Thursday, December 28, 2006
[OBRL-News-Bulletin] PLEASE SUPPORT OBRL - Activity Report & Winter Funding Drive
Donation checks can also be mailed to OBRL, to the letterhead address. OBRL is a 501(c)3 status non-profit organization, and your donation is fully tax-deductible. To request more information, or to inquire about making a large gift or bequest, please call, e-mail, or write to us.
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
[OBRL-News-Bulletin] The trouble with soy, part 3
Jim Rutz
For many people, the most shocking new revelations about soy are not the increased risks of breast and other cancers [1-2], the link to childhood leukemia [3-6], the failure to prevent heart disease [7-8], infertility [9-10], or thyroid damage, with its symptoms of weight gain, fatigue and depression [11-13]. What really startles many of us is soy's impact on male sex organs, estrogen overload, testosterone suppression, and premature female puberty [14].
The root sex problem is that soy is loaded with isoflavones, plant estrogens that operate like human female estrogen, which occurs naturally in our bodies, male and female. These "phytoestrogens" cause serious developmental problems. They're only 1/1,000th to 1/1,200th the potency of human estrogen, ounce for ounce, but it's common for babies to consume them in such large quantities that they overwhelm their bodies' delicate testosterone-
The situation is just as bad for boys. Boy babies fed soy formula may go into puberty late - or not at all. Some of these boys are so feminized that their breasts grow but their penises don't. Some mature into adults with penises not much bigger than the ones they were born with! Others might look normal and go through puberty on time, but can't father children because their sperm are too few in number (or poor swimmers and/or unable to fertilize eggs) [23]. Sperm counts dropped 50 percent between 1939 and 1990 and are continuing to go down at the rate of 2 percent per year [24]. (Another national emergency.) Men make sperm throughout their lives, of course, but production ability can be seriously hurt by soy during the first trimester of pregnancy, during infancy, and early childhood [24-25].
It's not just the sex organs that are affected during the key developmental phases of pregnancy and infancy. The brain, too, can be irrevocably changed by excess estrogens, which suppress testosterone. That may contribute to altered sexual behavior and sexual preference. Estrogenized males of many species are more likely to suffer from ADD/ADHD and even to perform more like females on tests [26-28].
Soy won't hurt a grown man the same way. It's apt to flatten his libido, but won't affect the size or shape of his sex organs. (Against my better judgment, I took a national TV interview last week. They handed a bowl of soy stuff to a guy in the studio audience. After he had munched for thirty seconds, the host asked him, "Well, you startin' to feel kinda swishy yet?" Good comedy, but highly misleading.)
However, soy can cause gynecomastia (female-looking breasts) within months. A recent study at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that men eating whopping amounts of soy experienced breast enlargement and even some nipple discharge [29]. They ate a lot more soy than most of us would, but it serves as fair warning.
Moms eating soy during pregnancy are putting their babies at risk because isoflavones swim right through the placenta [30-31]. This can mess up hormonal balance, especially during the first three months, when male fetuses are in a crucial developmental stage and absolutely must have adequate testosterone. Those that get plant estrogens instead of mom's testosterone are at risk for birth defects like cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) and/or hypospadias, in which the opening of the penis is underneath instead of at the tip [32]. Although undescended testicles can be corrected fairly easily through surgery, hypospadias is far more serious. In worst case scenarios, it can require as many as 10 separate operations. Even then, the boy may not grow up to be an adult male with full sexual function. His penis typically never gets longer than one and a half inches [33].
Hypospadias is on the rise in the U.S. and Europe, and now occurs in one out of 125 births [34]. This coincides with the greater numbers of industrial chemicals in the environment, but also with the growing popularity of vegetarian and vegan diets. A British study in 2000 showed that vegetarian mothers are five times more likely to give birth to a boy with hypospadias than mothers who eat a varied diet [35]. Sadly, vegan moms-to-be think they are eating healthfully when they swig soy milk, nosh on soy nuts, and eat veggie burgers. The tragic result can be undescended testicles, hypospadias or even homosexuality. No study says that soy dooms a child to homosexuality, but it's not hard to believe that at some point during pregnancy babies are hardwired for sexual preference. (See the Psychological Medicine article in endnote 27 below.)
Pediatricians are seeing so many over-estrogenized boys today with breasts, delayed puberty and /or behavioral problems that they've come up with the terms "Developmental Estrogenization Syndrome" and "Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome" [36].
Right now, no evidence indicates that soy during childhood or adulthood is likely to change sexual preference. The danger zone is the first three months of both pregnancy and infancy, when male physiology and brain circuitry are still developing. In other words, a girl-chasing, football-playing college boy won't go gay even if he becomes a vegetarian or snacks all day on soy energy bars. (He might develop thyroid or other health problems or lose most of his libido, though.)
My larger concern is that the increasing number of less robust 15-year-olds who are already "struggling with their sexual identity" will be shoved over that thin line into homosexuality. No, they won't wake up some morning with floppy wrists and a nasal lisp, but they may begin to gravitate toward social circles where they feel more comfortable - and less expected to be rowdy or brag about a string of sexual conquests. And once a teen is ensconced in a homosexual milieu, breaking free from it could mean abandoning his best friends.
Does the idea that soy can cause so much trouble sound like Rutz sensationalism? Don't just take my word for it. Here's what government health experts in Israel and France have decided: The Israeli Health Ministry has looked long and hard at the evidence and concluded that its citizens won't "be fruitful and multiply" if they eat too much soy. It has warned that babies should not receive any soy formula, that children to age 18 should not eat soy more than once a day (to a maximum of 3 times a week), and that adults should beware because of breast cancer and adverse effects on fertility [37].
The French, meanwhile, intend to maintain their reputation as ardent lovers. Food manufacturers in France will soon have to remove those dangerous plant estrogens from soy formula and to put warning labels on soyfoods and soy milk. French Food Agency experts see the biggest risks as being to children under three and women who have been diagnosed with or have breast cancer in their families [38]. The British Dietetic Association also warns parents to avoid soy formula [39].
Do you really want to put your child into that experiment?
Next week: More news about soy - all documented, all bad.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Thursday, December 21, 2006
[OBRL-News-Bulletin] CONFERENCE on NEW RESEARCH IN ORGONOMY, United Kingdom, Mid-August 2007
When: Weekend of 18-19 August 2007
Times: From 10 AM until 6:00 PM, Saturday and Sunday.
Where: At the Chipping Village Hall, Lancashire, UK. More information will be posted here as it becomes available.
Other Activities This special Conference on New Research in Orgonomy is part of a larger event being organized by CORE, as part of a 50th Anniversary dedication to the memory of Wilhelm Reich, founder of the science of orgonomy.
The overall event includes the following two sections:
1. Orgonomy Today
Conference:Talks and Demonstrations on the
Science of the Life Energy
Exhibition of Equipment and Experiments
Monday to Friday, 13-17 August 2007
for further information contact Peter Jones: pffj(at)supanet.
(Spam reduction: insert the "@" symbol)
Plus
2. New Research in Orgonomy
Weekend Research Seminar: Latest Research in the Field
Saturday and Sunday, 18-19 August 2007
"CALL FOR PAPERS" Notice Below
Send all proposed Titles and Abstracts to:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Friday, December 15, 2006
[OBRL-News-Bulletin] Carter's book: Hatred, Not Analysis
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.
Start with Carter's cynical use of the word "apartheid" to smear the Jewish state. As Carter makes clear in his book, he does not, titular histrionics aside, subscribe to the demonstrable absurdity that Israel is an apartheid state. The alleged injustice of Israeli policies "is unlike that in South Africa-not racism, but the acquisition of land," Carter writes toward the end of his book. In interviews, similarly, he has acknowledged that there is "no semblance of anything relating to apartheid within the nation of Israel."
Instead, according to Carter, "apartheid" is what happens under the Israeli "occupation" of Palestinian territory. This, of course, renders the term meaningless. Palestinian territories are entirely autonomous and, as the recent firebombing of churches in Gaza and the West Bank attests, the only discrimination is practiced by Muslim militants against their Christian neighbors. Meanwhile, the sole restrictions employed by Israel - such as the security fence and border checkpoints - seek not to imprison Palestinians but to keep terrorists out.
