Dead by propaganda: Saddam Hussein’s futile plea for peace and the pre-fabricated Persian gulf wars

February 24, 2011 § 6 Comments

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Saddam’s reign produced a long record of crimes against humanity: hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers and Kurdish dissidents died from the usage of forbidden chemical weapons during the savage eight-year Iran-Iraq war  (1980-1988).

Dead by propaganda:

Saddam Hussein’s futile plea for peace and the pre-fabricated Persian gulf wars

by Peter Arguriou

A less well-known fact however, is that Saddam Hussein was an ardent supporter of the US-Iraq friendship and that  Hussein and consequently, the Iraqi people fell victims to the US war propaganda and its cynical, almost hostile stance towards the majority of the Arabic world, a stance highlighted by Henry Kissinger’s famous statement on the Iran-Iraq war: “It is a pity they both can’t lose.”[1]

Indeed, it appears that the U.S. sought to establish a balance of terror in the region, funding and arming not only its implacable friend, Iraq but also their ally’s foe, Iran.

U.S Middle East policies were dishonest, one might say even scandalous.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. administration covertly used an Italian Bank to make loans to the Hussein regime and subsequently attempted to disguise the case. The late Tom Landos, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives  and a supporter of the first U.S. invasion in Iraq, sketched the details and the essence of a case that would be described as “Iraqgate”:

As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank to finance the buildup of Iraq’s war machine by diverting U.S.-guaranteed grain loans.

Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the President (G.W. Bush) turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department’s complicity in Iraq’s duplicity transformed what could have been dealt with as `Saddam’s Lavoro scandal’ into George Bush’s Iraqgate.

The first element of corruption is the wrongful application of U.S. credit guarantees…

Second element of corruption is the misleading of Congress…

Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice…

Policy blunders are not crimes. But perverting the purpose of appropriated funds is a crime; lying to Congress compounds that crime; and obstructing justice to cover up the original crime is a criminal conspiracy.”[2]

During the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. would take sides. It would align themselves with the Iraqi dreaded dictator, Saddam Hussein. It would provide the Iraqi regime with information of strategic value, financial assistance and would equip Iraq with dual use vehicles and equipment.

At the same time, however, the U.S. would indirectly sell weapons to Iran through Israel. With the money amassed from the weapons sales to Iran, the US intended  to fund the Honduras based  paramilitary organization of the Contras, seeking to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The Contras have been accused several times of basic human rights violations. According to the  human rights organization CIIR (The Catholic Institute for International Relations): “The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.[3]
U.S. Iraqi policies are characterized by hypocrisy, duplicity and are determined exclusively by the U.S. Middle East agenda regardless of the Arabic’s world stance, exhibiting a narrow-minded and monolithic U.S. approach. The Pro-American sentiments of the executed Iraqi dictator Hussein mattered not to U.S. Middle East policymaking.

A typical example of U.S. duplicity is how they treated Iraq in relation to the issue of global terrorism.

In 1982 the U.S. would remove Iraq from the list of “states sponsors of terrorism” so that they could provide it with armaments and financial “aid” in its war against Iran.

After the Iraqi invasion in Kuwait in 1990, Iraq would be redefined as a state that sponsors terrorism.

In 2004 Iraq, essentially under U.S. occupation, would be once more removed from the terror-states list.

Once more, it is crystal clear that the definition of terrorism is a geopolitical artifact. It also solely reflects the US geopolitical agenda and not the state of the world.

The U.S. policies double standards are not exhausted in terrorism definitions. They expand to the labeling of unquestionable facts: In March 1988, Iraq employed chemical weapons to attack the Kurds in Halabja. The death toll of this murderous attack is absolutely horrifying: 6800 Kurds died- most of them civilians.

The U.S. did not only turn a blind eye on the despicable attack; they also engaged in distorting and obscuring hard facts and in manipulating the international public opinion by deliberately and fraudulently involving Iran in a hideous war crime produced exclusively by the Iraqi regime. The U.S. created a smokescreen to confuse the international community regarding the true perpetrators of the Halabja atrocity, thus shielding their former ally Saddam Hussein against international condemnation.

The genocide committed by the Iraqis was shamefully turned by the U.S. propaganda into an incident where citizens were caught in a crossfire, an incident of collateral damage, into an unpleasant side effect of war.

The US covered genocide, deliberately and methodically.

According to Joost Hiltermann’s article in the International Herald Tribune, the U.S. propaganda  that claimed Iranian involvement in the Halabja massive war crime was prepared by the Pentagon and was circulated to U.S. allies by U.S. ambassadors who were instructed to promote the fable and avoid to discuss the details of the incident, details that could expose the U.S. propaganda for what it really was.[4]

The Halabja attack was a violation of human rights, a war crime and a genocide.

It was also a breach of the rules of engagement and of the chemical weapons convention. The U.S. condoned all of the aforementioned by protecting and supporting its strategic ally, Saddam Hussein.

It seems that treaties are made to be broken… The U.S. played down the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi offenders during the Iran-Iraq war. More than a decade later, the US would all of a sudden evoke in their geopolitical memory the obsolete and by then crumbling Iraqi arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and use it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

In the chessboard of geopolitics, truth is often treated as a pawn to be exchanged for profits.

The U.S. knew all too well about the existence and the extend of the Iraqi WMDs because it was the U.S that provided Iraq the building blocks of its WMD arsenal.
The U.S. was probably the main supplier of materials the Iraq would use to develop its Weapons of Mass Destruction program, especially biological agents: in 1994 Senator Donald Riegle delivered a relevant report known as the “Riegle Report”[5]. According to its findings: “Records provided by the supplier show that, from at least 1985 through 1989, the period for which records were available, the United States government approved for sale to Iraq quantities of potentially lethal biological agents that could have been cultured or grown in large volume in an Iraqi biological warfare program. These exported materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.”

Among these materials were anthrax spores.

During the Iran-Iraq war, when the illegal WMD shipments took place, Donald Rumsfeld, US defense secretary during Gulf War II, was a member of the General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and at the same time a special envoy to the Middle East…

Not only did the U.S. encourage the bloody Iran-Iraq war, not only did they turn a blind eye on the horrific war crimes and the Iraqi WMD attack on Halabja, but they were also to blame for the development of the Iraqi arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction as they were instrumental in supplying materials for its creation, thus violating international disarmament treaties.

By the time the U.S. used the WMD threat claim to attack Iraq, the Iraq was financially wrecked and totally incapable of maintaining its WMD arsenal.

After the Iran-Iraq war and the “help” it received from its war buddies, Iraq found itself in a dire position. The war debt of Iraq  to its Arab allies alone amounted to 130 billion U.S. dollars. Iraq owed to Kuwait alone about 14 billion dollars. Despite repeated Iraqi pleas, Kuwait refused to cancel the debt and lower the price of oil, thus depriving the staggering Iraqi economy from vital oil revenues. Kuwait’s denial to recognize and soothe the Iraqi financial plight is perceived by Iraqi leadership as an act of economic war. Hussein is in despair. As evidenced by a recent  wikileaks cable, Saddam Hussein in July 1990 dispatched a message of good will and an offer of friendship to the then President George W Bush. Saddam strived to explain Iraq’s plight to the U.S. and exhibited a strong, yet unattainable commitment to maintain peace in the region. The then U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, summarized Hussein’s thesis’, sketched  his desire for US-Iraq friendship and communicated his plea to stop encouraging Kuwait’s and the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) aggressive petroleum policies that were deeply hurting the exhausted from the war Iraqi economy to the US:

‘Saddam wished to convey an important message to president Bush: Iraq wants friendship, but does the USG? Iraq suffered 100,000’s of casualties and is now so poor that war orphan pensions will soon be cut; yet rich Kuwait will not even accept OPEC discipline. Iraq is sick of war, but Kuwait has ignored diplomacy. USG maneuvers with the UAE will encourage the UAE and Kuwait to ignore conventional diplomacy. if Iraq is publicly humiliated by the USG, it will have no choice but to “respond,” however illogical and self destructive that would prove…

Saddam, whose manner was cordial, reasonable and even warm throughout the ensuing two hours, said he wished the ambassador to convey a message to president Bush. Saddam then recalled in detail the history of Iraq’s decision to reestablish diplomatic relations and its postponing implementation of that decision at the beginning of the war, rather than be thought weak and needy. He then spoke about the many “blows” our relations have been subjected to since 1984, chief among them Irangate. It was after the faw victory, Saddam said, that Iraqi misapprehensions about USG purposes began to surface again, i.e., suspicions that the U.S. was not happy to see the war end.

Picking his words with care, Saddam said that there are “some circles” in the USG, including in CIA and the state department… who are not friendly toward Iraq-U.S. Relations[…]

[…]Iraq, the president stressed, is in serious financial difficulties, with 40 billion USD debts. Iraq, whose victory in the war against Iran made an historic difference to the Arab world and the west, needs a Marshall plan. But “you want the oil price down”, Saddam charged.

Resuming his list of grievances which he believed were all inspired by “some circles” in the USG, he recalled the “usia campaign” against himself, and the general media assault on Iraq and its president.

Despite all these blows, Saddam said, and although “we were somewhat annoyed”, we still hoped that we could develop a good relationship. But those who force oil prices down are engaging in economic warfare and Iraq cannot accept such a trespass on its dignity and prosperity.

The spearheads (for the USG) have been Kuwait and the UAE, Saddam said. Saddam said carefully that just as Iraq will not threaten others, it will accept no threat against itself. “We hope the USG will not misunderstand: Iraq accepts, as the state department spokesman said, that any country may choose its friends. but the USG knows that it was Iraq, not the USG, which decisively protected those USG friends during the war and that is understandable since public opinion in the USG, to say nothing of geography, would have made it impossible for the Americans to accept 10,000 dead in a single battle, as Iraq did.”

Saddam asked what does it mean for the USG to announce it is committed to the defense of its friends, individually and collectively. Answering his own question, he said that to Iraq it means flagrant bias against the GoI.

Coming to one of his main points, Saddam argued that USG maneuvers with the UAE and Kuwait encouraged them in their ungenerous policies. The Iraqi rights, Saddam emphasized, will be restored one by one, though it may take a month or much more than a year. Iraq hopes the USG will be in harmony with all the parties to this dispute.

Saddam said he understands that the USG is determined to keep the oil flowing and to maintain its friendships in the gulf. What he cannot understand is why we encourage those who are damaging Iraq, which is what our gulf maneuvers will do.

Saddam said he fully believes the USG wants peace, and that is good. but do not, he asked, use methods which you say you do not like, methods like arm-twisting.

At this point Saddam spoke at length about pride of Iraqis, who believe in “liberty or death.” Iraq will have to respond if the U.S. uses these methods. Iraq knows the USG can send planes and rockets and hurt Iraq deeply. Saddam asks that the USG not force Iraq to the point of humiliation at which logic must be disregarded. Iraq does not consider the U.S. an enemy and has tried to be friends.

As for the intra-Arab disputes, Saddam said he is not asking the USG to take up any particular role since the solutions must come through Arab and bilateral diplomacy.

Returning to his theme that Iraq wants dignity and freedom as well as friendship with the U.S., he charged that in the last year there were many official statements which made it seem that the U.S. does not want to reciprocate. How, for example, Saddam asked, can we interpret the invitation for Arens to visit at a time of crisis in the gulf? Why did the U.S- defense minister make “inflammatory” statements?

Saddam said that the Iraqis know what war is, want no more of it- “do not push us to it; do not make it the only option left with which we can protect our dignity.”

President Bush, Saddam said, has made no mistake in his presidency vis-a-vis the Arabs. The decision on the PLO dialogue was “mistaken,” but it was taken under “zionist pressure” and, Saddam said, is perhaps a clever tactic to absorb that pressure.

After a short diversion on the need for the U.S. to consider the human rights of 200,000 Arabs with the same vigor and interest as the human rights of the Israelis, Saddam concluded by restating that Iraq wants American friendship “although we will not pant for it, we will do our part as friends.”[…]

[…]The ambassador thanked Saddam for the opportunity to discuss directly with him some of his and our concerns. president Bush, too, wants friendship, as he had written at the ‘id and on the occasion of Iraq’s national day[…]

[…]What is important is that the president has very recently reaffirmed his desire for a better relationship and has proven that by, for example, opposing sanctions bills. Here Saddam interrupted again. Laughing, he said there is nothing left for Iraq to buy in the U.S. Everything is prohibited except for wheat, and no doubt that will soon be declared a dual-use item- Saddam said (writer’s note: Saddam is here referring to the dual use vehicles and equipment Iraq bought from US during the Iran-Iraq war, bitterly implying the military exploitation of Iraq by the US), however, he had decided not to raise this issue, but rather concentrate on the far more important issues at hand.

Ambassador said there were many issues he had raised she would like to comment on, but she wished to use her limited time with the president to stress first president Bush’s desire for friendship and, second, his strong desire, shared we assume by Iraq, for peace and stability in the mid east. Is it not reasonable for us to be concerned when the president and the foreign minister both say publicly that Kuwaiti actions are the equivalent of military aggression, and then we learn that many units of the republican guard have been sent to the border?

Saddam said that was indeed a reasonable question. He acknowledged that we should be concerned for regional peace, in fact it is our duty as a superpower. “But how can we make them (Kuwait and UAE) understand how deeply we are suffering.”The financial situation is such that the pensions for widows and orphans will have to be cut. At this point, the interpreter and one of the notetakers broke down and wept[…]

[…] “I told Mubarak,” Saddam said, that “nothing will happen until the meeting,” and nothing will happen during or after the meeting if the Kuwaitis will at last “give us some hope.”‘[6]

The Kuwaitis obviously gave Iraq none… A desperate Saddam, left with no options ,would engage in a war he knew all too well was going to turn out to be self-destructive…

Hussein’s message to Bush was essentially an ultimatum. Iraq, impoverished by war, financially ravaged initially by war-loans  and subsequently by the petroleum policies of its “implacable friends”, was indirectly forced to yet another suicidal war. A few days after Saddam’s message was delivered to US leadership and with no actions taken to avoid the foreworned aggression, or to sooth Iraq’s plight, the Iraqis would invade Kuwait, one of the sacred oil cows of the U.S. The invasion marked the beginning of the end for the Iraqi dictator and initiated a new era of woes and suffering for the troubled Iraqi people.
The transatlantic axis reacted swiftly. U.S. petroleum interests were not to be challenged or threatened. U.S. and its allies possessed the means and the will to punish Iraq’s insurance.  The scene for the “Desert Storm” was set. All that was missing was political legalization for the predetermined war, a persuasive casus belli that would persuade the international public opinion of the imperativeness of war. Something that would move the masses. Something sensationalistic.

A Public Relations company would create that special something that the U.S. government was unable to find or fabricate: an excuse to attack the Iraqi forces. An alibi for a war that completely lacked any moral justification.
In October 1990 a fifteen-year Kuwaiti who became known as “nurse Nayirah”, gave an oral testimony before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that shook the world: according to her testimony, while she was volunteering in an Iraqi hospital’s (Al Adan) maternity ward, she saw Iraqi soldiers grabbing Kuwaiti babies from their incubators, removing the incubators and leaving the babies to die on the cold hospital floor. The Iraqi occupation’s horrors attracted a global outcry as expected.
A pro-war U.S. public opinion was shaped by Nayirah’s chilling story.
Her story gave the coalition forces the pretense they needed to attack Iraq and secure their petroleum interests in the region. But Nayirah’s story was just a story, a fable, a fabrication created not by a teenager’s vivid imagination but –as publicly claimed- by the mind-swaying skills of a PR firm.

It was later revealed that the teenage volunteer, little miss Nayirah, nurse Nayirah, refugee Nayirah was none other than Nayirah Al-Sabah, daughter of the then Kuwaiti ambassador Saud bin Nadir Al-Sabah in the U.S.[7] – not a refugee, not a volunteer, not an eye-witness to atrocious Iraqi war crimes, but a politically instigated person, and thus an instigator herself. An instrument of propaganda. A tool for coercion. A girl who was schooled in order to manipulate nations and drag them into a war.

Nayirah Al-Sabah was neither a volunteer nor a nurse. Her war crime stories were inspired by her brief visitation at the hospital during which she saw one baby outside its incubator in an incident that lasted “no more than a moment”[8]

Nayirah deceived the world. Her feat was probably not an accomplishment of a pathological liar but that of a professional one.

Nayirah appears to have been instructed by a P.R firm, Hill and Knowlton. The firm was employed by the “NGO” Citizens For a Free Kuwait (CFK), a front for the Kuwait government. CFK, the showcase of the Kuwaiti government, paid Hill and Knowlton with the staggering sum of $11.5 million for their services[9]. Millions of U.S. dollars would generate a cheap, yet very effective lie that would get the Kuwait government the results it desired: in January 1991  U.S. and coalition forces started their operations against the Iraqis.
An imaginary infanticide claim for a war that cost thousands of  lives. Although the war propaganda and its perpetrators were exposed no one would be held accountable, no one would take a fall for it.

Following the “Desert Storm” and the unavoidable defeat of the Iraqi forces, the victors of the war forced Iraq to pay Kuwait war compensations of billions of U.S. dollars, a sum which Iraq, in its miserable financial state, was totally incapable of paying.

The Iraqi failure to conform with the victors demands will lead to an international embargo against Iraq and to the implementation of a UN “humanitarian” program named “Oil for Food”. The embargo would prostrate the Iraqi people and rob them of the means to survive, the humanitarian “aid” would humiliate them and rob them of their petroleum riches. Hundreds of thousands Iraqi children would die to the embargo and to the “humanitarian” program. In 1999, Dennis Halliday resigned his post as head of the UN “Oil for Food” humanitarian farce. Not only was he courageous enough to quit a well paid and prestigious job, he also had the courage to stand up against the international community, to condemn the U.N sanctions and insist that they were breaching the international laws: “Four thousand to 5,000 children are dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions,” he said. “We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and

immoral.”[10] Halliday however could not tell the combination of the sanctions and the “humanitarian program” for what it really was: an indirect and genocidal pillage of the Iraqi petroleum revenues and a blatant exploitation of the Iraqi people.

After the first Gulf War and the sanctions imposed that followed it, Iraq ceased to exist  as an independent and sovereign country.   The Iraqi nation would have to wait 12 agonizing years for the coup de grace to be delivered in 2003. The second Gulf War would place terminally the Iraqi people in the long list of the victims of corporatocracy as multinational companies would make huge profits out of arms deals and the reconstruction of a steamrolled Iraq.
The second Gulf War (Operation Iraqi Freedom is) had much in common with the first. The names of the key players were the same in both wars: Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush Sr, George W. Bush Jr, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney. Both wars lacked any real political justification. In both invasions the casus belli would be fabricated. The only thing different the second time around was that the son of the president who attacked the Iraqis in 1991 served a slightly different agenda. G.W.Bush religiously Jr followed the megalomaniac and militaristic policies that the neocon think tank named Project for the New American Century deemed necessary for US to extend their unchallenged world leadership into the whole of the 21st century. The man who called himself the “War President” would forever dissolve the delusion of the “Pax Americana”, turning U.S. into a provocatively ultra-aggressive power in pursue of military world dominance, a policy  that would deeply hurt the U.S. imperium and mark it as one of the most short-lived universal empires in human history. Iraq would be the second and the last victim of the U.S. military world dominance fallacy.

The U.S. government could not launch a war against Iraq without public opinion consent. And U.S. public opinion was won over by a terrorist attack in the heart of America, far less known than the twin towers attacks: the anthrax letters.

After the coup of September 11, G.W.Bush Jr and staffers embarked on a global terror campaign against terrorism, the so called “war on terror”. Conveniently and favorably to that goal,  a few days after 9/11, letters containing the dangerous anthrax bacillus were sent to several strategic points of U.S. public life. The bioterroristic letters resulted in seven deaths. The anthrax letter attacks created a political epidemic of panic and terror that surged the U.S. from end to end, crippling critical thinking, afflicting even the most democratic elements of the US political scene. ABC persistently runs an unsubstantiated by hard facts and thus arbitrary story of Iraq being the culprit, the creator and the source of the anthrax letters. The ABC anti-Iraqi propaganda succeeds in turning the bioterroristic fear into Iraq-focused anger. War-mongers would once again turn Iraq into a sacrificial lamb.
The ABC network systematically disseminated an unfounded claim: ABC claimed that the anthrax letters contain bentonite, a rather common chemical substance that can be also used as an anticoagulant for anthrax spores. It also claimed that bentonite was the trademark of the Iraqi biological weapon program, pushing the Iraq-is-to-blame story even further.

The detailed ABC’s bentonite arguments were not only unverified and unfounded. They were also officially refuted.

The then spokesman for the White House Ari Fleisher categorically specified that no bentonite was found in the anthrax letters. This official statement cast a longer shadow on ABC’s credibility, methods and intentions.

The sources of the Iraqi involvement story, sources that ABC never named, could have been no other than the selected few U.S. bioweapons experts entrusted by the U.S. government with analyzing the deadly anthrax letters, the same people who informed Fleisher that no bentonite was found in them, the only ones who had access to the anthrax letters, the only source responsible for giving out information on the anthrax contained in the bioterror letters.
Ironically enough, several years later, FBI, having completely ruled out the impossible claim of the Iraqi involvement, would close in on one of the bioweapons experts that the US government chose for examining the anthrax letters… A likely suspect of the anthrax letters attacks was the one examining the letters of death on behalf of the U.S. Government. It appears that the anthrax letters must have been one the greatest bloopers in U.S. investigational history.

The war lies were uncovered long after the Iraqi people suffered their consequences.  As in the case of nurse Nayirah, in the anthrax letters case, the Iraqi Nation was falsely, malignly and deliberately accused of crimes it never committed and punished harshly as a result of purposeful fabrications, conspicuous propaganda and vicious machinations. And none among the propaganda masterminds and culprits faced the music for the wrongful deaths of hundreds of thousands Iraqis.

Despite official refutation, ABC stuck to its sad excuse of a story which was in turn instrumental in creating a war climate in the U.S. The U.S. citizens’ take on the story ABC pushed was not irrational: ABC contested that Iraq had essentially attacked the U.S. with bioweapons, a claim which –in combination with the Twin Towers tragedy- had cumulative effects on the U.S. psyche and stirred up war sentiments in the rather peace-loving U.S. population. Regarding their pro-war sentiments, the U.S. citizens can only be accused of naivety and  gullibility, for they swallowed a story that the media served them without questioning its credibility. They adopted a wrongful accusation without examining the outrageous media claims that shaped it. Once the US public opinion was deliberately coerced into believing that the U.S. was attacked by a foreign country, it had every right to defend itself with every means possible, even with an expansionary war. The only problem is that, in all likelihood, the U.S. was not attacked by a foreign country. Evidence leans toward a U.S. origin of the anthrax letters. The perpetrator must have been one or more U.S. insiders. Chances are that the actual perpetrator(s) was a U.S. bioweapons program insider. And though this type of evidence was available from the early days of the anthrax investigation, it was deliberately ignored to facilitate Bush’ war agenda:

In December 2001 the FBI uncovered that the U.S. military (more specifically, the USAMRIID) produced, processed and possessed anthrax powder.[11] For the first time the army was forced into admitting that it possessed this form of anthrax, a clear violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. The U.S. army claimed that the anthrax strains it possessed were unrelated to the strains contained in the deadly anthrax letters, denying any involvement in the bioterror attack. The claim was untrue.  In October 24 2001, the magazine New Scientist publicized the information that the strain of the anthrax letters was the Ames strain, a particular strain developed by the U.S. Army and USARMRIID.[12]

Through lies and propaganda, public opinion was turned.
The backdrop of war was already set up and the invasion in Iraq was already scheduled. Seven years later the FBI would tighten the investigation noose around Bruce Ivins, who was by then consider to be the prime suspect of the anthrax letters attacks. Ironically, Ivins was one of the key persons of the U.S. biodefence program and one of the few selected experts the U.S. Government employed to identify the strain of anthrax contained in the letters of death.  A likely perpetrator was employed to unearth the actual perpetrators.

The anthrax investigation ended abruptly with Ivins suicide in 2008. From the onset of the anthrax letters investigation it was evident that the anthrax strain used was a trademark of the U.S. bioweapons program and that the anthrax letters attacks were an inside job. Still, up this day, there is  no conclusive evidence of Ivins’ guilt other than his psychological profile and his involvement in the U.S. bioweapons program. Prior to Ivins’ incrimination, a colleague of his, Steven Hatfill suffered the burden of CIA suspicions to be acquitted and compensated.

Ivins might as well have been a scape goat. The dark players involved in the anthrax letters case might never be exposed. With Ivins dead and the case officially closed we may never learn of the actual perpetrators and instigators of an -in all likelihood- U.S. originating bioterrorist attack that changed the face of the world – for the worse.

After the anthrax letters attacks and the subsequent ABC propaganda, the U.S. public opinion was swayed, an insurmountable obstacle had been removed, yet Bush and his warlike gang had to make a strong case for war and present it to the international community as well.  And the argument for war would be the imaginary threat posed to the global community by the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The claim of the Iraqi WMD threat was preposterous to say the least. The U.S. knew very well that Iraq’s dilapidated economy was in no position to maintain its Weapons of Mass Destruction program, let alone modernize or expand. The WMD armory that Iraq developed during the 1980’s with the aid of the US[13] (in 2002, the British learned of the U.S. involvement on the development of the Iraqi WMD as well[14]) was pretty much used up for the goal of the Iran-Iraq war. After a decade of international sanctions and Iraqi famine, the Iraqi regime had no means nor an ambition to rebuild it. Nevertheless and regardless of the fact that all that was left of the Iraqi WMD program were stray remnants, the neocons were determined to get their hands to Iraq, ruin its remaining infrastructures and hand it over to corporations that would make a huge profit out of the lucrative business of reconstructing a war-stricken nation.

Since no evidence of the essentially inexistent Iraqi WMD program could be found, the U.S. would use their intelligence services family to fabricate it.
In 2005, a series of documents, referring to 2002 events and crucial talks that preceded the invasion, collectively known as the “Downing Street memo”[15], exhibited that (obviously regardless of WMD findings) the invasion in Iraq was predetermined

“ […] C (Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British Secret Intelligence Service) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran […]” [16]

In 2003 the CIA claimed that it finally “found” in an Iraqi territory the long-sought excuse for war: the “incriminatory evidence” were two “mobile biological warfare labs”. The CIA “findings” were politically exploited to the fullest. G.W.Bush Jr on January 28, 2003 and Colin Powell in his speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 relied on the mobile biological weapons laboratories allegation to make a “solid” case for war despite the fact that the CIA WMD findings were disputed and deemed unreliable, even absurd. If the UN Weapons Inspectors assessments about the extent and capacity of the Iraqi WMD armory are valid, the CIA claim of WND “findings” should have been immediately rejected. In June 2003 David Kelly, a very experienced bioweapons expert and a UN weapons inspector had the opportunity to see for himself and survey the alleged  “mobile biowarfare laboratories”. Dispirited from what he encountered he would later on relay -off the record- his sentiments to a British newspaper: “
They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.”[17]

After being caught in a political maelstrom concerning the “sexing up” of the Iraqi dossier by the British government that damaged his reputation and cast doubt on his loyalty, Kelly would be found dead in the woods on July 18 2003. The previous morning he had informed The New YorkTimes’ Judith Miller of “many dark actors playing games”[18] Like in the case of his US colleague Bruce Ivins, Kelly’s death would be attributed to suicide.

It is true that lies can kill.

After the lies of the “Iraqi” anthrax letters and the fabrication regarding the Iraqi “mobile biological warfare laboratories”, U.S. and coalition forces would invade an already worn out nation and tear it apart. None of the following weapons inspector reports confirmed or even hinted battle-worthy or even significant WMD Iraqi armaments. On January 23 2004, David Kay, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) -a fact-finding team that was sent in Iraq after the invasion with the mission of tracking down the alleged Iraqi WMD stockpiles- would resign. A once strong supporter of Iraqi WMD allegations would be quickly disillusioned during his expedition: “I don’t think they existed” Kay said. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.”[19]
The final report of the ISG, published on January 30, 2004 is in full accord with Kay’s thesis’: “
ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husain possessed WMD stocks in 2003”[20]

In 2005, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s longtime adviser and his chief of staff from 2002 to 2005 recalled a disarming and embarrassing phone call  from the then CIA Director George Tenet to the then Secretary of State Colin Powell. The content of the phone discussion sounded like a prank- unfortunately it was not. According to Wilkerson, Tenet “actually did call the Secretary (Powell), and said, ‘I’m really sorry to have to tell you. We don’t believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'” [21]

In 2005, it was revealed that CIA official Tyler Drumheller had  informed his superiors of the unreliability of the sole Iraqi WMD informant. Bush and Powell disregarded his warnings and went on with their war as planned (Powell later acknowledged that this information was never passed to him by the secret services). This was a war whose preparation and justification seemed like a contest of pathological liars. The winner of the contest would claim Iraq as his prize.

The war propaganda would gradually dissolve into its basic components: ill intentions, thin air and puppet mastering.

Some of its key players would later be honest enough to admit the dishonesty of the Iraq invasion.

On August 23, 2005, Wilkerson, Powell’s trusted advisor would admit of his role in the decisive 2003 Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council on Iraq’s WMD:
“I wish I had not been involved in it..” “I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life.”[22]

In September 2005, a regretful Colin Powell would express his feelings regarding his determination to back up the Iraq WMD allegations: “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”[23]

And it would become increasingly painful, as the historic truth was gradually -and painfully- restored: in February 2011 the source of the fabricated Iraq mobile biowarfare labs claim confessed publicly that he was lying. The Iraqi defector, the source who provided the witness upon which a case for war was constructed, the informant under the codename Curveball, the guy which col. Wilkerson attempted to expose as unreliable, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, confessed that he was simply lying. The Guardian has the story:

‘[…] Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or “Curveball” as his US and German handlers called him, admitted fabricating evidence of Iraq’s secret biological weapons program […]

“[…] In his adopted home of Germany, MPs are demanding to know why the BND, paid Curveball £2,500 a month for at least five years after they knew he had lied […]”

[…] Hans-Christian Ströbele, a Green MP, said Janabi had arguably violated a German law which makes warmongering illegal. Under the law, it is a criminal offence to do anything “with the intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially anything that leads to an aggressive war”, he said […]

[…] On 5 February 2003, a month before the invasion, (Colin) Powell went before the UN security council to make the case for war. In his speech he referred to “firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails… The source was an eyewitness who supervised one of these facilities”. It is now known that the source, Janabi, made up the story […]

[…] Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein’s bio-weapons capability[…]

[…] Curveball told the Guardian he welcomed Powell’s demand. “It’s great,” he said tonight. “The BND [German intelligence] knew in 2000 that I was lying after they talked to my former boss, Dr Bassil Latif, who told them there were no mobile bioweapons factories. For 18 months after that they left me alone because they knew I was telling lies even though I never admitted it. Believe me, back then, I thought the whole thing was over for me.

“Then all of a sudden [in the run up to the 2003 invasion] they came back to me and started asking for more details about what I had told them. I still don’t know why the BND then passed on my information to the CIA and it ended up in Powell’s speech […]”

(Powell told the Guardian:) […] “It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable. […] The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the NIE sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN […]”

[…] Further pressure on the CIA came from Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff at the time of the invasion. He said Curveball’s lies raised questions about how the CIA had briefed Powell ahead of his fateful UN speech.” ’[24]

Another lie for yet another war.

The Guardian finally restored part of the historic truth: Curveball was Gulf War’s II Nayirah. But in contrast to Nayirah Al-Sabah case what we still do not know about Janabi’s case, is who his instigator was.

It was surely painful for a military man like Powell to realize that he was manipulated and played along with an orchestrated plot bent on occupying Iraq.
But the pain Powell choices caused to millions of Iraqis is incomparable: an estimated 109,000 Iraqi people died because of the Operation Freedom Iraq and the subsequent occupation. 109,000 Iraqi people died, among whom 66,000 were civilians[25]. And as long as the US and allies continue to occupy Iraq, the death toll will  constantly be on the rise.
Within a time period of thirty years Iraq has known unthinkable sufferings: 100,000 Iraqis were killed during the Iran-Iraq war, 500,000 Iraqi children died because of the sanctions, 100,000 Iraqis dead because of the U.S. invasion and occupation.

Saddam Hussein, a cruel dictator had indeed committed genocide. He was executed for his crimes. U.S. corporate-driven expansionism has far exceeded Saddam’s deeds. Yet, it is the Iraqi people and not the perpetrators who receive the cruelest of punishments.

In regard to the two Gulf wars, truth has been distorted. Justice has been distorted. And while historic truth will be gradually restored, by then it will be too late for justice to be served.

[3] “Right to Survive: Human Rights in Nicaragua” The Catholic Institute for International Relations.

[5] United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994

[9] ibid

[11] FBI uncovers US military production of anthrax powder, by Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, 14 December 2001,

[12] Anthrax bacteria likely to be US military strain, by Debora Mckenzie, New Scientist, 24 October 2001

[13] “The Riegle Report”,United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994


[14] House of commons, Hansard Debates for 26 February 2003

[15] The Sunday Times, 5 May 2005, the Los Angeles Times, 12 May 2005, the Star Tribune,13 May 2005 , Associated Press,7 June 2005.

[24] The author took the liberty to rearrange the order of the Guardian excerpts to better suit his text. To avoid any misunderstanding of the author’s intentions It is crucial that the reader refers to the original Guardian article


Swine flu and the global vaccination propaganda- why now?

February 21, 2011 § 1 Comment

Public health policies are moving along two axes these days:

a) Obama’s health reform: the goal is to rationalize public health, cutting down costs, limit the intervention of middlemen and health brokers and create a health system that is more direct and accesable. The main reason for this turn in policies is relieve economy from ever increasing public health costs

b) Global vaccinations against the “new flu” which are obviously burdening global economy with extra “health” costs.

It is apparent that these policies are contradicting eachother. Still they coexist in the same time frame.

How can this be?

It is quite simple. They are two different policies envisioned by two different administrations. The first one was envisioned and executed by Obama’s administration, the second one was envisioned by the neocons who were pulling the strings of the G.W.Bush Jr administration, a catastrophic and plundering policy which is regretably followed by the Obama administration as well.

So the logical thing to ask is: why now? And what the heck has Bush politics to do with this mass vaccination propaganda?

After 9-11, the Bush administration embarked on a terror propaganda against “terrorism”. Later on, letters contaminated with anthrax were sent to strategic points of US public life, including congessmen and the press. Shock waves ran through the entire US, paralizing critical thinking and logical processing. ABC propagandists managed using unverified, contradictory anonumous sources to turn US public opinion against the Iraqi administration. A war was waged. 7 years latter the FBI were closing in on Bruce Ivins, considering him a possible perpetrator of the anthrax attacks. Ivins was a leading scientist in issues of biosafety and served as a scientific advisor in the question of the origin of the anthrax letters. It was clear from the very beginning that the anthrax strains enclosed were closely related to the USAMRIID and with the US “biosafety” program. Most available data indicate today that the anthrax letters were an inside job.

The aftermath: A war is declared, project bioshield is promoted, a project which is supposedly “strengthening” national biosafety but which at the same times relieves big pharma from liabilities in the case of public health emergencies!!!

In 2008 Bruce Ivins comitts suicide. Case closed.

Now what all these have to do with vaccines?

In 2002, under the atmosphere of terror and artificial “emergencies” crafted by the Bush administration, G.W.Bush tries to initiate a mass vaccination programm against smallpox. Smallpox is an eradicated disease, still, biological warfare program experts in the US and Europe know only too well of the Soviet extensive smallpox expirementation of the past. The 2002 unsuccesfull mass vaccination attempt was an obsolute echo of the biological factors armrace and a n attempt to revive the US bioweapon program and not a beneficial public health campaign.

The same goes for the bird flu scare. Two scientists, Tumbey and Taubenberger insist that the 1918 pandemic flu strain resempled currenlty circulating avian flu strains. The “1918 killer virus” is geneticaly reconstructed and stored in quantites. The US biological armament is strengthened with -what some experts consider to be- a deadly biological agent.

Anthrax and bird flu had everything to do with biowarfare, nothing to do with public health concerns.

Specialized biotech companies, tradiotional contractors of the US millitary like Battele and Acambis (let’s not forget that the US troops are subjected to extensive vaccinations provided by exactly these type of companies) are boosted financely and the strategic alliance between US armed forces and biotech industry is upgraded.

We allready know of the financial ties between Rumsfield and the tamiflu market. But what about vaccines? As we have allready exhibited, small biotech companies, US armed forces contractors, dominate the field of vaccine development prior to 2006. In 2006 there is going to be a huge turn in the vaccine industry. Amids the bird flu scare and encouraged by Bush Politics, Big Pharma made a strong comeback in the vaccine field.

Let’s see what DDW, Drug Development World remarked on the issue: But first lets get acquainted with DDW. According to DDW, “Over the last 8 years DDW has firmly established itself as a highly respected and the ‘must read’ journal within the drug discovery & development arena. DDW is renown for voicing the opinions of some of the Industry’s leading luminaries and has become a recognised platform for ‘Industry Gurus’ to talk about and encourage debate on some of the more challenging issues surrounding the technological and business facets of the biopharmaceutical industry. DDW adheres to the maxim ……’Turning Science into Business'” 1

So, lets examine their very own report entitled: “21st vaccines, a development rennaicence”

“…Vaccinations were widely accepted by the public, as a new spirit of compliance emerged, partly the result of militarisation and a heightened public trust in medicine… Before mass media, it was hard to shake the controversy surrounding vaccines that began in the 19th century… The military, it appeared, was the one institution that could coerce society into believing that vaccines were beneficial … Indeed, the US defence establishment was the innovator of inactivated influenza vaccine and helped to instill – through mandates and coercion – broad and deep acceptance of vaccines as a public good…

from 1949-1960 development slowed and only a handful of vaccines were developed for more than 30 years, beginning in the late 1960s. Due in part to …narrow profit margins… more than 90% of all vaccine manufacturers dropped out of the market by the late 1970s. Vaccine risks – always a part of the landscape for vaccines – became relatively more visible as the very diseases the vaccines prevented declined in incidence. In 1967, there were 26 companies making vaccines in the United States… By 2006, only five major firms remained in the market including Merck, sanofi-aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth and NovartisBy the turn of the 21st century a combination of technological, economic, social and political forces would come together to give rise to a vaccine development renaissance…

Politics and war have historically had an impact on vaccine acceptance. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy made vaccinations a key issue of his administration, and his interest in the immunisation programme established a pattern so that every time a Democratic administration took office over the next 32 years, public sector support for vaccination got a boost…

The influences of war, or in the example that follows terrorism, can be seen by examining the changes to vaccine development following the attacks of September 11, 2001. In December 2002, President George W. Bush received a smallpox vaccination as part of a public health campaign to immunise 10 million police and health workers against the disease by the fall of 2003, preparing the nation for a terrorist germ warfare attack. History has shown that fear motivates increases in vaccination of a population. With political influence, the CDC recommended the vaccination of 500,000 hospital workers, police officers, and firefighters in the first month of 2003, and 10 million others by the end of summer”

The Bigpharma think tank called DDW high lightened aspects of public health policies previously unknown to public opinion, and helped validate issues and arguments and data I ve been trying to demonstrate for years now. Novel pandemics are invented by an intricate plexus of powerbrokers, politicians, bigpharma interests and military leadership. A plexus that regards citizens as plankton meant to saturate their greed.

Bigpharma abstained from the high risk and low profit vaccine field for decades and did not re-enter it untill it was officialy invited to it by the Bush administration, an administration that did everything in its power to pave the way and remove all obstacles for the industry’s impressive comeback. In 2006 bigpharma is re-entering the vaccine industry with massive take overs, mergures and heavy investments. Once bigpharma took control of the vaccine industry it would procceed in overiding public opinion vaccine reluctance. A global pandemic fear campaign orchestrated by international and national health organisations would neutralize critical thinking and allow powerbrokers to enforce destructive publich health policies in the name of safety.

Hence the 2006 bird flu scare, hence the 2009 swine flu scare, hence the 2009 global vaccination program and propaganda. Bigpharma invested in fear and they sought to capitalize on it. They were succesfull.

This is in brief the modern socioeconimic history of the pandemic and pandemic vaccination propaganda.

Its science is all together different issue and it is widely disputed. Lets examine some of its less known aspects.

Lets talk about “immune potentiators”, or simply and more familiarly “vaccine adjuvants”. Those are a spectrum of chemical substances. Without the addition of adjuvants in the vaccine, sometimes no immune reaction is elicited.

They call vaccine adjuvants “immune potentiators”. Clearly they are not. Have you ever heard of these substances used in AIDS and immune defeciencies in general, have you heard of these specific substances being used to potentiate the immune system to fight off infections? Offcourse not. Because vaccine adjuvants do not “potentiate” or “enable” the immune system to react. They force it to do so. It is a kind of the vaccinology’s Bush politics, an immunological blackmail. If you don’t do it on your own, we ll force you to do it, because We know what’s best for you.

They make the immune system go heyware, obliging it to perceive as a threat an antigenic stimulous that it would possibly ignore and not respond to. This is blackmail, not guidance or aid. It is brute force exerted blindly.

Before we return to the immune system lets examine another aspect of the “swine flu” science and expose the name of the game revealing the game of the name as well. They call chemicals “immune potentiators”, something they are clearly not. They used to call this flu swine flu but they changed the name under the pressure exerted by the meat lobby, as swine flu was hurting pork exports and sales. In science as we used to know it, terms are attempted to be as precise as possible. Politics distort the name of things and the essence of names and terms. For example, most dictatorships call themselves democracies. Distortion and cover ups is a political thing, not a scientific one. Swine flu and vaccines have nothing to do with science, yet they have everything to do with Politics.

Now let’s return to science and the philosophy of science.

The immune system, along side with the nervous system are the more sophisticated and complex systems because they have to cope with an ever changing externall realitty. The immune system has to constantly realize and translate biochemical signals to immune responses or no responses at all. It is a velvet shield that does not suffocate us, that allows us to breath, to eat, to interact. It is not perfect, it is not bulletproof but most of the times it carries a wisdom that extends far beyond our current capacity to understand the Cosmos: the wisdom of life, of a highly succesfull force that terroformed planet earth, that mastered the inorganic, that created the atmosphere that supports life.

It is the infinite wisdom and awesome power of life, and life’s wisdom governs the immune system. And we know s..t about both.

So the immune system has to be responsive and flexible. And what a great job it has done so far. We still exist and flourish patrly due to our higly succesfull immune systems.

When it comes to well defined organisms whose behavour and interactions have been well recorded, it is ok to give the immune system a little tip about them.

But when it comes to these living variables called viruses, higly mutatable, not constant in their genetic make up and our incompetence to predict “random mutations” (that’s why scientists call them random, because we just can’t tell) it would be wiser to let things take their natural course and let the flexible immune system and not stiff politics decide.

Directed immuno responses make sence only in a totally controlled enviroment. And we, humans, may be succesfull parasites that have created artificial macroenviroments and extinguised almost all other macro-life forms in our cities, replaced ecosystems with techosystems, but we can not do the same to the micro-life-cosm, or to the realm of viruses. With a few exceptions, we are unable to destroy all micro-life forms. Complete sterilization is impossible. And we know from scientific studies, that people who grow up in “sterile” enviroments are more susceptible to allergies and autoimmune diseases. There immune system is virgin, naïve and like a virgin or a naïve person, it can be more easily deceived.

