Thursday, 2 October 2008



August 15, 2008

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Media)

Department of Health and Human Services

Room 17A-46

Parklawn Building 

5600 Fishers Lane 

Rockville, Md. 20857 


Case No. NCI 08-069, FOIA Case No. 35119 

To the United States: 

I, Boyd Ed Graves, do hereby formally appeal the July 17, 2008 final agency decision that no documents exist for the requested Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, seeking the ‘return ‘ of progress reports #14 and 15 (1977 and 1978) of the U.S. Special Virus Cancer Program (1962 – 1978). 

The progress reports were in the archives of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as is evidenced by a May 15, 2000 letter from Dr. Victoria Cargill, Medical Officer for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of AIDS Research. 

In her letter, Dr. Cargill confirms the existence of the U.S. Special Virus program and that three progress reports were located in the archives of the NCI. Upon subsequent communication, it was determined that progress reports #14 and !5 were among the three progress reports. 

Equally true, there is a sufficient paper and correspondence trial between NCI officials and petitioner, specifically addressing progress reports #14 and 15. These documents were in the archives of the United States, they have been illegally removed and FOIA law compels and enjoins the NCI to replace the missing progress reports. 

Much of the communication with the NCI has been through and with the Deputy Director, Dr. Alan Rabson. According to a cursory review of the available progress reports, Dr. Rabson was a member of the “Developmental Committee” of the U.S. Special Virus program. See, page 12, progress report #8 (1971) , U.S. Special Virus program. Dr. Rabson has a personal vested interest in “hiding” the missing progress reports, because he was intimately involved in the development of HIV/AIDS. 

The missing progress reports are significant for a number of reasons. First, any review of the 15 progress reports will solve and end HIV/AIDS. Second, if we are serious about solving and ending HIV/AIDS, then a review should be conducted of the experiments and contracts of the “ETIOLOGY AREA” of the National Cancer Institute. Third, progress report # 14, identifies the work of AIDS developer, Dr. Peter Duesberg, who has never explained his role in the secret, federal program. And Fourth, progress report #15 provides the entire budget for the program. The U.S. Congress appropriated $550 million dollars to make AIDS. 

This federal program sought to determine if animal cancers (like visna virus) could grow in certain human host cells. We now know that visna virus is the etiological agent of HIV/AIDS. See, Science, Vol. 227, pp. 173 – 7, January 1985. According to the United States, see page 39, progress report #8, visna virus had not Yet been associated with human disease as late as 1971, but by July 18, 1983 (AIDS Task Force), it was concluded HIV/AIDS had evolved from visna virus. 

The United States should be compelled to replace the missing progress reports and forced to explain and investigate this secret, federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 through 1978. 

The American people and the people of the world have a right to know the truth about the true U.S. origin of the greatest scourge in human history. By compelling the United States to return the documents to the archives, that history will be preserved for all to see and view. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Boyd Ed Graves, J.D. 

3593 Fifth Ave. Suite D 

San Diego, Ca 92103 



About Codex Alimentarius: the 5-Minute Tour

These 14 points provide you with understanding about Codex Alimentarius - health freedom threat number one. It also explains what to do about it.

Consumer Protection? Unfortunately Not

The first step to understanding Codex Alimentarius is to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with “consumer protection”. That’s propaganda for the sake of getting people and Congress to yield to its implementation. 

Says Who?

Rima E. Laibow, M.D. is a successful natural medicine physician who graduated from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970. Dr. Laibow has studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex Alimentarius documentation. Her conclusion? Codex Alimentarius is a very serious threat to health freedom. We must take it seriously. 

Meaning of Name and History of Organization

“Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The organization was born in 1962 when the UN established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as a “Trade Commission”. It was created to regulate, and thus control, every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and sold to the consumer. It is solely about trade and the profits of multi-national corporations. 

Bolstering Profits of Pharmaceutical Industry

The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard. 

Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific

Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use Biochemistry. 

Based on Tyrannical Napoleonic Legal Code

Codex is based on the Napoleonic Code, dating back to Bonaparte. Under this code, anything not explicitly permitted is automatically forbidden. Under Common Law (our system), something does not have to be explicitly permitted to be legal. The tyrannical Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default. 

Shrewdly, Slowly Raising Heat

Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009, unless we, the People, take action and avert it. Right now, we are like a frog boiled slowly, the heat raised gradually so we won’t jump out of the water. The media is used to make us believe that Codex is about “consumer protection”. Part of the media strategy is to tarnish the image of natural health options, through for-hire studies. 

Beware Codex Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

One-time defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), have fallen prey to new pharmaceutical members and are spreading disinformation saying that Codex is “consumer protection”. Their boards used to be run by health freedom fighters. 

VMG: Banning Our Supplements

Codex is made up of many standards for every aspect of food. One of these standards was ratified (approved) in July 2005: the destructive Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG). The VMG can ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins & minerals. For example, Vitamin C would be restricted to only a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat. 

DSHEA, Our Best Legal Defense

The U.S. has a powerful legal tool for health freedom: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), passed in 1994 after massive grass-roots action. DSHEA scientifically classifies nutritional supplements as food and prevents dosage restrictions; Codex unscientifically classifies them as toxins and sets ultra-low doses. The VMG violates U.S. law because it violates DSHEA. We must unite to protect DSHEA, our best legal defense against Codex. 

Congressional Effort Underway to Undermine DSHEA

The pharmaceutical industry works through irresponsible/corrupt politicians to do their bidding. The path to institute Codex in America is to “influence” Congress to pass laws friendly to drugs and unfriendly to nutritional supplements, so that slowly everyone comes to believe that nutrients are “dangerous”, and drugs are “proper medicine”. Susan Davis (D, CA) and other politicians are helping Big Pharma by supporting bills designed to destroy DSHEA. 

U.S. Government Illegally Supports Codex

The U.S. Codex Office (the U.S. Codex “point of contact”) is unfortunately highly supportive of Codex. So is the rest of the government, including the pharmaceutical-friendly FDA. They should not be. DSHEA and other U.S. law means their support is in direct violation of the laws of the U.S.A.! They are breaking our laws and they know it. 

Let’s Enter Coordinal Relationships With Congress

Congress has the power to keep America Codex-free. It can defeat bills designed to destroy DSHEA, support health freedom bills, and reprimand the U.S. Codex Office and the FDA. Using the Internet we can reach Congress directly to create a lobby of the people, for the people. Families of Congress would suffer too, if Codex is not averted. 

Call to Action

Thanks to the Internet, millions of health conscious Americans can unite to protect health freedom from Codex Alimentarius. We have the power to turn Codex into a blessing if all of us in the natural health community use it to get active, get organized, and stand up for health freedom. Together, we will let Big Pharma know that we see through their deception and will protect our access to natural health care. 


The Natural Solutions Foundation briefed then President of India, Abdul Kalam, in a lengthy private meeting on the threat presented by Codex and advised him on protective action India should take. Passage of a protective food bill followed shortly after our meeting.

Meet Rima E. Laibow, M.D.

Rima E. Laibow, M.D. is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation. She is a graduate of Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1970) who believes passionately in the right every American to choose a personal health path that is free of government or corporate interference.
She has practiced drug-free, natural medicine for 35 years by seeking the underlying cause of every illness and ailment. Over During this time, she has enjoyed remarkable success with a wide assortment of cataclysmic problems and health promotion efforts.

Like other healers who trust the innate ability to heal, she believes in using nutrients and other natural options to find, define and treat the problems which underlie degenerative, chronic diseases. The key is supporting the immune and other crucial body systems. Dr. Laibow has seen results from these techniques so often in her patients and in her personal life, that she believes the medicine of the future is the medicine of cooperation with nature.

Dr. Laibow is the President of the NeuroTherapy Certification Board which she helped establish in order to strengthen and develop the field of NeuroBioFeedback and bring it into wide-spread use as a powerful, non-toxic tool for modern medicine.

Because of Dr. Laibow’s awareness of the wide variety of powerful natural, non-toxic options available to treat the underlying causes of disease, she is focused on maintaining these choices for all Americans. Based on her understanding of the impact of poor nutrition and chemical/pesticide toxicity on the declining health of America, Dr. Laibow is determined to help Americans maintain their right to choose health promotion rather than illness care in their efforts to protect themselves from disease and toxic harm.


The Natural Solutions Foundation met regularly with foreign Heads of State, Ministers of Health, National Codex Committee members, journalists and health freedom/consumer advocates to alert them to their options in dealing with the threat Codex represents to their food security and safety and educate them about the power and protection inherent in implementing the protective Codex Two Step Process.


The devices were tested against AIDS virus. The protocol used was that of the Ministry of Health of the State of Israel at their Virology Laboratory located at Tel HaShomer, Israel . AIDS viruses which had been grown in vitro in a tissue culture were isolated and exposed to the devices at device concentrations of 0.05, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 and 10.0 PPM. There was no evidence of AIDS suppression at all until the concentrations reached 5.0 and 10.0 PPM. At 5.0 PPM, 60% of the viruses were killed. AT 10.0 PPM, 75% of the viruses were killed. Extrapolation of this data reveals that at 18.0 PPM there would be total suppression of the virus. These test results indicate that the devices are capable of being used to destroy viruses in applications involving the proliferation and transmittal of the AIDS virus outside of, or for external application on, the human body as in cold sterilization, or the active component of chemical specialty lubricants used in condoms.



(1) BLUEPRINT FOR GENOCIDE –(2) Would Our Government Try To Exterminate Us? (see end)

Population and the American Future

The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future  

One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.

Richard Nixon July 18, 1969


March 27, 1972

To the President and Congress of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.

After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.

The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.

To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.

Respectfully submitted for the Commission, 

John D. Rockefeller 3rd Chairman



For the first time in the history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact.

In our Interim Report a year ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate policy for the future”— policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more difficult. We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning and consequences of population growth and internal migration and the desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.

Since then, the Commission and staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects. We have heard from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that population has become an active subject of consideration in a number of states in our country concerned about their future. We have come to recognize that the racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our recommendations—the consensus of our members—do indeed point the way in which this nation should move in solving its problems. Because of the importance of this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women among their members, including congressional representatives, and the commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities, youth, and women.

We offer this report in the hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration and response by the citizens of this nation and of nations throughout the world to an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.

Chapter 1: Perspective on Population

In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. In fact, population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.

The “population problem” is long run and requires long-run responses. It is not a simple problem. It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of either of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on the one hand, or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is accurate nor even helpful.

It is a problem which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the pressure of population reaching out to occupy open spaces and bringing with it a deterioration of the environment. It can be viewed as the effect on natural resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in both growth and distribution upon the orderly provision of public services. It can be seen as the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere, with all that implies for the quality of life in both places. It is the instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s life with respect to the reproduction of new life—the formal and informal pronatalist pressures of an outmoded tradition, and the disadvantages of and to the children involved. 

Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future generations.

There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation—then population is part of that crisis.

Although population change touches all of these areas of our national life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.

Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.

The United States today is characterized by low population density, considerable open space, a declining birthrate, movement out of the central cities—but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country, or any country, always has a “population problem,” in the sense of achieving a proper balance between size, growth, and distribution on the one hand, and, on the other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.

Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population questions. We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on population have effects for generations ahead. Similarly, we need to act responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants, given its wealth, may impinge upon the patrimony of other, less fortunate peoples in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of the developing countries may be more pressing at this time, but in the longer perspective, it is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our numbers.

A Diversity of Views

Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone, but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who also “want in.”

One of the basic themes underlying our analysis and policy recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; that is, we should concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens that quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and shelter. All human beings need a sense of their own dignity and worth, a sense of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their individual potentialities.

But it is far easier to achieve agreement on abstract values than on their meaning or on the strategy to achieve them. Like the American people generally, this Commission has not been able to reach full agreement on the relative importance of different values or on the analysis of how the “population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American society.

Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished. These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the general priorities of tasks to be accomplished. But, despite the different perspectives from which population is viewed, all of the population policies we shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.

The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing growth, but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large numbers of people being unable to control an important part of their lives—the number of children they have. The persistence of this problem reflects an effective denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of fertility control. In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general society are seen as congruent, at least at this point in history. The potential conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom from unwanted childbearing would contribute significantly to the stabilization of population.

Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context without pronatalist pressures—the heritage of a past when the survival of societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission for government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to decide their own future in this regard, based on the best available knowledge; then the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.

Beyond these goals, this approach depends on the processes of education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any serious population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would be to achieve the best collective decision about population issues based on knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks optimize the individual and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome—with the understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.

The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge, but stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the reality experienced by certain groups in our society. Many of the traditional American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some minorities. Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to opportunities afforded those in the mainstream of American society is denied to millions of people. Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing. Equality is denied when inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist, and shape available options. Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not taken to assure the fullest possible access to methods of controlling reproduction or to educational, job, and residential opportunities. In addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of freedom to the present generation. Finally, extending freedom and equality—which is nothing more than making the American system live up to its stated values—would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Full equality both for women and ‘for racial minorities is a value in its own right. In this view, the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, and not even a major one, of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.

The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic recasting of American values.

The numbers of people and the material conditions of human existence are limited by the external environment. Human life, like all forms of life on earth, is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions. Human culture, particularly science and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth. Sadly, in the rush to produce, consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather than to conserve and create. Not only have the land, air, and water, the flora and fauna suffered, but also the individual, the family, and the human community.

This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a uniquely valuable experience, serves primarily to perpetuate its own values. Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality. The exercise of these same values now contains the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human existence. With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings. The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change, and a fundamental cause of present human conditions.

It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or in the political system are unnecessary, and that measures such as population education and better fertility control information and services will solve our population problem. They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view, nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other than consumerism, and a radical change if not abandonment of the growth ethic, will suffice. A new vision is needed—a vision that recognizes man’s unity with nature, that transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity, and that seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our individual humanity.

The Immediate Goal

These three views reflect different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, different assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different perceptions of the critical values at stake.

Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold ramifications of population change throughout society, how are specific population policies to be selected?

As a Commission and as a people, we need not agree on all the priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak in greater or lesser degree to all of them. By and large, in our judgment, the policy findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement. Whatever the primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in right directions for this nation, and generally at low costs.*

Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country: to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the individual family and society at large, on the basis of greater rationality rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance. This country has already moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey. The time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family.

In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the revolutionary increase in average length of life within the past century, which has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique, demographic situation. The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world, and need reshaping to suit the new situation. Moreover, the instruments of population policy are now more readily available—fuller knowledge of demographic impacts, better information on demographic trends, improved means by which individuals may control their own fertility.

As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is certainly the time to begin: The 1970’s may not be simply another decade in the demographic transition but a critical one, involving changes in family life and the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what their own fertility will be—baby boom or baby bust.

Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in full consonance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human freedom, human dignity, and individual fulfillment; and concern for social justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. The issues are ethical in character, and their proper solution requires a deep sense of moral responsibility on the part of both the individual family and the national community: the former in considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to guide population growth into the American future.

A separate statement by Commissioner James S. Rummonds appears on page 164.

For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means, explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of affairs. By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future. In any case, 

no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.

(See the link for the rest of the report)




Would Our Government Try To Exterminate Us???

The most insidious lie is the lie that you tell yourself. I believe it’s better to know and make informed decisions, than to pretend that history didn’t happen, and cold hard facts don’t exist. It’s not enough that the American news media attempts to delude us every day, but now we’re attempting to delude ourselves. Now we’re pretending that the US Public Health Service didn’t organize, finance, and conduct a forty year (1932-1972), bio research experiment on African American males and their families to observe the effects of syphilis, as it ravages the human body. Those US public health officials subsequently denied their unwitting subjects lifesaving medications, that became available during the forty year span of the experiment. The infamous Tuskegee Experiment is now common knowledge, after the US president provided an empty apology to the few surviving victims, during a white house ceremony on May 16, 1997. Now, if the US public health service would conduct an experiment such as Tuskegee, then why is it such a stretch to conceive that the same government would later devise a modern, more comprehensive, more sophisticated plan to decimate populations with large concentrations of people of African descent, throughout the world. The HIV/AIDS virus was conceived, funded, and manufactured as a bio-weapon here in the United States of America. The avalanche of evidence leading to that conclusion is irrefutable. The following PBS video and articles, will provide all the evidence that any reasonable, logical, non-self deluded individual would require to reach that same conclusion.

Furthermore, the last article is a copy of US Patent #5676977, which clearly states there is a pharmaceutical cure for AIDS, that has been in use since the mid 1960s as a bactericide / fungicide to cleanse swimming pool water. This cure is easily manufactured, inexpensive, and commercially available. Now, ask yourself, Why Tetra-silver Tetra-oxide (Tetrasil) is not being used in the treatment of AIDS throughout the US, or across the Atlantic, on the African continent? Eerily, this is beginning to sound exactly like the chain of events leading up to the exposure of the now infamous Tuskegee Experiment. After reading these facts from several unrelated sources, you must again ask yourself the question: Would Our Government Try To Exterminate Us???

Robert O’Hara

Office: 708-262-3841


1. US Bio Weapons Research – PBS Video Program

2. Interview with African American Bio-Chemist: Dr Jack Felder

3. The AIDS virus: Made in the USA by Jerry Mazza; The Online Journal

Interview with Dr Robert Strecker: The Strecker Report

4. US Patent #5676977: Dr Marvin S Antelman, Rehovot, Israel 

Patent Number Search / Type 5676977 in Search Box / Hit Enter


No comments: