Analysis: How rich oil firms are using a secretive court to fight capital gains tax in developing world

By George Turner from Finance Uncovered.

At a little known but powerful international court of arbitration, so secretive that senior officials decline to disclose even the dates of hearings, a new case has been filed that will pitch a mighty US oil major from Houston, Texas, against one of the world’s last Communist-run countries.

On the face of it, this battle between ConocoPhillips and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is as dry as it gets. Hardly anyone has yet heard of it.

But the result could mark a significant shift in the way huge multinationals fight off the threat of taxes from desperate revenue authorities in developing countries.

For ConocoPhillips is using the not-so-glamourous Bilateral Investment Treaty Mechanism of the UN to launch a pre-emptive legal strike against Vietnam’s intention to levy an estimated $179m capital gains tax charge on oil fields sold by one of its UK subsidiaries.

Capital gains: A new frontier

Think of any of the major tax avoidance scandals that have dominated headlines in the last ten years: Google, Facebook, Apple, Nike, all have focused on profit shifting, the art of moving money out of profitable markets and into tax havens as a means of avoiding corporate income tax.

Most commonly, profit shifting happens when companies move revenues abroad, for example by billing their customers from an offshore company, or by invoicing a local business for fees and costs from an offshore company.

However, there is another important form of tax avoidance which multinationals frequently abuse but which has received little attention from the media: avoiding tax on capital gains.

Over the next few years, as more countries claim their resources have been bought and sold by foreigners tax free, this issue is likely to become a new frontier in the anti-tax avoidance campaign.

A capital gain is where a company or an individual sells an asset and makes a profit on that sale due to an increase in value of the asset being sold. Think of selling a house. The money you make by the virtue of your house increasing in value is your capital gain.

When it comes to major multinational mergers and acquisitions the capital gains can be enormous, and tax can easily be avoided if deals are structured offshore.

Capital gains tax: Made in Vietnam?

In 2012, a UK subsidiary of ConocoPhillips sold two other UK companies it owned, ConocoPhillips Gama Limited, and ConocoPhillips Cuu Long. It sold them to a UK company owned by Perenco, the Anglo-French oil firm. Perenco is also a party to the arbitration.

The only assets held by ConocoPhillips Gama and Cuu Long were Conoco’s oil interests in Vietnam.

According to accounts filed at UK Companies House, ConocoPhillips sold the companies for $1.3bn making a profit of $896m. Buried in the detail of those accounts, a small note states that the company paid no taxes on that capital gain.

Why? Because Britain operates a loophole known as a “substantial shareholder exemption”. This means that profits on the sale of shares in subsidiary companies are not subject to capital gains tax in the UK.

But although the UK may choose not to levy any capital gains tax, that has not prevented Vietnam’s policymakers from trying to do so.

Under the terms of the UK-Vietnam tax treaty, Vietnam has the right to tax any capital gains made by UK companies that originate in Vietnam. If the profits on the deal were subject to the standard corporation tax rate in Vietnam, then ConocoPhillips could have to cough up an estimated $179m to the Vietnamese government.

So the question therefore becomes, what and where is the source of the profits?

If you are ConocoPhillips, the value is all in the shares, and the profit should be located in the UK. When we asked the company about the deal a spokesman said: “The sale was between two UK incorporated and resident entities with no taxable presence in Vietnam. The target companies are also UK companies. As a result, no taxes were owed on the sale in Vietnam.”

The Vietnamese government takes a different view, claiming the profits really arise out of the transfer of the oil assets. As these were located in Vietnam, it says that’s where they should be taxed.

Indeed, Vietnam has signalled its intention to tax the transaction – and that has alarmed not only the US oil giant, but also in all likelihood other similarly powerful corporations.

The potential precedent for multinationals

If Vietnam is successful, there could be profound implications for other developing countries, which have often seen Western companies make huge profits on their investments, only to walk away with them tax-free.

It is an issue that has concerned policymakers at the highest levels of the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In essence, the argument is: if multinationals make fortunes from a poorer country’s resources, then surely the host should have the right to levy the appropriate tax on the gains.

But ConocoPhillips is holding firm, telling Finance Uncovered that it would “pursue all available legal remedies to challenge any attempt by Vietnam to tax the transaction”.

And that is exactly what the company is doing with this new legal move: it wants to stop the threat in its tracks.

ConocoPhillips and Perenco have quietly filed a petition in the secretive investment tribunal, requesting it orders Vietnam not to levy the tax.

Unusually, the case is being brought under the UK-Vietnam Bilateral Investment Treaty, which is subject to an arbitration process run by a little known corner of the United Nations System, The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

The use of the Bilateral Investment Treaty Mechanism is itself controversial. Such disputes are expensive, opaque and are not usually used to settle tax disputes.

Neither ConocoPhillips nor Cavinder Bull (pictured, left), a senior Singaporean barrister and chairman of the arbitration panel looking into the case, would disclose the location, or the dates, of the hearings.

And this case is thought to be the first to look at the issue of capital gains tax. If it goes ahead, that itself could act as a deterrent to developing countries trying to levy taxes because such battles cost fortunes in legal fees – about $5m a case, on average.

Michael Lennard is the Chief of the UN International Tax Cooperation Section who is currently on sabbatical as a visitor at the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation. He has negotiated many tax and investment agreements, and speaking in a personal capacity he told Finance Uncovered: “The proceedings are held in secret, with expensive Western law firms often having to be hired to deal with arcane procedures.

“Most of the potential arbitrators in tax-related cases are not tax experts or else are tax advisers to corporations, with insufficient experienced and non-partisan arbitrators from the developing world (such as academics), not enough women and not enough younger experts.

“As a result it is extremely difficult for developing country governments to secure the expertise they need to defend these cases.”

For many, this reeks of injustice: big multinationals using the sledgehammer of a secretive and prohibitively expensive court to deprive developing countries of the revenue they feel is theirs.

Jayati Ghosh, a renowned professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, said: “Developing countries’ experience with the outcomes of such cases does not inspire optimism, as it is well known that the panels tend to be more investor friendly and generally support the claims of firms over the rights of governments or even the human rights of their citizens.”

Perenco declined to comment.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel

By Jeremy R. Hammond of Foreign Policy Journal.

The popular belief that Israel was established by the United Nations is rooted in falsehood and prejudice against the rights of the Palestinians.

There is a widely accepted belief that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 “created” Israel, based upon an understanding that this resolution partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority or legitimacy to the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. However, despite its popularity, this belief has no basis in fact, as a review of the resolution’s history and examination of legal principles demonstrates incontrovertibly.

Great Britain had occupied Palestine during the First World War, and in July 1922, the League of Nations issued its mandate for Palestine, which recognized the British government as the occupying power and effectively conferred to it the color of legal authority to temporarily administrate the territory.[1] On April 2, 1947, seeking to extract itself from the conflict that had arisen in Palestine between Jews and Arabs as a result of the Zionist movement to establish in Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people”,[2] the United Kingdom submitted a letter to the U.N. requesting the Secretary General “to place the question of Palestine on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular Annual Session”, and requesting the Assembly “to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine.”[3] To that end, on May 15, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 106, which established the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to investigate “the question of Palestine”, to “prepare a report to the General Assembly” based upon its findings, and to “submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine”.[4]

On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly declaring its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”, and even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs constituted a majority.[5] Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs.[6] In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs remained “in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land”,[7] while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]

Despite these facts, the UNSCOP proposal was that the Arab state be constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state.[9] The UNSCOP report acknowledged that

With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.[10]

In other words, the report explicitly recognized that the denial of Palestinian independence in order to pursue the goal of establishing a Jewish state constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination. And yet, despite this recognition, UNSCOP had accepted this rejection of Arab rights as being within the bounds of a legitimate and reasonable framework for a solution.

Following the issuance of the UNSCOP report, the U.K. issued a statement declaring its agreement with the report’s recommendations, but adding that “if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”[11] The position of the Arabs had been clear from the beginning, but the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement on September 29 reiterating that “the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status”. It instead

advocated freedom and independence for an Arab State in the whole of Palestine which would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law, and would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.[12]

The U.K. followed with a statement reiterating “that His Majesty’s Government could not play a major part in the implementation of a scheme that was not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews”, but adding “that they would, however, not wish to impede the implementation of a recommendation approved by the General Assembly.”[13]

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem and make recommendations. A sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11. It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise “that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity”, which was “not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.” With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, “there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state”, which “would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate” and the Covenant of the League of Nations. It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.” It concluded that “no further discussion of the Palestine problem seems to be necessary or appropriate, and this item should be struck off the agenda of the General Assembly”, but that if there was a dispute on that point, “it would be essential to obtain the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue”, as had already been requested by several of the Arab states. It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.[14]

Nevertheless, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on November 29, with 33 votes in favor to 13 votes against, and 10 abstentions.[15] The relevant text of the resolution stated:

The General Assembly….

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measure as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

(b) The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measure, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;

(c) The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

(d) The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;

Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations….[16]

A simple reading of the text is enough to show that the resolution did not partition Palestine or offer any legal basis for doing so. It merely recommended that the partition plan be implemented and requestedthe Security Council to take up the matter from there. It called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to accept the plan, but they were certainly under no obligation to do so.

A Plan Never Implemented

The matter was thus taken up by the Security Council, where, on December 9, the Syrian representative to the U.N., Faris El-Khouri, observed that “the General Assembly is not a world government which can dictate orders, partition countries or impose constitutions, rules, regulations and treaties on people without their consent.” When the Soviet representative Andrei Gromyko stated his government’s opposing view that “The resolution of the General Assembly should be implemented” by the Security Council, El-Khouri replied by noting further that

Certain paragraphs of the resolution of the General Assembly which concern the Security Council are referred to the Council, namely, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), outlining the functions of the Security Council in respect of the Palestinian question. All of the members of the Security Council are familiar with the Council’s functions, which are well defined and clearly stated in the Charter of the United Nations. I do not believe that the resolution of the General Assembly can add to or delete from these functions. The recommendations of the General Assembly are well known to be recommendations, and Member States are not required by force to accept them. Member States may or may not accept them, and the same applies to the Security Council. [17]

On February 6, 1948, the Arab Higher Committee again communicated to the U.N. Secretary General its position that the partition plan was “contrary to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter”. The U.N. “has no jurisdiction to order or recommend the partition of Palestine. There is nothing in the Charter to warrant such authority, consequently the recommendation of partition is ultra vires and therefore null and void.” Additionally, the Arab Higher Committee noted that

The Arab Delegations submitted proposals in the Ad Hoc Committee in order to refer the whole legal issue raised for a ruling by the International Court of Justice. The said proposals were never put to vote by the president in the Assembly. The United Nations is an International body entrusted with the task of enforcing peace and justice in international affairs. How would there be any confidence in such a body if it bluntly and unreasonably refuses to refer such a dispute to the International Court of Justice?

“The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them”, the Arab Higher Committee declared, and they would “consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.”[18]

On February 16, the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked by the General Assembly to prepare for the transfer of authority from the Mandatory Power to the successor governments under the partition plan, issued its first report to the Security Council. It concluded on the basis of the Arab rejection that it “finds itself confronted with an attempt to defect its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly”, and calling upon the Security Council to provide an armed force “which alone would enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities on the termination of the Mandate”. In effect, the Palestine Commission had determined that the partition plan should be implemented against the will of the majority population of Palestine by force.[19]

In response to that suggestion, Colombia submitted a draft Security Council resolution noting that the U.N. Charter did “not authorize the Security Council to create special forces for the purposes indicated by the United Nations Palestine Commission”.[20] The U.S. delegate, Warren Austin, similarly stated at the 253rd meeting of the Security Council on February 24 that

The Security Council is authorized to take forceful measures with respect to Palestine to remove a threat to international peace. The Charter of the United Nations does not empower the Security Council to enforce a political settlement whether it is pursuant to a recommendation of the General Assembly or of the Security Council itself. What this means is this: The Security Council, under the Charter, can take action to prevent aggression against Palestine from outside. The Security Council, by these same powers, can take action to prevent a threat to international peace and security from inside Palestine. But this action must be directed solely to the maintenance of international peace. The Security Council’s action, in other words, is directed to keeping the peace and not to enforcing partition.[21]

The United States nevertheless submitted its own draft text more ambiguously accepting the requests of the Palestine Commission “subject to the authority of the Security Council under the Charter”.[22] Faris El-Khouri objected to the U.S. draft on the grounds that “before accepting these three requests, it is our duty to ascertain whether they are or are not within the framework of the Security Council as limited by the Charter. If it is found that they are not, we should decline to accept them.” He recalled Austin’s own statement on the lack of authority of the Security Council, saying, “It would follow from this undeniable fact that any recommendation on a political settlement can be implemented only if the parties concerned willingly accept and complement it.” Furthermore, “the partition plan itself constitutes a threat to the peace, being openly rejected by all those at whose expense it was to be executed.”[23] Austin in turn explained the intent of the U.S. draft that its acceptance of Resolution 181 is

subject to the limitation that armed force cannot be used for implementation of the plan, because the Charter limits the use of United Nations force expressly to threats to and breaches of the peace and aggression affecting international peace. Therefore, we must interpret the General Assembly resolution as meaning that the United Nations measures to implement this resolution are peaceful measures.

Moreover, explained Austin, the U.S. draft

does not authorize use of enforcement under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter to empower the United Nations Commission to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by the resolution, because the Charter does not authorize either the General Assembly or the Security Council to do any such thing.[24]

When the Security Council did finally adopt a resolution on March 5, it merely made a note of “Having received General Assembly resolution 181″ and the first monthly Palestine Commission report, and resolved

to call on the permanent members of the Council to consult and to inform the Security Council regarding the situation with respect to Palestine and to make, as the result of such consultations, recommendations to it regarding the guidance and instructions which the Council might usefully give to the Palestine Commission with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly.[25]

During further debates at the Security Council over how to proceed, Austin observed that it had become “clear that the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation.” At the same time, it was clear that the U.K.’s announced termination of the Mandate on May 15 “would result, in the light of information now available, in chaos, heavy fighting and much loss of life in Palestine.” The U.N. could not permit this, he said, and the Security Council had the responsibility and authority under the Charter to act to prevent such a threat to the peace. The U.S. also proposed establishing a Trusteeship over Palestine to give further opportunity to the Jews and Arabs to reach a mutual agreement. Pending the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to that end, “we believe that the Security Council should instruct the Palestine Commission to suspend its efforts to implement the proposed partition plan.”[26]

The Security Council President, speaking as the representative from China, responded: “The United Nations was created mainly for the maintenance of international peace. It would be tragic indeed if the United Nations, by attempting a political settlement, should be the cause of war. For these reasons, my delegation supports the general principles of the proposal of the United States delegation.”[27] At a further meeting of the Security Council, the Canadian delegate stated that the partition plan “is based on a number of important assumptions”, the first of which was that “it was assumed that the two communities in Palestine would co-operate in putting into effect the solution to the Palestine problem which was recommended by the General Assembly.”[28] The French delegate, while declining to extend either approval for or disapproval of the U.S. proposal, observed that it would allow for any number of alternative solutions from the partition plan, including “a single State with sufficient guarantees for minorities”.[29] The representative from the Jewish Agency for Palestine read a statement categorically rejecting “any plan to set up a trusteeship regime for Palestine”, which “would necessarily entail a denial of the Jewish right to national independence.”[30]

Mindful of the worsening situation in Palestine, and wishing to avoid further debate, the U.S. proposed another draft resolution calling for a truce between Jewish and Arab armed groups that Austin noted “would not prejudice the claims of either group” and which “does not mention trusteeship.”[31] It was adopted as Resolution 43 on April 1.[32] Resolution 44 was also passed the same day requesting “the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 20 of the United Nations Charter, to convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine.”[33] Resolution 46 reiterated the Security Council’s call for the cessation of hostilities in Palestine,[34] and Resolution 48 established a “Truce Commission” to further the goal of implementing its resolutions calling for an end to the violence.[35]

On May 14, the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared the existence of the State of Israel, citing Resolution 181 as constituting “recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State”.[36] As anticipated, war ensued.

The Authority of the U.N. with Regard to Partition

Chapter 1, Article 1 of the U.N. Charter defines its purposes and principles, which are to “maintain international peace and security”, to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, and to “achieve international co-operation” on various issues and “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all”.

The functions and powers of the General Assembly are listed under Chapter IV, Articles 10 through 17. It is tasked to initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international cooperation and the development of international law, to receive reports from the Security Council and other organs of the U.N., and to consider and approve the organization’s budget. It is also tasked with performing functions under the international trusteeship system. Its authority is otherwise limited to considering and discussing matters within the scope of the Charter, making recommendations to Member States or the Security Council, or calling attention of matters to the Security Council.

Chapter V, Articles 24 through 26, states the functions and powers of the Security Council.  It is tasked with maintaining peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the U.N. The specific powers granted to the Security Council are stated in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may call upon parties to settle disputes by peaceful means, investigate, and make a determination as to whether a dispute or situation constitutes a threat to peace and security. It may recommend appropriate procedures to resolve disputes, taking into consideration that “legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice”. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may determine the existence of a threat to peace and make recommendations or decide what measures are to be taken to maintain or restore peace and security. It may call upon concerned parties to take provisional measures “without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.” It may call upon member states to employ “measures not involving the use of armed force” to apply such measures. Should such measures be inadequate, it may authorize the use of armed forces “to maintain or restore international peace and security”. Chapter VIII states that the Security Council “shall encourage the development of pacific settlements of local disputes” through regional arrangements or agencies, and utilize such to enforce actions under its authority.

The functions and powers of the International Trusteeship System are listed under Chapter XII, Articles 75 through 85. The purpose of the system is to administer and supervise territories placed therein by agreement with the goal of “development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”. The system is to operate in accordance with the purposes of the U.N. stated in Article 1, including respect for the right of self-determination. The General Assembly is tasked with all functions “not designated as strategic”, which are designated to the Security Council. A Trusteeship Council is established to assist the General Assembly and the Security Council to perform their functions under the system.

Chapter XIII, Article 87 states the functions and powers of the Trusteeship Council, which are shared by the General Assembly. Authority is granted to consider reports, accept and examine petitions, provide for visits to trust territories, and “take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements.”

Another relevant section is Chapter XI, entitled the “Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”, which states that

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories…

To that end, Member states are “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions”.

Conclusion

The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7 percent of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government. The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The U.S., Syria, and other member nations were correct in their observations that, while the Security Council did have authority to declare a threat to the peace and authorize the use of force to deal with that and maintain or restore peace and security, it did not have any authority to implement by force a plan to partition Palestine contrary to the will of most of its inhabitants. Any attempt to usurp such authority by either the General Assembly or the Security Council would have been a prima facie violation of the Charter’s founding principle of respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples, and thus null and void under international law.

In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud.

Further corollaries may be drawn. The disaster inflicted upon Palestine was not inevitable. The U.N. was created for the purpose of preventing such catastrophes. Yet it failed miserably to do so, on numerous counts. It failed in its duty to refer the legal questions of the claims to Palestine to the International Court of Justice, despite requests from member states to do so. It failed to use all means within its authority, including the use of armed forces, to maintain peace and prevent the war that was predicted would occur upon the termination of the Mandate. And most importantly, far from upholding its founding principles, the U.N. effectively acted to prevent the establishment of an independent and democratic state of Palestine, in direct violation of the principles of its own Charter. The consequences of these and other failures are still witnessed by the world today on a daily basis. Recognition of the grave injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people in this regard and dispelling such historical myths is essential if a way forward towards peace and reconciliation is to be found.

[Correction (May 8, 2017): As originally published, this article stated that “In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.” The UNSCOP report did not say Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, but that they were “in possession of” 85 percent of the land. The text has been corrected.]

Notes

[1] The Palestine Mandate of the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp.

[2] Great Britain had contributed to the conflict by making contradictory promises to both Jews and Arabs, including a declaration approved by the British Cabinet that read, “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” This declaration was delivered by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to representative of the Zionist movement Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild in a letter on November 2, 1917, and thus came to be known as “The Balfour Declaration”, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp.

[3] Letter from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations to the U.N. Secretary-General, April 2, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/87aaa6be8a3a7015802564ad0037ef57?OpenDocument.

[4] U.N. General Assembly Resolution 106, May 15, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/f5a49e57095c35b685256bcf0075d9c2?OpenDocument.

[5] United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, September 3, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument.

[6] “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945)”, United Nations, August 1950, The map was prepared on the instructions of Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question and presented as Map No. 94(b). Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14; Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

[7] UNSCOP Report.

[8] Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution”, Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII, no. 1 (Autumn 1997), p. 11, http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Khalidi,%20Revisiting%20the%201947%20UN%20Partition%20Resolution.pdf. Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), pp. 23, 98.

[9] Khalidi, p. 11.

[10] UNSCOP Report.

[11] “U.K. Accepts UNSCOP General Recommendations; Will Not Implement Policy Unacceptable by Both Arabs and Jews”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 2nd Meeting, September 26, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ecb5eae2e1d29ed08525686d00529256?OpenDocument.

[12] “The Arab Case Stated by Mr. Jamal Husseini”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 3rd Meeting, United Nations, September 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/a8c17fca1b8cf5338525691b0063f769?OpenDocument.

[13] “Palestine Committee Hears U.K. Stand and Adjourns; Sub-Committees Meet”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine 24th Meeting, United Nations, November 20, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/12966c9f443583e085256a7200661aab?OpenDocument.

[14] “Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question Report of Sub-Committee 2”, United Nations, November 11 1947, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf.

[15] United Nations General Assembly 128th Plenary Meeting, United Nations, November 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/46815f76b9d9270085256ce600522c9e?OpenDocument.

[16] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253?OpenDocument.

[17] United Nations Security Council 222nd Meeting, December 9, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ce37bc968122a33985256e6900649bf6?OpenDocument.

[18] “First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine”, United Nations Palestine Commission, February 16, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/fdf734eb76c39d6385256c4c004cdba7?OpenDocument.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of Colombia at the 254th Meeting of the Security Council, February 24, 1948, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/S684.pdf.

[21] U.N. Security Council 253rd Meeting (S/PV.253), February 24, 1948, http://documents.un.org.

[22] Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of the United States at the Two Hundred and Fifty Fifth Meeting of the Security Council, February 25, 1948, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/S685.pdf.

[23] United Nations Security Council 260th Meeting, March 2, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/fcbe849f43cbb7158525764f00537dcb?OpenDocument.

[24] Ibid.

[25] United Nations Security Council Resolution 42, March 5, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d0f3291a30a2bc30852560ba006cfb88?OpenDocument.

[26] U.N. Security Council 271st Meeting, March 19, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5072db486adf13d0802564ad00394160?OpenDocument.

[27] Ibid.

[28] United Nations Security Council 274th Meeting, March 24, 1948, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/32/PDF/NL481232.pdf?OpenElement.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] United Nations Security Council 275th Meeting, March 30, 1948, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/32/PDF/NL481232.pdf?OpenElement.

[32] United Nations Security Council Resolution 43, April 1, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/676bb71de92db89b852560ba006748d4?OpenDocument.

[33] United Nations Security Council Resolution 44, April 1, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/1b13eb4af9118629852560ba0067c5ad?OpenDocument.

[34] United Nations Security Council Resolution 46, April 17, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/9612b691fc54f280852560ba006da8c8?OpenDocument.

[35] United Nations Security Council Resolution 48, April 23, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d9c60b4a589766af852560ba006ddd95?OpenDocument.

[36] The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.

The WW1 Conspiracy

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." — Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild's wife.

Understanding why the World Wars were deliberately created.

Wars have always been the catalysts of massive change in human civilization since the dawn of time. Wars force people to grasp at security, to clamor for an answer in the midst of chaos, for when we are comfortable; we are complacent, rigid, and uncompromising, real change has most often come in times of desperation — hence "Order out of chaos", or "Ordo ab chao", a Masonic principle and motto of the 33rd degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry. Such a term states the necessity of conflict in bringing forth order, and the interchangeability of what is "good", and what is "evil".

The chaos (CHAO) is the society we see around us today and it is the builders who influence the leaders to manufacture this chaos so that they can conceal their creations in darkness while they work towards the light (ORDO). Without chaos there would never be order. Without darkness, there can be no light and without light there can be no darkness. What is the "AS ABOVE", is the "SO BELOW" of this Secret Brotherhood.

The eminent banking families of the era knew this ancient principle, and swore by it (and still do):

They had (and still have) the influence to ignite major conflicts to set the scene for their brand of politics; the politics of globalization, and that is exactly what they did by funding all sides of the world wars. This was a time far more nationalistic than now, a time of many kings, not few, the real challenge of the secret Masonic Anglo-American order was conquering them all without firing a single shot of their own.

The great wars brought Europe to its knees and did away with the old order (shattering the strength of the Ottoman Empire, British Empire, Russians, Germans, etc) in exchange for the new order: the rise of the UN, the EU, and the European nations' financial and military dependence on the Masonic globalist bankers.

Political centralization was accelerated in the disguise of being a safeguard against another great war. Later on, the Soviet Union was funded and created as an excuse to keep these globalist political institutions in place.

The Soviets were the much needed "red terror" to unite the Western nations against — for fear is one of the most compelling emotions, a great dose of which kept European nationalism subdued and the globalist vision sustained right through to present times.

How it all began.

World War one, known as the "Great War" and, most infamously, "the war to end all wars", was one of the bloodiest conflicts in known human history. It all began with three influential men. Among some of the wealthiest individuals in British society:

1. William T. Stead — Major English newspaper editor who, as a pioneer of investigative journalism, became a controversial figure of the Victorian era.


2. Reginald Brett, aka Lord Esher — an éminence grise, a friend, confidante and adviser to Victoria, Edward VII, and George V. Known as one of the primary powers behind the throne of his era.


3. Cecil Rhodes — An enormously wealthy diamond magnate, visionary, and major Rothschild affiliate, whose exploits in South Africa and ambition to transform the African continent would earn him the nickname of "colossus".

Cecil Rhodes, who, with the Rothschild-Rhodes company, made an extortionate amount of money exploiting South Africans in the wildly profitable mining industry, would have the finances and links to start building a network of like-minded influential people prepared to further influence the course of modern history.

Rhodes was a pioneering advocate of globalization, saying of the English, "I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence."

Rhodes was open with his ambitions, an 1890 article entitled "Mr. Rhode's Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness" was published by the aforementioned Mr. William T. Stead, who was a key publicist for Rhodes' ideals.

The article featured the stunning subhead; "He believed a wealthy secret society should work to secure the world's peace, and a British-American Federation."

"(The) Idea for the development of the English-speaking race was the foundation of 'a society copied, as to organization, from the Jesuits'."

"We could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons to achieve the peace of the world."

The article quotes Rhodes as saying:

"The only thing feasible to carry out this idea, is a secret society, gradually absorbing the wealth of the world."

Here are some videos from The Corbett Report, one of the most reputable, well-researched sources of independent media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclAbWvBt70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5kWX7rYuU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzVd7XCTu28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw0-ASR4sr8

Rhodes wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the British-dominated countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included American students as eligible for the Rhodes scholarships. He said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the United States rejoin the British Empire. As Rhodes also respected and admired the Germans and their Kaiser, he allowed German students to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually the United Kingdom (including Ireland), the US, and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure perpetual peace.

After Cecil Rhodes.

Rhodes left a vast sum of money in his will after his death in 1902 to various influential confidantes, in the posthumous W. T Stead published "The Last Will and Testament" of 1902, Rhode's reasoning was outlined:

It stated that he lamented the loss of America from the British Empire and that they should formulate a secret society with the specific aim of bringing America back into the Empire. Then he lists all the countries he needs to include in this list to have world domination, to have an English-speaking union, to have British race as the enforced culture in all countries worldwide.

He sought support, funding, plans, his agenda was in place — his funds left to those he trusted, and soon after this WW1, WW2 and so forth occurred, modern history quickly took shape.

The Round Table Group.

After Rhode's death in 1902, this secret society revealed itself slightly, revealing itself as a force for world peace. Its modus operandi was imperialism, a secretive continuation of the open imperialism of previous centuries.

The Boer war was orchestrated to consolidate Rothschild power over the resources of South Africa.

Sir Alfred Milner, a close associate of Rhodes, was instrumental in igniting the Boer War:

"I precipitated the crisis, which was inevitable before it was too late. It is not very agreeable, and in many eyes, not a very creditable piece of business to have been largely instrumental in bringing about a war."

When W. T. Stead initially objected to the Boer War, Rhodes told him:

"You will support Milner in any measure that he may take short of war. I make no such limitation. I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner."

Rising Germany & The Pre-WW1 Days.

German ascendance in geopolitical power in Europe threatened the Masonic hegemony and world vision, in order to crush the independence of the major European powers, with Germany's Kaiser being the most threatening, not to mention Russia's Tsar, it required a devastating war, that war would be WW1 and the Bolshevik revolution.

Lord Esher was a close confidante of the King, a monarch with a hands-on approach to foreign diplomacy and a disdain for the rise of German power, such a sentiment dovetailed perfectly in line with the group's aims. With insiders in Russia and France, the Triple Entente formed, the pincer that would crush Germany and, in the chaos of war, ruin the other major European nations.

In the run up to the war, the British press released story after story framing Germans as hostiles in every regard, bringing public perception in line with the goals of the master plan.

The British helped the Japanese in the 1904-05 war against Russia, another major national competitor. Japan turned to Cecil Rhodes' co-conspirator Lord Nathan Rothschild, who supplied them with munitions, copious funds, and denied the Russians access to the Suez canal and high-quality coal, which the British did provide to the Japanese. All this helped Japan win the war.

The Japanese fleet was even constructed in Britain, but these facts did not find their way into the Milner controlled press.

When the Russian navy accidentally fired on a British fishing ship in the north sea in 1904 the British public was outraged. The British foreign office, remarkably, tried to pin this incident on the Germans, triggering a press war between the British and the Germans.

Another aggrandizement came when there were (unsubstantiated) scares over the Germans seizing Morocco, an important trade route out of the Mediterranean, once again the media spun the story to make the Germans appear the aggressors.

The Beginning of WW1.

Eventually the elite got their way when Franz Ferdinand was shot, soon after this, the series of diplomatic and political traps were sprung, controversy engulfed the political class of Europe. Not long after this Europe was at war.

In retrospect, the machinations that led to this war are a masterclass in how power really operates in society. The military compacts that committed Britain and ultimately the world to war had nothing to do with elected parliaments or representative democracy.

When Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour resigned in 1905, deft political manipulations ensured that members of The Round Table; including Herbert Henry Asquith, Edward Grey, and Richard Haldane; three men who liberal leader Henry Campbell-Bannerman privately accused of "Milner worship", seamlessly slid into key positions in the new liberal government, and continued the strategy of German encirclement without missing a step.

In fact, the details of Britain's military commitments to Russia and France, and even the negotiations themselves, were deliberately kept hidden from members of Parliament, and even members of the Cabinet who were not part of the secret society. It wasn't until November 1911, a full six years into the negotiations, that the Cabinet of Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith started to learn the details of these agreements; agreements that had been repeatedly and officially denied in the press and in Parliament.

The result of the first world war achieved the intended result; to simplify the world stage and do away with the once-powerful dynasties of old, creating a power vaccum for the new order.

Aftermath.

In the aftermath of the war, four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian. Four dynasties, together with their ancillary aristocracies, fell as a result of the war: the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, and the Ottomans. Yet one major dynasty still reigned supreme, the Rothschild dynasty and its affiliated ancillaries.

Soon after, the League of Nations was formed on 28 June 1919, which eventually became the UN, following WW2, this was taken yet further as the European Union was formed with a direct reference to avoiding massive war in Europe again. The EU's main website states "The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War." Yet it was these massive wars that were ignited to justify such a political reformation.

The same dialectic was enacted with the "War on Terror" in recent times to justify intervention in places the world order desires to control. I see no ends to such deception so long as the eminent Western banking dynasties persist.

High Levels Of Aluminium Found In Autistic Brains

Prof. Christopher Exeley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, has discovered that in the autistic people he studied of around 13, 14, and 15 years of age that "there (was) more aluminium than seen in any other circumstance" (detected in their bodies).

Professor Exeley states that his research career (1984-present) has focused upon an intriguing paradox; "How come the third most abundant element of the Earth's crust (aluminium) is non-essential and largely inimical to life?"

"I am also fascinated by the element silicon in relation to living things which, as the second most abundant element of the Earth's crust, is also almost devoid of biological function.

One possible function of silicon is to keep aluminium out of biology (biota) and this forms a large part of the research in our group. We are also interested in biological silicification."

Toxic aluminium found in alarmingly high amounts in the autistic brain.

"This is the first time in any human brain tissue we have seen this, this is a standout and unique observation in autism. For myself, it very much implicates aluminium in the ethology of autism. That doesn't mean aluminium causes it, but it means it's almost certainly playing a role in the disease."

"When we looked at people's brains with a diagnosis of autism, we found something that we have never seen yet in any other set of human brains. We found that the majority of aluminium was actually inside cells; intra-cellular. Some of it was inside neurons, but actually the majority of it was inside non-neuronal cell populations."

"So we found that these cells were heavily loaded with aluminium. We also found evidence that cells in the lymph and in the blood were passing into the brain. So they were carrying with them a cargo of aluminium from the body into the brain."

Most shockingly, this urgently needed study was not funded by any government, but by non-governmental philanthropy.

Autism, which is one of the major illnesses of our time, is not being actively studied in mainstream science.

Exeley stated in the interview that "no government funded this research, it came because of philanthropy, it came because of individuals who wanted to know answers and were prepared to use their own money."

"We pay our government, and our government should really be using our money to fund this type of research."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFW9w7wOxg8

They key difference to highlight is that when we ingest aluminium orally, it is subjected to our digestive tracts; and gets excreted rather than absorbed — as aluminium has no role in the human body.

When it is injected, aluminium bypasses our bodies' natural defenses, and lodges itself in tissues throughout the body, most notably the brain; which is a highly absorbent, 60% fat organ that sees high bloodflow compared to other areas of the body.

This means lots of resources are being transferred through the brain all the time, a blood-brain barrier is a natural way of keeping out unwanted substances and absorbing useful resources like oxygen, it is highly likely that an intravenous injection of toxic substances like aluminium may breach the blood-brain barrier and implicate toxicity.

This distinction is of toxicological significance — and implicates aluminium adjuvants in intravenously applied vaccines as something of serious concern.

Getting aluminium out of the body.

Silica has been found to reduce aluminum levels drastically in the body. It does this by binding with its molecules and extracting them out of brain cells and ultimately out of the body through urine and other means.

Ground-breaking research done by Dr. Exeley found that water high in silicic acid (oxygenated silica) had a positive effect on autistic children. Exeley has found that aluminum levels were lower in the children by 50 to 70 percent who drank this kind of water.

He then did the same study with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) patients. After 13 weeks of drinking high-silica water, the same results were achieved. In the AD patients, eight out of fifteen no longer showed neurological deterioration and three showed “substantial cognitive increase.”

Dr. Exeley used Spritzer (a Malaysian bottled water) for the study, but other waters that contain high amounts of silica include Volvic and Fiji (Fiji comes in a BPA-free bottle). His suggested protocol for helping to remove aluminum from the brain is to consume 1.5 liters of high-silicic water for at least 5 days. He suggests drinking the entire 1.5 liters within an hour for the best results. Higher aluminum toxicity levels may require higher amount of water.

Diatomaceous earth (DE) is another great source of silica since it is made up mostly of the substance. Diatomaceous earth is actually millions of tiny, fossilized aquatic microorganism called “diatoms” that are ground up into a fine, white powder. Besides aluminum detoxification, DE also chelates other heavy metals, helps with GI health, and can give you more energy.

In addition to high-silicic acid waters and DE, cucumbers, bananas, bentonite clay, and horsetail herb also contain high amounts of silica.

Add at least one of the following nutritional substances to your diet every day. All of these not only have the ability to detox the body from heavy metals, but are also neuroprotectants and immune system boosters:

• Cold pressed unrefined organic coconut oil


• Chia and flaxseed


• Milk thistle


• Vitamin C (and foods rich in this vitamin)


• Spirulina and chlorella


• Foods such as garlic, cilantro, and parsley that can help eliminate heavy metals such as aluminum and mercury from your body


• Fresh, filtered water (and plenty of it!)


• Carbon 60, may chelate metals in the safest way currently known.


• The Andy Cutler Protocol, which is also a safer way of chelating metals from the brain and body.

Russia Decries Renewed Arms Race

Russia has decried Donald Trump's withdrawal from a nuclear arms deescalation deal in a move that experts have called the ‘most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s’ — as the U.S. president confirms the US will leave the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) agreement, citing "Russian non-compliance".

Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute stated that “If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972.”

Wiping out the "entire transnational elite".

Russia must develop the capability to destroy the US in a single swift blow if it wants to persuade the Americans to end the nuclear arms race and return to the negotiating table, military expert Konstantin Sivkov said.

In order to curb the aggression from the West, Moscow shouldn’t compete with Washington in number of nukes, Sivkov wrote in a new article.

If “areas with critically dangerous geophysical conditions in the US (like the Yellowstone Supervolcano or the San Andreas Fault)” are targeted by those warheads, “such an attack guarantees the destruction of the US as a state and the entire transnational elite,”

On Monday, US President Donald Trump warned Russia and China that Washington intends to build up its nuclear arsenal until “people come to their senses.”

The president said: “Unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and they say, ‘Let’s all of us get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons,’ but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable. So we have a tremendous amount of money to play with with our military.”

A dream of "single global superpower".

Russian state news agencies on Saturday cited a foreign ministry source as saying Washington’s move to pull out of the treaty is motivated by a dream of a single global superpower.

“The main motive is a dream of a unipolar world. Will it come true? No,” a foreign ministry source told Ria Novosti state news agency.

Washington “has approached this step over the course of many years by deliberately and step-by-step destroying the basis for the agreement,” the official said, quoted by Russia’s three main news agencies.

Autism Epidemic: The Hyper-Masculinization Theory

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is more prevalent now than ever before, it's a topic rarely discussed — in previous articles I have put forward several theories as to the cause of the illness; including but not limited to exposure to toxins in pharmaceutical vaccines, the genetic and gender roles in the origins of the illness, environmental traumas, prenatal exposure to hostile chemical agents, and so on.

[caption id="attachment_16320" align="aligncenter" width="738"] Autism has skyrocketed. The mainstream media and the medical establishment have attributed this to 'greater rates of diagnosis' and a more comprehensive understanding of autism as a condition - I disagree with this poor explanation; autism is very noticeable and identifiable.[/caption]

As a disclaimer, and to distinguish — autism has numerous manifest forms; generally recognized in problems with social communication and social interaction, and/or restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests or activities — there are numerous hues of the "autistic" profile, as per the varying extent of the condition's causative effects.

Endocrine disruptors are likely having a major role in the onset of autistic spectrum's symptoms in people. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may mimic and interfere with the body’s chemical messenger system (endocrine system) and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife — hormones, besides DNA, are directly responsible for what we are, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Our hormones can make us more masculine or more feminine, decide where our bodies should build muscle, fat, affect our gynecology, alter the structure and thought processes of our brains; dictate our personalities, our behavior, our very perception of the world around us — the list is endless, this is crucial in understanding autism as an illness and how it manifests.

There is a growing recognition that even small amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals can have a deleterious affect on the development of the fetus, infants and young children.

All in all, most of these "autistic" profiles, any way you look at them, are extremely damaging to the fabric of our society (no, autism is not healthy or natural) and can be pinned to a few common likely causes.

On pharmaceutical vaccines, chronic immune system dysregulation:

A common argument against people who are skeptical of or criticize vaccines is that vaccines are the "magic bullet" to our health and wellbeing, that without vaccines we'd all die in some horrendous plague. This is patently false. Vaccines, like anything we put into our bodies, should be questioned and scrutinized.

Epidemiological studies (statistical surveys) show poorer long-term health is more common among the vaccinated who survive without serious injury than children who are not vaccinated — this condition is termed "vaccinosis". (1, 2, 3, 4).

Gian Paolo Vanoli, a scientist, journalist and opponent of vaccinations, says that vaccines make people gay. This is one just account of the detrimental hormonal influences of vaccines.

Vaccines only engage part of the immune system, they intravenously introduce pathogens; a way the body cannot manufacture a proper adaptive response, the result is autoimmune disorders. In cases of immune system over activity, the body attacks and damages its own tissues (autoimmune diseases). Heightened body inflammation over a vaccinosis sufferers' life results in numerous illnesses.

When people are subject to repeated vaccines, they predictably simulate a situation of suppressed cell-mediated immunity and heightened antibody responses. Why? Because that’s the goal of vaccination. If you make a list of the diseases that are characterized by suppressed cell-mediated immunity and heightened humoral immunity, you’re talking health conditions like asthma, allergies, eczema and autoimmune diseases including Crohn’s, Vitiligo, Multiple Sclerosis, Sjogren’s syndrome, Hashimoto’s, etcetera.

We cannot and will not eradicate all disease with vaccines. We have merely traded acute illnesses from which most recover for chronic illnesses for which modern medicine has no cure.

[caption id="attachment_16326" align="aligncenter" width="640"] It's become increasingly apparent that vaccines turn the guns of immune defense inwards.[/caption]

• In a 1997 study in New Zealand, 1265 children were surveyed: twenty-three percent of the vaccinated children experienced asthma and thirty percent suffered from allergies. The unvaccinated children did not have a single incident of these illnesses.


• In a 2004 British Study of 30,000 children, vaccinated children had a 5.04 increased risk of asthma, while the unvaccinated only had a .36 percent prevalence.


• In a 2011 German Study of 8000 children, vaccinated children had at least two to five times more diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children.

In patients with an autoimmune disorder, the immune system can’t tell the difference between healthy body tissue and antigens that need to be attacked. The result is an immune response that destroys normal body tissues. This response is a hypersensitivity reaction similar to the response in allergic conditions. Vaccinations have been shown to induce autoimmune disorders.

Interestingly, there’s a study out of Kobe University in Japan where they took mice and put them on a rigorous vaccination program. They wanted to see if they could develop excessive antibodies as seen in autoimmune disease. And they found that at a certain threshold they could consistently and reliably induce autoimmune disease by simply giving enough vaccinations. (source)

This vaccine-induced autoimmune disease may explain the onset of autism in some people who are genetically susceptible or otherwise. Is autism an autoimmune disorder? Most likely.

The Kobe University study authors concluded:

"Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequenceof over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen to the levels that surpass the system’s self-organize criticality."

In other words, they found that, not only is vaccination a possible or even probable cause of autoimmune disorders, but that chronic diseases are the inevitable result of vaccinations!

This study was done with mice. This begs the question, ‘Has this been replicated in humans?’ Unequivocally yes. This experiment has been done and it’s called the last 70 years.

Autoimmune diseases have increased in quantity and variety as the number of vaccinations has increased over the last 70 years. There are over 100 autoimmune diseases. Studies with monogenetic twins have revealed that genetic influences only account for 25–40% of the disease risk making environmental influences the predominant factors. (7) Regardless of genetic vulnerability, one’s environment determines whether genes for autoimmunity are expressed.

There is a reason the fastest growing subset of diseases in the US and the world are autoimmune diseases. This is because we’re producing them. It’s a growth industry. As vaccines have increased in number, so have the number of cases of autoimmune disease.

Currently, there are 38 vaccines on the recommended schedule, with even more in some US states. There are many more vaccines in development. I predict a worsening epidemic of allergies, asthma, autoimmune and other diseases caused by an atrophy of the cell-mediated immune response as more vaccines are added to the vaccine schedule. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg with vaccine-induced disease.

In vulnerable children, vaccines cause autism, seizures, mental retardation and so many other health issues. One must also take into account the fact that for every severe reaction, vaccine provoke less acute effects like confusion, language difficulties, memory issues, irritability, mood alterations, combativeness, difficulty concentrating and behavioral problems. (source). This sounds very much like ADD and ADHD, which are sweeping the child population in epidemic proportions.

Read more at MyersDetox.

Sources for information on vaccines:

1. Drtenpenny.com


2. Vaccineresearchlibrary.com


3. Novaccine.com


4. 909shot.com


5. Thinktwice.com


6. Nvic.org (National Vaccine Information Center)


7. Vaccinetruth.org


8. Vran.org (excellent Canadian site)


9. Childhoodshots.com

The Hyper-Masculinization Theory

The 2004 book by Simon Baron-Cohen called "Prenatal Testosterone in Mind: Amniotic Fluid Studies" and his 2003 book "The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain", dives into the role gestational endocrinology might have in influencing human minds, personalities and behavioral profiles.

One emerging theory suggests that autism may have something to do with high exposure to adverse hormonal influences in the womb — in effect interfering with the child's otherwise stable development — and pushing their cognitive profile to become overly systemic, or at least inhibiting the formation of a healthy cognitive profile — the result seems to be an augmentation of the structured and logical male brain. A personality style guided overly by systems and order.

Slightly elevated levels of testosterone in fetuses have been linked to health defects and autism, and that autism-type disorders are four to nine times more common in boys.

Research indicates that mercury and aluminum components of vaccines may have synergistic toxicity with testosterone, which causes the autistic symptoms to emerge. It's not surprising when you consider the rise of autism came in the 1930s when ethyl mercury was first commercialized in agricultural products and in vaccines.

To address people who claim that mercury isn't in vaccines anymore; it’s simply not true that they’ve removed the mercury exposure from infant and fetal vaccines. Mercury has come out of some vaccines. It’s still in others, and they’ve targeted pregnant women with flu shots, and ethyl mercury in pregnancy is even more toxic in pregnancy than it is in infancy. Also, injected substances are more toxic than conventionally ingested substances. Mercury you consume orally is less of a danger than injected mercury.

Like it or not, vaccines are likely the largest source of one-time exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in early infant development that may be responsible for these marginal fetal hormone-altering effects.

Natal and post-natal vaccinations are the only common logical stages wherein hormonal interference can take hold in a big way and change the biological course of someone's life permanently.

Preterm delivery	4.7 times higher
Clear-cell adenocarcinoma	40 times higher
Neonatal death	8 times higher
Loss in second trimester pregnancy	3.8 times higher
Ectopic pregnancy	3.7 times higher
Stillbirth	2.4 times higher
Infertility	2.4 times higher
Early menopause	2.4 times higher
Breast cancer	1.8 times higher

For example, considering autism has been linked to testosterone, with boys having the condition far more than girls (at 80% of ASD cases being males), one study has shown that people with autism have more masculine facial structures than the average neurotypical person, pointing towards higher testosterone as a link.

A paper published in 2015 also found adults (both men and women) with higher prenatal testosterone had more masculine facial features, and that this is the group most likely to have the neurological profile known as autism.

The testosterone connection deepens, the lack of emotional intelligence in autistic people could be linked to the hyper-masculinisation associated with testosterone's empathy-reducing effects on the brain — healthy men should have less empathy than women but should still have an emotional side; testosterone makes us more individualistic and antagonistic, hyper-masculinisation could push this to extremes. This capacity to empathize conventionally typically seems to be less prevalent in autistic people.

The hyper-specific interests of many autistic people perhaps alludes to the wiring of the archetypal male brain; the ability to focus on an objective and be undeterred by other interfering thought processes.

The effect on the autistic person's emotional quotient seems to vary between overly sensitive and emotionally unpredictable, to overly systemic and rigid, or a combination of both, or a slight effect of any of these symptoms in the partial autistic condition known as Asperger syndrome. Interestingly, it seems to more commonly go the way of this hyper-systematized personality, though.

Returning to the testosterone link, the UWA research associate Syed Zulqarnain Gilani and his team developed a technique where 3-D photogrammetry — the science of making measurements from photographs — could score a face to be male or female, based on 11 facial features.

"First, we looked for features that distinguished between male and female," Zulqarnain says.

"We found the autistic boys and girls had significantly more masculine gender scores than the non-autistic subjects."

The study also found the more masculine the face, the more social communication difficulties the children in the ASD group had.

Pesticides could play a role in the autism epidemic.

Another study showed how elevated levels of a metabolite of the insecticide DDT in the blood of pregnant women are linked to increased risk for autism in the offspring.

The investigators found the odds of autism with intellectual disability in offspring were increased by greater than twofold for the mother's DDE levels in the top quartile.



Dr. Stephanie Seneff, when asked “is there a toxic substance that is currently in our environment on the rise in step with increasing rates of autism that could explain this?” Seneff responded; “The answer is yes, I’m quite sure that I’m right, and the answer is glyphosate.” — This glyphosate is the active ingredient in RoundUp, a product made by Monsanto, which ranks as the number one herbicide used worldwide.

Russia looks to become top producer and exporter of organic food with President Vladimir Putin recently signing a new law regulating production, storing and transportation of organic produce in Russia. The decree bans agrochemicals, pesticides, antibiotics growth stimulators and hormones. Many countries have banned or are taking steps to ban glyphosate use, and move to cleaner foods.

Pregnancy is a delicate process that cannot be interrupted.

During pregnancy the hormonal levels of the mother are in flux, it's a phase in which her body is carefully assembling new life in the womb.

Natal vaccines, such as the flu jab, cause a shock to the system that changes the hormonal profile of the pregnant mother, the developing child takes the biggest hit.

Did I mention that a stunning finding revealed that autism is highest in areas with the highest vaccination rates? Correlation or causation?

Vaccines and pesticides also have a endocrine-disrupting effect on the gestating mother's child, the evidence supports this:

For example, in 2004, Alan Cantwell, M.D. raised concerns that 74 million children in Africa were discovered to be contaminated with a variety of female sex hormones, and that the injection of these was linked to an increase of sterility. Estradiol (E2), also spelled oestradiol, is an estrogen steroid hormone and the major female sex hormone, what is it doing in vaccines? — without a doubt I would link this to the rise in autism, homosexuality and gender-queerness.

The formative development of a person, involving the early biological emergence of a person's distinct gender is an especially susceptible phase to disruption.

Aluminium and mercury, toxic adjuvants present in some vaccines are well-known potent endocrine disruptors. It's no wonder many autistic kids show the signs of hormonal abnormality in their facial structure, as already mentioned - and that's just the one's that show an outward sign, it's likely most have these irregularities but they may not be as outwardly noticeable.

Tyrone Hayes, University of CA professor was asked to study a chemical called atrazine, a widely-used herbicide manufactured by Syngenta. He found unexpected results: that it causes sexual abnormality in frogs and that it could potentially cause the same effects in humans (frogs changing from male to female). Herbicides like atrazine are detectable on and in most food — including food eaten by pregnant mothers and transferred to unborn babies.

Vaccines with heavy metals and viruses that cause inflammation, pesticides and any other similarly unnoticeable agents — the hormonal profile of the gestating mother will be forced to change to deal with the hostility, it looks like this may be at the expense of the fetus' health — in nature, the mother's body takes precedence over the unborn child, the mother's body is the crucial supply line. For example, Dr. Deepak Chopra has claimed that hundreds of studies have confirmed that chemicals released by the pregnant mother's body are transported into the womb and affect the unborn baby.

The start of the autism epidemic correlates closely with the phased introduction of the Hib vaccine plus the HepB vaccine in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s. At that time, both the Hib and the HepB contained high amounts of mercury and aluminum which significantly increased the exposure to infants to both of these toxic chemicals at a far earlier age than ever before (HepB: at birth and then 1-2, 4, and 6 months; Hib: 2, 4, and 6 months).

Although mercury has been reduced or removed in some vaccines since 2003, mercury is still a component in most flu vaccines. The number of infant vaccines with aluminum-based adjuvants administered by 18 months of age has increased by 54% since 2000, and the amount of aluminum administered has increased by 23%.

In an article for Mothering Magazine, Dr. Bob Sears warned about the aluminum content found in infant vaccines:

In other words, a newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one of life would receive 250 mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month with the next Hep B shot. When, at two months, a baby gets its first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest-aluminum brand of DTaP are used) to a whopping 1225 mcg (if the Hep B vaccine is given along with the brands with the highest aluminum contents). These doses are repeated at four and six months. With most subsequent rounds of shots, a child would continue to get some aluminum throughout the first two years. But the FDA recommends that premature babies, and anyone with impaired kidney function, receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.

So there's how it is; aluminum and mercury are both endocrine disruptors, as well as neurotoxins, and both can be particularly toxic when exposed to testosterone — is someone targeting men by needlessly putting these substances in vaccines? Of course.

There is no end to the tricks that endocrine disruptors can play on our bodies: increasing production of certain hormones; decreasing production of others; imitating hormones; turning one hormone into another; interfering with hormone signaling; telling cells to die prematurely; competing with essential nutrients; binding to essential hormones; accumulating in organs that produce hormones.

Vaccines may cause the immune system to attack itself.

In what is called an autoimmune response — the fact aborted fetal cells are included in vaccines means the body could see healthy cells as hostile and then engage in self-destructive behavior.

Here is a video that suggests that nagalase is intentionally put into vaccines to weaken the immune system. Dr. Bradstreet found that autistic children tended to have a highly elevated level of nagalase in their blood. He claimed to have tested over 400 autistic children for the viral marker nagalase, and found that close to 80% of them had significantly elevated levels. This would make sense as part of a dumbing down and depopulation agenda as described in THRIVE (at 1:33:55). Bradstreet treated 1,100 patients with GcMAF, with an 85% response rate.

“GcMAF and/or oral Colostrum MAF macrophage activation therapy is indicated in the treatment of any diseases where there is immune dysfunction or where the immune system is compromised,” explains the website of a clinic out of Japan that sells an oral form of GcMAF.

Here’s a diagram of how GcMAF works:

What is GcMAF useful for?

One of the things that GcMAF does is kill a protein made by all cancer cells called nagalase, which is excreted by cancer cells to disarm the human immune system. Nagalase causes immunodeficiency

Besides cancer, the conditions listed as appropriate candidates for benefit from GcMAF treatment include:

Autoimmune diseases Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) Hepatitis B virus (HBV) Herpes Simplex virus (HSV) Cystitis Hepatitis C virus (HCV) Multiple sclerosis (MS) Urinary tract infection (UTI) Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Endometriosis Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Lyme disease (Lyme borreliosis) IgA deficiency disorder Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) Mycobacteria infections Parkinson’s disease Tuberculosis Fibromyalgia Human papillomavirus (HPV)

Lupus (Systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) HIV AIDS Dengue fever Pneumonia infection Warts caused by viral infection Norovirus Malaria Influenza virus (flu) Herpes simplex virus (HSV) Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) Chicken pox (varicella zoster virus) Psoriasis Respiratory tract infections Ulcerative colitis Crohn’s disease Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) Insulin-dependent diabetes (IDDM) Type 1.5 diabetes Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA)

GcMAF is also showing itself to be effective for treating autism.

“In a study of 1500 children with autism, 85% had high levels of viruses and a compromised immune system. All 1500 received weekly GcMAF injections and 70% of the children responded to the treatment with reduced symptoms and another 15% made full recoveries. The other 15% did not respond. It was stated that the reduction of autistic symptoms is permanent provided that GcMAF has been taken long enough for the body to produce its own GcMAF which typically takes 24 weeks.”

I personally know individuals who have been dramatically helped by taking GcMAF. Marco Ruggerio delivered a paper at the AutismOne conference in May of 2015 — just before these murders started. Over the summer, patients who were using it had their supplies cut off from their original source in Switzerland where the company was being harassed and threatened. Subsequent shipments from another country were intercepted at the U.S. border, though eventually allowed through. Authorities in the UK have also been confiscating this beneficial compound.

Introducing foreign bodies via vaccination to instill a state of inflammation.

Text from James A. Miller

During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been
overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number
of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines. In
October 1994, HLI received a communication from its Mexican
affiliate, the Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country's
anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the
Comite obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by
chemists. Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic
gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for
maintaining a pregnancy.

hCG and anti-hCG antibodies.

In nature the hCG hormone alerts the women's body that she is
pregnant and causes the release of other hormones to prepare the
uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized egg. The rapid
rise in hCG levels after conception makes it an excellent marker for
confirmation of pregnancy: when a woman takes a pregnancy test she is
not tested for the pregnancy itself, but for the elevated presence of
hCG.

However, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid
carrier, antibodies will be formed not only against tetanus but also
against hCG. In this case the body fails to recognize hCG as a friend
and will produce anti-hCG antibodies. These antibodies will attack
subsequent pregnancies by killing the hCG which naturally sustains a
pregnancy; when a woman has sufficient anti-hCG antibodies in her
system, she is rendered incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.[1]

HLI reported the sketchy facts regarding the Mexican tetanus vaccines
to its World Council members and affiliates in more than 60
countries.[2] Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with hCG
hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4
million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from
Nicaragua, which had conducted its own vaccination campaign in 1993.

The known facts.

Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns
in Mexico and the Philippines:

* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of
15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49). But aren't men at
least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And
what of the children? Why are they excluded?

* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the
vaccines. It does not belong there -in the parlance of the O.J.
Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been "contaminated."

* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections-three within
three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus
vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are
multiple inoculations called for?[3]

* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the
development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to
tetanus toxoid as a carrier-the exact same coupling as has been found
in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.[4]

The anti-fertility gang.

Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine
(AFV) using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the
UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population
Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, and a number of universities, including Uppsala,
Helsinki, and Ohio State.[5] The U.S. National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (part of NIH) was the supplier of the
hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.[6]

The WHO began its "Special Programme" in human reproduction in 1972,
and by 1993 had spent more than $356 million on "reproductive health"
research.[7] It is this "Programme" which has pioneered the
development of the abortificant vaccine. Over $90 million of this
Programme's funds were contributed by Sweden; Great Britain donated
more than $52 million, while Norway, Denmark and Germany kicked in
for $41 million, $27 million, and $12 million, respectively. The
U.S., thanks to the cut-off of such funding during the Reagan-Bush
administrations, has contributed "only" $5.7 million, including a new
payment in 1993 by the Clinton administration of $2.5 million. Other
major contributors to the WHO Programme include UNFPA, $61 million;
the World Bank, $15.5 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, $2.5
million; the Ford Foundation, over $1 million; and the IDRC
(International Research and Development Centre of Canada), $716.5
thousand.

WHO and Philippine Health Department excuses.

When the first reports surfaced in the Philippines of tetanus toxoid
vaccine being laced with hCG hormones, the WHO and the Philippine
Department of Health (DOH) immediately denied that the vaccine
contained hCG. Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which
detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid
examined, the WHO and DOH scoffed at the evidence coming from
"right-to-life and Catholic" sources. Four new vials of the tetanus
vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke's (Lutheran) Medical
Center in Manila-and all four vials tested positive for hCG!

From outright denial the stories now shifted to the allegedly
"insignificant" quantity of the hCG present; the volume of hCG
present is insufficient to produce anti-hCG antibodies.

But new tests designed to detect the presence of hCG antibodies in
the blood sera of women vaccinated with the tetanus toxoid vaccine
were undertaken by Philippine pro- life and Catholic groups. Of
thirty women tested subsequent to receiving tetanus toxoid vaccine,
twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-hCG antibodies! If
there were no hCG in the vaccine, or if it were present in only
"insignificant" quantities, why were the vaccinated women found to be
harboring anti-hCG antibodies? The WHO and the DOH had no answers.

New arguments surfaced: hCG's apparent presence in the vaccine was
due to "false positives" resulting from the particular substances
mixed in the vaccine or in the chemicals testing for hCG. And even if
hCG was really there, its presence derived from the manufacturing
process.

But the finding of hCG antibodies in the blood sera of vaccinated
women obviated the need to get bogged down in such debates. It was no
longer necessary to argue about what may or may not have been the
<cause> of the hCG presence, when one now had the <effect> of the
hCG. There is no known way for the vaccinated women to have hCG
antibodies in their blood unless hCG had been artificially introduced
into their bodies!

Why a tetanus toxoid "carrier"?

Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring
hormone hCG, the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an
invading enemy in order to develop a successful antifertility vaccine
utilizing hCG antibodies. A paper delivered at the 4th International
Congress of Reproductive Immunology (Kiel, West Germany, 2629 July
1989) spelled it out: "Linkage to a carrier was done to overcome the
immunological tolerance to hCG."[8]

Vaccine untested by Drug Bureau.

After the vaccine controversy had reached a fever pitch, a new
bombshell exploded: none of the three different brands of tetanus
vaccine being used had ever been licensed for sale and distribution
or registered with the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD), as
required by law. The head of the BAFD lamely explained that the
companies distributing these brands "did not apply for
registration."[9] The companies in question are Connaught
Laboratories Ltd. and Intervex, both from Canada, and CSL
Laboratories from Australia.

It seemed that the BAFD might belatedly require re-testing, but the
idea was quickly rejected when the Secretary of Health declared that,
since the vaccines had been certified by the WHO -there they are
again!-there was assurance enough that the "vaccines come from
reputable manufacturers."[10]

Just how "reputable" one of the manufacturers might be is open to
some question. In the mid-'80s Connaught Laboratories was found to
be knowingly distributing vials of AIDS-contaminated blood
products.[11]

Epilogue.

At this juncture, evidence is beginning to appear from Africa.[12]
HLI has called for a Congressional investigation of the situation,
inasmuch as nearly every agency involved in the development of an
anti-fertility vaccine is funded, at least in part, with U.S.
monies.

ENDNOTES.

1 "Abortifacient vaccines loom as new threat," <HLI Reports>,
November 1993, pp. 1-2.

2 <World Council Reports>, 28 November 1994, pp. 4-5.

3 A call placed by this writer on 5 May 1995 to the Montgomery County
(Maryland) Health Department, Epidemology Division-Infectious
Diseases - Adult Immunizations, elicited the following information:

Q. For how long a time does the tetanus vaccination offer protection?

A. 10 years.

Q. Have you ever heard of any adult requiring three tetanus
vaccinations within a 3 or 4 month time period, and a total of 5
vaccinations in all within a year or so?

A. Whaaaat! Never. No way!

Reports from the Philippines appear to confirm the 10-year immunity
afforded by tetanus toxoid vaccinations: prior to the campaigns begun
in 1993, the so-called booster shots were given only every 10-years.

4 More than a score of articles, many written by WHO researchers,
document WHO's attempts to create an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing
tetanus toxoid as a carrier. Some leading articles include:

"Clinical profile and Toxicology Studies on Four Women Immunized with
Pr-B-hCG- TT," <Contraception>, February, 1976, pp. 253-268.

"Observations on the antigenicity and clinical effects of a candidate
antipregnancy vaccine: ,B-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin
linked to tetanus toxoid," <Fertility and Sterility>, October 1980,
pp. 328-335

"Phase I Clinical Trials of a World Health Organization Birth Control
Vaccine," <The Lancet>, 11 June 1988, pp. 1295-1298. "Vaccines for
Fertility Regulation," Chapter 11, pp. 177-198, <Research in Human
Reproduction, Biennial Report> (1986-1987), WHO Special Programme of
Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction
(WHO, Geneva 1988).

"Anti-hCG Vaccines are in Clinical Trials," <Scandinavian Journal of
Immunology>, Vol. 36, 1992, pp. 123-126.

5 These institutional names are garnered from the journal articles
cited in the previous footnote.

6 <Lancet>, 11 June 1988, at p. 1296.

7 <Challenges in Reproductive Health Research, Biennial Report
1992-1993>, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994, p. 186.

8 G.P. Talwar, et al, "Prospects of an anti-hCG vaccine inducing
antibodies of high affinity...(etc)," <Reproductive Technology> 1989,
Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990, Amsterdam, New York, p. 231.

9 3 DOH vaccines untested by BFAD," <The Philippine Star>, 4 April
1995, pp. 1, 12.

10 "BFAD junks re-testing of controversial shot," <Manila Standard> 7
April 1995; "DOH: Toxoid vaccines are safe," <The Philippine Star>. 7
April 1995.

11 "Ottawa got blood tainted by HIV." <Ottawa Citizen>, 4 April 1995.

12 A nearly two-year old communique from Tanzania tells a familiar
story: tetanus toxoid vaccinations, five in all, given only to women
aged 1545. Nigeria, too, may have been victimized; see <The Lancet>,
4 June 1988, p. 1273.
Taken from the June/July 1995 issue of "HLI Reports." To subscribe
contact: HLI Reports, 7845 Airpark Road, Suite E Gaithersburg, MD
20879