[back]
GULF WAR SYNDROME
[back] Poisoning your
own troops
[back] Depleted
Uranium
Pentagon-CIA-CDC: Depleted Uranium Conspiracy
(May 13, 2009)
Since I had both health data and DU use data by the day since the 1991, I had
plenty of data points to make the correlation between the health and DU use.
Note that DU had been used in the Balkan wars in the 1990s, but not in all
years. As I am both a mathematician and physician by long training, having spend
16 years total at university, I had the necessary skills to make a proper
assessment. In addition, because I had experience in intelligence, I was able to
avoid many pitfalls, such as starting with already tampered with data.
The CIA has a sweet-heart relationship with the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
which allows it to dictate what the CDC reports and even what data it supplies
to researchers requesting it. That is, the CDC keeps several different "books"
on morbidity and mortality to supply to different "consumers".
In this way the CDC has helped the CIA and military cover-up incidents of
Bio-warfare germs, released unintentionally or even intentionally, inside the US
[and other countries as well].
The 1977 Congressional Hearing on MKULTRA revealed that the CIA was in the
habit of keeping faked "cover files" to limit US liability and particularly
liability of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers who were giving the CIA its
orders behind the scenes, free of "democratic constraints".
But the CIA [Rothschild/Rockefellers] also had other agencies around the world
cooking their books to cover up the illegal activities they were engaged in
which included fomenting wars, preventing people from having water safe to drink
[e.g. Iraq], preventing people from having access to food, medicines,
distributing vaccines with Bio-warfare germs such as HIV, infertility drugs,
toxins like mercury, anti-human chorogonaditropin antibody inducers, etc. for
the purpose of genocide. To cover up these many crimes against humanity around
the world, meant that they had their agents, often CIA and MI6 officers,
committing black ops to bribe and coerce officials throughout the world to cook
their books.
However, because they also wanted to know what was really the result of their
genocidal policies, the CIA usually kept the original databases "off the record"
at the CIA's headquarters at Langley as well as supplying them to the Fort
Detrick US Army Chemical and BioWarfare Research Labs. That Lab as well as the
CIA's own labs, needed the original data to prove the effectiveness of their
"interventions".
For example, about 15,000 black Rhodesians died of Anthrax during the time CIA
Bio-warfare expert Hatfield was in Rhodesia according to an internet article. I
didn't have doubt in my mind, after reviewing the Labs, that the internet
article was correct for the gist of the events leading to those many deaths.
However, most countries prefer to keep such secrets from the public, we could
generously attribute the motive to not wanting to alarm the public (while
killing them, or intending to still kill them later as soon as a suitable
opportunity arise, or acquiescing to the CIA doing it in the name of progress in
"freedom and democracy"). All this is to say that the CIA forced the CDC to
alter its database in rather major ways after I delivered my report on the
health consequences in the US from the DU. I should mention that because of my
ties inside British intelligence I had included the real data on British use of
DU in my mathematical analysis.
Both the CIA and British Intelligence asked me to look at the cooked books of
morbidity and mortality data to determine if their cover-ups were successful.
Each of the 3 times that they did this I was able to quickly recover most of the
correlations at their correct strengths because, metaphorically speaking, the
scientists employed to falsify the data were not able to cut down the trees
without leaving evident the fact that a forest had once been there!
In fact, all one had to do was cut down a single tree and one had the whole
story recorded in the rings -the impairment of the health of the tree and the
radioactive particles that caused it. The leaves of the trees "breath in" the
nanoparticles of DU rather like human lungs do. So, the fourth time the CIA
brought me the re-cooked data to ask me if I could still find the relationship
between the DU use in war zones and health in the US, I pointed out the window
at a tree across the parking lot and said, "Yep, I still see it."
The CIA officials was not happy with my answer and insisted that I prove that
the data exists in each tree which started growing before 1991. I asked the CIA
to pick the trees. They brought in 3 trees; one from near the Arctic circle, one
from botanical gardens in Washington, D.C. which was a bonsai, and another one
from the French Riveria which is as far away as they could believe the effect
could be demonstrated.
I called the botanical garden and found out the bonsai was a precious
200-year-old Japanese tree which had survived the A-bombs and had just been
stolen. This particular bonsai was listed in a CIA data base as something which
survived radiation well. I offered to return it to the botanical garden.
Thus exposed as the thieves, the CIA cut a deal with the botanical gardens to
have one of their bonsai experts make an "artistic" cut in the tree to remove
for analysis a wedge of it dating back to at least the atomic blasts in Japan.
The botanical gardens graciously agreed in exchange for getting their tree back.
The tree had experienced a near death once before. When it was brought to the US
by ship by a marauding US soldier in his duffle bag in the late 1940s, it had
dried up for lack of water. He took it to a botanical garden in the hopes they
could revive it. The curator thought it was dead and put it in the trash. One of
the gardeners dug it out again and brought it back to life. The bonsai's tree
rings showed that, except for that one year in which it was transported to the
US, it accurately recorded the relationship between the health of living cells
and the toxic effects of radiation - even when the radiation was used half a
world away in Iraq, Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan. Contrary to the common belief
that humans are more sensitive to radiation than other living things like hard
trees, the facts show that all life is remarkably susceptible to assaults on its
genetic material.
The CIA then wanted to know how much damage to the human DNA had already
occurred as a result of DU use. Actually I was given the question a little bit
differently, "How much DNA damage is caused by the use of a thousand tons of DU?"
My immediate response which turned out not to be far wrong was to pick up a
marking pen and say, "This much is too much for any human being to ever be the
same afterwards!" I rephrased the question as "How much human DNA is damaged by
the use of one depleted uranium rod [about the size of a cigar]?"
The CIA official was taken aback and said, "No, we don't want an answer to that
question. We want you to answer to my question. It will be too hard to explain
our conclusion that it is safe to use a thousand tons of DU, if you answer the
question based on one rod." So, the official withdrew the question from my
inbox.
Some days later he came back and said, I still need an answer from you about the
DU damage to the DNA. I naturally asked him, "Why do you need it since you are
going to lie and say it is safe to use tons of it?" He said, "I need your name
in my bibliography so that my report will be believed!" I replied, "You want my
research, in order to substantiate your lies?" "Yes," he replied as if that was
the most natural thing in the world to ask for. Well, it was at the CIA! That
was their normal mode of operation - find out the truth just in the service of
selling lies to a White House anxiously waiting for their order of them to be
fulfilled!
I decided to investigate the answer to his question, but write my own report. He
could still quote some irrelevant section of it to bolster his citations, but
others would be able to read my report in full, if they chose to, so I thought
at the time. The question is not "How much radiation does it take to make a
change in the DNA of one base pair?" , but "How much radiation is safe to use to
avoid damage to the DNA which results in illness, say an illness severe enough
to send you to the doctor?" Parts of the question are "Does radiation cause
illness only by mutations it causes to the DNA?" "Does it making a person sick
through damage to their DNA, mean that they are also likely to have children
with damaged DNA who will also be sick from it?"
About 83% of the a cell's dysfunction after radiation exposure is due to damage
to the DNA. The damage to the DNA is more important than the damage done to
other parts of the cell because the DNA is like the Commander in Chief of all of
the cell's other functions.
The US veterans returning from the 1990s wars were mostly sick. The US
government had not monitored their radiation exposure because it knew that the
DU would make them sick and didn’t want the liability, including criminal
liability for wittingly using DU knowing it would cause radiation illness
indiscriminately for billions of years. However, the veterans and their children
had DNA which could be examined, and estranged unexposed siblings and their
children to act as a control group. Each Pentagon had the dates each veteran was
at each base, Stateside or otherwise.
Since I had the data showing how much DU was used each day, it was not hard for
me to run a study using willing veterans and their families. It is very sad that
the US government would not come clean and give the results of my study to the
veterans and the public.
Even if a soldier never left a US base they had DNA damage during their years in
the service, from DU use in the war zones. Not only that, their children born
later had DNA damage which matched their damage, and also had more damage for
each year the US continued to use DU.
So, I looked at DU correlations with visits to a physician in which a veteran
was paying out of pocket. The answer was that 2 rods of DU used in a war zone
half way around the world was enough to make a significant difference in the
number of veterans seeking urgent medical care. That was true for both chronic
conditions like COPD and heart disease, and new conditions like a first stroke.
How significant am I talking about- "statistically significant, but meaningless
minor increases", or "what a moment, that impacts our bottom line in a major way
due to days lost in sick leave, increased health insurance premiums, and real
suffering by a lot of people".
The veterans who never left the US during their service, were so much sicker
than they should have been that there was a conference in which industrialists
argued to blacklist them from getting jobs in their companies so as not to raise
their company’s health premiums.
Let me back up a little. Insurance companies have figured out that veterans
returning from the war zones are at high risk of early death and don't want to
give them life insurance or supplemental health insurance. But they also figured
out that all the veterans on the bases which have planes from the war zones
landing, are high risk customers. One of the underwriters I called up put it to
me this way, "Those boys are sick - all of them. It doesn't matter where they
served, the dirt falls downhill."
Satellites with equipment to record ElectroMagnetic spectrum photos, also record
radioactive materials left on the ground. US bases where planes from the war
zones land show up as hot spots on the globe from space. How hot the bases are
depends on the number of planes returning and how much DU was used in the
preceding 4.6 billion years from their point of take off. Some bases had much
higher rates of sick days of leave than others. There was a direct correlation
between the air traffic and the days of sick leave.
Going to a DU war zone was terrible for your health, and staying at a base was
still pretty bad. Going to a war zone for a year was like cutting 20 years off
your life and having the amount of disability of having a cold/flu for the rest
of your life, not to mention the almost certainty of suffering from cancer, if
you lived long enough. Going to a DU war zone for 2 years was like knowing you
were destined to die before your kids graduated from high school and yelling at
them anyway in helpless frustration. It was like wanting to get a job to pay the
bills and knowing it was hopeless to even try because you were too sick.
It was like having to have a beer brought to your bedside to drink it, instead
of going out to a bar with your friends. Going to a DU war zone for 3 years was
like signing up for slow suicide by debilitating illness.
It was like feeling you were going to die in the next ten years even though you
were only 30, and not usually being far off.
It was like standing in line to get an injection knowing it would give you
cancer soon and being too tired and depressed to get out of the line. Staying on
the support base for two years was like smoking like a fiend, even when you
didn't, [cutting about 10 years off your life] and getting out of shape even
when you worked out everyday.
To put things in perspective, living in the Los Angeles smog cuts about 2 years
off your life and makes your lungs hurt if you jog, and gives you mild shortness
of breath as an elderly person.
So what did the US's use of DU do to the average person living in the US? The
average person can expect to have 3.5 years cut off their life, have twice as
many sick days, feel "washed out", and have increasingly more cancer. During the
Civil War, cancer was rare. Now a third to half of people in the US can be
expected to suffer from it. But the cancer rates are not going to decrease any
time soon because the DU is still being used and the amount of radioactive dust
lodged in a person's body is going up over time, not down.
Everyone on the planet already has some base-change mutations in their DNA due
to the US’s use of depleted uranium. And everyone already has a decrease in
their body’s ability to heal from the US’s use of depleted uranium. That means
that they have a decreased ability to heal their DNA as well.
The DNA is constantly being repaired, to the best of the body's ability to do
so. When you get a regular sun burn you get damage to the DNA of your skin. If
you take vitamin C right after getting the sun burn it helps to decrease the
long term residual damage to your DNA of your skin. That damage can cause
wrinkles and skin cancer, but it does not cause genetic defects and birth
defects in your children.
The problem is that the DU gets deposited in the body and keeps on causing
damage day after day, year after year, unlike a sun burn.
A subsequent study was done on children having accidents in the week after the
Feb. 2004 nuclear explosions. The amount of radiation was measured in the scar
tissue they formed. Remember that a significant number of children died due to
their severe injuries instead of recovered from them because radioactive DU
particles landed in their open wounds and impaired the healing of them. Scar
tissue shrinks over time, concentrating that radiation even more. It is not that
it is a large amount of radiation as Geiger counters measure it. It is a problem
because it will be there the rest of the person's life, in addition to that
which lodges in the lungs or gets eaten with food.
The CIA wanted to know whether that scar tissue should be cut out because it had
more radiation in it than other tissue. The answer is that in some cases, to
prevent cancers later, that scar tissue formed right after the US used
mini-nukes or DU would be better cut out. But given that the US continues to use
DU, on what day would it be safe to do it?
Also, if the US continues to use these radioactive weapons, the toxic particles
will continue to be added into the person's body. Some of them migrate from the
lungs by traveling in the blood. At a certain point, the previously
untraumatized tissues of the body may end up with more radiation in them than
the white scar tissue which has less blood supply. So, unless the US stops using
radioactive weapons, cutting out scar tissue is fraught with risks and uncertain
benefit.
However, for soldiers injured in the war zones where the dust was highly
radioactive the answer is that their risk of cancer in adjacent organs or skin
would likely be significantly reduced if they had surgical resection of their
most radioactive scars, where it was safe to do so. That is, organs lying under
such scars are at 2 to 3 fold increased risk of getting cancer and it is better
to cut out a surface scar than suffer from the cancer of an organ later.
[Note: I am not revealing National Security secrets to terrorists. Satellite
photos show where US bases are. Everyone with a satellite and the images from
them already knows. Google Earth and other maps show them as well. If a military
wants to keep the location of a base secret, it knows it has to build it
underground without a runway for planes.]