of poison, a fact, he points out that he took the term from Toynbee's concept of "sufficient but not overpowering challenge" in connection with human history. Repeating again, but now with the reader joining the Great British Empire, with mass poisoning analogous to Toynbee's sweeping historical reference to the whole of humanity. What stupidity? What a gross attempt to sway the reader into the absurd glory of mass-poisoning! Yet, they succeed.
Is this where malathion has elite significance? An economic benefit? A cold war, appearing as constant, regular, domestic poisonings, which replace the disruptions of large-scale organized war. Hayes and Laws are sanctioning toxic solutions to industry for their social dilemmae.
59e There is a tendency to take for granted the beneficial effects of small amounts of certain classes of compounds, which we call drugs, nutrients, or growth promoters and to ignore completely the beneficial effects of small amounts of other materials, some of which we call poisons. A strange sentence, which bears evidence of conscious manipulation -- Hayes and Laws are quite aware that drugs (pharmaceuticals) are derived from pesticides and war-gas technology, that in general pharmaceuticals are poisons, and the range from slightly toxic (aspirin) to highly toxic (AZT). Yet 'drugs' are polarized conceptually against "other materials, some of which we call poisons", thus creating a false thesis/antithesis, which can be used to spawn false syntheses. 59g "There is little or no reason to think that the effectiveness of arsenilic acid and various antibiotic feed additives depends on any nutritive value. Their mode of action ... remains unknown , The phrase "mode of action remains unknown" is incredible. This statement of mystery regarding rapid tissue growth, such as cancer, is one which most of us are familiar, hearing it from gynecologists, cancer surgeons ("cancer is a mystery, it only we knew!"). They seem not to have heard the basic principle, that when biological systems are threatened (poisoned) they engage in accelerated genetic recombination. They appear unaware of the works of Carrel, et al. 59g but their ability to make chickens, pigs, and calves grow faster is inescapable. In this case understanding is in terms of commercial success. Poisoning pigs, chickens, calves, and race horses yields a profit. The inference is that poisoning humans also yields a profit. 232 There is even less recognition of the need to test in humans the safety of other chemicals to which people will be exposed. Another creation of category of poisons, without using the word poison. This sentence could be translated as follows: The ignorant public and policy makers do not realize the benefits of poisons in small doses and they realize even less the need for themselves to be used as guinea pigs for new poisons ("beneficial" and non-beneficial poisons). 232 In fact, little thought seems to have been given to the question of whether it is ethical to release a new chemical for general use before it has been tested under controlled conditions in a limited population. Another well lubricated spitball ("very little thought"), sliding by -- a hypocrisy in the form of another false thesis. Hayes and Laws are quite aware that the releasing of untested toxins and dosages for general consumption already consciously occurs every day. 232 However, there is some evidence -- including circumstances surrounding the case of Hyman vs. Jewish Hospital -- suggesting that not only investigators but many other educated people consider that, as long as the subjects of research are uninjured, it is ethically more important to gather knowledge leading to human welfare than to observe legalistic limitations of informed consent. A patient pays a fortune to a hospital expecting help, then secretly becomes the subject of poisonous experiments.
The reader is sold the concept that educated people believe in disregarding legalities of informed consent when poisoning others, for whatever "beneficial" purpose they have rationalized for humanity. This obviously includes malathion spray programs over dense city populations, which were sold as "harmless" (quote, CDC rep NYC mayor Giuliani). See paragraph 59c2, above left.
Note the narrow phrase "legal limitations" rather than the actual, "moral and legal limitations".
Hayes and Laws are typical of ongoing claims that cancer and tumour growth are "mysteries." So, I'll provide what I see as a realistic view of the approximate relation between poisons and their various effects.
Huge tracts of land are sprayed with malathion, ostensibly to kill medflies. Cities in Florida and the New York City region have been aerially sprayed with malathion to kill medflies or mosquitoes. However, expert testimony has called these events "scientifically corrupt."
The entire cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and recently (1999) New York and surrounding regions have been blanketed (approximately 35 tons of malathion on NYC region) with malathion by helicopters, to supposedly ward off viral epidemics.
Is the spraying of cities a way of stimulating human activity and production, as a chicken farmer may poison his animals to stimulate tissue growth in the form of increased poundage of tumour-laden chicken flesh and salmonella-laden eggs? Is this a mere trick to make a profit off of a public that has been convinced that these products are of quality? Obviously such products, such a way of life, have a bearing on the cancer and disease that has become prevalent worldwide.
The farmer is playing a trick to gain a profit. But he poisons himself and his family. However, the corporate owners of large farms do not live near the farms, and may be convinced that their profit makes it worthwhile. Maybe they have deceived themselves, as successful people do, into believing the world was made for them, until the day arrives, as it does so often in contemporary times, when they and their intimates die of cancer and they are then contacted by the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute (which regularly investigates the biographical profiles of wealthy individuals) to donate for "cancer research", an industry which is intimately tied to the toxin industry. I have interviewed several persons who worked in Sloan-Kettering's fund-raising department.
Toynbee (quoted by Hayes and Laws) is not the only educated Brit to advocate a "sufficient challenge" to humanity. Bertrand Russell wrote in Power (1938):
"Mankind need government, but in regions where anarchy has prevailed they will, at first, submit only to despotism. We must therefore seek first to secure government, even though despotic, and only when government has become habitual can we hope successfully to make it democratic."
"Anarchy" is a relative term, and "government" might consider any adversariality or lethargy as anarchy, and thus feel rationally justified to use despotic means.
Russell continues with,
"[For] a sense of solidarity sufficient to make government... outside pressure is all but indispensable... A common peril is much the easiest way of producing homogenity."
Related concepts from Sun Tzo, The Art Of War
"The Way means inducing the people to have the same aim as the leadership, so that they will share death and share life, without fear of danger." [Wang Xi, p43]
"A military operation has no standard form - it goes by way of deception." [Cao Cao, p49]
Russell, however, feels that government is secure:
"Most people feel that politics is difficult, and that they had better follow a leader - they feel this just as instinctively and unconsciously as do dogs with their masters."
U.S. Federal Law
Mass poisoning legalized in the U.S. I'm not a legal expert. Perhaps others can shed light better on this.
|TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Page 166|
|§1520. Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by Department of Defense: accounting to Congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies: notification of local civilian officials.|
|a) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under contract. involving the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall supply the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives with a full accounting of such plans for such experiment or study, and such experiment or study may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date such accounting is received by such committees.|
|b)(1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification.|
|(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors.|
|(Pub. L. 95-79. title VIII. §808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334; Pub. L. 97-375, title II. 203(a(1) Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1822.)|
|(Pub. L. 95-79. title VIII. §808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334; Pub. L. 97-375, title II. 203(a(1) Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1822.)|
CODIFICATION Section was not enacted as part of Pub. L. 91-121. title IV, § 409, Nov. 19, 1969. 83 Stat. 209, which comprises this chapter. AMENDMENTS 1982 -- Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97-375 strike out par. (1) which directed the Secretary or Defense to supply not later than Oct. 1 of each year the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House with a full accounting of all experiments and studies conducted by the Department of Defense in the preceding twelve month period, whether directly or under contract which involved the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents, and designated par. (2) as subsec. (a).
As of 1997, there was argument against the above code and it was eventually repealed and substituted with alternative code:
Sec. 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, div. A, title X, Sec. 1078(g), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916 US Code as of: 01/26/98 Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents (a) Prohibited activities The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) - (1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or (2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects. (b) Exceptions Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes: (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity. (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. (c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. (d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees. (e) ''Biological agent'' defined In this section, the term ''biological agent'' means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing - (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or (3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
Note the apparent loophole phrases: "(b) Exceptions", the words, "research activity" and "therapeutic" (compare with Hayes and Laws definitions herein).
Note that the code applies to "test or experiment". What if the intended mass poisoning is not a test or experiment, but a well-planned social manipulation for the benefit of society?
What if the "biological agent" is defined as harmless and the intent is not physical dysfunction, but social behavior improvements?
The statute limits the "Secretary of Defense". Apparently then, it doesn't apply to anyone else, or any other agency.
What if physical "dysfunction" or "therapeutic" is defined not per the individual but in terms of the society as a whole?
With such loose wording, the only recourse for the poisoned masses would be to argue on the basis that the spirit of the law has been violated and hope that the spirit can be agreed upon. Else prove that social benefits have not been proved.
What if the passing of the law AND its repeal were itself conceived as a "small dosage", a psychological experiment, a propagandistic toxin, utilized to provide a "sufficient but not overwhelming challenge" to society.
(c) HARpub 1997
All Rights Reserved