Soy product robbed me of joys of motherhood: lawsuit figure

Daniella Miletic

October 1, 2010 - 3:00AM

ERIN Downie drank Bonsoy when she became pregnant because she was told it was the best soy milk on the market. When she had trouble breastfeeding, she drank more. She put it in her porridge, in her smoothies, in her cups of tea.

She never imagined the soy milk would allegedly lead her to be admitted to hospital twice, and leave her so weak that she couldn't shower herself or pick up her baby, Mirakye, after she was born.

Crying, Ms Downie yesterday spoke of how her dream of being an active, engaged mother was taken away after her daughter, now two, was born. Ms Downie became sick from toxic levels of iodine - levels she alleges were the result of the copious amounts of Bonsoy she consumed.

''I couldn't walk for a metre without falling down,'' the 29-year-old says. ''My legs didn't work, my arms didn't work and I couldn't carry or pick my daughter up, even though she was a newborn baby.''

Doctors were baffled, telling her she must have come in contact with huge amounts of iodine. Her thyroid hormone levels were more than five times higher than normal.

Ms Downie believed she had cancer. It was only when 10 people, including an infant, became sick with thyroid problems, and Bonsoy, made by Spiral Foods, was withdrawn from sale last December that she came to believe the product was connected to her condition.

Bonsoy tested positive for elevated iodine levels, thought to result from a seaweed-derived ingredient called kombu, believed to have been added to Bonsoy by makers in Japan since 2003.

Yesterday, Ms Downie became the lead applicant in a class-action lawsuit that involves 24 other plaintiffs against Bonsoy's Australian distributor, Spiral Foods. By yesterday afternoon, several more people had contacted lawyers Maurice Blackburn alleging sickness as a result of the soy milk product.

As the suit was filed in the Victorian Supreme Court, Ms Downie said she had been robbed of enjoying her daughter's early life.

''They've taken away something that I can't get back. I don't know if I can have kids. My body is still very sick … it's been difficult.''

Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy alleged the product was sold with a dangerous concentration of iodine when iodine was known to cause serious health problems.

The law firm will allege that Spiral Foods breached the Trade Practices Act and will seek compensation for negligence, medical expenses, loss of income and pain and suffering.

Spiral Foods director James Wilson said it was too early to comment because staff and company lawyers were yet to see the court documents.

He said the company voluntarily recalled the product last December and that the soy milk was reformulated early this year. It has been back on shelves and in cafes since May after being approved by Australian food regulators.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/soy-product-robbed-me-of-joys-of-motherhood-lawsuit-figure-20100930-15zc2.html

FLU VACCINES REVEALED AS THE GREATEST QUACKERY EVER PUSHED IN THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Prepare to have your world rocked. What you're about to read here will leave you astonished, inspired and outraged all at the same time. You're about to be treated to some little-known information demonstrating why seasonal flu vaccines are utterly worthless and why their continued promotion is based entirely on fabricated studies and medical mythology.
If the whole world knew what you're about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.
This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn't just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you've probably ever read about the failure of fluvaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
Perhaps its impressive narrative shouldn't be too surprising, though, since writer Shannon Brownlee is also the celebrated author of a phenomenal book on modern medicine entitled Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (http://www.amazon.com/Overtreated-M...) (http://www.naturalpedia.com/book_Ov...).
While I've never done this before, I'm going to summarize this article point by point (along with some comments) so that you get the full force of what's finally been put into print.
This information is so important that I encourage you to share the following summary I've put together. Email it to family, friends and coworkers. Or post it on your blog or website (with a link and proper credit to both NaturalNews and The Atlantic, please). Get this information out to the world. People need to know this, and so far the mainstream media has utterly failed to make this information known.
(The really good information begins after around a dozen bullet points, so be sure to keep reading...)

Does the vaccine matter?

What follows is my point-by-point summary of this groundbreaking article by Shannon Brownlee, originally published in The Atlantic. My opinion statements are shown in brackets and italics.
• Vaccination is the core strategy of the U.S. government's plan to combat the swine flu.
• The U.S. government has spent roughly $3 billion stockpiling vaccines and anti-viral drugs.
• The CDC is recommending that 159 million Americans receive a swine flu vaccine injection (as soon as possible).
• What if vaccines don't work? More and more researchers are skeptical about whether they do.
• Seasonal flu (that's the regular flu) currently kills an estimated 36,000 people each year in the United States. [But most people who die are already suffering from existing diseases such as asthma.]
• Most "colds" aren't really caused by the flu virus. As few as 7 or 8 percent (and at most, 50 percent) of colds have an influenza origin. There are more than 200 viruses and pathogens that can cause "influenza-like" illnesses (and therefore be easily mistaken for the flu).
• Viruses mutate with amazing speed, meaning that each year's circulating influenza is genetically different from the previous year.
• The vaccine for each upcoming flu season is formulated by health experts taking a guess [a wild guess, at times] about what strain of influenza might be most likely to circulate in the future.
• The 1918 Spanish Flu infected roughly one-third of the world population and killed at least 40 million.
• In the U.S., the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology predicted that H1N1 influenza could infect up to one-half of the U.S. population and kill 90,000 Americans.[Keep reading, the good part is coming...]
• Of those who have died from the Swine Flu in the U.S., roughly 70 percent were already diseased with some serious underlying condition such as asthma or AIDS.
• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don't agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.]
• Each year, 100 million Americans get vaccinated, and vaccines remain "a staple" of public health policy in the United States.

Why the research is bogus

• Because researchers can't exactly pin down who has influenza and who doesn't, the research conducted on the effectiveness of vaccines simply calculates the death rate from all causes among those who take the vaccine vs. those who don't. [This includes deaths from accidents, heart attacks, medications, car wrecks and everything.]
• These studies show a "dramatic difference" between the death rates of those who get the vaccines vs. those who don't. People who get vaccinated have significantly lower death rates [from ALL causes, and herein lies the problem...].
• Flu shot propaganda cites these studies, telling people that if they get their flu shots every year, they will have a significantly reduced chance of dying. But this is extremely misleading...
• Critics question the logic of these studies: As it turns out, compared to the number of deaths from all causes, the number of people killed by influenza is quite small. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, deaths from influenza account for -- at most -- 10 percent of the total deaths during the flu season (and this includes all indirect deaths aggravated by the flu).
• This brings up a hugely important dilemma: If influenza only accounts for roughly 10 percent of all deaths during the flu season, how could an influenza vaccine reduce total deaths by 50 percent? (As is claimed by the vaccine manufacturers.) [It doesn't add up. Even if the vaccines were 100% effective, they should only reduce the total death rates by 10%, given that only 10% of the total deaths are caused by influenza.]
• Here's a direct quote from the story: Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: "For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That's not a vaccine, that's a miracle." [Emphasis added.]

The failure of cohort studies

• So how do the vaccine companies come up with this "50% reduction in death rate" statistic? Through cohort studies.
• Cohort studies compare the death rates of large groups of people who received the vaccine to large groups of people who did NOT receive the vaccine. But there's a fatal flaw in this approach: People self-select for vaccinations. And what kind of people? As it turns out: People who take more precautions with their health!
• [Thus, you automatically have a situation where the more health-cautious people are getting the vaccines because they THINK it's good for them. Meanwhile all the masses of people who don't give a darn about their health tend to skip the seasonal flu vaccines. And these people tend to not take very good of their health in lots of other ways. In other words, in terms of the masses, people who get vaccines are more likely to avoid junk food and live a more health-cautious lifestyle. This explains the differences in the death rates between the two groups! It has nothing to do with the vaccine...]
• There is extreme "cult-like" peer pressure put on doctors and researchers to swallow the vaccine mythology without question. Quoted from the story: Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. "People told me, 'No good can come of [asking] this,'" she says. "'Potentially a lot of bad could happen' for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, 'We know that vaccine works.' This was the prevailing wisdom." [In other words, don't dare question the vaccine, and don't ask tough scientific questions because the vaccineindustry runs on dogma, not science... and if you ask any questions, you might find yourself out of a job...].[Here's where the really good part begins...]
• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this "healthy user effect," if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn't. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.

The vaccine made no difference in mortality

• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]
• She also found that this so-called "healthy user effect" explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.
• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."
• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, "To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!" [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]
• Jackson's papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.[And here's the really, really juicy part you can't miss...]

Vaccine shortage proves it never worked in the first place

• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don't work:
• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yetmortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]
• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]
• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that's not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they've gone up!
• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the "50 percent mortality reduction" myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don't work.
• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. "The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies" said a colleague (Majumdar).
• Jefferson is one of the world's best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies [to these studies]."[And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...]

Flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them

• Vaccines supposedly "work" by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people -- the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine -- who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don't work in them!• [In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!]
• [At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.]
• Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials "unethical" [but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?]
• [No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...]

Why anti-viral drugs don't work either

• On the anti-viral drug front, hospitals are urged to hand out prescriptions for Tamiflu and Relenza to almost anyone who is symptomatic, whether they actually have swine flu or not. Concern is growing about the emergence of drug-resistant strains of swine flu. " Flu can become resistant to Tamiflu in a matter of days..." says one researcher.
• In 2005, the U.S. government spent $1.8 billion to stockpile antiviral drugs for the military. This decision was made during the time when Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld also held millions of dollars worth of stock in Gilead Sciences, the company that holds the patent on Tamiflu. That company saw its stock price rise 50 percent following the government's stockpiling purchase of Tamiflu.
• The evidence supporting Tamiflu's anti-viral benefits is flimsy at best. Even worse, as many as one in five children taking Tamiflu experienceneuropsychiatric side effects including hallucinations and suicidal behavior. [In other words, your kid might be "tripping out" on some bad Tamiflu...]
• Tamiflu is already linked to 50 deaths of children in Japan.
• The evidence supporting Tamiflu is based on cohort studies, just like the vaccines, which may distort or exaggerate the apparent benefits of the drug.
• Even supporters of Tamiflu admit it's never been proven to help. A CDC official says that randomized trials to determine the effectiveness of Tamiflu would be "unethical."
• In all, neither vaccines nor anti-viral drugs have any reliable evidence that they work against influenza at all. Both are being promoted based entirely on pure wishful thinking, not hard science.
• The history of pharmaceutical medicine is littered with other examples of drugs that doctors "knew worked" but which later turned out to harm or kill patients. [All along, the proper scientific studies were avoided because, hey, if you already know everything, why bother conducting any actual science to prove anything?]
• The hype about vaccines provides a false sense of security, taking away attention from other things that really do work to prevent influenza deaths. That's why, except for "hand washing," virtually no advice has been offered to the public on preventing influenza beyond vaccines and anti-viral drugs.
• Concluding quote from the author: "By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science."

A recap of these astonishing points

Let's recap what we just learned here (because it's just mind-boggling):
• There have been no placebo-controlled studies on flu vaccines because the vaccine pushers say such clinical trials would be "unethical." Thus, there is actually no hard scientific evidence that they work at all.
• The "50 percent reduction in mortality" statistic that's tossed around by vaccine pushers is a total fabrication based on "rubbish" studies ("cohort" studies).
• Scrutinizing the existing studies that claim to support vaccines reveals that flu vaccines simply don't work. And when vaccines aren't available or the formulation is wrong, there's no spike in death rates, indicating quite conclusively that these vaccines offer no reduction in mortality.
• Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don't need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don't need them.
• The entire flu vaccine industry is run like a cult, with dogma ruling over science. Anyone who asks tough, scientific questions is immediately branded a heretic. No one is allowed to question the status quo. (So much for "evidence-based medicine," huh?)
As you can see from all this, the flu vaccine is pure quackery. Those who administer vaccines are, by inference, QUACKS. They claim to have scientific minds, and yet they are the most gullible of all: They will believe almost anything if it's published in a medical journal, even if it's complete quackery.
Today, countless doctors, nurses and pharmacists across North America and around the world are pushing a medically worthless, scientifically-fabricated chemical injection that offers absolutely no benefit to public health... and yet they're convinced it's highly effective! It just goes to show you how easy it is to brainwash people in the field of conventional medicine.
They've abandoned real science long ago, you know. Now the whole industry is just run on the momentum of dogmatic arrogance and the illusion of authority. From the CDC and FDA on down to the local pharmacist at the corner store, the American medical system is run by some seemingly smart people who have been brainwashed into become full-fledged members of the Cult of Pharmacology where vaccine mythology overrules real science.
The vaccine industry is perhaps the greatest medical scam ever pulled off in the history of the world. Don't fall for it.
And don't forget to read the full article in The Atlantic by Shannon Brownlee: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...

Why people get vaccinated: Superstition

Reading everything you've read here, you might wonder: Why do people get vaccinated at all?
The reason is because no one knows whether they work or not, so people keep on taking them "just in case." It's exactly the kind of superstitious ritual that "science-minded skeptics" rail against on a regular basis... unless, of course, it involves their vaccines, in which case superstition is all okay.
People take vaccines for the same reason they rub a rabbit's foot. It's a good luck ritual that may or may not work, but no one really knows. And besides, what's the harm in it? (They think...)
Personally, I'd rather get some vitamin D and have a healthy, functioning immune system. But for those who prefer to play the lotto, gamble in Vegas or bet their lives on medical superstitions, flu vaccines are readily available.
So what are you waiting for? Shoot up a few flu vaccines, rub your lucky rabbit's foot, then spin around clockwise seven times and you, too, may be able to generate enough luck to avoid the flu this winter.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccine_flu_vaccines.html
ETHICAL DONATORS, COMMUNITY  MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY MIKIVERSE HEALTH HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS,DIVERSE, AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, 
PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com    

ANGRY MUMS STORM SUPERMARKET BABY-FORMULA AISLES

Robyn Grace

September 27, 2010 - 11:27AM

Angry mothers are staging supermarket sit-ins in an effort to force a national recall of a brand of baby formula they claim contains unlabelled genetically modified products.

Eight mothers this morning stormed the Coles supermarket in Fitzroy, Melbourne, and 15 are protesting at a Woolworths store in Sydney's Neutral Bay.

The groups cordoned off a display for breast milk replacement S-26 Soy and demanding the product be removed from shelves.

The action follows two tests commissioned by Greenpeace Australia Pacific that allegedly revealed trace elements of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are not labelled on the product.

Greenpeace ordered independent tests in Germany and the US. Results showed up to 0.2 per cent of GM soy and corn in the formula.

Under Australian law, products can contain up to 1 per cent of genetically modified material, provided it is unintentional, without requiring it to be labelled as containing GMO.

But Greenpeace said today mothers were being "kept in the dark" about the presence of genetically modified products in the formula.

Greenpeace claims independent testing has uncovered genetically engineered products in S-26 Soy nine times since 1998. A test conducted by Channel Seven's Sunday Nightprogram was the 10th occasion.

Protesters have demanded tougher labelling laws, more stringent GM testing and punishment for companies that breach restrictions.

"These new inventions have not undergone any of the rigorous testing necessary to establish their risk profile and safety for adults, let alone babies," Greenpeace CEO Linda Selvey said.

"Australian parents have the right to know what they are feeding their kids and how safe it is."

S-26 Soy is given to babies up to one-year-old who are lactose intolerant or who are on a vegetarian diet.

There have been no long-term studies of the health effects of eating GM foods.

Wyeth Nutrition, part of the global Pfizer group which produces S26 Soy, said in a statement last night it had a strict policy of using only non-genetically modified ingredients in all its infant formulas.

But it said it was "well recognised" by health authorities that non-GMO products could unintentionally contain traces of GMOs due to cross-pollination during cultivation, harvesting, storage, transport or processing.

"It is important to note that trace amounts of GMO do not present a health or safety threat to infants," the company said.

Wyeth Nutrition said it had requested a copy of the test results and welcomed the chance to work with Greenpeace and the relevant authorities to address the matter.

Comment is being sought from Wyeth Nutrition, Coles and Woolworths.

- with AAP

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-mums-storm-supermarket-babyformula-aisles-20100927-15t2j.html

GEORGIA MAN FINED $5000 FOR GROWING VEGETABLES

September 14, 2010 by Alex The Intel Hub By TheAvalonRoundTable

A Georgia resident who has been an organic farmer for years is now facing $5000 dollars in fines for growing too many vegetables on his OWN land. That’s right.

Steve Miller, who has sold some of his produce at local farmers markets, as well as growing food for himself, is likely the victim of an Online Aerial Invasion of Private Property. This invasion of property is probably due to the fact that unless visited or inspected by an official, there would be no way for there to be an accurate or factual accounting of what was going on at Mr. Millers property. The question is, “Does Steve Miller legally posses a reasonable expectation of Privacy on his own Private Property?"

Recent reports of Local & State Officials and Bureaucrats using online mapping software have now become mainstream tools for assessing fines and generating money for cash strapped local & state budgets. Does it seem right that anywhere that Google Maps & Bing Maps can go is legal to use as a source of information. If a person was bathing in their pool, with every expectation of privacy, and someone peeked over a fence, wouldn’t that constitute a criminal offense?

Is the expectation of privacy something the government wants to destroy altogether?

Is government today at a point where the end justifies the means? In January and February, when he received his first citations, Steve was able to get the property re-zoned allowing him to grow his garden – a right MOST AMERICANS believe he already had. The Declaration of Independence states one’s inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Isn’t growing your own personal food supply an exercise of that right to Life and Liberty? No Constitutional Government can assess any fee for exercising these inalienable rights.

In the recent past, Victory Gardens were encouraged. They were the pride of one’s back yard, and of a Nation that was self-sufficient. The television series The Victory Garden on PBS, documents gardening and provides gardening tips and features vegetable gardens as a great personal achievement.

Historically, Victory Gardens in World War II were encouraged to keep the supply of food at a maximum – and personal growing increased the industrial supply to the military.

Are people going to let this FASCIST TAKEOVER to continue – even growing a garden in the privacy of our own personal property be taken away? If the answer is NO – then what are you prepared to do about it?

SO IT STARTS - Senate Bill 510 - Organic Farmer Fined 5000 For Growing

Crops On Own Land

The question remain unanswered; “How did the code enforcement agency know Mr. Miller had a garden in the first place?”

Google Map Criticisms

Street map overlays, in some areas, may not match up precisely with the corresponding satellite images. The street data may be entirely erroneous, or simply out of date:

” ‘The biggest challenge is the currency of data, the authenticity of data,’ said Google Earth representative Brian McLendon. In other words: The main complaints the Google guys get are ‘that’s not my house’ and ‘that’s not my car.’ Google Maps satellite images are not in real time; they are several years old.”^[78]

As a result, in March 2008 Google added a feature to edit the locations of houses and businesses.

Restrictions have been placed on Google Maps through the apparent censoring of locations deemed potential security threats. In some cases the area of redaction is for specific buildings, but in other cases, such as Washington, D.C., the restriction is to use outdated imagery.