by Jon E. Lewis
Scientists lying? Scientists are meant to stare down microscopes and tell the truth. With scientists prepared to fudge and fictionalize for political ends, it is small wonder that AGW-deniers smell blood.
In the movie The Wild One Marlon Brando’s character is asked, “What are you rebelling against, Johnny?” to which he answers, “Whaddya got?” In similar vein, denialists cite a multitude of reasons why the global warming scam (alleged) is being foisted on the public by politicians, scientists and businessmen. In ascending order of satanic magnitude the hoax exists because:
•
Green charities, environmentalists, alternative energy companies, carbon-trading NGOs, pro-climate academic researchers all need to whip up fear about global warming to justify their jobs, grants, scams and budgets. Their co-conspirators are governments from left to right, who use global warming to acclimatize the population to higher taxes and more controls on lifestyle.
•
The UN and its IPCC is seeking the redistribution of wealth from First World to Third World by curtailing industrial output in the West. In particular theorists charge that the Kyoto Agreement is a direct attack on the economic capability of the USA, since ratification by Washington DC of treaty obligations to restrict emissions would lead to a giant restructuring bill. De-industrialization of the West, say some theorists, together with a one-world UN-led government equals Socialism – so making “global warming” a new twist on the old Commie takeover plot.
•
The New World Order, like the UN, is seeking the destabilisation of the USA. Retooling the economy to satisfy global warmers and Kyoto would drag billions from defence, so making the USA vulnerable to a takeover by NWO forces.
Subtract the lunacy of the “NWO” and for once the paranoid spear carriers of conspiracy theory may have a point: the global warming brigade are blowing smoke into the eyes of the public.
The public, meanwhile, along with Joe Friday, want “Just the facts, ma’am”.
Further Reading
Michael Crichton, State of Fear, 2004
James Delingpole, Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors, 2011
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt, 2010
GULF WAR SYNDROME
On returning home from the first Gulf War of 1990–91, some Coalition veterans began to complain of a disturbing illness, the symptoms of which were migraine, dizziness, loss of balance, memory and motor control. Dubbed “Gulf War Syndrome”, scientists and combatants alike searched for its cause, of which there were several dire possibilities. Firstly, there was the possibility of exposure to oil fumes from well fires. Secondly, Saddam Hussein may have covertly used biological or chemical weapons. Thirdly, Coalition forces were subjected to anti-nerve gas drugs and chemical weapons by their own side, which was then covered up, as with the case of GIs being exposed to Agent Orange herbicide in Vietnam.
Not everyone, however, was convinced that Gulf War Syndrome actually existed. An issue of the New England Journal of Medicine in 1996 declared that most cases of the illness could be put down to leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease spread by sandflies. Other cases, as with other wars, seemed to be symptoms of shell shock. A 1998 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases found that veterans of the Gulf War actually had better overall health than soldiers who stayed behind. The British Ministry of Defence found no correlation between illness and Gulf War service, while the Pentagon found that only 1 per cent of Gulf veterans claimed to suffer from the mysterious illness. There were dark mutterings that veterans with Gulf War Syndrome were cleverly seeking financial compensation along the lines of that awarded to Agent Orange victims.
Undeterred, Gulf War Syndrome sufferers carried on campaigning, and began to win the battle for the public mind. In the US, a panel chaired by Anthony Principi, the Secretary of the Veteran Affairs department, decided that: “Research studies conducted since the war have consistently indicated that psychiatric illness, combat experience or other deployment-related stressors do not explain Gulf War veterans’ illnesses in the large majority of ill veterans”
Across the pond, in June 2003, the High Court upheld a claim by a Brit vet that the eczema, fatigue, depression and breathing problems that he experienced were the consequence of his military service. The court’s ruling was supported by a British scientific study, which found that Gulf War veterans had a lower fertility count than their non-serving peers.
Over time, the focus of Gulf War Syndrome medical research became the vaccinations troops received before deployment. By an “Interim Rule” adopted by the US Food and Drug Administration, the military were allowed to use experimental drugs on staff without their consent in a time of “military exigency”. Accordingly, GIs were injected cocktails of drugs of dubious provenance, efficacy and safety. A congressionally appointed Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses determined in 2008 that two neurotoxic exposures were “causally associated” with Gulf War illness. These were pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents, and pesticides sprayed on clothing, bedding and tents.
Further Reading
www.va.gov/RAC-VI/docs/Committee_Documents/GWIand HealthofGWVeterans_RAC-GWVIReport_2008.pdf
DOCUMENT: GULF WAR ILLNESS AND THE HEALTH OF GULF WAR VETERANS, RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON GULF WAR VETERANS’ ILLNESSES, 2008
Findings in Brief
Gulf War illness, the multisymptom condition resulting from service in the 1990–1991 Gulf War, is the most prominent health issue affecting Gulf War veterans, but not the only one. The Congressionally mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses has reviewed the extensive evidence now available, including important findings from scientific research and government investigations not considered by earlier panels, to determine what is known about the health consequences of military service in the Gulf War. This evidence identifies the foremost causes of Gulf War illness, describes biological characteristics of this condition, and provides direction for future research urgently needed to improve the health of Gulf War veterans.
Gulf War illness is a serious condition that affects at least one fourth of the 697,000 U.S. veterans who served in the 1990–1991 Gulf War. This complex of multiple concurrent symptoms typically includes persistent memory and concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain, gastrointestinal problems, and other chronic abnormalities not explained by well-established diagnoses. No effective treatments have been identified for Gulf War illness and studies indicate that few veterans have recovered over time.
Gulf War illness fundamentally differs from trauma and stress-related syndromes described after other wars. Studies consistently indicate that Gulf War illness is not the result of combat or other stressors and that Gulf War veterans have lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder than veterans of other wars. No similar widespread, unexplained symptomatic illness has been identified in veterans who have served in war zones since the Gulf War, including current Middle East deployments.
Evidence strongly and consistently indicates that two Gulf War neurotoxic exposures are causally associated with Gulf War illness: 1) use of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents, and 2) pesticide use during deployment. Evidence includes the consistent association of Gulf War illness with PB and pesticides across studies of Gulf War veterans, identified dose-response effects, and research findings in other populations and in animal models.
For several Gulf War exposures, an association with Gulf War illness cannot be ruled out. These include low-level exposure to nerve agents, close proximity to oil well fires, receipt of multiple vaccines, and effects of combinations of Gulf War exposures. There is some evidence supporting a possible association between these exposures and Gulf War illness, but that evidence is inconsistent or limited in important ways.
Other wartime exposures are not likely to have caused Gulf War illness for the majority of ill
veterans. For remaining exposures, there is little evidence supporting an association with Gulf War illness or a major role is unlikely based on what is known about exposure patterns during the Gulf War and more recent deployments. These include depleted uranium, anthrax vaccine, fuels, solvents, sand and particulates, infectious diseases, and chemical agent resistant coating (CARC).
Gulf War illness is associated with diverse biological alterations that most prominently affect the brain and nervous system. Research findings in veterans with Gulf War illness include significant differences in brain structure and function, autonomic nervous system function, neuroendocrine and immune measures, and measures associated with vulnerability to neurotoxic chemicals. There is little evidence of peripheral neuropathies in Gulf War veterans.
Gulf War illness has both similarities and differences with multi-symptom conditions in the general population. Symptom-defined conditions like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity occur at elevated rates in Gulf War veterans, but account for only a small proportion of veterans with Gulf War illness.
Studies indicate that Gulf War veterans have significantly higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) than other veterans, and that Gulf War veterans potentially exposed to nerve agents have died from brain cancer at elevated rates. Although these conditions have affected relatively few veterans, they are cause for concern and require continued monitoring.
Important questions remain about other Gulf War health issues. These include questions about rates of other neurological diseases, cancers, and diagnosed conditions in Gulf War veterans, current information on overall and disease-specific mortality rates in Gulf War veterans, and unanswered questions concerning the health of veterans’ children.
Federal Gulf War research programs have not been effective, historically, in addressing priority issues related to Gulf War illness and the health of Gulf War veterans. Substantial federal Gulf War research funding has been used for studies that have little or no relevance to the health of Gulf War veterans, and for research on stress and psychiatric illness. Recent Congressional actions have brought about promising new program developments at the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, but overall federal funding for Gulf War research has declined dramatically since 2001.
A renewed federal research commitment is needed to identify effective treatments for Gulf War illness and address other priority Gulf War health issues. Adequate funding is required to achieve the critical objectives of improving the health of Gulf War veterans and preventing similar problems in future deployments. This is a national obligation, made especially urgent by the many years that Gulf War veterans have waited for answers and assistance.
HAARP
HAARP is the trip-off-the-tongue abbreviation for the mouthful that is America’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program housed near Gakona, Alaska. Here, on a 33-acre site, scientists transmit a 3.6million megawatt signal into the ionosphere so that other colleagues in white lab coats can “understand … and control ionospheric processors that might alter the performance of communication and surveillance systems”.
HAARP is about improving communications? Oh no, it is not, say a legion of conspiracists, starting with Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, authors of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP (1995) and Jerry E. Smith, the penner of HAARP (1998). Smith’s subtitle gives the conspiracists’ game away: HAARP is “The Ultimate Weapon of Conspiracy”. Since the HAARP transmitter works by heating the ionosphere, Begich, Manning, Smith et al claim it is capable of altering the world’s weather systems to the advantage of the US. The cases in point being the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (which allowed Uncle Sam to gain control over the oil rich Aceh province), and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake and the 2011 Japanese Tsunami (both of which devastated the economies of America’s chief Asian competitors).
