Frankrijk wijst op enkele weken meer dan 600 zigeuners uit

26-08-2010 om 01:24 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

                 La fille adoptive de Chirac explique que "les Roms n'ont pas d'avenir en France"            

24-08-2010 om 23:18 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

    Toespraak Wim De Wit                            

Wim De Wit

Voorzitter IJzerwake

IJzerwake 22 augustus 2010

24-08-2010 om 00:31 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

John Robbins

Author of The New Good Life, Diet For A New America, and many other bestsellers

Monsanto has been in the news this week, with a U.S. District Court Judge ruling that the USDA has to at least go through the motions of regulating the company's genetically engineered sugar beets. Monsanto, you may know, is not likely to win any contests for the most popular company. In fact, it has been called the most hated corporation in the world, which is saying something, given the competition from the likes of BP, Halliburton and Goldman Sachs.

This has gotten me thinking about, of all things, ice cream, and of how Monsanto's clammy paws can be found in some of the most widely selling ice cream brands in the country. These brands could break free from Monsanto's clutches. So far they haven't, but maybe this is about to change.

Ben & Jerry's gets all their milk from dairies that have pledged not to inject their cows with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Why, then, can't Haagen Dazs, Breyers and Baskin-Robbins do the same?

Starbucks now guarantees that all their milk, cream and other dairy products are rBGH-free. So do Yoplait and Dannon yogurts, Tillamook cheese, Chipotle restaurants, and many others. But ice cream giants Haagen Dazs, Breyers and Baskin-Robbins continue to use milk from cows injected with rBGH, a hormone that's been banned in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and all 27 nations of the European Union. As if to add insult to injury, Haagen Dazs and Breyers have the audacity to tell us, right on the label, that their ice cream is " All Natural."

We have Monsanto to thank for rBGH. Monsanto developed the artificial hormone and marketed it aggressively for years, before selling it in 2008 to Elanco, a division of the Eli Lilly drug company. Of course, Monsanto (and now Elanco) wants us to think the hormone is in every way completely satisfactory and safe. Monsanto's party line has consistently been that there is "no significant difference" in the milk derived from cows who have been dosed with the hormone compared to those who haven't.

Pardon me for not swallowing Monsanto's hooey, but if that's so, why have so many countries outlawed rBGH? Are these countries all run by ignorant Luddites who oppose technology and progress? Or might there actually be compelling reasons?

There are, indeed. One of them is that injecting the genetically engineered hormone into cows increases the levels of a substance called IGF-1 in their milk. Monsanto's own studies found that the amount of IGF-1 in milk more than doubled when cows were injected with rBGH. Studies by independent researchers show gains as much as six-fold. (Scientific citations in support of the statements in this article can be found here.)

Does it matter whether there are excess levels of IGF-1 in milk? It decidedly did to the European Commission's authoritative international 16-member scientific committee. Their report said the excessive levels of IGF-1 found in the milk of cows injected with rBGH may pose serious risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer.

How serious is the increased risk? According to an article in the May 9, 1998 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, pre-menopausal women with even moderately elevated blood levels of IGF-1 are up to seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with lower levels.

As if these risks to human health weren't enough reason for nations to prohibit the use of rBGH, there are more. The artificial hormone is also notorious for causing the cows much pain and distress. It does this by increasing painful and debilitating diseases like lameness and mastitis in cows who are injected with it. And because it increases udder infections in cows, it has greatly increased the use of antibiotics in the U.S. dairy industry. If you wanted to design a system to breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, you'd be hard pressed to do better.

Does the increase in udder infections have an effect on the milk, and thus any ice cream, cheese or other product made from it? Most definitely, according to Dr. Richard Burroughs, a veterinarian deeply familiar with rBGH. "It results in an increase of white blood cells," he says, "which means there's pus in the milk!" The antibiotic use, he adds, "leaves residues in the milk. It's all very serious."

How, then, was such a dubious and tainted product ever approved for use in the U.S.? The answer provides a glimpse of how successful Monsanto's efforts have been to exert control over our nation's food policies.

By all accounts, the FDA's 1993 decision to allow the use of rBGH was one of the most controversial in the agency's history. Made amid widespread criticism from scientists, government leaders and farmers, including many researchers and officials inside the FDA, the decision was overseen by Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's Deputy Commissioner of Policy from 1991-1994.

Was Taylor unbiased? Prior to holding that position, he was an attorney at King & Spaulding, Monsanto's law firm, where he presided over the firm's "food and drug law" practice. After the decision was made which gave the green light to rBGH, he left the FDA and resumed working directly for Monsanto, as vice president and chief lobbyist.

How significant was Taylor's role in getting rBGH approved? As of August 15, 2010, his Wikipedia entry said that he "has long been hostile to food safety," and "is widely credited with ushering recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) through the FDA regulatory process and into the milk supply -- unlabeled." (This statement was removed from Wikipedia immediately after I referred to it in a comment following an article I wrote last week for The Huffington Post on the topic. Apparently, if you can get your people in and out of key positions at the FDA, messing with Wikipedia is a piece of cake.)

Congressman Bernie Sanders was specifically referring to Taylor when he said "the FDA allowed corporate influence to run rampant in its approval of BGH." Documentaries including "The World According to Monsanto" and "The Future of Food" present Taylor's pro-Monsanto actions at the FDA as a dramatic example of the how corporate influence has exerted massive control over the FDA. Today, Taylor again works for the FDA, now as Deputy Commissioner of Foods.

Things have taken a different turn in Canada, but not for want of effort on the part of Monsanto. During Canada's scientific review of Monsanto's application for approval of rBGH, Canadian health officials said Monsanto tried to bribe them, and government scientists testified that they were being pressured by higher-ups to approve rBGH against their better scientific judgment. But in 1999, after eight years of study, Canadian health authorities rejected Monsanto's application for approval of rBGH.

In the U.S. today, Monsanto continues to wield massive influence over U.S. food policies. In spite of, or perhaps in response to, Monsanto's toxic and tenacious grip on our nation's food policy, a movement is afoot. Every day more and more people are refusing to buy ice cream and other dairy products made with rBGH. And every day another organization adds its name to the growing list of groups campaigning against Monsanto's influence, and calling for the FDA decision allowing the use of rBGH to be revoked.

Late last year, the prestigious American Public Health Association officially called for a ban on rBGH. The Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports has likewise taken an official position opposing rBGH. So has the American Nurses Association, Health Care Without Harm, Food and Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders and many other groups.

At this very moment, the plucky Oregon chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) is leading a nationwide effort to persuade Breyers (whose brands include Good Humor, Klondike Bars and Popsicle), and Dreyer's (whose brands include Haagen Dazs, Nestle and Edy's) to go rBGH-free. The campaign focuses on Breyers and Dreyer's because they are the two largest ice cream producers in the country today.

If you want to strike a blow against Monsanto's efforts to control the world food supply, you can follow me on Twitter, post this article to your facebook page, spread the word and get engaged.

Monsanto and its allies have a grand vision. They are intent on controlling the world's food supply. Don't let them. And don't let them cram their genetically engineered products down your throat. Even in a product as tempting and sweet as ice cream, that's no treat.

John Robbins is the only son of Irvine Robbins, the co-founder and co-owner of Baskin-Robbins, and was groomed by his father to run what was at one time the world's largest ice cream company. But John walked away from the company and the wealth it represented in order to advocate for a healthier and more compassionate way of life. To learn more about his journey along his own "rocky road," see The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less. John is also the author of The Food Revolution, Diet for a New America and six other books. For more info, see johnrobbins.info

John's father died in 2008, and there are no longer any members of the Robbins or Baskin families involved with the company.

22-08-2010 om 15:51 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

20-08-2010 om 23:37 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Aan dit plaatje hangen dus 5 x 5 = 25 vrouwen met max.

10 kinderen per vrouw = 280 monden meer om te voeden.

Zou men armoe lijden, om een mondje meer….

Daarom pakken ze het af van ons….

En Cortebeeck v/h ACW zegt dat het mag…..

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen kan verschil

in erkenning tussen Nederlandstalige

beroeprechters en Franstalige niet verklaren

Uit eigen cijfers van de Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwisting blijkt dat de Franstalige beroepsrechters in 6,3% van de beroepen de status van vluchteling toekenden en hun Nederlandstalige collega’s slecht 0,7%. Volgens staatssecretaris voor asiel en migratie Wathelet kan de raad hierover momenteel geen definitieve uitleg geven.

    Een mogelijke reden is het land van herkomst, aangezien de asielzoekers met eenzelfde nationaliteit meestal volgens dezelfde proceduretaal worden geëvalueerd.

In deze rechtbank die in beroep beslist over asiel en vreemdelingendossier maken de Nederlandstalige rechters ook veel minder gebruik van de mogelijkheid om een dossier terug te sturen naar de asielinstanties die in eerste instantie beslist over een asielaanvraag, het Commissariaat-Generaal voor de Vluchtelingen en Staatlozen. Ze deden dit in 0,6% van hun dossier, Franstalige rechter in 8,8% van hun dossiers.

De Raad heeft een aantal projecten op stapel om de eenheid van de rechtspraak en de informatisering van de statistische gegevens te verbeteren. De eerste voorzitter en de voorzitter van de Raad verwezen ook een aantal dossiers naar de algemene vergadering van de Raad. Die bestaat uit minimum zes rechters, van beide taalgebieden.

De staatsecretaris kan evenmin zelf een standpunt geven over de discrepantie, aangezien de RVV een onafhankelijke rechtbank is.

20-08-2010 om 10:20 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

IRAN: Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani faces imminent death by stoning

Additional Information

• Stoning is Not Our Culture: A Comparative Analysis of Human Rights and Religious Discourses in Iran and Nigeria
• By: Rochelle Terman and Mufuliat Fijabi

• CNN: Human rights activist tries to stop death by stoning

• CNN: Interview with Ms. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani's son

19-08-2010 om 00:31 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Hitler verwant met Somaliërs, Berbers en Joden

• dinsdag 17 augustus 2010, 18u38
• 
  

18-08-2010 om 00:13 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

17-08-2010 om 01:06 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Social Security Keeps 20 Millions Americans Out Of Poverty, Report Finds                        

13-08-2010 om 23:09 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Cholesterol could easily be described as the smoking gun of the last two decades.

It's been responsible for demonizing entire categories of foods (like eggs and saturated fats) and blamed for just about every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.

Yet when I first opened my medical practice in the mid 80s, cholesterol, and the fear that yours was too high was rarely talked about.

Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word -- something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.

You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.

Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease. And for those of you taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, the information that follows could not have been given to you fast enough. But before I delve into this life-changing information, let's get some basics down first.

What is Cholesterol, and Why Do You Need It?

That's right, you do need cholesterol.

This soft, waxy substance is found not only in your bloodstream, but also in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps in the formation of your memories and is vital for neurological function.

Your liver makes about 75 percent of your body's cholesterol ,[i] and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:

High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the "good" cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.

Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This "bad" cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis). If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.

Also making up your total cholesterol count are:

-- Triglycerides: Elevated levels of this dangerous fat have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Triglyceride levels are known to rise from eating too many grains and sugars, being physically inactive, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol excessively and being overweight or obese.

-- Lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a): Lp(a) is a substance that is made up of an LDL "bad cholesterol" part plus a protein (apoprotein a). Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. This has been well established, yet very few physicians check for it in their patients.

Understand this:

Your Total Cholesterol Level is NOT a Great Indicator of Your Heart Disease Risk

Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years. Part of this test is your total cholesterol, or the sum of your blood's cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs and VLDLs.

The American Heart Association recommends that your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.

In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs. So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs. Now, with testing children's cholesterol levels, they're increasing their market even more.

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:

-- HDL/Cholesterol ratio

-- Triglyceride/HDL ratios

HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent.

You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.

Keep in mind, however, that these are still simply guidelines, and there's a lot more that goes into your risk of heart disease than any one of these numbers. In fact, it was only after word got out that total cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease that HDL and LDL cholesterol were brought into the picture.

They give you a closer idea of what's going on, but they still do not show you everything.

Cholesterol is Neither "Good" Nor "Bad"

Now that we've defined good and bad cholesterol, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol. Ron Rosedale, MD, who is widely considered to be one of the leading anti-aging doctor in the United States, does an excellent job of explaining this concept :[ii]

"Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins -- fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol.

Cholesterol is just cholesterol.

It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.

Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.

In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.

Thus, you might say that there is "good LDL" and "bad LDL."

Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much."

Cholesterol is Your Friend, Not Your Enemy

Before we continue, I really would like you to get your mind around this concept.

In the United States, the idea that cholesterol is evil is very much engrained in most people's minds. But this is a very harmful myth that needs to be put to rest right now.

"First and foremost," Dr. Rosedale points out, "cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.

That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact, it is one of our best friends.

We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one's risk of dying. Cholesterol is also a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol."

Vitamin D and Your Cholesterol

You probably are aware of the incredible influence of vitamin D on your health. If you aren't, or need a refresher, you can visit my vitamin D page.

What most people do not realize is that the best way to obtain your vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on your skin. The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on your skin and convert it to vitamin D.

Bottom line?

If your cholesterol level is too low you will not be able to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.

Additionally, it provides some intuitive feedback that if cholesterol were so dangerous, why would your body use it as precursor for vitamin D and virtually all of the steroid hormones in your body?

Other "evidence" that cholesterol is good for you?

Consider the role of "good" HDL cholesterol. Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from your body's tissues and arteries, and brings it back to your liver, where most of your cholesterol is produced. If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from your body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be shuttled back to your kidneys or intestines so your body could remove it.

Instead, it goes back to your liver. Why?

Because your liver is going to reuse it.

"It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it," Dr. Rosedale explains. "Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health."

Cholesterol and Inflammation - What's the Connection?

Inflammation has become a bit of a buzzword in the medical field because it has been linked to so many different diseases. And one of those diseases is heart disease ... the same heart disease that cholesterol is often blamed for.

What am I getting at?

Well, first consider the role of inflammation in your body. In many respects, it's a good thing as it's your body's natural response to invaders it perceives as threats. If you get a cut for instance, the process of inflammation is what allows you to heal.

Specifically during inflammation:

-- Your blood vessels constrict to keep you from bleeding to death

-- Your blood becomes thicker so it can clot

-- Your immune system sends cells and chemicals to fight viruses, bacteria and other "bad guys" that could infect the area

-- Cells multiply to repair the damage

Ultimately, the cut is healed and a protective scar may form over the area.

If your arteries are damaged, a very similar process occurs inside of your body, except that a "scar" in your artery is known as plaque.

This plaque, along with the thickening of your blood and constricting of your blood vessels that normally occur during the inflammatory process, can indeed increase your risk of high blood pressure and heart attacks.

Notice that cholesterol has yet to even enter the picture.

Cholesterol comes in because, in order to replace your damaged cells, it is necessary.

Remember that no cell can form without it.

So if you have damaged cells that need to be replaced, your liver will be notified to make more cholesterol and release it into your bloodstream. This is a deliberate process that takes place in order for your body to produce new, healthy cells.

It's also possible, and quite common, for damage to occur in your body on a regular basis. In this case, you will be in a dangerous state of chronic inflammation.

The test usually used to determine if you have chronic inflammation is a C-reactive protein (CRP) blood test. CRP level is used as a marker of inflammation in your arteries.

Generally speaking:

-- A CRP level under 1 milligrams per liter of blood means you have a low risk for cardiovascular disease

-- 1 to 3 milligrams means your risk is intermediate

-- More than 3 milligrams is high risk

Even conventional medicine is warming up to the idea that chronic inflammation can trigger heart attacks. But they stop short of seeing the big picture.

In the eyes of conventional medicine, when they see increased cholesterol circulating in your bloodstream, they conclude that it -- not the underlying damage to your arteries -- is the cause of heart attacks.

Which brings me to my next point.

The Insanity of Lowering Cholesterol

Sally Fallon, the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and Mary Enig, Ph.D, an expert in lipid biochemistry, have gone so far as to call high cholesterol "an invented disease, a 'problem' that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood."[iii]

And this explanation is spot on.

If you have increased levels of cholesterol, it is at least in part because of increased inflammation in your body. The cholesterol is there to do a job: help your body to heal and repair.

Conventional medicine misses the boat entirely when they dangerously recommend that lowering cholesterol with drugs is the way to reduce your risk of heart attacks, because what is actually needed is to address whatever is causing your body damage -- and leading to increased inflammation and then increased cholesterol.

As Dr. Rosedale so rightly points out:

"If excessive damage is occurring such that it is necessary to distribute extra cholesterol through the bloodstream, it would not seem very wise to merely lower the cholesterol and forget about why it is there in the first place.

It would seem much smarter to reduce the extra need for the cholesterol -- the excessive damage that is occurring, the reason for the chronic inflammation."

I'll discuss how to do this later in the report, but first let's take a look at the dangers of low cholesterol -- and how it came to be that cholesterol levels needed to be so low in the first place.

If Your Cholesterol is Too Low ...

All kinds of nasty things can happen to your body. Remember, every single one of your cells needs cholesterol to thrive -- including those in your brain. Perhaps this is why low cholesterol wreaks havoc on your psyche.

One large study conducted by Dutch researchers found that men with chronically low cholesterol levels showed a consistently higher risk of having depressive symptoms.[iv]

This may be because cholesterol affects the metabolism of serotonin, a substance involved in the regulation of your mood. On a similar note, Canadian researchers found that those in the lowest quarter of total cholesterol concentration had more than six times the risk of committing suicide as did those in the highest quarter. [v]

Dozens of studies also support a connection between low or lowered cholesterol levels and violent behavior, through this same pathway: lowered cholesterol levels may lead to lowered brain serotonin activity, which may, in turn, lead to increased violence and aggression. [vi]

And one meta-analysis of over 41,000 patient records found that people who take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol as much as possible may have a higher risk of cancer, [vii] while other studies have linked low cholesterol to Parkinson's disease.

What cholesterol level is too low? Brace yourself.

Probably any level much under 150 -- an optimum would be more like 200.

Now I know what you are thinking: "But my doctor tells me my cholesterol needs to be under 200 to be healthy." Well let me enlighten you about how these cholesterol recommendations came to be. And I warn you, it is not a pretty story.

This is a significant issue. I have seen large numbers of people who have their cholesterol lowered below 150, and there is little question in my mind that it is causing far more harm than any benefit they are receiving by lowering their cholesterol this low.

Who Decided What Cholesterol Levels are Healthy or Harmful?

In 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.

Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

Keep in mind that these extremely low targets often require multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs to achieve.

Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine [viii] found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel. The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, and found that the studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.

Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.

So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?

Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs.[ix]

The same drugs that the new guidelines suddenly created a huge new market for in the United States.

Coincidence? I think not.

Now, despite the finding that there is absolutely NO evidence to show that lowering your LDL cholesterol to 100 or below is good for you, what do you think the American Heart Association STILL recommends?

Lowering your LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100. [x]

And to make matters worse, the standard recommendation to get to that level almost always includes one or more cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The Dangers of Cholesterol-Lowering Medications

If you are concerned about your cholesterol levels, taking a drug should be your absolute last resort. And when I say last resort, I'm saying the odds are very high, greater than 100 to 1, that you don't need drugs to lower your cholesterol.

To put it another way, among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic challenges of familial hypercholesterolemia that required it..

Contrast this to what is going on in the general population. According to data from Medco Health Solutions Inc., more than half of insured Americans are taking drugs for chronic health conditions. And cholesterol-lowering medications are the second most common variety among this group, with nearly 15 percent of chronic medication users taking them (high blood pressure medications -- another vastly over-prescribed category -- were first). [xi]

Disturbingly, as written in BusinessWeek early in 2008, "Some researchers have even suggested -- half-jokingly -- that the medications should be put in the water supply." [xii]

Count yourself lucky that you probably do NOT need to take cholesterol-lowering medications, because these are some nasty little pills.

Statin drugs work by inhibiting an enzyme in your liver that's needed to manufacture cholesterol. What is so concerning about this is that when you go tinkering around with the delicate workings of the human body, you risk throwing everything off kilter.

Case in point, "statin drugs inhibit not just the production of cholesterol, but a whole family of intermediary substances, many if not all of which have important biochemical functions in their own right," say Enig and Fallon.3

For starters, statin drugs deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is beneficial to heart health and muscle function. Because doctors rarely inform people of this risk and advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement, this depletion leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness, and eventually heart failure.

Muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis, is actually the most common side effect of statin drugs, which is thought to occur because statins activate the atrogin-1 gene, which plays a key role in muscle atrophy. [xiii]

By the way, muscle pain and weakness may be an indication that your body tissues are actually breaking down -- a condition that can cause kidney damage.

Statin drugs have also been linked to:

-- An increased risk of polyneuropathy (nerve damage that causes pain in the hands and feet and trouble walking)

-- Dizziness

-- Cognitive impairment, including memory loss [xiv]

-- A potential increased risk of cancer [xv]

-- Decreased function of the immune system[xvi]

-- Depression

-- Liver problems, including a potential increase in liver enzymes (so people taking statins must be regularly monitored for normal liver function)

And recently a possible association was found between statins and an increased risk of Lou Gehrig's disease. [xvii]

Other cholesterol-lowering drugs besides statins also have side effects, most notably muscle pain and weakness.

IMPORTANT NOTE

If, for whatever reason, you or someone you know or love does not believe the information in this report and chooses to stay on statin drugs, then please make sure they at least take one to two Ubiquinols per day.

This will help prevent all the side effects mentioned above.

Ubiquinol is the reduced version of Coenzyme Q-10 and is far more effective if you are over 35-40 years old. It is the form of the supplement that actually works, and if you take CoQ-10 and your body can't reduce it to uniquinol you are just fooling yourself and wasting your money.

Are Cholesterol Drugs Even Effective?

With all of these risks, the drugs had better be effective, right? Well, even this is questionable. At least, it depends on how you look at it.

Most cholesterol lowering drugs can effectively lower your cholesterol numbers, but are they actually making you any healthier, and do they help prevent heart disease?

Have you ever heard of the statistic known as NNT, or number needed to treat?

I didn't think so. In fact, most doctors haven't either. And herein lies the problem.

NNT answers the question: How many people have to take a particular drug to avoid one incidence of a medical issue (such as a heart attack)?

For example, if a drug had an NNT of 50 for heart attacks, then 50 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one heart attack.

Easy enough, right?

Well, drug companies would rather that you not focus on NNT, because when you do, you get an entirely different picture of their "miracle" drugs. Take, for instance, Pfizer's Lipitor, which is the most prescribed cholesterol medication in the world and has been prescribed to more than 26 million Americans. [xviii]

According to Lipitor's own Web site, Lipitor is clinically proven to lower bad cholesterol 39-60 percent, depending on the dose. Sounds fairly effective, right?

Well, BusinessWeek actually did an excellent story on this very topic earlier this year, [xix] and they found the REAL numbers right on Pfizer's own newspaper ad for Lipitor.

Upon first glance, the ad boasts that Lipitor reduces heart attacks by 36 percent. But there is an asterisk. And when you follow the asterisk, you find the following in much smaller type:

"That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor."

What this means is that for every 100 people who took the drug over 3.3 years, three people on placebos, and two people on Lipitor, had heart attacks. That means that taking Lipitor resulted in just one fewer heart attack per 100 people.

The NNT, in this case, is 100. One hundred people have to take Lipitor for more than three years to prevent one heart attack. And the other 99 people, well, they've just dished out hundreds of dollars and increased their risk of a multitude of side effects for nothing.

So you can see how the true effectiveness of cholesterol drugs like Lipitor is hidden behind a smokescreen.

Or in some cases, not hidden at all.

Zetia and Vytorin: No Medical Benefits

Early in 2008, it came out that Zetia, which works by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol from your intestines, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and Zocor (a statin drug), do not work.

This was discovered AFTER the drugs acquired close to 20 percent of the U.S. market for cholesterol-lowering drugs. And also after close to 1 million prescriptions for the drugs were being written each week in the United States, bringing in close to $4 billion in 2007. [xx]

It was only after the results of a trial by the drugs' makers, Merck and Schering-Plough, were released that this was found out. Never mind that the trial was completed in April 2006, and results were not released until January 2008.

And it's no wonder the drug companies wanted to hide these results.

While Zetia does lower cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent, trials did not show that it reduces heart attacks or strokes, or that it reduces plaques in arteries that can lead to heart problems.

The trial by the drugs' makers, which studied whether Zetia could reduce the growth of plaques, found that plaques grew nearly twice as fast in patients taking Zetia along with Zocor (Vytorin) than in those taking Zocor alone. [xxi]

Of course, the answer is not to turn back to typical statin drugs to lower your cholesterol, as many of the so-called experts would have you believe.

You see, statins are thought to have a beneficial effect on inflammation in your body, thereby lowering your risk of heart attack and stroke.

But you can lower inflammation in your body naturally, without risking any of the numerous side effects of statin drugs. This should also explain why my guidelines for lowering cholesterol are identical to those to lower inflammation.

For more in-depth information about cholesterol-lowering drugs, please see my recently updated statin drug index page.

How to Lower Inflammation, and Thereby Your Risk of Heart Disease, Naturally

There is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. While it's true that fats from animal sources contain cholesterol, I've explained earlier in this article why this should not scare you -- but I'll explain even further here.

This misguided principle is based on the "lipid hypothesis" -- developed in the 1950s by nutrition pioneer Ancel Keys -- that linked dietary fat to coronary heart disease.

The nutrition community of that time completely accepted the hypothesis, and encouraged the public to cut out butter, red meat, animal fats, eggs, dairy and other "artery clogging" fats from their diets -- a radical change at that time.

What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease, he selectively analyzed information from only six countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time -- from 22 countries.

As a result of this "cherry-picked" data, government health organizations began bombarding the public with advice that has contributed to the diabetes and obesity epidemics going on today: eat a low-fat diet.

Not surprisingly, numerous studies have actually shown that Keys' theory was wrong and saturated fats are healthy, including these studies from Fallon and Enig's classic article The Skinny on Fats: [xxii]

A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with "bad" dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage and cheese. [xxiii]
A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine. [xxiv]
Of course, as Americans cut out nutritious animal fats from their diets, they were left hungry. So they began eating more processed grains, more vegetable oils, and more high-fructose corn syrup, all of which are nutritional disasters.

It is this latter type of diet that will eventually lead to increased inflammation, and therefore cholesterol, in your body. So don't let anyone scare you away from saturated fat anymore.

Chronic inflammation is actually caused by a laundry list of items such as:

-- Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)

-- Eating lots of sugar and grains

-- Eating foods cooked at high temperatures

-- Eating trans fats

-- A sedentary lifestyle

-- Smoking

-- Emotional stress

So to sum it all up, in order to lower your inflammation and cholesterol levels naturally, you must address the items on this list.

How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally...

1. Make sure you're getting plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega3-fats. I prefer those from krill oil. New research suggests that as little as 500 mg may lower your total cholesterol and triglycerides and will likely increase your HDL cholesterol.

2. Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your daily diet. It is especially important to eliminate dangerous sugars such as fructose. If your HDL/Cholesterol ratio is abnormal and needs to be improved it would also serve you well to virtually eliminate fruits from your diet, as that it also a source of fructose. Once your cholesterol improves you can gradually reintroduce it to levels that don't raise your cholesterol.

3. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type. You can learn your nutritional type by taking our FREE test.

4. Eat a good portion of your food raw.

5. Eat healthy, preferably raw, fats that correspond to your nutritional type. This includes:

-- Olive oil

-- Coconut and coconut oil

-- Organic raw dairy products (including butter, cream, sour cream, cheese, etc.)

-- Avocados

-- Raw nuts

-- Seeds

-- Eggs (lightly cooked with yolks intact or raw)

-- Organic, grass-fed meats

6. Get the right amount of exercise, especially Peak Fitness type of exercise. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread.

7. Avoid smoking and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.

8. Address your emotional challenges. I particularly love the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) for stress management.

So there you have it; the reasons why high cholesterol is a worry that many of you simply do not need to have, along with a simple plan to optimize yours.

If someone you love is currently taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, I urge you to share this information with them as well, and take advantage of the thousands of free pages of information on www.Mercola.com.

For the majority of you reading this right now, there's no reason to risk your health with cholesterol-lowering drugs. With the plan I've just outlined, you'll achieve the cholesterol levels you were meant to have, along with the very welcome "side effects" of increased energy, mood and mental clarity.

Too good to be true?

Hardly.

For the vast majority of people, making a few lifestyle changes causes healthy cholesterol levels to naturally occur.

As always, your health really is in your hands. Now it's up to you to take control -- and shape it into something great.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

[i] American Heart Association January 23, 2008

[ii] Mercola.com, Cholesterol is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease, Ron Rosedale May 28, 2005

[iii] Fallon, S. and Mary Enig. "Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines," The Weston A. Price Foundation

[iv] Psychosomatic Medicine 2000;62.

[v] Epidemiology 2001 Mar;12:168-72

[vi] Annals of Internal Medicine (1998;128(6):478-487) The Journal of the American Medical Association (1997;278:313-321)

[vii] Journal of the American College of Cardiology July 31, 2007; 50:409-418

[viii] Annals of Internal Medicine October 3, 2006; 145(7): 520-530

[ix] USAToday.com October 16, 2004

[x] American Heart Association, "What Your Cholesterol Level Means," accessed May 22, 2008

[xi] MSNBC.com More than half of Americans on chronic meds May 14, 2008(accessed June 9, 2008)

[xii] BusinessWeek Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? January 17, 2008 (accessed June 9, 2008)

[xiii] The Journal of Clinical Investigation December 2007; 117(12):3940-51

[xiv] Mercola.com Sudden Memory Loss Linked to Cholesterol Drugs

[xv] Nature Medicine September, 2000;6:965-966, 1004-1010.

[xvi] Nature Medicine, December, 2000; 6: 1311-1312, 1399-1402

[xvii] Edwards, I. Ralph; Star, Kristina; Kiuru, Anne, "Statins, Neuromuscular Degenerative Disease and an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Like Syndrome," Drug Safety, Volume 30, Number 6, 2007 , pp. 515-525(11)

[xviii] IMS Heallth. IMS National Prescription Audit Plus July 2007.

[xix] BusinessWeek.com, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?" January 17, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xx] New York Times, "Cardiologists Question Delay of Data on 2 Drugs," November 21, 2007 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xxi] New York Times, "Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say," January 14, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xxii] Enig, M and Sally Fallon, "The Skinny on Fats," The Weston A. Price Foundation,

[xxiii] Lackland, D T, et al, J Nutr, Nov 1990, 120:11S:1433-1436

[xxiv] Nutr Week, Mar 22, 1991, 21:12:2-3

13-08-2010 om 00:42 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

http://www.counterpunch.org/

August 11, 2010

Unhinged at the US State Department and Pentagon

A War on Wikileaks?

11-08-2010 om 23:17 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Votre nouveau compteur électrique peut vous espionner

• Transmettre des informations : un relevé sera envoyé toutes les 10 à 30 minutes à ERDF (Electricité Réseau Distribution de France), le gestionnaire du réseau depuis l'ouverture du marché de l'électricité, et ces données seront ensuite transmise aux fournisseurs d'électricité ;
• Piloter à distance votre installation électrique : ces relevés de consommation en temps réel permettent d'ajuster, par exemple, la consommation du chauffe-eau ou des radiateurs.

• Pour les clients : des relevés plus précis permettent de mieux maîtriser la consommation d'électricité, et beaucoup d'opérations ne nécessiteront plus qu'un technicien se déplace ;
• Pour les producteurs : EDF et ses concurrents pourront ajuster à la fois leurs offres tarifaires et la production de leurs centrales.

Le compteur connaît l'heure de votre douche

Pour ERDF, le compteur ne peut pas distinguer les appareils

11-08-2010 om 00:07 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

The complete list of prisoners currently on hunger strike in ward 240 is as follows:

1. Ali Malihi, student activist and member of Daftar-e Tahkim Vahdat (student alumni organization).

2. Bahman Ahmad Amouie, journalist.

3. Hossein Nourinejad, journalist and member of the Participation Front (reformist party).

4. Abdollah Momeni, student activist and spokesperson for Daftar-e Tahkim Vahdat.

5. Ali Parviz, student activist.

6. Hamid Reza Mohammadi, political activist.

7. Jafar Eghdami, civil society activist.

8. Babak Bordbar, photographer.

9. Zia Nabavi, starred student and member of the Council to Defend the Right to Education.

10. Ebrahim (Nader) Babaie, civil society activist and an injured veteran of the Iran-Iraq war.

11. Kouhyar Goodarzi, human rights activist and blogger.

12. Majid Dorri, student activist.

13. Majid Tavakoli, student activist.

14. Keyvan Samimi, journalist.

15. Gholamhossein Arashi, arrested during an Ashura protest in Tehran.

16. Payman Karimi, arrested during an Ashura protest in Tehran.

17. Mohammad Hossein Sohrabi Rad, political prisoner arrested in relation to his follow-up activities on deaths and torture in Kahrizak prison and a member of Mehdi Karrobi’s election campaign. He received 74 lashes and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Detained journalist Keyvan Samimi

Bahman Ahmadi Amouie began his hunger strike three days ago. Five others including Majid Tavakoli, Abdollah Momeni, and Kouhyar Goodarzi began their hunger strike the next day. The rest of the prisoners went on hunger strike on Thursday to demonstrate their support for their cell mates. The prisoners have vowed to not end their strike until their demands are met. While seventeen prisoner names were leaked out of prison, there still may be others in solitary confinement who are also on hunger strike.

Reports also indicate that the phones in ward 350 were cut off to prevent prisoners from communicating with the outside world so the news does not reach the media.

Seventeen political prisoners began a hunger strike at the end of July to protest deteriorating conditions at Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. Here is the complete list of hunger strikers. Iran has arrested hundreds of journalists, human rights activists, and politicians after the protest movement emerged against the results of the June 12 presidential election in 2009.

Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, the two main opposition leaders called on the prisoners to stop the hunger strike. Iranian bloggers reported that Babak Bordbar, a jailed photographer who also went on hunger strike was released today.

Several human rights organizations announced their concern for the health condition of the hunger strikers, especially the detained journalists, Bahman Ahmadi-Amouei and Keyvon Samimi, and student activist Majid Tavakoli . These three individuals began a “dry” hunger strike on August 4.

Sight writes [fa] about the indifference of the world towards the hunger striking prisoners in Iran. The blogger writes:

What happened? Has the voice of the political prisoners become weak or is the world sleepy?… Bahman Ahmadi-Amouei and Keyvon Samimi are my countrymen and their bones are being broken in Velyateh Faghie's [Iranian regime] undergrounds

23 Khordad, a group that claims to have emerged after the presidential election to support the Green Movement, says[fa] that:

We are concerned for the health of the political prisoners who are on hunger strike, and we respect their will to either continue or stop. But we object to the invitation of a reformist group, Jebheye Moshrekat, who is asking people to do political fasting to support prisoners. Yes to hunger strike, no to political fasting. Why is it that this reformist group wants to give a political colour to their hunger strike.

Arash Ashouri, a leading Iranian photo blogger based in Iran, writes in his blog, Kosoof, about one of hunger strikers:

Bahman Ahmadi Amouee, a famous economy journalist of various reformist newspapers is in hunger strike nowadays in notorious Evin Prison of Tehran. Bahman, alongside his wife, Jila Baniyaghoub, a journalist and women rights activist was arrested after the disputed Presidential election in 2009. He was held for several weeks in solitary confinement in section 209 of Evin Prison without any official charges. Later, He was sentenced to 7 years and 4 months of imprisonment and 34 lashes in the revolutionary court.
Bahman Ahmadi Amouee, alongside 16 other political prisoners is in hunger strike in Evin prison, protesting against the terrible condition of section 350 of Evin prison and the harsh behavior of prison guards. Authorities do not let his family to visit him or have any contact with him and according to the sources from inside the prison, his physical health is in serious danger.

09-08-2010 om 23:19 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Back to the Land in France (One)

France's New Rural Ghettos

08-08-2010 om 23:34 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

08-08-2010 om 09:05 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Na het bijzonder boeiende verhaal van gisteren vonden we vandaag nog een interessante getuigenis. Het is geen groot nieuwsfeit. Want het komt er tenslotte op neer dat we nog steeds in een soort maat§schappij leven van kwakzalvers en would-be-uitvinders. Personages en situaties die we in alle kleuren geuren terugvinden in de tijd van de grote goldrush of in Céline's "Voyage au bout de la nuit". Het enige verschil is dat het nu geen individuele oplichtertjes meer zijn met een sympathiek kantje aan. Het is big business geworden met grijnzende managers en glunderende aandeelhouders...

uit de Huffington Post:

The Dark Side of Vitaminwater

Now here's something you wouldn't expect. Coca-Cola is being sued by a non-profit public interest group, on the grounds that the company's vitaminwater products make unwarranted health claims. No surprise there. But how do you think the company is defending itself?

In a staggering feat of twisted logic, lawyers for Coca-Cola are defending the lawsuit by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage."

Does this mean that you'd have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named "vitaminwater," a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits?

Or does it mean that it's okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?

In fact, the product is basically sugar-water, to which about a penny's worth of synthetic vitamins have been added. And the amount of sugar is not trivial. A bottle of vitaminwater contains 33 grams of sugar, making it more akin to a soft drink than to a healthy beverage.

Is any harm being done by this marketing ploy? After all, some might say consumers are at least getting some vitamins, and there isn't as much sugar in vitaminwater as there is in regular Coke.

True. But about 35 percent of Americans are now considered medically obese. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. Health experts tend to disagree about almost everything, but they all concur that added sugars play a key role in the obesity epidemic, a problem that now leads to more medical costs than smoking.

How many people with weight problems have consumed products like vitaminwater in the mistaken belief that the product was nutritionally positive and carried no caloric consequences? How many have thought that consuming vitaminwater was a smart choice from a weight-loss perspective? The very name "vitaminwater" suggests that the product is simply water with added nutrients, disguising the fact that it's actually full of added sugar.

The truth is that when it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be even more important than what you eat. Americans now get nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquids. In 2009, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, finding that the quickest and most reliable way to lose weight is to cut down on liquid calorie consumption. And the best way to do that is to reduce or eliminate beverages that contain added sugar.

Meanwhile, Coca-Cola has invested billions of dollars in its vitaminwater line, paying basketball stars, including Kobe Bryant and Lebron James, to appear in ads that emphatically state that these products are a healthy way for consumers to hydrate. When Lebron James held his much ballyhooed TV special to announce his decision to join the Miami Heat, many corporations paid millions in an attempt to capitalize on the event. But it was vitaminwater that had the most prominent role throughout the show.

The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, alleges that vitaminwater labels and advertising are filled with "deceptive and unsubstantiated claims." In his recent 55-page ruling, Federal Judge John Gleeson (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), wrote, "At oral arguments, defendants (Coca-Cola) suggested that no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitamin water was a healthy beverage." Noting that the soft drink giant wasn't claiming the lawsuit was wrong on factual grounds, the judge wrote that, "Accordingly, I must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true."

I still can't get over the bizarre audacity of Coke's legal case. Forced to defend themselves in court, they are acknowledging that vitaminwater isn't a healthy product. But they are arguing that advertising it as such isn't false advertising, because no could possibly believe such a ridiculous claim.

I guess that's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising the product, saying it will keep you "healthy as a horse," and will bring about a "healthy state of physical and mental well-being."

Why do we allow companies like Coca-Cola to tell us that drinking a bottle of sugar water with a few added water-soluble vitamins is a legitimate way to meet our nutritional needs?

Here's what I suggest: If you're looking for a healthy and far less expensive way to hydrate, try drinking water. If you want to flavor the water you drink, try adding the juice of a lemon and a small amount of honey or maple syrup to a quart of water. Another alternative is to mix one part lemonade or fruit juice to three or four parts water. Or drink green tea, hot or chilled, adding lemon and a small amount of sweetener if you like. If you want to jazz it up, try one-half fruit juice, one-half carbonated water.

If your tap water tastes bad or you suspect it might contain lead or other contaminants, get a water filter that fits under the sink or attaches to the tap.

And it's probably not the best idea to rely on a soft drink company for your vitamins and other essential nutrients. A plant-strong diet with lots of vegetables and fruits will provide you with what you need far more reliably, far more consistently -- and far more honestly.

To learn about inexpensive and healthy foods and beverages, and practical steps you can take toward greater quality of life and economic freedom, read John Robbins' critically acclaimed new book The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less. For more information about his work, or to sign up for his email list, visit johnrobbins.info

06-08-2010 om 23:22 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

"Koning Boudewijn wilde trouwen met zijn stiefmoeder"

•    
• Je moet weten dat Lilian er alles aan wilde doen om koningin van België te worden. Ze was een bloedmooie vrouw. Ze was getrouwd met Leopold III, die niet alleen veel ouder was maar ook nogal wat buitenechtelijke relaties had. Lilian zag in Boudewijn de kortste weg naar de troon. Boudewijn was zo verliefd op Lilian dat hij ernstig overwoog met haar te trouwen, maar dat is afgeblokt door de regering  
• Auteur Thierry Debels
•      
• Prins Alexander, prinses Lilian, Boudewijn en koning Leopold III.
•    
• Boudewijn was heel goed bevriend met de Spaanse dictator Franco, die veel bloed aan zijn handen heeft. Bovendien had Boudewijn een groot aandeel in de moord op Lumumba  
• Debels verklaart waarom Boudewijn niet zalig werd verklaard

05-08-2010 om 22:26 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Zottegemse burgemeester neemt het op voor zigeuners

• dinsdag 03 augustus 2010
• 
  
• Auteur: Koen Baumers en Johan Van Bever

04-08-2010 om 23:18 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

01-08-2010 om 00:00 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever