[CTRL] Writing on the wall
-Caveat Lector- From http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ea2002/ea_020429.shtml }}}Begin Writing on the Wall Imagine dropping by your favorite health food store to find it boarded up and out of business. So you go around to your local drug mart to pick up some vitamin C, but the only dosage on the shelf is ridiculously low. The druggist informs you that 60 mg is now the maximum dosage available without a prescription. So if you've been taking a mega dosage of vitamin C to help fight heart disease or build up your immunity against cancer, you'll have to find a doctor willing to prescribe that dosage - you're no longer free to decide on your own how much of this natural vitamin you want to take. Sounds like a nightmare? It gets worse. Imagine that all of this is the result of new legislation imposed by lawmakers with direct ties to pharmaceutical companies - powerful companies that will use the law to create an enormous new source of profits. Now that's a real nightmare. But what makes it truly nightmarish is that, incredibly, it will soon become a reality in the United Kingdom and most of Europe - if the global pharmaceutical industry has its way. Outlawing prevention On March 13th the European Parliament - a 626- member legislative body representing the 15 European Union countries - passed the EU Directive on Dietary Supplements, which classifies vitamins as medical drugs rather than food supplements. The Directive grants a transition period of three years for vitamin supplements already on the market. But in 2005, every EU country will be required to implement the Directive. As it currently stands, in just three years a wide range of natural remedies will be banned across most of Europe, making as many as 300 ingredients - including chromium picolinate, yeast, lysine, and selenium - illegal for over-the-counter sale. Other supplements that remain in stores will contain very low dosage amounts - not enough to provide any real therapeutic value. It's almost like they're passing a law against prevention. So not only are the pharmaceutical companies eliminating competition from natural products for treating illnesses, they are essentially forcing greater need for prescription products for citizens of the EU. After all, without prevention, where will people be forced to turn when they get even the slightest bit ill? To physicians who will prescribe mainstream pharmaceuticals or super-strength, prescription- only vitamins supplied by - guess who - the Pfizers, Mercks, and Bayers of the world. Nothing strange about these bedfellows To make things even worse, a number of European Union Commissioners have direct links to international pharmaceutical companies. For instance, a prominent EU Commissioner, Frits Bolkenstein of the Netherlands, is also a member of the supervisory board of the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world - Merck, Sharp and Dohme. The blatant pharmaceutical industry influence on this directive would be laughable if the consequences weren't so great. In a smooth double-speak that's almost frightening, the EU Directive states: In order to ensure a high level of protection for consumers and facilitate their choice, the products that will be put on the market must be safe and bear adequate and appropriate labeling. The good news is that the consumers are not buying it. Protection? To facilitate their choice? More than 600 million people read that and shouted back a resounding, No! In what is believed to be the largest global online petition ever, a staggering 604 million people (to date) have added their names, demanding continued free access to natural remedies. Lend your voice - no matter where you live I have signed the petition and I encourage you to do so too if you believe the availability of natural supplements should not be controlled by the international pharmaceutical industry. Anyone can sign the petition - you don't have to be a citizen of a European Union nation to add your name - and you can find more information and read the petition at www.vitamins-for-all.org. This web site was created by Dr. Matthias Rath, a leading researcher in the field of natural treatments for cancer, and one of the most prominent campaigners against the EU Directive And for those of you who think this is a European issue - that this couldn't happen here - consider this: the United States and the European Union are each other's largest trade and investment partners. In 2000, two-way trade in goods and services between the EU and the US totaled more than $557 billion. With economic ties this deep, any European law that gives the global pharmaceutical industry such sweeping power over the health choices of millions, will have global effects. Once they've conquered Europe, how long before they set their sights on the US marketplace? Just look at recent directives from the FDA; it's already happening. The EU Directive is not yet law. Our HSI associates in London believe that by the time
Re: [CTRL] Writing for therapy helps erase effects of trauma
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- Hi ! Below please find info on an article called, "Writing for therapy helps erase effects of trauma." Sincerely, Neil Brick http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/16/health.writing.wmd/index.html "Dozens of studies have found that most people, from grade-schoolers to nursing-home residents, med students to prisoners, feel happier and healthier after writing about deeply traumatic memories, says James Pennebaker, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of Texas and leader or co-leader of many of the studies." "One of his studies, published in the "Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology" in April 1988, found that college students had more active T-lymphocyte cells, an indication of immune system stimulation, six weeks after writing about stressful events. Other studies have found that people tend to take fewer trips to the doctor, function better in day-to-day tasks, and score higher on tests of psychological well being after such writing exercises..." A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Writing
-Caveat Lector-
From bwc.htm @ www.cybereditions.com
Philosophy and Literature
announces
Winners of the Fourth Bad Writing Contest (1998)
We are pleased to announce winners of the fourth Bad Writing Contest,
sponsored by the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature.
The Bad Writing Contest celebrates the most stylistically lamentable
passages found in scholarly books and articles published in the last few
years. Ordinary journalism, fiction, departmental memos, etc. are not
eligible, nor are parodies: entries must be non-ironic, from serious,
published academic journals or books. Deliberate parody cannot be allowed
in a field where unintended self-parody is so widespread.
Two of the most popular and influential literary scholars in the U.S. are
among those who wrote winning entries in the latest contest.
Judith Butler, a Guggenheim Fellowship-winning professor of rhetoric and
comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, admired
as perhaps "one of the ten smartest people on the planet," wrote the
sentence that captured the contest's first prize. Homi K. Bhabha, a leading
voice in the fashionable academic field of postcolonial studies, produced
the second-prize winner.
"As usual," commented Denis Dutton, editor of Philosophy and Literature,
"this year's winners were produced by well-known, highly-paid experts who
have no doubt labored for years to write like this. That these scholars
must know what they are doing is indicated by the fact that the winning
entries were all published by distinguished presses and academic journals."
Professor Butler's first-prize sentence appears in "Further Reflections on
the Conversations of Our Time," an article in the scholarly journal
Diacritics (1997):
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to
structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of
hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence,
and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of
structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes
structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights
into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed
conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies
of the rearticulation of power.
Dutton remarked that "its possibly the anxiety-inducing obscurity of such
writing that has led Professor Warren Hedges of Southern Oregon University
to praise Judith Butler as probably one of the ten smartest people on the
planet."
This years second prize went to a sentence written by Homi K. Bhabha, a
professor of English at the University of Chicago. It appears in The
Location of Culture (Routledge, 1994):
If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of
discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific
theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be
seen as the desperate effort to "normalize" formally the disturbance of a
discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of
its enunciatory modality.
This prize-winning entry was nominated by John D. Peters of the University
of Iowa, who describes it as "quite splendid: enunciatory modality,
indeed!"
Ed Lilley, an art historian at the University of Bristol in the U.K.,
supplied a sentence by Steven Z. Levine from an anthology entitled Twelve
Views of Manets "Bar" (Princeton University Press, 1996):
As my story is an august tale of fathers and sons, real and imagined, the
biography here will fitfully attend to the putative traces in Manets work
of "les noms du père," a Lacanian romance of the errant paternal phallus
("Les Non-dupes errent"), a revised Freudian novella of the inferential
dynamic of paternity which annihilates (and hence enculturates) through the
deferred introduction of the third term of insemination the
phenomenologically irreducible dyad of the mother and child.
Stewart Unwin of the National Library of Australia passed along this gem
from the Australasian Journal of American Studies (December 1997). The
author is Timothy W. Luke, and the article is entitled, "Museum Pieces:
Politics and Knowledge at the American Museum of Natural History":
Natural history museums, like the American Museum, constitute one decisive
means for power to de-privatize and re-publicize, if only ever so slightly,
the realms of death by putting dead remains into public service as social
tokens of collective life, rereading dead fossils as chronicles of life's
everlasting quest for survival, and canonizing now dead individuals as
nomological emblems of still living collectives in Nature and History. An
anatomo-politics of human and non-human bodies is sustained by accumulating
and classifying such necroliths in the museum's observational/expositional
performances.