More common is the notion that HAARP’s Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) transmitter can be used as a “death beam” capable of destroying enemy satellites. A misfire in 1993 is claimed to have caused an electricity blackout in Canada and the north-east of the USA. Technologically, HAARP does have – although officialdom tends to deny it – a striking similarity to the patented defence system designed by Dr Bernard Eastlund, which fires pulses of electromagnetic radiation at incoming missiles. As Eastlund readily acknowledged, his patent owed much to principles laid down by Nikola Tesla, pioneer of Free Electricity, although the exact system powering Tesla’s own “weapon of doom” is unknown. On Tesla’s death, many of his papers went missing, while others were seized by the FBI who still have them under wraps.
Suspicions that HAARP has an ulterior military function are roused further by following the cash trail: the programme is funded by the Office of Naval Research, and managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Even so, all nefarious applications of HAARP are denied by US officialdom, who point out that the HAARP site holds open days every summer.
Which is great if you are an Eskimo or a polar bear. Otherwise, Gakona, 200 miles east of Anchorage, is the end of the earth.
But not literally. Fingers crossed.
Further Reading
Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, 1995
DAG HAMMARSKJOLD
On the night of 17 September 1961 a Douglas DC-6 crashed in North Rhodesia (now Zambia), killing all sixteen passengers aboard. One of the dead was Dag Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who had been on his way to negotiate a ceasefire between UN forces and Katangese troops of Moise Tshombe.
The official inquiry, undertaken by the Rhodesians (read British, because Rhodesia was a colony) blamed the plane’s pilot for the crash, concluding that he had misjudged the approach to Ndola airport. A subsequent UN inquiry largely confirmed the British findings. However, rumours of foul play began to surface, and have continued to float around. Among the early sceptics was Harry Truman, ex-president of the US, who is reputed to have said, “Dag Hammarskjold was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said, ‘when they killed him’.”
Who did Truman mean by “they”? Answer: European mining companies, with Britain and America’s spies wiping away the traces. In 1961, the unhappy Congo was the scene of a rebellion by the mineral-rich Katanga region. Backing the rebellion were western mining companies, white settlers – and secretly, suspected Hammarskjold, Great Britain. The Secretary-General, on the other hand, was using all his clout to support the Congolese Government, and had recently authorized a UN military mission (Operation Morthor) against the Katanga rebels. The British were not the only enemies of Hammarskjold; the fiercely independent Swedish diplomat had enraged almost all the major powers on the Security Council with his support for decolonization. On the other hand, he was much loved by developing countries, and his re-election as secretary-general was virtually guaranteed in the general assembly vote due in 1962.
There is a deal of evidence to suggest that Hammarskjold’s plane was shot down. One of the DC-6’s passengers, US Sergeant Harold Julian, was able to tell investigators before he died that he had seen sparks in the sky before the crash. His account tallies with those of charcoal burners and other eyewitnesses in the Ndola area interviewed by Swedish aid worker Göran Björkdahl, who say that they saw a plane shooting at the DC-6. Two of Hammarskjold’s aides, Conor Cruise O’Brien and George Ivan Smith, both became convinced after their own investigations that the Secretary-General had been shot down by mercenaries working for European industrialists in Katanga, with the British covering up the shooting and possibly sponsoring it. (O’Brien knew of what he spoke: he had been the target of assassination by pro-Katanga mercenaries.) Norwegian Major-General Egge, the first UN officer to see Hammarskjold’s body, declared that the Secretary-General had a hole in his forehead, which was subsequently airbrushed from photos. Even the official reports agree that six of the DC-6 passengers’ bodies showed evidence of bullet wounds, but att
ribute these to exploding ammunition in the fire after the plane’s crash. This contention was refuted by Major C. F. Westell, a ballistics expert, who said: “I can certainly describe as sheer nonsense the statement that cartridges of machine guns or pistols detonated in a fire can penetrate a human body.” He based his opinion on a large-scale experiment that had been done to determine if military fire brigades would be in danger working near munitions depots.
Is there any tangible evidence of British – or even American – involvement in Hammarskjold’s death? In 1997, documents uncovered by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission indicated a conspiracy between the CIA and MI5 to remove Hammarskjold in “Operation Celeste”. It is perhaps timely to recall here that the CIA, by its own later admission, assassinated Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in January 1961. According to press reports, one document turned up by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission refers to a meeting between the CIA, South African and British intelligence in which CIA chief Allen Dulles agreed that “Dag is becoming troublesome … and should be removed.” Dulles, according to the documents, promised “full cooperation from his people”.
