This page is presented as a service to community groups, individuals and activists interested in working to improve our country, block by block, county by county, region by region and state by state. If you have concerns you wish to air, or complaints, or legal issues which might have national or international pertinence through precedent, submit them. We will not edit these submissions. This page will act as a kind of Town Hall, or Bulletin Board of important events or issues. The views or intent of any notice placed on this bulletin do not necessarily reflect those of RCRS; and no responsibility is taken to establish the truth or verity of notices not specifically placed on this page by the RCRS. Furthermore the RCRS does not advocate or support any notice on this page beyond that of maintaining Constitutional First Ammendment Rights and Privileges for contributors.
Presented by THE ROBERT CATHEY RESEARCH SOURCE http://www.navi.net/~rsc ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice: 26 January 1997 Notice of Medical Responsibility: Notice to the medical community, all medical practitioners, advisors and/or consultants to whom individuals suffering with cancer do or may resort for therapy, relief, help or advice: In view of the fact that: 1) the pancreatic enzymes carboxypeptidase, trypsin, chymotrypsin and amylase have a specificity for trophoblast, causing it to transform and degenerate, eventually destroying trophoblast (Beard, 1911; Krebs, E.T.,Bartlett, C.L, 1949); And: 2) in view of the fact that trophoblast and cancer are one and the same (Beard, J., 1902, ff.; Krebs, et al, 1949, 1950, ff.; Acevedo, H., et al, 1995, 1996); 3) pancreatic enzyme therapy is non-toxic and effective in cancer (Wolf, Maehder, Pinoci, et al. 1971; Hoefer-Janker, 1971; Titscher, Kokron, Letnansky, 1973); Therefore: It follows on the grounds of the foregoing that the utilization of pancreatic enzymes (or their potentiators) must be the preferred and first order of therapy--or in conjunction with hormone therapy and with surgery where indicated, but never surgery or hormone therapy alone--in all cancers. Furthermore, to neglect to do so, or to neglect informing the patient of this option represents a shortfall from the Hippocratic Oath, thus of ethical and responsible behavior in service to the needs of the patient. Irresponsible behavior affecting the health or welfare of another is subject to legal penalties and actions according to various Titles and Sections of U.S.Code. This notice serves to inform the public as well as the medical practitioner. Furthermore, because: 1. The chemistry of the cancer/trophoblast environment is perfused with beta-glucosidase and/or beta-glucuronidase (Perinatal Pathology, Vol. 15, 2nd Ed., Wigglesworth, Ed., 1996, p. 280; Fishman, W.H., Anlyan, A.J., J.Biol.Chem. 169:449-450, 1947; Science, 106:66-67, 1947; Fourth Int.Cancer Research Congress, 6:1034-1041, 1950) as secreted by contiguous soma in response to the cancer/trophoblast secretion of hCG-beta/CTP (Acevedo, et al, Cancer 76(8):1467-75, 1995); and because: 2. dietary nitrilosides (Laetrile) are beta-glucosides, capable of oxidation or glucuronic acid conjugation to form beta-glucuronosides specifically scissionable by beta-glycosidases (Gurchot, C., http://www.navi.net/~rsc/gurchot.htm; Sumner, Somers, Enzymes, 1943, p.73); and furthermore: 3. as scissioned molecules, the nitrilosides yield the powerful cytotoxins hydrogen cyanide and benzaldehyde with synergistic effect (Burke, McNaughton, Von Ardenne, PanMinerva Med. 13(12), Dec. 1971) to destroy the cancer/trophoblast, while being non-toxic to contiguous, non-cancerous tissues (through action of rhodanese and oxygen both of which are lacking in the cancer/trophoblast, but abundant in normal soma); Therefore, the use of nitrilosides (Laetriles) in conjunction with the above specified pancreatic enzymes (or potentiators of such) is rational, and will yield measurable benefits in destruction of cancer, and should be an obligatory primary option for every cancer patient, with the same implications of responsibility of, for and by the medical community or practitioner as hold for pancreatic enzymes alone in any cancer therapy programme or regimen. To belay recourse to these non-toxic, metabolic most-specific-means of control of cancer for any reason is unconscionable. Furthermore, to deny pancreatic enzyme/nitriloside therapy in preference of, or in substitution for any indiscriminate and/or immune suppressing cytotoxins, anti-metabolites or nitrogen-mustard derivatives, radiation, hormone therapy, anti-body therapy, or surgery alone represents irresponsible behavior, and is subject to action under various Titles and Sections of U.S.Code. According to the known facts of trophoblast and therefore of cancer: Enzyme therapy has a rational basis in cancer therapy Hormone therapy has rational basis in cancer therapy Vitamin and nutritional therapy has a rational basis in cancer therapy Surgery has a rational basis in cancer therapy Non-toxic-to-soma-chemotherapy has a rational basis in cancer therapy; or indiscriminate toxins capable of site-specific delivery have logical relevance in cancer therapy, but only as a last-resort. A more complete bibliography of above references available upon request. Entered into the Public Record via this page (http://www.navi.net/~rsc/people.htm) 26 January 1997. Please Copy and distribute. The RCRS and The Oregon Ad Hoc Committee for Medical Responsibility In Cancer Therapy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Public Notice 7 January 1997
GULF WAR SYNDROME, POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTIVE FACTORS:
I note two papers: The first: -----quote----- The Lancet, Vol 348, October 19, 1996, page 1070: Author: P Marquet, P Vignon, G Lachatre Correspondence to: Dr. P. Marquet, M.D. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Dupuytren Hospital, 87042 Limoges, France Case Report: A Soldier who had seizures after drinking a quarter litre of wine. "...We found that the composition of gun barrels had recently changed, with the inclusion of tungsten to harden the steel." ----end quote---- The soldier in question had drunk a litre of wine dispensed down the barrel of a 155 mm gun after several shots had been fired, according to a custom. 1/4 hour later the subject began to have seizures. Second report: ---quote---- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, Vol. 32, 655-661 (1996) J Wang, D T Tsukayama, B H Wicklund, R B Gustilo Correspondence to: Department of Medicine Hennepin County Medical Center Mailcode 865B Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Inhibition of T and B cell proliferation by titanium, cobalt, and chromium: Role of IL-2 and IL-6 ---end quote----- Speculation: In the environment of the Gulf War Theatre of Operations, concentrations of micro-particles of similarly composed gun steel as noted in the first case would perfuse the atmosphere. Speculation: That other ingredients as noted in the latter report, which deals with immune suppression from prosthetics composed of noted metals, are also ingredients of gun metal, shell casings, or other parts or explosive ingredients. Recommendation: patients complaining of the non-specific Gulf War Syndrome may be suffering from toxemic reactions to heavy metal ions or micro-particles, and should be tested for such poisoning, and a general detoxification protocol instituted immediately. Possible relevant prophylactic resources: chelation therapies; malic, citric and glucuronic acid supplementation; pancreatic enzyme supplementation; hydrogen sulfide or hydrazine sulfate reactivation of pancreatic tryptic enzymes, or diets which contain related compounds or provide similar action: raw foods, sprouts. Further details on protocols, resources and support will be provided at this web site in later updates. UPDATE (97.01.26) A more complete version of this notice can be found at:gws1.txt(http://www.navi.net/~rsc/textfiles/gws1.txt)
For further inquiries, contact: email@example.com
[posted to Public Page 20 December]
You are hereby Notified Publically and Formally All Officials and Employees that are tax supported subject to the Laws and Rules and Regulations of the State of Oregon You are hereby given legal notice to cease and desist any criminal violation and abuse of the Citizen's Rights, Criminal abuse of authority, Criminal misuse of tax-funds including misappropriation of funds, Criminal conflict of interest and also criminal Constitutional Contempt.
Ad Hoc Oregon Citizen's Committee
Please Copy and Pass on to 10 or more
Links from our Bioregion:
"Land and sea weave a coherent whole along North America's leading
edge, a region whose heart is the coastal
temperate rain forest stretching from the Alaskan panhandle to northern
California. The communities of this bioregion, though endowed with productive
lands and waters that have supported resource-based livelihoods for generations,
struggle today with the consequences of isolation from markets and decision
making centers. In too many cases, environmental and economic decline have
been the unfortunate results." http://www.interrain.org/
From Anonymous contributor in Vancouver, Washington:
It is a criminal violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its equivalent Washington State Constitutional Provision to impose an ordinance which infringes or impairs the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Therefore, Clark County cannot and must not write any ordinances whatsoever governing the Neighborhood Associations.
The reason that most Neighborhood Associations started is that there was something happening in that particular community that directly affected those people, and the County was making decisions without proper input from the citizens. These Neighborhood Associations are run by the citizens in their particular neighborhood. They are not part of the County government. And there are legitimate reasons why these Neighborhood Associations do not want the County Government running their Associations. One of those reasons is: We wish to govern ourselves and not be dictated to by a group of people who think they know what's best for us and our community, when that group of people does not live in the community and are not directly affected by or exposed to the problems which they create.
In the last few years the Neighborhood Associations have become so affective of government and effective in government that government has become jealous of the power of those Associations. Therefore, the County government feels a need to control those Associations. To gain this control the County is attempting to enact an ordinance to govern the Associations under the guise and fraud of giving the Neighborhood Associations a Liason and possible funding for signs, etc., in exchange for the surrender of an inalienable right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The County's "Gift" is a like luring a child with candy, and luring is against the law.
The County is trying to get us to deal with a Liason instead of directly with the Elected Officials who are commercially responsible for what they say and do if it is outside of the perimeter/jurisdiction of their job description and the fundamental law of the State, namely, its Constitution. Liasons have the tendency to screen calls and to determine the importance of issues relative to their own guide lines, not relative to the guide lines of the caller, and not even relative to the Constitution of the State of Washington, the Constitution for the U.S., or the U.S. Code. (Title 42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986, Title 18 USC Sections 241, 242).
Whether or not you agree with these concerns you must agree that Neighborhood Associations have clout as they stand today as long as they can peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Be cautious. When you compromise a RIGHT to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, then you relinquish your clout as a citizen.
When we first began doing business with FmHA "the Lender of Last Resort" we were like a lot of other farm families who needed funds and wanted to better their farm operation. Since commercial banks were not willing to take a chance on what they perceived as a "risky" operation, we qualified under the lending guidelines of FmHA, and they were willing to finance our operation. We knew nothing about the inner workings of FmHA, but as time passed we found it almost a necessity to learn as much as we could about an organization that held our future in its hands. When the problems started we knew it was mandatory to learn as much as possible, the rules and laws which govern their operation.
We entered into a contract with the United States Government, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). FmHA was to administer that contract. Under the law our rights concerning this contract must be preserved by the Administrator and again, the rights and interests of the government must also be preserved by that same Administrator. Unfortunately for us, serious problems developed during the Administration of our contract.
In February 1986, FmHA sent us a Notice of Intent to take Adverse action, a preforeclosure notice, with the approval and under the direction of George Dones and Maureen Reilly, loan officer and county supervisor, respectively and of D. Zerger the State Director of Farm Operations. Their actions were known to them, at the time, to be illegal and a violation of the United States Code, the CFR and of the USDA regulations. Using the weight of the federal government, they fully knew their demands would be met especially when combined with the threat of foreclosure. Initially, when we received this notice we called to question this action. Upon questioning their action they referred us to the back of the 19-24-25 preforeclosure notice, which they sent to us, which gave us options. The only option that seemed to suit us was the option of rescheduling. We were not aware at this time that our loan account which had been rescheduled in 1985 indicated that we were not delinquent. Even though we specifically requested information regarding our "supposed" delinquency, the truth concerning our status was withheld from us. Our telephone conversations with George Dones, our loan officer, by law, are required to be logged in on a written running record which becomes part of our case files. Our telephone conversation with Mr. Dones questioning the sending of the preforeclosure notice is one of the many documents missing from our files.
Up to this point one would ask, if we were not delinquent and not in
need of a rescheduling and three officers of FmHA knew this, and our loan
officer was being questioned as to the validity of the preforeclosure notice,
why was this notice sent to us, and why were we led to believe that our
recent 1985 rescheduling had no bearing on our status; and that our only
hope would be to check a box on the illegal preforeclosure form requesting
a Hearing, which would also be illegal. Why did our questions go unanswered?
Why was a Hearing authorized by George Dones, our loan officer, Ms. Reilly,
the County Supervisor, and approved by D. Zerger, State Farmers Program
Director? [To get the rest of the story, see the Bennett's web page: http://www.fix.net/~ebennett/
Or Email them:firstname.lastname@example.org
(Current Document Location: http://www.navi.net/~rsc/people.htm)