We can not even begin to imagine creating totally sterile or totally controlled condtions in the microenviroment. And that means that directed immunoresponses are not only uselless but extremelly dangerous to our future survival.

Like in macro ecosystems, where imbalance and mass destruction of the ecosystems’ architecture occurs when a species from an allien ecosystem arrives, survives and prevails, in human populations, epidemics occur when a “new”, “allien” microorganism arrives, survives and prevails. This much afraid invader of our artificial world will probably originate from artificiality as well, not from nature. The “allien” will have been created or “mutated” due to the extent and the depth of human intervention in nature, even in human nature.

By insisting on “directed immune response” the architecture of our immune shield might collapse. When we make a shield less flexible, when we stiffen it or harden it selectively in certain points, the shield, if delivered a heavy blow at another unfortified point, might shutter.

We are not only making our immune system crazy with chemical vaccine adjuvants (hence Gullain Barret and thousands of possible unrecorded vaccine indused autoimmune cases), we are also making it less flexible and responsive thus weaker in the longterm.

And pretty much like the destruction of the enviroment, we will not realize the extent of destruction we have caused in the human populations until it is too late.

Every human being is a complete ecosystem comprised of friendly microrganisms like the intestinal flaura, by bacterialy originated mitochondria. Part of our DNA is of viral origin. If we don’t understand the nature of things, artifiacility will unmake us. That’s what ecology has taught us, a very hard lesson we stubournly refuse to learn.

The industry’s masterplans and intentions are clear by now- crystall clear. They have made up their minds about drying this planet of resourses and life.

They have made up their minds.

They have declared war on everything.

They, have made up, their minds

What about us? Have we decided yet which side to take?


The Therapeutic Use of Cannabis

February 21, 2011 § Leave a comment

Cannabis has been with us for thousands of years and it has served us well. We depended on her to make clothes, ropes, to take some of the pain and stress away and sometimes even to float away from everyday’s life worries into the unexplored space between words and ideas. Though recreational use of cannabis is not supported or suggested by the writer, the therapeutic use of cannabis is an altogether different issue.

The use of cannabis has been for the most of human history well accepted both culturally and medically.

Cannabis demonization was motivated by social prejudices and racial discrimination. In the early 20th century it was used to barricade the US from Mexican immigrants and later on from African American Jazz Musicians and the “evil” and “immoral” culture they were generating. Cannabis illegalization was promoted by Randolph Hearst who did not want cannabis as an antagonist in the paper business, and pharmaceutical companies who did not want to compete with a cheap and easily accessed – even homegrown painkiller.163 As it is now, back then arguments did not have to be truthful to win over the support and sympathy of public opinion. They only had to appear credible and use fear and loathing to appeal not to the intellect but rather to the most primitive part of human nature. Even when people are unable to respond and conform to reason they can easily understand and comply to fear.

Today, thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens are imprisoned as common criminals and thousands of patients are denied the therapeutic benefits of cannabis because of a social stigma that was adhered to it and a prohibitory culture which was, is and will be contradicting personal rights and freedom of choice.

Cannabis is not harmless. With the exception of side effects related not to cannabis itself but to respiratory problems associated with smoking, most of them are mild and fleeting. Still cannabis use may have some more severe implications like worsening the progression of liver fibrosis, triggering psychotic episodes,164 causing subtle immune suppression.165 But even some of these side effects can be turned into diagnostic and more easily therapeutic opportunities: cannabis-induced psychotic episodes have been suggested to have prognostic psychiatric value,166 whereas the endocannabinoids’ system immunomodulatory properties can inaugurate a whole new chapter in autoimmune disease therapeutics: the cannabinoid system in the central nervous system has been shown to regulate autoimmune inflammation, implying possible cannabinoid manipulation and treatment of multiple sclerosis!167 Cannabinoids are also being investigated for the treatment of other autoimmune disorders and allergies.168 The active component of cannabis, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has been found to inhibit the formation of “Alzheimer’s plaques”, slowing or possibly halting the progression of this virtually untreatable debilitating disease. According to the research team:

Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Aβ aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.169

Another study exhibited nerve growth promotion in the hippocampus of rats induced by the combination of high dosages of a synthetic cannabinoid alongside with the endocannabinoid anandamide.170 Cannabis compounds have also shown a potential in the inhibition of lung (in vitro and animal models),171 breast172 and brain cancer. In brain cancer especially, THC promoted cancer cell autophagy leaving healthy cells intact.173

A brand new brave world of cannabinoid therapeutic possibilities and options lies ahead of us. Cannabis is also invaluable in chronic or drug-resistant pain management and general quality of living of patients with chronic health conditions. Despite the mild cannabis-induced immune suppression that is probably a counter-indication for AIDS patients, cannabis use was found to be beneficial both in AIDS anorexia and in AIDS related neuropathic pain.174 175 Cannabis use has been shown to be beneficial also in nausea (especially drug-resistant cancer-chemotherapy induced nausea), vomiting, weight loss, premenstrual syndrome. Antioxidant properties have also been attributed to it.

After the illegalization of cannabis, medicalization happened to it. Instead of licensing patients in need of cannabis to even grow it at controlled amounts for personal therapeutic use, cannabis became a drug-industry property and cannabinoid compounds such as Nabinol, Marinol and Sativex that don’t have the much-wanted immediate symptom relieving effects that the inhalation of vaporized cannabis possesses have been promoted as legal medical forms of cannabis. Who’s next? Tea, chamomile, peppermint?

The benefit/risk ratio of cannabinoid compounds and of cannabis herself is very attractive and superior to that of other drugs employed to treat severe medical conditions. Cannabis appears to be “a miraculous” multitask therapeutic agent and its therapeutic use should be and would be heralded by scientists, patients and relatives worldwide. Instead, the social and legal stigma that has been attributed to her has inhibited relative research. It is once again a matter of politics against science, of prejudice against reason, of myths against facts. Who in his right mind would compare or downsize Alzheimer’s disease or cancer or chronic drug-resistant pain, or multiple sclerosis to the side effects of cannabis use?

The hundreds of therapeutic applications, implications and possibilities of cannabis, even in conditions that there are no attractive, or not so effective or no therapeutic alternatives at all leaves us in awe of the extent to which human stupidity and stubbornness, political and financial mannerism and indecency, scientific cowardice and subjugation are halting medical progress.

ADHD – A Disease in the Definition

February 21, 2011 § 4 Comments

ADHD – A Disease in the Definition

“Fetch,” I enthusiastically shouted but to no avail.

The ball passed by a disinterested dog and landed to the grass some yards away from him, unchallenged, unclaimed.

OK, I was the one who was doing the fetching. Again.

I kneeled and patted the dog softly on his head.

“What’s wrong with you, boy? Why can’t you be just like all other normal dogs and go fetch a ball? Is that too much to ask for a dog?”

The dog looked meaningfully at the far side of the park and off he was to his favorite butterfly chasing.

This dog is never going to make anything great of himself. He should become a poet but dogs don’t get to become poets, I thought sorrowfully, but kept the thoughts to myself not to hurt his feelings.

But I wasn’t the only one with problems or the only one who was keeping thoughts to himself not to hurt other people’s feelings. At the direction that the dog was facing a moment ago there was a father standing, throwing a softball at his son, waiting for him to strike it with his clumsily-held baseball bat.

But the boy was clearly not interested in baseball. He appeared to be interested in everything else, the grass, the dog, the butterflies, me, but not the ball. The ball landed on the grass, some yards from the boy, unchallenged, unclaimed.

It was as if I could hear the father’s disappointment resounding in my head: Why can’t you just be like all other normal boys and hit a ball? Is that too much to ask for a boy?

Then it struck me, almost as hard as a baseball bat: the dog and the boy were co-patients. I mean I may not be a psychiatrist, but it was crystal clear even to the eyes of the untrained, wasn’t it? The boy and the dog shared the same medical condition: ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.

Four letter medical abbreviations were almost a perfect match for three letter words like boy or kid and, hey, why not a dog?

I was thrilled with my finding. I had killed with the ADHD diagnosis two birds, well not two birds but rather a boy and a dog.

I dashed home to go refresh my DSM, the Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently in its fourth edition. I opened the psychiatric bible, the great book that defines and separates the good from the damaged, the ordinary people from the deranged, the normal fellows from the nutcases, the functional from the certifiable, the people who are allowed a certain degree of exercising their free will from the cuckoos that need to be checked, supervised, restrained or regulated.

There it was: instant enlightenment. According to DSMIV, ADHD is defined as a:

persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity—impulsivity that is more frequently displayed and more severe than is typically observed in individuals at a comparable level of development.

In science it is critical for definitions to define the conditions or terms they attempt to define as thoroughly as possible.

So what is it then? Inattention or hyperactivity? Both? A bit of the one and a bit of the other? A racemic mixture of them? It is obvious that the two terms are not identical, and more often than not seem to even contradict each other. Hyperactivity does require attention in the very thing they want to be active in, with a corresponding disinterest in the thing you want them to be interested in. Normal people who are not interested in something will naturally find their attention shift away. If it shifts away quickly, is that a disorder? Do people who lose interest quickly, with their attention also shifting away quickly to something else, really have a disorder or a disorder related to being impulsive? Yet the same kids can run around and play games that they like.

And so let’s look at it again: “…impulsivity that is more frequently displayed and more severe than is typically observed…”

More frequently displayed… Meaning? How often, I mean like every ten seconds, every minute, every hour? And what about “severe impulsivity”? What does severe impulsivity mean? To be honest I have never heard a human creature accusing another as being severely impulsive. Too impulsive for his own good perhaps, but severely impulsive? And what is the golden standard to which ADHD persons are compared to? But of course the typically observed impulsivity. The typically observed impulsivity. It has a nice ring to it as if it was meaning or describing or actually defining anything. What behavior is typical? Or perhaps the definition refers to typical observers, or to typical acceptance amongst typical experts on what constitutes typical behavior? Where do they come up with such ill-defined definitions of illness?

And that brings us to critically look at what is to be typical? Was Einstein typical? Was Newton typical? Was Leonardo da Vinci typical? Was Galileo typical? And do you want to be typical? An impulsive response may not be typical but is it always part of a disorder? And what disorderly biochemistry typifies it?

A typical impulsivity in Harvard Law School is not the same as the typical impulsivity in the streets of Harlem. The typical modern behavior has nothing to do with the typical Victorian behavior. Things that are considered scandalous or way out of limits in one place today were considered as normal, accepted, well tolerated and even expected in other societies of the past and the present and vice versa…


Read more in: Pulp Med, coming out in June 24 2011, by O-books

The placebo effect: a neglected phenomenon

February 21, 2011 § Leave a comment

One of the most commonly used terms in medical language is the word placebo. The placebo effect is used as a scale for evaluating the effectiveness of new drugs. But what exactly is the placebo effect and what are its consequences in the deterministic structure of Western medicine? The placebo effect has been frequently abused by health professionals to denote and stigmatize a fraud or fallacy. Alternative therapies have often been characterized as merely placebos. But the placebo effect is not a fraudulent, useless or malevolent phenomenon. It occurs independently of the intentions of charlatans or health professionals. It is a spontaneous, authentic and very factual phenomenon that refers to well-observed but uninterpreted and contingent therapies or health improvements that occur in the absence of an active chemical/pharmacological substance. Make-believe drugs – drugs that carry no active chemical substances – often act as the real drugs and provoke therapeutic effects when administered to patients. In many drug trials, the manufacturers of the drug sadly discover that their product is in no way superior to the effect of a placebo. But that does not mean that a placebo equates to a null response of the human organism. On the contrary, a placebo denotes nonchemical stimuli that strongly motivate the organism towards a therapeutic course. That is, the placebo effect is dependent not on the drug’s effectiveness but solely on therapeutic intention and expectation.

Effects of positive and negative thinking

The placebo effect has been often misunderstood as a solely psychological and highly subjective phenomenon. The patient, convinced of the therapy’s effectiveness, ignores his symptoms or perceives them faintly without any substantial improvement of his health; that is, the patient feels better but is not healthier. But can the subjective psychological aspect of the placebo effect account for all of its therapeutic properties? The answer is definite: the placebo effect refers to an alternative curative mechanism that is inherent in the human entity, is motivated by therapeutic intention or belief in the therapeutic potential of a treatment, and implies biochemical responses and reactions to the stimulus of therapeutic intention or belief.

But placebos are not always beneficial: they can also have adverse effects. For example, administering a pharmacologically inactive substance to some patients can sometimes bring about unexpected health deteriorations. A review of 109 double-blind studies estimated that 19% of placebo recipients manifested the nocebo effect: unexpected deteriorations of health.1 In a related experiment, researchers falsely declared to the volunteers that a weak electrical current would pass through their head; although there was no electrical current, 70% of the volunteers (who were medical students) complained of a headache after the experiment.2

In a group of patients suffering from carotid atherosclerosis, prognosis and progression of the disease were burdened when their psychological health was bad (i.e., they were affected by hopelessness or depression). In another group of carotid atherosclerosis patients, prognosis and progression were burdened not only by hopelessness but also by hostility.3 In patients with coronary heart disease, hopelessness was a determinative risk factor.4 Social isolation, work stress and hostility comprised additional risk factors.5

Positive or negative thinking seems to be a decisive risk factor for every treatment, perhaps even more important than medical intervention.

The nocebo effect appears to have a specific biological substrate. A group of 15 men whose wives suffered from terminal cancer participated in a small perspective study. After their wives’ deaths, the men experienced severe grief that caused immunodepression. The spouses’ lymphocytes for a period of time after their wives’ deaths responded poorly to mitogens.

Grief had assaulted their immune system. The study proposed that grief and grief-induced immunodepression resulted in high level mortality of the specific group.6

A short history of a small miracle

The term placebo (meaning “I shall please”) was used in mediaeval prayer in the context of the phrase Placebo Domino (“I shall please the Lord”) and originated from a biblical translation of the fifth century AD.7 During the 18th century, the term was adopted by medicine and was used to imply preparations of no therapeutic value that were administered to patients as “decoy drugs”. The term began to transform in 1920 (Graves),8 and through various intermediate stages (Evans and Hoyle, 1933;9 Gold, Kwit and Otto, 1937;10 Jellinek, 194611) was fully transformed in 1955 when it finally claimed an important portion of the therapeutic effect in general. Henry K. Beecher, in his 1955 paper “The Powerful Placebo”, attributed a rough percentage of 30% of the overall therapeutic benefit to the placebo effect.12 In certain later studies, the placebo effect was estimated at even higher, at 60% of the overall therapeutic outcome. In a recent review of 39 studies regarding the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs, psychologist Guy Sapirstein concluded that 50% of the therapeutic benefits came from the placebo effect, with a poor percentage of 27% attributed to drug intervention (fluoxetine, sertaline and paroxetine). Three years later Sapirstein, along with a fellow psychologist Irving Kirsch, processed the data from 19 double-blind studies regarding depression and reached an even higher percentage of therapeutic results attributed to the placebo effect: 75% depression therapies or ameliorations were placebo induced!13

Hróbjartsson and Gotzsche (2001,14 200415) doubted the effectiveness of the placebo phenomenon, attributing it solely to the subjective factors of human psychology. And indeed, there is a major aspect of the placebo effect related to psychology. In two studies where placebos were exclusively administered, the placebo effect seemed to be effected from the subject’s perception of the applied therapy, i.e., two placebo pills were better than one, bigger pills were better than smaller, and injections were even better.16 The placebo induced a reaction not only to the therapy but also to its form, suggesting that the placebo phenomenon is shaped according to the personal symbolic universe of the patient. Before the placebo response occurs, human perception has already interpreted the applied therapy and has prepared a certain response to it. It would appear that not only chemical but also non-chemical stimuli participate in the motivation of the human organism towards therapy. But is the placebo reaction solely a psychological phenomenon or does it have additional tangible somatic effects? One of the more dramatic events regarding placebo therapy was reported in 1957 when a new wonder drug, Krebiozen, held promise as the final solution to the cancer problem. A patient with metastatic tumors and with fluid collection in his lungs, who demanded the daily intake of oxygen and the use of an oxygen mask, heard of Krebiozen. His doctor was participating in Krebiozen research and the patient begged him to be given the revolutionary drug. Bent by the patient’s hopelessness, the doctor did so and witnessed a miraculous recovery of the patient. His tumors melted and he returned to an almost normal lifestyle.

The recovery didn’t last long. The patient read articles about Krebiozen’s not delivering what it promised in cancer therapy. The patient then had a relapse; his tumors were back. His doctor, deeply affected by the aggravation, resorted to a desperate trick. He told his patient that he had in his possession a new, improved version of Krebiozen. It was simply distilled water. The patient fully recovered after the placebo treatment and remained functional for two months. The final verdict on Krebiozen, published in the press, proved the drug to be totally ineffective. That was the coup de grâce for the patient, who died a few days later.17 In spite of the melodrama of the Krebiozen case, there is no single case or personal testimony that can denote or prove a therapy to be effective. Statistical studies, not personal testimonies, can verify a proposed therapy’s effectiveness, and well planned studies are able to concur that the placebo phenomenon has somatic properties. One such study was implemented in 1997. The two study groups consisted of patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. One group took actual medication while the control group received placebo treatment. The placebo recipients reported relief from their symptoms and even amelioration of their urinary function.18 A placebo has also been reported to act as a bronchodilator in asthmatic patients, or to have the exact opposite action—respiratory depression—depending on the description of the pharmacological effect the researchers gave to the patients and therefore the effect the patients anticipated.19 A placebo proved highly efficient against food allergies and, subsequently, impressively effective in the sinking of biotechnologies on the stock market. How could that be? Peptide Therapeutics Group, a biotech company, was preparing to launch on the market a novel vaccine for food allergies. The first reports were encouraging. When the experimental vaccine reached the clinical trials stage, the company’s spokesperson boasted that the vaccine proved effective in 75% of the cases—a percentage that usually suffices to prove a drug’s effectiveness. But the good news didn’t last long. The control group, given a placebo, did almost as well: seven out of 10 patients reported getting rid of their food allergies. The stock value of the company plunged by 33%. The placebo effect on food allergies created a nocebo

effect on the stock market!20 In another case, a genetically designed heart drug that raised high hopes for Genentech was clobbered by a placebo.21 As aptly put by science historian Anne Harrington, placebos are “ghosts that haunt our house of biomedical objectivity and expose the paradoxes and fissures in our own self-created definitions of the real and active factors in treatment.”22 The placebo’s pharmacomimetic behavior can even imitate a drug’s side effects. In a 1997 study of patients with benign prostate hypertrophy, some patients on a placebo complained of various side effects ranging from impotence and reduced sexual activity to nausea, diarrhea and constipation. Another study reported placebo side effects as including headaches, vomiting, nausea and a variety of other symptoms.23

The placebo effect in surgery…


Read more in: Pulp Med, coming out in June 24 by O-books

Mitochondria, Self, Health and the Universe

February 21, 2011 § 2 Comments

One fundamental characteristic of the current civilization is selfishness permeating all levels and spheres of human existence: from the individual perceptions of being, to the social implications of co-existing, to the economic theories of managing and turning co-existence into a profitable network, to the environmental issues of ecologic co-dependence and to the scientific innovations that promote knowledge in all of the aforementioned fields and in even more, selfishness has governed and spawned most of the theories and practices that we today encounter. This solipsism, this egomania, this perception that only I and Mine exist and are worth serving, saving and caring for has already created huge financial problems with the 2008 crash, and is creating even huger environmental problems that no one can confidently predict if and how we are going to be able to resolve and restore balance to our cosmos. In other words, this approach, though a sometimes admirable driving force of the Western world, has an innate limitation: it considers expansion of “self” and exploitation of others as limitless. But since space exploration is underdeveloped, for the next decades we are bound to live in a “sphere” called earth, a world whose limits are well defined and known, a limited world not a limitless one. When expansion has reached exhaustion, when new sources, ideas, innovations, markets, technological breakthroughs are hard to find, when “self” has expanded to such a degree that it can no longer transpose or transfer or dump its problems into new grounds, into fresh “others”, once self has become almost “everything”, at least everything it knows and owns of the cosmos, than “self” has to encounter all of the problems of the “others” that it has by now conquered, phagocytosed, incorporated. And when this time comes, “self” is left only two options (actually only one but for the sake of argument we’ll propose that there are two). One is to try to survive by metamorphosing, to become more introvert, reinvest some of the dynamics of the expansionistic aggressiveness onto solving the internal problems by creating more detailed and extensive networks and regulations and attempt to stabilize and redefine this uncontrollable “self”. This is a model of internal expansion, of expansion within one’s self, an introspective approach. The other is to attempt to expand further at the same or higher rate than previously when expansion is no longer viable and to ultimately collapse, collapse onto itself like a black hole.

There are many paradigms that attest to the nature and outcome of expansion in a limited world. It begins with marvelous aggression, almost unobstructed, until it reaches its limits. Historically, all universal empires collapsed from within, when they could no longer sustain expansion. Rome lasted longer because it transformed some of its aggression into administration. In cosmology, if expansion speed does not overcome the escape velocity, the world will contract (and finally collapse), possibly back into a universal pre-Big Bang state. In biology, a cell culture grows geometrically until the nutrient substrate is exhausted. Then the culture starves to death and diminishes (in a sense collapses onto itself) until the proper ratio of available nutrients is restored. In the sociologic and financial Malthusian model, overpopulation can exhaust the planet’s available resources and lead to war, famine or both, again in a sense collapsing onto itself (off course Malthus took into consideration only overpopulation and not – as he should have done – also overexploitation).

That is what universally happens when expansion is no longer sustainable but it is still perceived as indefinite: collapse.

The sense of self and infinite expansion onto others has these implications in all other aspects of human activity and thought. But what about medicine?

Medicine and biology in general is fraught with selfish perceptions. From the Darwinian survival of the fittest to the neo-Darwinian selfish gene, from antidrugs (antibacterial, antiviral, anticancer etc.) to a genetically governed world, all these disciplines teach us of is Self. Self is good and must be preserved, non-self must be destroyed or controlled. Even cancer, which is a bizarre immortal yet often lethal and ultimately self-destructive expression of self, is treated by medicine as a non-self, as the enemy that has to be destroyed. Since the human body is limited and well defined, expansionism is expressed in exerting control and destroying the others. But even this introvert by nature expansion of self has limitations. Because – as the immune system knows all too well – the notion of self in medicine cannot be taken literally.

Our own genome consists also of incorporated inert (most of the time) viral genetic material. Our own intestinal flora consists of non-self bacteria, vital for our survival and well-being. And our own cells contain cell organelles that billions of years ago were non-self and still are not completely subjected to our cellular government of the nucleus.

We call them mitochondria. They are our power plants. They are matriarchally inherited to us. They have their own DNA (mtDNA) which is independent from our “core” DNA, the biological essence of our being and fate as “macho” medicine wants us to believe. They are not just organelles that are centrally and absolutely governed by core DNA. They are essentially symbiotes, merged with our viscera in our cellular ancestors billions of years ago, giving us now the energy we depend upon in order to live.78

When needed they multiply to provide our tissues with additional energy. But their DNA is also more sensitive than core DNA. They don’t have the complexity and the longitude of the core DNA repair system. So they get damaged more easily. And when they get damaged or depleted they can lead to or get involved in any type of non-infectious disease states one can imagine. Imagine a factory without power or with a shortage of power. It can be completely dysfunctional or the administration can choose to shut down sectors to save power for the most important ones. Some or all workers in the factory will work in the dark. Occupational accidents will happen. If there is a general power our shortage, the factory, no matter what the administration decides to do, will dysfunction or ultimately shut down. Our civilization will be seriously impaired or shut down if faced with serious energy shortages. There is no need to argue that our body will definitely do the same, deteriorate or die.

There are few to thousands of mitochondria in each cell. Each mitochondrion in turn contains multiple copies of mtDNA. This variable mitochondrial numerology has many implications and complications for health and for disease expression, duration, extent and severity. As it has been accurately described in the proceedings of the June 2008 NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke June 2008 workshop on Mitochondrial Encephalopathies and potential relationship to Autism:

“…mutations in mtDNA may affect all copies of mtDNA (homoplasmy), but frequently they only affect some copies (heteroplasmy). Since the many copies of mtDNA are distributed randomly between daughter cells during cell division, heteroplasmy can lead to significant variation in the proportion of mutated mtDNA over time and across different organs or tissues. This variation in mutation load can influence the clinical expression of mitochondrial disease. Heteroplasmy may also complicate the diagnosis of mtDNA diseases because the causative mutation may be present in only some tissues, such as specific brain regions or specific muscles, and not in others, such as blood or hair. In addition, an individual’s mtDNA haplotype can modify the effect of pathogenic mutations in mitochondrial genes. More broadly, mtDNA haplotypes may also modify susceptibility for diseases in which mitochondrial dysfunction may not be a primary cause, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and some cancers and neurodegenerative diseases.”79

One has to understand the complexity and the diversity of mitochondrial involvement in health and disease states. Mitochondrial deficiency, damage, inefficiency, mutation or any combination of the previous mitochondrial states does not manifest itself homogeneously, and may effect certain cells or tissues of the body or be systemic or even catholic. It may be sudden or slow or cataclysmic or acute or chronic or degenerative, episodic, chronic or both, triggered or remain “dormant”, with mild or severe symptoms or no symptoms at all or with subclinical symptoms that may not be necessarily associated to a disease state, such as fatigue and restlessness. It might contribute to other disease states or be affected by other disease states. It might even be associated with dysmotility, migraine, depression,80 anxiety,81 mood or other psychiatric disorders.82 In depression and especially in depression with somatization low energy production and mitochondrial dysfunction has also been indicated.83 The reverse process, that is whether depression with somatization causes mitochondrial dysfunction which in turn aggravates depression, should be also examined as this loop is in accordance with the “positive feedback” depression, low self-esteem and reduced motivation and physical mobility progression. And it is not only about non-infectious diseases. Infectious diseases can also cause direct damage to mitochondria complicating things even further.84 And there has been a novel discovery indicating that mitochondria play also a vital role in immune response and thus that mitochondria are vital in fighting off infections and especially RNA-Viral infections such as flu, hepatitis, West Nile Virus, SARS (and possibly the so-called HIV infection). A protein named MAVS (Mitochondrial Anti-Viral Signaling protein) located in mitochondrial membrane plays an initial role in triggering immune response against viruses:

The researchers modified normal cells so that the cells could not produce the MAVS protein, which is short for Mitochondrial Anti-Viral Signaling protein. Without MAVS, the cells were highly vulnerable to infection with two common viruses in a class called RNA viruses  Other RNA viruses include hepatitis C, West Nile, SARS and the flu viruses.
Cells altered to produce an overabundance of MAVS were protected from dying from viral infection.85

On the other hand, one of the key elements of the biochemical chain of events that comprise an immune response (co-triggered, as suggested, by MAVS) is interferon. Interferon has the ability to inhibit mitochondrial DNA expression and therefore function. As research suggests: We showed previously that type I interferon causes a down-regulation of mitochondrial gene expression. We show here that IFN treatment leads to functional impairment of mitochondria…

Possibly as a consequence of the inhibitory effect on mitochondrial gene expression, treatment with interferon causes a reduction in cellular ATP levels. The inhibition of cellular growth by interferon may thus be partly a consequence of a reduction in cellular ATP levels.”86 Furthermore there has been some mitochondrial involvement indicated in autoimmune diseases.87

So, in this long chain of events and counter-events, of effects and counter-effects, it is very hard to distinguish cause from effect, first from second. The mitochondrial realm is not governed by some linear strictly-deterministic rational, but it rather works in circular patterns with intertwining positive and negative feedback mechanisms. It is not about intervention, it is about balance. It is not about attacking or prohibiting. It is about regulating, coordinating and tuning. It is not only about finding and defining. It is about understanding, understanding the big picture. And these are tasks that the overspecialized lab-rat scientist will fail to address over and over again, tasks that Big Pharma will either ignore or conceal.

One has to completely understand that any kind of non-infectious, infectious, immune, autoimmune, acute, chronic health conditions, large or small, direct or indirect, primary or secondary may present mitochondrial involvement…

Read more in “Pulp Med”, coming out on June 24 2011 by O-books

Unpublished: Excerpt from: A heart’s silent courage

February 16, 2011 § Leave a comment

A heart’s silent courage

Peter Arguriou

I think I can still remember the first thing I was able to grasp. It was a pounding sound, a beat, it was a heartbeat. My mother’s heartbeat.

I had no thoughts back then, just sensations and dreams. I could perfectly feel everything my mother could feel, even feelings and sensations that were not accessible to her conscious mind.

I was peaceful in the womb. And then one day, out of the blue, I was exiled.  I was not delivered, I felt like I was aborted. I still carry the pain of that moment inside of me. I have met greater pain in my life, but this one was the primordial pain, the pain that would invite others of his kind to join him in my soul.

I wish I would have died back then, when I was first severed.

When I first saw the world I did not cry, I did not laugh. I felt sad. Such a sad baby. But no one seemed to notice. Babies don’t have feelings, just needs. That was the first time they insulted me. Million more were to follow.

We were living in the forests, thick, dark forests we preferred. That was our home. And fire was the heart of it. It would fend off darkness before it entered us, fend off the beasts of pray before we entered them.

We would gather around the fire to tell stories. Elders would narrate and nourish us with the ancient wisdom of our tribe. The fire united us and warmed our bodies, the stories would nourish our collective soul. But I only could speak to the fire. No one else would listen. No one else could.

How hard had I strived to tell them of my pain, the pain I was carrying since I was born. The pain of understanding. I wish they could just listen. But they couldn’t. I was born a mute. Would never hear the sound of my voice, only the echo of my thoughts. I was a mute. So I listened hard to everything they had to say. They had something I didn’t. A gift. A voice. The spoken words. How could they waste it in misunderstanding each other?

For a minute, an eternal minute, I had the impression that my father, would be the first one to understand me. He bowed, took my head into his heads, keeping his thumbs dangerously close to my eyes, and stared at them, as if he was looking inside a well.

“Boy you are sad” he said in sudden realization. “Boy you are sad” he said in excitement. “Boy you are sad” he said jumping up and down in joy. “Wife, our newest is sad” he said proudly. “He is going to bring us wealth”. But I was only going to give them shame.

I had a good father. He wouldn’t chop off his children limps like others did. We were proud people. We begged in pride. To be a successful beggar you have to persuade them that you had less than they had. That you were less than them. But we were proud beggars. Arrogant as a beggar can get. We knew that we had more, our race was superior. We just pretended. They pitied us, while we despised them. What a beautiful arrangement. What a lovely marriage.

They trained me in the art of begging. Where to direct your look according to their height, their weight, their figures, their state of mind. When to look them in the eyes, when to bow your head, when to open your palm, when to not move and become invisible to the hateful eye. And most of all we learned to hear them. To hear them coming, to hear them going, to hear them laughing, sighing, breathing. The art of begging was the art of telling people, but never allow knowledge of the human condition enter your soul. Instant recognition, the mastery that the animals of the forests we were living in taught us. How to know everything about your pray, yet, feel nothing for it. How to make a successful kill. We had replaced killing with begging. Begging could sustain you and it had far fewer social implications than killing. The cities were just another kind of forest to us. A big ugly forest were you could make it big. If you just knew how to beg.

I could not beg. Not because I was a mute. I didn’t have it in me. And that was enough to set me apart from the rest of my tribe.

“He is not a beggar”. Ramon, my father, would swear at my mother as if her bringing a non beggar to life was a hideous crime. “What good is he for then”. What is he going to do with his life? Will he play the violin? No master will ever teach music to one who is stupid enough to not understand life. You take, then you give. How can one give without taking? He will upset the balance. What woman is going to marry him?”

My mother would watch him in understanding. She did not want to denounce her own child, but she knew. She knew as well. Her son, her last son, was an absolute disgrace.

There were not much they could do to turn me into a normal beggar. No one can blame them. They did their best. And it wasn’t enough. I was born faulty.

So they would resort to the only person that could fix me, or at least tell them what was wrong with me.

Nania, the tribe’s old hag, the omniscient witch. Nania had her own tend. She was the only one in the tribe that was allowed the shame of sleeping alone. Nania was the tribe. She was old when our oldest ones were still kids.

No one dared enter her tend. Once you were in there, you owed Nania a part of your soul. She would choose the most delicious part of your soul and then she would take it from you. Forever. As I came to understand from the stories not told, Nania had a sweet tooth for the most tender and the most juicy parts of a soul, the parts that make a man a man, a woman a woman and a virtuoso a virtuoso. Nania would unman them all, unweave them. That was her price, that was her prize, her sustenance, her drug. So you would only enter Nania;s tend when it was a matter of death, revenge or love.

Nania could foretell. She knew the future of each and everyone she came across. She would carry that sadistic smile, that glee, possessing the knowledge of future tragedies invisible to us. She even knew what would happen to the tribe but no one, not even the wisest of us would dare ask her about that. If she told them, they had a good chance of being the Next Nania. Nobody wanted that. Nobody wanted to live alone with a mind shattered from precognition, with a soul made of other people’s tributes to her.

Nania of course was not her real name. She didn’t have a real name. Real names were for real people and she had stopped being a human a very long time ago.

Nania was the sound that some infants would make when they first saw the light of day. That’s how you could tell them. Nania was the sound She would make when she would dive into the state of nothingness to deliver her oracles to the visible world.

I went alone. My parents would not go that far for my shake, they would not consult Nania. I was not a matter of death, or revenge or love. I was just an abomination that need fixing or undoing.

Yellow filthy hair covered her shrinked body. Inside that disgusting hairball, only eyes and mouth were visible. And they weren’t a pretty sight to see. Her eyes were a desert of white shattered by thousands of bluish veins. Her mouth was that of a man-fly, saliva drooling from her mouth, her tongue in and out, collecting the saliva like a beggars hand collects coins, shamelessly exhibiting the endless hunger inside of her. She was ready for her meal.

She stubbed me with her eyes. “Na-nia, na-ni, nai-na nai, na-nia” she murmured, shaking back and forth as if tied to a rocking chair, momentarily phasing out of this world.

She was back. And she brought a verdict with her.

She laughed and then roared with her ancient voice:

“MUTE, mute, you have the Sin in you. You have the worm inside of you. You want to know more than you should. Your sin and arrogance will unmake us all. Good thing God have pitied us. Good thing your venomous tongue can’t move.  Cause when your tongue moves, the worm moves.. And when the worm moves, the world trembles.

Be gone miasma.”

She was laughing. She was still laughing when I left her tent. She was still laughing when her tend mysteriously caught fire. She was still laughing when she caught fire. She was still laughing and shrieking while she was being consumed by the flames.

It was the brightest night the camp had ever seen.

No one came to her aid. Alone she lived, alone she burned to the ground.

Life went on without Nania, as if nothing had ever happened, as if she had never happened. The only thing that actually changed was that they had no more doubts over what they would do with me or to me. I was the man who torched Nania, and though the original spark was not mine, my newly earned respect would grant me permission to live amongst my race. They couldn’t understand me before. They hated me and despised me for what I was. I was a weakling, a useless res, I was an unfit before the murder of Nania. But now, I was a Force majeure. They still couldn’t understand me but now they were cautious. Some of them, being the smart beggars that they were, pretended to befriend me but quickly got bored from being around a mute.

We were a lively people. We hated standing still or staying for too long in one place. Being mute was like being a human swamp. No one could afford to stay for more than a minute around me. I made them sick. And they would have to live with that. A swamp inside their camp.

My people were lively. Our language was alive. It was made of the sound of things, of animals, of rivers, of the wind blowing through the autumn leafs. There were a few people among us that were blessed with the gift of synaisthisia as well and I was not one of them. They could hear the sound of light. They could hear the vibrations inside a stone when they were touching it. My tribe honored these people cause they would be the rare ones to give names to the sun and the moon and to the stupid things that couldn’t move at all but they were wise enough to not do so. It was expected of them to not do so. But my people knew that even immovable things moved. Mountains moved, slowly, cumbersomely but as they eons passed they would be moved. We knew that because it was the mountains that told us so. We knew that the earth was moving long before the strangers started to imagine it. Our world was a world in motion and we would move on and on and on. The elders taught us that if we dared to refuse to move, if we stood still, we would turn to stone, we would become petrified. Those who refused to move did not belong with us. Those of us who urged the rest of us to stay we would stone to death. After all, it was their fate to eventually turn into stone. We were just saving them time. And afterwards we would move on.

Names giving was much more than a ritual for my tribe. It was a lifelong art and a science. Some people, the special ones, were given names at birth and their names were the sounds they would first make. Other people, the successful ones, people that we already knew were destined for excellence, had the privilege of claiming whatever name they wanted for themselves, foreign names were a kind of title for my race, successful beggars who could take a lot of the foreigners money, were entitled to take their names as well. Any name. Just pick one oh king of Beggars. Everything is yours for the taking.

The rest of my tribe, most of my tribe, was not allowed to chose a name. A name would be chosen for them by someone close to them. A man could give a woman a name made of the sounds she made during lovemaking, a woman could do the same for a man. We were all naming each other. It was just a matter of time before someone heard your name from you. Unless you were a mute or a deaf. Then you were never to be given a name. Because it made no sense. You either couldn’t hear or talk. One who couldn’t hear could never speak a name properly and didn’t deserve a name. One who couldn’t speak his own name would never fully grasp the meaning of his own name and didn’t deserve a name either. One way or another, we were soundless and soundless for my tribe meant lifeless. Like a stone. Even worse. A stone was doing exactly what was expected of it. You, the mute or the deaf wasn’t. That is why we, the mutes and the deaf ones were never stoned to death. Because that kind of death was meant for human beings who disobeyed motion. We were just things. Stupid, lifeless, dump, soulless useless things. When they referred to us they would use a long pause. That’s what we were. Strands of silence in an ever singing and ever moving people. That’s why they preferred to not address us at all.

Eventually, if our race passed by a swamp or a moving sand, deaf and mutes would get thrown into it, a swamp was the only fitting burial ground for a mute or a deaf. Fortunately my race usually avoided such places and it would not go on purpose out of its way just to give a proper burial to an object.

They named me only after Nania died. The called me Tsura. And it was a choke of course. A travesty. That name did not befit me. They called me that to appease the mad demon inside of me that they held responsible for destroying the all powerful Nania. The name they gave me was a lie. And my people hardly ever lied or joked, especially when it came to names giving. That’s how scared they had became of what they thought I was.

The most insulting thing that could happen to someone was to change his real name. Names were changing all the time of course, small sounds were added or deleted from our names but for your name to completely change meant that you no longer were who you were supposed to be. And that was the absolute insult. Not punishable by death, but it was a lifetime sentence of people looking down on you.

Our elders taught us that. Our tribe was flawless and thus cruel to those with flaws. If your name changed it meant that your soul, your very essence was permanently damaged. Either that or that you were Deified. And we didn’t believe in gods. In a world in motion everything could happen. But we, never, ever, heard of a God, or of the sound of a man becoming a god. If we couldn’t hear it, it wasn’t there.

We knew when it was time to leave a place. It was when the sounds of the forest remained unchanged too long, or were steadily changing towards something sick, or were rapidly changing. Then it was to time to move on.

We had a name for the foreigners as well. We called them barbars, it was the sound they made that didn’t make any sense. Bar-Bar. Their machines were barbars as well but we had a different name for them.

Eventually we would bewitch one of the foreigners and get him to leave his place and live with us. He or she would then hand some or all of his belongings to us or leave them all behind, according to what we wished for him to do. We were always eclectic beggars. The seduced stranger man or woman would then join us but he was not allowed to interact with us or have any children. He was just an oddity, a “living” lesson for our young ones. The stranger taught our kids what not to become and why we were morally superior to the “deaf” and “mute” bar-bars. Barbars were more stupid than stones. They knew nothing of the sound of things. The stranger, uprooted, unwelcomed, alienated would eventually die of grief and solitude. Yes, people who lose even the slightest will to live do die, no matter what.

“Waterrrr is gooood!!!” Rodrigo said challenging the obvious fact that the waters of the river he was just emerging from were intolerably  cold. It was a cold Autumn afternoon, the light was scarce but enough to reflect on the small riverdrops joyously decorating Rodrigo’s naked perfection of a body. It was so cold that the riverdrops were tempted to crystallize, but refused to do so. Fluid was the only way for them to enjoy their presence on a body with a cat’s grace. When it came to holding Rodrigo, not even the most possessive touch would dare be persistent, in fear that such a mindblowing beauty may prove to be fatally fragile.

“Let’s get back to the caterpillar” Rodrigo sang to me. Our language was a song. It was not spoken, it was sang. Caterpillar was what we called the camp. Once we started moving again, our people would transform into butterflies. But even butterflies need a place to rest their wings from to time.

Rodrigo started running. I tried to follow him but I couldn’t keep up with him. Everybody wanted to follow Rodrigo, few could keep up with him. The spirit of our tribe was breathed into him, he was poetry in motion, he was the poetry of motion.

When I finally returned to the caterpillar Rodrigo had already taken his place by the fire. Any place was for him to take, even that of the elders. Rodrigo had all the rights of a royalty. All of us were kings and queens but Rodrigo was the most royal of us all. He was still naked and eyes flashed at his sight but dare not persist or demand. They just begged. And begging from others of our tribe was very rear in a tribe of proud beggars.

I had no place near the fire. They would allow me to sit outside the story circle, to receive some of the fire’s warmth leftovers that escaped somebody else’s body.  I was used to being sustained with leftovers. With food it was the same. I was eating from somebody else’s leftovers. I was with the tribe but I was not of the tribe. After’s Nania’s death they brought to me more food than I had ever seen, but I knew it was composed of leftovers. They were still treating me like a barbar but didn’t wanted me to know, in case my wrath broke upon them the way they thought it did upon Nania.

“Come over here”. Rodrigo invited me to the circle. That was an outrage. The circle would be enlarged to include a near barbar? That was unheard of. People would cast an angry look at him for insulting our ways but upon looking at his perfect figure they would instantly forget of their anger and beg of him to look back at them. Yes, Rodrigo, was the king of kings.

The fire would diminish itself in my presence, as if I was I not a chain uniting the circle but the gap that broke it and through which, fire would dolefully escape to nowhereness.

Rodrigo sprung to his fit and approached the fire. The circle was once again rearranged, not to be broken. He approached the fire, put his hands on top of it to learn what was worrying her. After the fire confined to him her troubles, Rodrigo started dancing for her. He became a fiery creature, danced the way a fire would dance if it was a boy, he danced with the fire.

He would dance as if possessed by the fire and then all of a sudden he would stand still for a short eternity in stances gravity normally would not allow, he would linger like a pelican to unexpectedly return to his devine fiery frenzy. He was simply breathtaking. The fire would sent him small sparks to adorn him, to adore him. She would follow his every move like a snake would follow a snake charmers flute. The fire would grow. She was revitalized by Rodrigo’s dance.

Rodrigo had charmed her and she gave him part of her heart. She always would. Rodrigo was the closest thing to a fire a man could ever become.

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for February, 2011 at hellasashell.