For such nuances, Carter has little patience. As far as he is concerned, all the troubles of the region, from the lack of a peace settlement to the suffering of the Palestinians to the terrorist murder campaign against Israel, are directly attributable to Israeli policies. "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land," he asserts in his book.
Never mind that Israel has time and again volunteered to surrender all territories in exchange for a suspension of Palestinian terrorism and a recognition of its right to exist as a majority Jewish state. Disregard as well the fact that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has only fanned the flames of Palestinian hatred and injected fresh vigor into the cause of the resident jihadists. For Carter, Israel's presence in the territories remains the source whence all evil flows. So terrible are the injustices committed by Israel that, during a recent appearance on "Hardball," Carter even unburdened himself of the view that the Israeli occupation was worse than the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda. Carter brooks no disagreement on this point. "No one can go [to the Palestinian territories] and visit the different cities in Palestine without agreeing with what I have said," Carter says.
Except that they can. More embarrassingly for the ex-president, "they" include all the foremost experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - and even some of his onetime allies.
Of all the critics of Carter's book, the most unlikely may be Kenneth Stein. A professor of Israeli Studies at Emory University and the first executive director of the university's Carter Center - founded by and named for the former president - Stein not only accompanied Carter on diplomatic trips to the Middle East but also helped him co-author a book, The Blood of Abraham (1984). But last week Stein resigned from his position at the center and issued a devastating resignation letter in which he described Carter, in so many words, as an incompetent, a liar, and a fraud.
Of Carter's book, whose title he described as "too inflammatory to even print," Stein said that it was "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments." More troubling than Carter's prosecutorial and tendentious attacks on Israel, Stein noted, were his outright misrepresentations. In particular, Stein called attention to "meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book." (Carter does not deny that Stein was present at the meetings, but insists that his version of events is "completely accurate.")
In his suspicion that Carter fudged the facts to fit his anti-Israel agenda, Stein is not alone. Dennis Ross, who served as the Middle East envoy and chief negotiator between Israelis and Palestinians during the Clinton administration, is another critic deeply unimpressed with Carter's book. Ross points out that Carter's version of events at the 2000 summit at Camp David is a glaring inversion of the truth. Carter claims, for instance, that Prime Minister Ehud Barak rejected the Clinton administration'
Apart from getting his facts wrong, Carter may also have appropriated, without permission or attribution, a map from Ross's book, The Missing Peace, which recounts his attempts to forge a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. And, sure enough, the map that appears in Carter's book bears a striking resemblance to the one featured in The Missing Peace, and which Ross says he created specifically for the purpose of his book. For his part, Carter admits that he's never read Ross's book, which may at least explain his profound innocence of the Camp David summit.
Neither scenario is especially flattering for the ex-president. Either he's a thief, or he's an ignoramus.
Carter prefers a different explanation: He's a victim of a vast Jewish conspiracy. In Palestine, Carter trots out a theme previously aired by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their now-notorious paper, "The Israel Lobby." Attempting to explain why most Americans don't share his animus against Israel, Carter insists that it is "because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States" that allow no criticism of Israel. Lest this sound insufficiently specific, Carter alludes sinisterly to the "voices from Jerusalem" who "dominate in our media," in effect conspiring to make most Americans "unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.
Now that has book has drawn pointed criticism Carter
So embarrassing have Carter's polemical eructations become that the
That's not particularly surprising. Party affiliation aside, there has always been a certain symmetry between Carter and Baker's approach to the Jewish state. History will remember Baker for his famous "f-ck the Jews" remark. But it would have been equally apt as the title of Carter's newest tome.
In fact, Palestinian-
Mr. Carter's book is so filled with simple mistakes of fact and deliberate omissions that were it a brief filed in a court of law, it would be struck and its author sanctioned for misleading the court. Mr. Carter too is guilty of misleading the court of public opinion. A mere listing of all of Mr. Carter's mistakes and omissions would fill a volume the size of his book. Here are just a few of the most egregious:
Mr. Carter emphasizes that "Christian and Muslim Arabs had continued to live in this same land since Roman times," but he ignores the fact that Jews have lived in Hebron, Tzfat, Jerusalem, and other cities for even longer. Nor does he discuss the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries since 1948.
Mr. Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinian Arabs have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution, with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.
He barely mentions Israel's acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the United Nation's division of the mandate in 1948.
He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.
Mr. Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition, and secure boundaries, but he ignores that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation." But you wouldn't know that from reading the history according to Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if Iraq succeeded in building a bomb.
Mr. Carter faults Israel for its administration of Christian and Muslim religious sites, when in fact Israel is scrupulous about ensuring those of every religion the right to worship as they please - consistent, of course, with security needs. He fails to mention that between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Hashemites destroyed and desecrated Jewish religious sites and prevented Jews from praying at the Western Wall. He also never mentions Egypt's brutal occupation of Gaza between 1949 and 1967.
Mr. Carter blames Israel, and exonerates Arafat, for the Palestinian refusal to accept statehood on 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza pursuant to the Clinton-Barak offers at Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. He accepts the Palestinian revisionist history, rejects the eyewitness accounts of President Clinton and Dennis Ross, and ignores Saudi Prince Bandar's accusation that Arafat's rejection of the proposal was "a crime" and that Arafat's account "was not truthful" - except, apparently, to Mr. Carter. The fact that Mr. Carter chooses to believe Arafat over Mr. Clinton speaks volumes.
Mr. Carter's description of the recent Lebanon war is misleading. He begins by asserting that Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. "Captured" suggests a military apprehension subject to the usual prisoner of war status. The soldiers were kidnapped, and have not been heard from - not even a sign of life. The rocket attacks that preceded Israel's invasion are largely ignored, as is the fact that Hezbollah fired its rockets from civilian population centers.
Mr. Carter gives virtually no credit to Israel's superb legal system, falsely asserting (without any citation) that "confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts," that prisoners are "executed,"and that the "accusers" act "as judges." Even Israel's most severe critics acknowledge the fairness of the Israeli Supreme Court, but not Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter even blames Israel for the "exodus of Christians from the Holy Land," totally ignoring the Islamization of the area by Hamas and the comparable exodus of Christian Arabs from Lebanon as a result of the increasing influence of Hezbollah and the repeated assassination of Christian leaders by Syria.
Mr. Carter also blames every American administration but his own for the Mideast stalemate with particular emphasis on "a submissive White House and U.S. Congress in recent years." He employs hyperbole and overstatement when he says that "dialogue on controversial issues is a privilege to be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and withheld from those who reject U.S. demands." He confuses terrorist states, such as Iran and Syria, to which we do not extend dialogue, with states with whom we strongly disagree, such as France and China, but with whom we have constant dialogue.
And it's not just the facts; it's the tone as well. It's obvious that Mr. Carter just doesn't like Israel or Israelis. He lectured Golda Meir on Israeli's "secular" nature, warning her that "Israel was punished whenever its leaders turned away from devout worship of God." He admits that he did not like Menachem Begin. He has little good to say about any Israelis - except those few who agree with him. But he apparently got along swimmingly with the very secular Syrian mass-murderer Hafez al-Assad. Mr. Carter and his wife Rosalynn also had a fine time with the equally secular Arafat - a man who has the blood of hundreds of Americans and Israelis on his hands:
Rosalynn and I met with Yasir Arafat in Gaza City, where he was staying with his wife, Suha, and their little daughter. The baby, dressed in a beautiful pink suit, came readily to sit on my lap, where I practiced the same wiles that had been successful with our children and grandchildren. A lot of photographs were taken, and then the photographers asked that Arafat hold his daughter for a while. When he took her, the child screamed loudly and reached out her hands to me, bringing jovial admonitions to the presidential candidate to stay at home enough to become acquainted with is own child.
There is something quite disturbing about these pictures.
"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is so biased that it inevitably raises the question of what would motivate a decent man like Jimmy Carter to write such an indecent book. Whatever Mr. Carter's motives may be, his authorship of this ahistorical, one-sided, and simplistic brief against Israel forever disqualifies him from playing any positive role in fairly resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. That is a tragedy because the Carter Center, which has done much good in the world, could have been a force for peace if Jimmy Carter were as generous in spirit to the Israelis as he is to the Palestinians.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
-----------------------------------------------------
If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]