~ Gesticht àls Gesticht ter Voorkoming v/d Maatschappelijke Randdebiliteit ~
~ HÉT "progressief" Orgaan Der "Hangmatsocialisten" ~ Gesticht àls Gesticht ter Voorkoming v/d Maatschappelijke & Politieke Randdebiliteit
Hope and glory in Amerika
terwijl hier preformateurs non-papers opstellen over convergenties
tussen water en vuur gaat het leven verder. Sommige leukerds vinden het
erg slim te orakelen dat de sociale zekerheid niet mmer echt van deze
tijd is. Beter alles overlaten aan puur privé-intiatief. We geven hier
een voorbeeld uit een land waar privé-initiatief de voornaamste pijler
is ....toch zeer herkenbaar en wees eerlijk, veel belangrijker dan de
discussie over persoonsgebonden materie of gewestmaterie...
Social Security approaches its 75th anniversary on Saturday, the
program is playing an especially vital role in reducing poverty across
America during the worst economic crisis since the Great Recession. If benefits were to be significantly cut, 19.8 million more Americans would be thrust in poverty, according to a recent report
by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In addition to
supporting the elderly, Social Security is currently keeping more than 1
million children and more than 5 million adults below the age of 65
above the poverty line. Cuts
to Social Security would be especially devastating for older women, the
report shows. While 11.9 percent of women over the age of 65 are
currently below the poverty line, nearly half of them would be poor if
they no longer received benefits. Veronica
Daniels, 62, of Houston, Texas, says a reduction in her Social Security
benefits would be calamitous. An engineer with over 37 years of
experience, Daniels lost her job in 2007 and has not been able to find
steady work since. After blowing through most of her savings on a major
surgery and dental emergency without the help of health insurance, she
was forced to start collecting Social Security early to stay afloat. "I
wanted to wait until I was 66 to start collecting it, because I will
lose about 25% of my benefits by doing it this way, but I had no
choice," Daniels told HuffPost. "If the government cut my benefits right
now, it would be horrible for me. I'm making just enough to cover basic
expenses and save about a hundred dollars or so a month for medical
emergencies. I can't really afford to be squeezed." Daniels
said she lost her house to foreclosure in 2009, and she now lives in a
one-bedroom apartment in Houston with no sofa and only a small folding
table to eat on. She worries that once the prices of food and housing
and utilities go up, she will no longer be able to pay her modest rent. "I'm
hoping to live until my 80s, but it's gonna be really tough to make
ends meet by myself," she said. "Social Security will cover the basics,
but what if something happens and I need more? Will I be homeless? I'm
just crossing my fingers and hoping to hell I don't get seriously sick."
and millions other Americans who depend on Social Security are watching
closely as a bipartisan commission set up by President Obama mulls over
the idea of cutting funds to the program to reduce the deficit.
HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported
that nearly 85 percent of American adults polled oppose cuts to Social
Security, according to a recent survey conducted by GfK Roper, and 72%
"strongly oppose" the idea. Daniels belongs firmly in the latter category. "I
get so damn disgusted," she told HuffPost. "I don't understand how they
can even think about cutting the benefits they've promised you and
you've planned on your whole life. They want to treat us as less than
en omdat we tijdens de vakantieperiode onszelf en onze lezertjes extra willen verwennen op leuk nieuws vonden we deze heugelijke bijdrage aan de optimalisatie van ons goed humeur in de HUFFINGTON POST die we hier reeds ettelijke keren hebben geciteerd en geplunderd....lees met mate maar geniet ten volle....laat jullie maar eens goed gaan en gooi die pillen de deur uit!
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
Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word
-- something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the
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
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
-- 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
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
-- 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
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
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.
-- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
-- Cognitive impairment, including memory loss [xiv]
-- Liver problems, including a potential increase in liver enzymes
(so people taking statins must be regularly monitored for normal liver
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.
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
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
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
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
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
You see, statins are thought to have a beneficial effect on
inflammation in your body, thereby lowering your risk of heart attack
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
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
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
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
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
-- 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
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:
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
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?
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.
By MAXIMILLIAN C. FORTE In
the interest of full disclosure, I am one of Wikileaks many financial
donors. I have downloaded their entire Afghan War Diary, and numerous
other documents in the past, and I have shared them. I am also one of
the critics of some aspects
of the Wikileaks review process. Some might rush to conclude that this
puts individuals such as myself in a difficult position. Not from our
standpoint. Instead the difficult positions are owned by the U.S. State
Department and Pentagon, whose emissions have been chock full of absurd
assertions, twisted logic, while appealing to us with as much charm as
that of a delinquent about to commit date rape: first the appeal to our
good side (ethics), then the threat of destruction (prosecution). The
past week has seen a mounting cascade of legal threats against
Wikileaks, launched first via the mainstream media, which along with its
patron state is clearly smarting from the lash of uncontrolled
information access. A Pentagon official reportedly
exclaimed, with obvious joy: Its amazing how [Wikileaks Julian]
Assange has overplayed his hand. Now, hes alienating the sort of people
who youd normally think would be his biggest supporters. In one step,
three fallacies: one, that this story is all about Julian Assange, thus
reducing the complex to the personal; two, that supporters of Wikileaks
have become antagonistic toward what is an amorphous transnational
movement without clear boundaries of membership or location; and three,
the implication that support has shifted toward the Pentagon, as if it
now has some sort of green light of legitimacy to commit any acts
against Wikileaks that it wishes. Its only at these big historical
moments, with so much at stake, with everything seemingly up in the air,
that one finds so many people who are so wrong about so much. Lets
review the strategy of intended intimidation. The first step involved
the military threatening its ownnot in itself illogical, since the
leaks emanate from within its ranks. However, the military threatened
its own to avoid looking at what is now public. The Department of the
Navy, in a message titled Wikileaks Website Guidance, issued the
following statement as reported on August 5th: personnel
should not access the WikiLeaks website to view or download the
publicized classified information. Doing so would introduce potentially
classified information on unclassified networks. There has been rumor
that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the
public domain. This is NOT true. Government information technology
capabilities should be used to enable our war fighters, promote
information sharing in defense of our homeland, and to maximize
efficiencies in operations. It should not be used as a means to harm
national security through unauthorized disclosure of our information on
publicly accessible websites or chat rooms. A similar message was issued
by the Special Security Office of the Marine Corps Intelligence
Department addressed to ALCON (all concerned), which threatened to
discipline offenders: By
willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing
the posted classified materialthese actions constitute the unauthorized
processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified
information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store
classified information, meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY
VIOLATION. Not only are these actions illegal, but they provide the
justification for local security officials to immediately remove,
suspend FOR CAUSE all security clearances and accesses. Commanders may
press for Article 15 or 32 charges, and USMC personnel could face a
financial hardship as civilian and contractor personnel will be placed
on Administrative Leave pending the outcome of the [criminal]
threat to military personnel is one thing, but it has been done in a
manner that threatens a wide array of actors, which theoretically could
include independent bloggers, journalists, university librarians, and
scholars. Sumit Agarwal, the former Google manager whotake note of the
military-new media complex at workis now serving as the Defense
Departments social media czar, asserted to Wireds Danger Room that many of us may be guilty of illegal information trafficking (as I said in my last article, we are all hackers now): I
think of it as being analogous to MP3s or a copyrighted novel
onlinewidespread publication doesnt strip away laws governing use of
those. If Avatar were suddenly available online, would [it] be legal to
download it? As a practical matter, many people would download it, but
also as a practical matter, James Cameron would probably go after people
who were found to be nodes who facilitated distribution. It would still
be illegal for people to make Avatar available even if it were posted
on a torrent site or the equivalent. With minor changes to what is
legal/illegal re: classified material vs a copyrighted movie, doesnt
the analogy hold? One person making it available doesnt change the laws
re: classified material. Our position is simply that service members
ought not to use government computers to do something which is still completely illegal (traffic in classified material). Also
on August 5th, the Pentagon issued an outlandish demand, so bizarre
that it could not possibly be met with anything less than scorn. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell
ordered Wikileaks to return all documents (which are not paper
documents, but digital copies, of which countless copies now exist in
documents are the property of the U.S. Government and contain
classified and sensitive information. The Defense Department demands
that Wikileaks return immediately all version [sic]
of documents obtained .Wikileaks public disclosure last week of a
large number of our documents has already threatened the safety of our
troops, our allies and Afghan citizens .The only acceptable course is
for Wikileaks to return all versions of these documents to the U.S.
government and permanently delete them from its website, computers and
the same time this indicates one of the main lines of argument that the
U.S. would begin to pursue against Wikileaks in earnest, and it is by
far the weakest: that the leaked records threaten the safety of its
troops and allies. Fox News
was eager to dedicate its time and energies to looking for legal
loopholes by which to hang Wikileaks. It demonstrated no such concern
for the finer points of international law, let alone another countrys
domestic laws, when it came to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq. Yet, here is Fox on Wikileaks trail in Sweden. On August 6th Fox
was happy to have surfaced with this report: But the law [protecting
freedom of expression and the anonymity of sources] only applies to
websites or publications that possess a special publishing license
granting them constitutional protection, and WikiLeaks has not acquired
the requisite paperwork. Foxs headline was WikiLeaks Website Not
Protected by Swedish Law, Legal Analysts Sayno legal analyst was named
or quoted in the article. The only reason Fox issued this piece is as
part of an effort, combining old media, social media, and the national
security state, to draw a tighter noose around Wikileaks collective
neck. At a time when many patriotic Americans are publicly calling for
Wikileaks people to be hunted down and shot, it is interesting to note
that Fox is only too happy to reveal the name, location, and photograph
of the person hosting Wikileaks server in Sweden. On August 9th, the Wall Street Journal
claimed to have obtained a letter from five human rights organizations
that was critical of Wikileaks failure to redact the names of Afghan
civilian informants in the records that were publicly released. The
WSJs Jeanne Whalen, in language that is strikingly close to that of the
unnamed Pentagon official quoted above at the start, wrote: The
exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from
some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents
publication. This could be a problem for Wikileaks, insofar as Julian
Assange has effectively conceded the argument in an interview with,
among others, The Guardian:
If there are innocent Afghans being revealed, which was our concern,
which was why we kept back 15,000 files, then of course we take that
seriously. The problem is that many such identities are revealed in the
files that have already been released. Assange argues that the U.S.
military is ultimately to blame for having placed Afghan civilians in
danger, and for recording identities that could be revealed. He is not
wrong there, and the U.S. was overconfident that its database was beyond
any danger of leakage, which is obviously wrong. Perhaps not wanting to
engage in cold, bitter irony, Assange did not choose to give back to
the state the words it often gives us: Mistakes were made. We regret
all loss of innocent civilian life. Unfortunately, the enemy chose to
embed itself in the civilian population. Wikileaks, via Twitter, was
correct in noting that not once since the recent leaks exploded into
public has the Pentagon said it was sorry about all the Afghan civilians
it killed, or that it would stop. Now, on August 10th, we are told
that the U.S. is urging all of its allies, especially those in NATO and
with troops in Afghanistan, to crack down on Wikileaks. An unnamed
American diplomat has stated: Its
not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. Its U.K.
troops, its German troops, its Australian troopsall of the NATO
troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan. [Their
governments should] review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could
constitute crimes under their own national-security laws. Some
U.S. allies, such as Canada, are likely to bolt out of the gate to be
the first to do so. The day after the release of the documents, Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon
insisted, at first, that he would not comment directly on the leaked
documents, saying they had nothing to do with Canada. Yet, as if he
had suddenly received an automated statement transmitted to a secret
implant buried in his head, he said:
Our government is concerned, obviously, that operational leaks could
endanger the lives of our men and women in Afghanistan. Again, three
absurdly contradictory elements bundled together: 1) we are not
commenting on the documents; 2) the documents have nothing to do with
Canada; and, 3) the documents could endanger our troops. The
latter point is likely to be how the U.S. will impress upon allies the
need to collaborate in persecuting Wikileaks. The endangering of Afghan
civilians cannot, clearly, be a point on which to prosecute a case
against Wikileaks, because the irony would be too immense for even the
U.S. to try to keep inflated and aloft. The safety of troops is not much
less ironicafter all, it was the state that placed those troops in
harms way, not Wikileaksbut it does play better with a home crowd that
has been sufficiently conditioned to thirst for the blood of imagined
traitors. The leaders of the chief national security state of the West
increasingly sound like angry and desperate bloggers, promising the
wrath of god and total vengeanceand it may be because, one, the state
is increasingly powerless to deal with transnational, decentralized,
non-state phenomena that can fight back on cyber terrain (and win), and
two because that crowd of angry, righteous patriots is the one the state
is playing to. It
would be amazing if the U.S. or an ally ever got to try a case against
Wikileaks on the grounds that troops lives had been endangered. It
would be a massive fiasco. The state would need to showand not just
assert, as it does nowexactly how any troops were actually endangered.
Which of the rounds received from small arms fire in Afghanistan is a
regular insurgent round and which one is a Wikileaks inspired round?
In a war zone, how do you calibrate safety levels such that you can tell
when, with Wikileaks, the danger meter went deeper into the red? And
since Afghan civilians are already, all too painfully, aware of the
damage done by U.S. and NATO forces, how can the release of these
records do any greater damage? Did Afghans need a reminder, in print, in
another language? If
the state fails to make any sensenot surprisingit is because it is
has no intention of doing so. The state is appealing to something more
visceral with all of this posturing: fear.
It wants to strike fear into the minds and bodies of people working
with Wikileaks, or anyone else doing such work, and anyone contemplating
leaking any classified records. Fear is its greatest weapon of
psychological destruction, with proven success at home. And in this
case, the danger lies at home. The outcome the state hopes for is
greater self-censorship and greater self-monitoring. Bullying
Assange, or worse yet, actually capturing him and imprisoning him, will
only make Assange into an international hero, the Che Guevara of
information warfare. For all those who may be alienated, or who
expressed any criticisms, they/we would clearly pick Assange over the
Pentagon any day. The U.S. does not want this to be publicly proven on a
world stage, so our answers to the question of what the U.S. is up to,
and why it seems to have become so utterly unhinged, have to lie
elsewhere. I contend that it is fear promotion, as part of a campaign of
global counterinsurgency on psychological and emotional levels, to
which the best answer is a combination of further tactical innovation,
and greater humor. Maximilian C. Forte is a professor in anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He writes at Zero Anthropology. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
babys zich kunnen zelfmoorden door het eten van betterfoodjes blijkt
ook Frankrijk plots de vele voordelen te ontdekken van de slimme meters.
Ok, beste lezertjes, we zien ook niet meteen de link tussen de
dodelijke betterfoods en de slimme meters maar jullie moeten niet
kniezen vinden wij... en wat nu plots in Frankrijk een hot item dreigt
te worden weten we in Groot-Nederland al een hele poos.
Votre nouveau compteur électrique peut vous espionner
Par François Krug | Eco89 | 08/08/2010 | 19H18 Les nouveaux compteurs électriques,
dits « intelligents », seraient justement trop intelligents. Ils
permettent de « savoir beaucoup de choses sur les habitants d'une maison
», s'inquiète la Cnil. Par exemple, l'heure à laquelle vous prenez votre douche ou utilisez votre grille-pain. D'ici
2020, 80% des 35 millions de compteurs actuels devront avoir été
remplacés par ces nouveaux modèles. Des compteurs dits « intelligents »,
parce qu'ils sont informatisés et peuvent :
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
Le système présente pourtant un risque majeur, nuance la Cnil (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés). Dans un article publié sur son site, et repéré par PC Inpact, la Cnil demande des garanties pour le respect de la vie privée : «
Les informations de consommation d'énergie transmises par les compteurs
sont très détaillées et permettent de savoir beaucoup de choses sur les
occupants d'une habitation, comme leur horaire de réveil, le moment où
ils prennent une douche ou bien quand ils utilisent certains appareils
(four, bouilloire, toaster ). Les
distributeurs d'énergie devront donc apporter des garanties sérieuses
sur la sécurisation de ces données et leur confidentialité. » Selon
la Cnil, les compteurs « intelligents » pourraient faire perdre aux
clients le contrôle de leurs installations électriques : «
Les compteurs communicants peuvent également agir directement sur
l'installation électrique. Ils permettent notamment de modifier la
puissance de l'abonnement, voire même de couper l'alimentation
électrique à distance, via une interface web. Ces fonctionnalités
devront être parfaitement sécurisées pour éviter toute utilisation
Pour ERDF, le compteur ne peut pas distinguer les appareils
ERDF, on nuance les remarques de la Cnil. François Blanc, directeur du
projet « Linky » (le nom du compteur testé actuellement), nous explique : «
L'intervalle entre les enregistrements des données ne descendra pas en
dessous un quart d'heure ou dix minutes. Le compteur enregistre votre
consommation totale. En mesurant tous les quarts d'heure, il est
incapable de distinguer les appareils. » François
Blanc se veut aussi rassurant sur la transmission des informations, et
leur utilisation par ERDF et les fournisseurs d'électricité : «
Toutes les données sont cryptées, elles sont protégées dès lors
qu'elles sont transmises vers notre système, ce qui les préservent
d'éventuelles attaques malveillantes. Nos agents sont tenus au respect
d'un code de bonne conduite, ils s'abstiennent de transmettre toute
information personnelle et leur responsabilité pénale serait engagée
[ ]. Seul le client est propriétaire de ses données de consommation.
Elles ne sont transmises à son fournisseur d'électricité qu'avec son
plein accord. » ► Mis à jour le 09/08/2010 à 19 heures : ajout
de l'interview du directeur du projet chez ERDF, réalisée ce lundi
(aucun responsable d'EDRF n'était joignable vendredi, lorsque l'article a
été mis en ligne).
milliards deuros ! Cest au final ce que lusager pourrait débourser
pour linstallation dans les 35 millions de foyers abonnés à EDF dun nouveau type de compteur électrique. Pour chaque Français, la facture devrait sélever à 230 . En retour, les ménages devraient mieux maîtriser leur consommation grâce à ce système rendu obligatoire par une directive européenne de 2006. Celle-ci stipule que 80% de la population devra être équipée dici à 2020.
Cependantle chantier de ces compteurs ultramoderne pourrait bien tourner au cauchemar. Premier problème : le devis initial a explosé. Il devait sétablir selon ERDF (Electricité réseau distribution France),
la filiale dEDF chargée de la distribution de lélectricité, entre 4
et 5 milliards deuros sur dix ans pour changer la totalité du parc
français. Mais les collectivités locales, propriétaire des compteurs,
ont pris leurs calculettes et annoncent le double !
Un surcoût dautant plus ennuyeux que ces compteurs, baptisés Linky, ont de sérieux ratés.
Dans la région de Tours, sur les 40 000 compteurs de nouvelle
génération qui devaient être installés au 31 mai, seuls 19 000 ont été
mis en place. Et seuls huit fonctionnent correctement. Même mésaventure
dans la région lyonnaise où 200 000 foyers devaient être équipés dici
au mois de décembre.
la colère des élus. « On se dit que ces milliards deuros pourraient
être mieux utilisés. A quoi cela sert davoir des compteurs du XXIe
siècle si lélectricité est acheminée par un réseau vétuste? »
sinterroge Jean-Marc Proust, porte-parole de la Fédération des
collectivités locales, qui concèdent lexploitation du réseau de
distribution électrique. Enfin,
les syndicats redoutent que cette nouvelle technologie ne finisse par
remplacer les techniciens chargés de la relève des compteurs et
naboutisse à la suppression de 5 400 postes sur 45 000 chez ERDF.
nous venons changer votre compteur délectricité! » Depuis le 1er mars
2010, les habitants de plusieurs communes dIndre-et-Loire sétonnent de
voir sonner à leur porte des agents de la société Oti, prestataire
dERDF (Electricité réseau distribution de France). Exit les vieux compteurs mécaniques bleus, voici Linky, le compteur « communiquant ».
trois mois seulement après le début du déploiement, le nouveau
dispositif fait rouspéter les abonnés chez lesquels il est installé. «
Mon ancien compteur marchait parfaitement bien, sétonne Bernard Pouant,
un agriculteur à la retraite, installé dans la commune de Sazilly. Là,
ils mont mis un machin mal réglé, qui fait sauter les plombs en
permanence! » « Pas de courrier, aucun coup de fil, ils sont venus comme ça, sans prévenir ! »
nouveaux compteurs électroniques sont en effet bien plus sensibles et
nautorisent pratiquement aucun dépassement de la puissance préréglée.
Résultat : en cas de coupures répétées, lERDF préconise purement et
simplement daugmenter la puissance requise. Et donc de payer un
abonnement plus cher ! Et grâce aux compteurs communiquants, lopération
pourra être effectuée non plus en cinq jours comme auparavant, mais à
distance en moins de deux heures. Pratique !
déconvenue du côté de la commune voisine de Panzoult. « Pas de
courrier, aucun coup de fil, ils sont venus comme ça, sans prévenir ! »
Isabelle Pain, la maire de ce village de 594 habitants et dont les
collines boisées dominent la vallée de la Vienne, nen revient toujours
pas des drôles de manières dOti. « Heureusement quen tant quélue,
jétais au courant. Mais je nétais pas très contente ! » Passe encore
pour les méthodes employées, mais ce sont les complications survenues
après lintervention qui lui restent en travers de la gorge. « Mon mari
est viticulteur. Nous avons également installé un gîte rural au milieu
de nos vignes dans lequel nous accueillons des familles. Tant quil a
fait beau, pas de problème. Mais un week-end où la température avait
baissé, un couple qui avait loué le gîte a allumé le chauffage. Tout a
sauté ! »
le bureau de sa mairie, Isabelle Pain a recueilli plusieurs témoignages
qui font état de mésaventures similaires : « Certains dentre eux
venaient de personnes âgées à qui on a simplement répondu quil fallait
augmenter la puissance des compteurs, et donc le prix de labonnement.
Ils nont pas de grosses retraites et ne comprennent pas pourquoi on
leur demande soudainement de payer plus cher. Je ne trouve pas ça juste.
Zeventien politieke gevangenen zijn eind juli in hongerstaking gegaan [en] om te protesteren tegen de verslechterende omstandigheden in de beruchte Evin-gevangenis in Teheran. Hier
[en] is de volledige lijst van hongerstakers. Iran heeft honderden
journalisten, mensenrechtenactivisten en politici gearresteerd tijdens
de protestbeweging die ontstond tegen de resultaten van de presidentsverkiezingen van 12 juni 2009 [en]. De belangrijkste oppositieleiders, Mir Hossein Mousavi en Mehdi Karroubi, hebben de gevangenen opgeroepen
om hun hongerstaking te beëindigen. Iraanse bloggers melden dat Babak
Bordbar, een gevangengezette fotograaf die ook aan de hongerstaking
deelnam, vandaag is vrijgelaten [fa]. Verschillende
mensenrechtenorganisaties hebben hun bezorgdheid uitgesproken over de
gezondheid van de hongerstakers, vooral die van de gedetineerde
journalisten Bahman Ahmadi-Amouei en Keyvon Samimi en van de
studentenactivist Majid Tavakoli. Deze drie personen begonnen op 4 augustus een droge hongerstaking. Sight schrijft [fa] over de onverschilligheid van de rest van de wereld ten opzichte van de hongerstakende gevangenen in Iran: Wat
is er gebeurd? Is de stem van de politieke gevangenen verzwakt of is de
wereld ingedut? Bahman Ahmadi-Amouei en Keyvon Samimi zijn mijn
landgenoten en hun botten worden in het geheim gebroken door het Velyateh Faghie [Iraanse regime] 23 Khordad, een groep die beweert na de presidentsverkiezingen te zijn opgericht om de Groene Beweging te steunen, schrijft [fa]: We
maken ons zorgen over de gezondheid van de politieke gevangenen die in
hongerstaking zijn en we respecteren hun wens om door te gaan of te
stoppen. Maar we maken bezwaar tegen een uitnodiging van Jebheye Moshrekat,
een hervormingsgezinde groep, die mensen oproept tot een politiek
vasten om de gevangenen te steunen. We zeggen ja tegen de hongerstaking,
maar nee tegen politiek vasten. Waarom wil deze hervormingsgezinde
groep hun hongerstaking een politieke kleur geven? Arash Ashouri, een bekende Iraanse fotoblogger die in Iran woont, schrijft in zijn blog Kosoof over een van de hongerstakers [en]: Bahman
Ahmadi Amouei, een bekende economisch journalist voor verschillende
hervormingsgezinde kranten, is op dit moment in hongerstaking in de
beruchte Evin-gevangenis in Teheran. Bahman werd samen met zijn vrouw,
Jila Baniyaghoub, journaliste en vrouwenrechtenactiviste, gearresteerd
na de betwiste presidentsverkiezingen van 2009. Hij zat een aantal weken
zonder officiële aanklacht in eenzame opsluiting in Sectie 209 van de
Evin-gevangenis. Hij werd later door de revolutionaire rechtbank
veroordeeld tot 7 jaar en 4 maanden gevangenisstraf en 34 zweepslagen. Bahman
Ahmadi Amouei houdt samen met 16 andere politieke gevangenen een
hongerstaking in de Evin-gevangenis om te protesteren tegen de
afschuwelijke omstandigheden in Sectie 350 van de Evin-gevangenis en
tegen de wrede behandeling door gevangenbewaarders. De autoriteiten
weigeren zijn familie toestemming om hem te bezoeken of op welke manier
dan ook contact met hem te hebben en volgens bronnen binnen de
gevangenis loopt zijn gezondheid ernstig gevaar.
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 Karrobis 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.
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.
Sightwrites [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
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.