A False Martyr ?

Heather Crowe, the long-time waitress who allegedly contracted lung cancer from second-hand smoke and waged an anti-smoking campaign, passed away May 23rd, 2006.

Comments on Crowe's passing, by anti-smoking activists and smoking-ban proponents in governments and health ministries, indicate that there will be campaigns to exploit Heather Crowe as the first (and only) "official" martyr of those who allege second-hand smoke (SHS) to be a lethal public health risk (especially for hospitality workers).

However, there are reasons to believe that Crowe's martyrdom to this cause is based on falsehoods. Heather Crowe may be a false martyr.

We have no reason to doubt Heather Crowe's own sincerity. She genuinely believed that her lung cancer resulted from 40 years of exposure to SHS during her work as a waitress. Her campaign to "raise awareness" of the supposed lethality of SHS exposure was based on this belief, and a sincere desire to help others by ensuring workers protection from SHS through public smoking bans. Crowe's belief about the cause of her cancer and the opportunity to use her personal tragedy to help others gave meaning to her illness and impending death, so her enthusiasm and willingness to be exploited by anti-smoking and smoking-ban campaigners was understandable.

The problem is - Heather Crowe's lung cancer tumor was not caused by the SHS she was exposed to. A cabal of influential people very much wanted Crowe to believe her cancer resulted from SHS exposure, and very much want all of us to share that belief and support whatever smoking related regulations they might devise, "in Heather's name". Nevertheless, objective assessment of the facts leads to the conclusion that this cabal misled Crowe, exploited her as a pawn in their manipulations of politicians and the public, and through Crowe continue to mislead all of us.

The "proof" that Heather Crowe's lung cancer was a result of exposure to SHS, with no other contributing factors, is alleged to be:
1) Crowe was a lifelong non-smoker but suffered 40 years of SHS exposure in her workplace.
2) Crowe's lung cancer tumor biopsy indicated that she had developed a stage 3B non small cell lung cancer - adenocarcinoma - in the upper lobe of her left lung. Adenocarcinoma is the most common form of lung cancer in smokers, at this point in time, therefore Crowe's tumor must have been caused by tobacco smoke.
3) Crowe had no other significant expose to known or suspected causes of lung cancer.

Of those three statements, #2 and #3 are false and misleading.

According to the American Cancer Society: "In the late 1950s and 1960s, squamous cell carcinoma was about three times as common as adenocarcinoma. Although squamous cell carcinoma was clearly linked to smoking, the relationship between tobacco smoke and adenocarcinoma of the lung was described by researchers as "slight, if any." But by the late 1980s, adenocarcinoma had become the most commonly diagnosed lung cancer in the US."

According to the anti-smoking industry themselves, in the 1950's and 60's smokers developed Squamous Cell lung tumours primarily. Andenocrcinoma tumours, at that time, were considered to have "little, if any" association to smoking because smokers rarely developed them (although non-smokers did).In the last twenty years or so, smokers have overwhelmingly been developing andenocarcinoma tumours also and almost never develop Squamous Cell tumours anymore. Non-smokers still almost always develop andenocarcinoma - as Crowe did.

Michael J. Thun, MD, director of analytic epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, explains the shift in the type of tumors smokers develop, as: "Before the 1950s, smoke from cigarettes was too irritating to be inhaled deeply, and most of the carcinogens were deposited in the larger airways closer to the throat. Since then, the popularity of filters and new tobacco blends allows smokers to inhale more deeply. This smoking pattern deposits carcinogens in the small airways deeper in the lungs - the areas where adenocarcinomas form."

The "official" explanation for smokers developing less squamous tumors and more adenocarcinoma tumors, is that modern filters on cigarettes cause smokers to inhale more deeply which deposits irritants into the small airways deep in the lungs where adenocarcinomas develop. But - non-smokers don't inhale second-hand smoke through a filter!

The anti-smoking industry claims, smokers are now developing andenocarcinomas because they are inhaling cigarette smoke through modern filters, specifically. It's the filtering that makes the difference, in smokers, they claim. Non-smokers never inhale SHS through filters, they always inhale unfiltered smoke. That means, if SHS is causing lung cancer in non-smokers, they should be developing Squamous Cell tumours! Unfiltered tobacco smoke = squamous cell tumours, filtered tobacco smoke = andenocarcinoma tumours, according to the American Cancer Society.

Furthermore, recent research has demonstrated that the biological processes through which most smokers develop adenocarcinoma lung tumors are different from the processes through which never-smokers like Heather Crowe develop adenocarcinoma.
A study by Adi F. Gazdar, M.D., of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues, "support the hypothesis that at least two distinct molecular pathways are involved in the pathogenesis of lung adenocarcinomas, one involving EGFR TK domain mutations and the other involving KRAS gene mutations," and that "these results also suggest that exposure to carcinogens in environmental tobacco smoke may not be the major pathogenic factor involved in the origin of lung cancers in never smokers but that an as-yet-unidentified carcinogen(s) plays an important role."
Pao et al. (2004), found that: "Collectively the data showed that adenocarcinomas from 'never smokers' comprise a distinct subset of lung cancers, frequently containing mutations within the tyrosine kinase domain of EGFR that are associated with kinase inhibitor sensitivity."

The assumption that, because adenocarcinoma is the most common lung tumor developed by smokers - that must mean adenocarcinoma tumor in never-smokers results from environmental tobacco smoke exposure, is false. Smokers and non-smokers develop adenocarcinomas through different processes, and the "vector" by which smokers are alleged to develop adenocarcinomas - filtered tobacco smoke - is not a factor in SHS exposure at all.

The Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada website states:
"Certainly, Heather [Crowe] never smoked; she does not live with any smokers, and never had any significant exposure to any other risk factors for lung cancer, except second-hand smoke at work in smokey restaurants and banquet halls." This statement is both false and misleading.

The development of lung cancer in non-smokers has been linked to many more possible risk factors and 'contaminants' than are listed by PSC. Leaving mention of these other risk factors and pollutants out would be deceptive enough on their part, but to then go on and claim; "These days, few people have any significant exposure to risk factors for lung cancer, other than cigarette smoke" escalates the deceptiveness to outright lying.

Among the commonplace pollutants, other than tobacco smoke, could be incense. Researchers from the National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, found that;
"Incense burning caused more pollution than traffic. Inside the temple, they found very high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a large group of highly carcinogenic chemicals that are released when certain substances are burnt. Total levels of PAHs inside the temple were 19 times higher than outside and slightly higher than at the intersection. A PAH called benzopyrene, which is thought to cause lung cancer in smokers, was found in very high quantities inside the temple. Levels were up to 45 times higher than in homes where residents smoked tobacco, and up to 118 times higher than in areas with no indoor source of combustion, such as cooking fires." (B)
Did Heather Crowe burn incense in her home, or attend a church where incense was used, on a regular basis?

Other contaminants linked to the specific type of lung cancer Crowe was diagnosed with - adenocarcinoma - include wood smoke, ultrafine particles and nitrogen oxides generated by gas and electric cooking, some styles of Chinese food cooking, unvented (or poorly vented) stoves and vehicle exhaust. Is PSC claiming that Heather Crowe was never exposed to these common pollutants associated with cooking, and thereby with restaurants, at any time during her 40 year career as a restaurant waitress? Are they claimimg she was never exposed to industrial and/or vehicle fine particle air pollution, despite living in Ottawa?

Semantic Delusions in Public Health

The manner in which statements are phrased can stimulate delusional assumptions in the minds of an audience. The words chosen to express an idea can cause people hearing or reading the statement to make assumption or draw inferences that are contradicted by objective realities - these assumptions and inferences are 'delusional'. This process can be quite intentional and deliberate.

Some people in public health fields have been quite proficient at creating phrasings that provoke delusional assumptions in the minds of the public as well as the minds of policy makers. This is a powerful propaganda technique, and has been very successful in "changing attitudes" in the directions that health promotion people want attitudes to lean. This is a dangerous game to play, however. It is possible for the use of concocted phrasings to become so second nature that the inventors forget the reality behind them and start taking them literally themselves. Also, their colleagues may not be aware that the phrasing is a manipulation and mistakenly take it at face value
.
As illustrations, and as examples of the pervasiveness of semantic delusions in public health fields, consider two of the most commonly used phrasings in public health and health promotion communications;

"save lives" & "prevent deaths" –
We are often told that a specific public health/ health promotion measure or legislation will “save (x) number of lives” (e.g. “a total ban on smoking will save hundreds of lives”)
Most of the time such statements are not literally true, but they do cause many people who encounter them to make assumptions which will be contradicted by reality. The false assumptions they make are semantically induced delusions.

“Saving someone’s life”, means to intervene in some manner when a person is in immediate danger of dying or being killed. Paramedics, surgeons, police officers, firemen, lifeguards and very few others in our society have the honor of (and deserve our respect for) literally saving other people’s lives. Laws and regulations intended to promote healthy behaviour or discourage unhealthy behaviour, with rare exceptions, cannot and do not create an intervention when people are in immediate danger of dying or being killed. Laws and regulations are incapable of “saving lives”.

Laws and regulations are similarly incapable of “preventing deaths”. No person’s death ever has been or ever will be “prevented” –we will all die eventually, from one cause of another. To prevent someone’s death would be to confer immortality on that person.

Public health and health promotion practitioners have adopted a habit of routinely describing laws and regulations as being likely to “save lives”, because associating the measures with “life-saving” creates false assumptions and inferences in the minds of the public that increase support for the measures, discourage opposition to the measures and resist critical analysis of the measures once implemented.

Claiming that a proposed piece of legislation will save lives, falsely associates the legislation and those who champion it with the genuine heroics of those who really do save people’s lives – such as lifeguards and firemen. It suggests that the frequently quite mundane and ordinary people championing the legislation should be accorded the glory that rightfully belongs to heart surgeons and paramedics, and it further suggests that they should be accorded the deference, that is rightly paid to law enforcement or firefighters during an emergency. You wouldn’t question what emergency personnel direct you to do in an emergency, and you shouldn’t question what these health promoters are telling you to do – because they are “life-saving heroes”. That idea is quite false, or course. Health promoters are not life-saving heroes and are not deserving of either the glory or the deference that rightly belongs to those who really do save lives.

Claiming that laws or regulations will save lives or prevent deaths also creates a false inference that a specified number of persons, who were predicted to die if the law or regulation or health practice was not instituted, will live forever instead. Contemplate this example: “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 430,000 deaths each year. Eliminating smoking would therefore save 430,000 lives (or, prevent 430,000 deaths) “
Believe it or not, many people hearing/reading such a statement will make the semantically induced, delusional assumption that - if smoking was eliminated today - 430,000 fewer people will die every year unto eternity. In other words, the delusional inference is that people who don’t die of smoking-related causes don’t die at all, ever.

The reality is - health promotion laws, regulations and other measures do not stop people from dying. At best, they may alter the probability that persons at risk to die from a specific cause will die from that cause. Eliminating all smoking might lower the probability of an average person contracting and dying of lung cancer, by a substantial percentage. It would simultaneously, however, increase the probability of an average person dying from all other possible causes. Even wildly successful health promotion measures cannot eliminate death, they can only substitute one cause of death for some other cause.

Semantic delusions are so pervasive within public health fields, they even shape and distort the way many practitioners themselves conceive of and perceive the world we all live in.

To be continued...

No more "light" or "mild"

According to CBC news, May 26, 2006:
"Ottawa is going to go ahead with a ban on the terms "light" and "mild" on Canadian cigarette packets."
"Health Canada, a federal government department, says the use of the terms light and mild on cigarette packaging is "misleading." An official with the department says new regulations banning use of the terms will likely be introduced this fall".
"Health Canada first issued a consumer warning in 1999, saying tests show light cigarettes deliver the same amount of dangerous chemicals to smokers as regular cigarettes and are no less dangerous."

What Health Canada is failing to mention is - health promotion theorists within the Canadian government forced the tobacco companies to develop lower tar and nicotine cigarettes and market them as a less harmful version of their product in the first place:

"On the first occasion that the federal Cabinet considered legislation to deal with smoking and
health, one of the proposed provisions would have required tar and nicotine deliveries to be printed both on packaging and in advertising. This proposed legislation was suggested in a memorandum dated April 13, 1967 delivered by Health Minister Allan MacEachen to Cabinet.
Specifically, the memo states:
"While it is conceded that information of the kind referred to would not guarantee
against all possibility of harm to the user it does furnish him with information
which he would not otherwise be in a position to have respecting a comparison
of the relative content of nicotine and tar in the smoke produced from a
particular brand of cigarette against others. This information would, therefore,
enable him to make a choice as between competitive brands and to pick the one
producing the least amount of nicotine and tar if he so wishes. This becomes of
particular importance because the nicotine and tar content of cigarette smoke
may vary substantially as between various cigarette tobaccos and/or filters used."
The memorandum went on to suggest that requiring deliveries to be printed on packages would give manufacturers an incentive to improve production and processing so as to reduce tar and -nicotine deliveries. It also noted the importance of having deliveries printed in advertisements as well, so that “the potential user may be continuously alerted to this important factor”. Finally, the memo stated that it was possible by scientific means to measure the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, and that this would provide a means of uniformity in declared contents."

"In 1978, Health Minister Monique Bégin took credit on behalf of her department for the introduction of new Canadian cigarette brands with lower tar and nicotine levels. In a letter to Member of Parliament T.C. Douglas dated October 10, 1978, responding to the latter’s apparent concern about the proliferating variety of brands and types of cigarettes available in Canada, the Minister wrote:
While your constituent is concerned about the increasing variety of cigarettes on
the market he has, perhaps, not realised that this larger choice has enabled the
growing percentage of smokers to reduce their exposure to tobacco smoke. I
refer to the fact that, in response to our efforts, the manufacturers are now
providing cigarettes which produce smoke containing substantially lower levels
of tar and nicotine. This change began in 1969 when we published the first
comprehensive tar and nicotine report on levels in Canadian cigarettes."

All of this contradictory nonsense simply highlights that Health Promotion theorists have no idea what they are talking about 50% of the time, and are incapable of pedicting the consequences of the measures they insist government's adopt. Their ceaseless prattle frequently amounts to little more than this:

"We have determined that everyone needs seven - no, eight - no, nine hours of sleep or else they’ll die - and that moderate drinking doesn’t - no, does - no, doesn’t reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in men. Make that, in women. Actually, in hermaphrodites who live near power lines. Maybe. But that Vitamin B - no, D - no, A - or is it Zinc? definitely probably increases or decreases the risk of developing life-threatening diseases that are entirely pre-determined through genetics. Or not."

"Thousands of you will die! if you don’t immediately eliminate all fats, well certain fats, these fats but not those fats, did we say fats we meant sugars, well not all sugars these ones are good for you - from your mother’s diet while your mother was pregnant with you. Go back in time and just do it. You’re all doomed! by how much formula your mother fed you in the first month of your life, but only if she was exposed to second-hand smoke every second thursday while eating chocolate in the sunshine. We think."

"What we are absolutely certain that we have proven beyond all doubt, is that we need MORE MONEY! GREATER FUNDING! MORE MONEY! GREATER FUNDING! Thousands of you will die! if we don’t get it. Right now."

They Will Eventually Claim; "2+2=5"

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense" - 1984 by George Orwell

Tobacco control advocate Dr Michael Siegel has recently been documenting and exposing, efforts by organisations like the American Cancer Society to encourage anti-smoking organisations to spread and promote scientifically false ideas about the harmfulness of second-hand smoke exposure - in hopes of increasing public support for comprehensive public smoking bans and other coercive legislation. (refer to Dr Siegel's blogsite in the links section)

Dr Siegel is a truly sincere and honorable person. The reality of the deliberate manipulativeness engaged in by groups like the ACS appear to be a genuine revelation to him - he really was unaware this had been taking place and sincerely wants to see these ethically questionable practices stopped.

The deliberate manipulation of policy decision-makers and the public, through the dissemination and promotion of false and fraudulent information by Health Promotion organizations and agencies is not a new revelation to some of us. Some people have been watching the progress of these manipulative practices and the ideological rationalizations for them, within Health Promotion, for many years now.

For the Health Promotion community, Pandora's Box came in the form of theories about "social marketing". Public Health researcher's analysis of commercial marketing practices, and the power they can wield over consumer's behaviour, led to a lust for power - the power to influence and ultimately control people's thinking and behaviour. While they perceived the power of marketing techniques used by industries like the tobacco companies to be a great evil, they seduced themselves with the rationalization that the manipulation itself was not inherently evil - only the purpose to which it had been put (corrupting people's health for profit). They convinced themselves that there would be no harm in using the same techniques to promote healthy behaviour .

Over time, naturally, concern for the scientific and medical validity of the messages Health Promotion was disseminating in their social marketing campaigns dwindled away. Over time, researching the most powerful techniques for influencing thinking and behaviour - and putting those techniques into practise so their impact could be measured and assessed - became the primary concern of both the researchers and the practitioners of Health Promotion.

The ultimate test of their ability to control our thinking and behaviour, would be to promote some idea that even the least educated and/or socially aware persons in our society would instinctively react to with: "Wait a minute! That can't be right..." - some equivalent of "2+2=5" -
and have the majority of people accept it anyway! , believing that "if the doctors say 2+2=5, then it must be important for everyone's health if we all believe that's true". In other words, the ultimate test would be to promote some blatant falsehood, and have most people uncritically accept it and repeat it and behave as though it were true , because they have been programmed to believe that whatever Health Promotion tells them to think and/or do will "save millions of lives" or "prevent thousands of deaths" (statements which are themselves forms of semantic delusion).

Some day, they will claim 2+2=5. Will you accept it, "for the sake of your health"?

Unknown Jonestown Victims?

DOE Network case file #s 111UMCA and 131UFCA are the skeletal remains of a teenage boy and girl, located on July 8, 1979, near Highway 20, West of Willits, in Mendocino County, CA.

The male was estimated to be 13 at the time of death, and the female was estimated to be 14. The estimated date of death is December 8, 1978. Forensic anthropology suggested a strong possibility that they were brother and sister.

Unidentified remains of children are particularly sad and tragic, for many reasons - not least of which being the implication that there might not have been matching missing persons reports because the parents/ guardians didn't care enough to report them missing.

There are many other possibilities, of course. Children assumed to be runaways (as many missing teens are assumed to be) are not always reported, but we also know that missing runaway reports are not always preserved or even recorded properly by overworked police agencies.

There is also the possibility that the parents/ guardians or other family members themselves may have perished around the same time.

The following is purely speculative.

The location of the remains and the estimated date of death are suggestive of another tragedy that occured only months before...
"On November 18, 1978 a shocking mass murder/suicide took place in Jonestown, Guyana that left 913 men, women, and children dead - most were followers of the cult leader, Jim Jones."

Jim Jones' People's Church was headquartered for many years near Ukiah, CA - also in Mendocino county. Later, many of the church's members relocated to San Francisco along with Jones - but not all of them did. Later still, most of Jones' followers in Mendocino County and San Francisco relocated to Jonestown, Guyana. But - did ALL of them?

Is it possible that these deceased teens, who appear to have been well looked after and cared for before their deaths, were children of People's Temple members still living in Mendocino at the time of the Jonestown tragedy? That they were "euthanised" by their parent(s) in misguided solidarity with the Jonestown victims - and that the parent(s) disposed of themselves similarly but in a different location?

Or, perhaps - is it possible the teens were left behind with some other guardian, and their parents and other family perished at Jonestown? That the guardian "euthanised" the kids so they could "join their family in heaven" or something? Or even, that the guardian was predatory and seized the opportunity once parents and family died at Jonestown, to abuse and dispose of the teens left behind - knowing there was no one left to report them missing?

Ban Mountain Climbing

MYTH: Mountaineering is a "courageous" and "heroic" activity.

REALITY: Mountain climbing is a risky, dangerous self-indulgence and nothing more.

No one "needs" to engage in mountain climbing, and mountain climbing serves no socially useful function in society - it does not feed hungry children or promote lasting peace or save lives or prevent crimes. Furthermore, there is no level of training or professional ability which can eliminate the inherent risks in mountain climbing. During the tragedy on Mount Logan in May of 2005, search-and-rescue team members themselves were the people trapped upon the summit.

One year later, the headline "Climber defends walking past dying man on Everest" reveals another popular misconception - that mountaineers are selflessly devoted to each other's wellbeing - is itself a myth. "About 40 people passed him that day, and no one else helped him" reads the lead sentence of the article.

What is surreal about all of this, is that many mountain climbers are health fanatics and some are in the forefront of organisations and movements advocating laws to restrict everyone's lifestyle choices "for the sake of health". For example, mountaineer Dave Rodney of Calgary, Alberta is now a provincial MLA - and in that capacity was the author of legislation calling for a comprehensive, province-wide public smoking ban. Rodney thinks public smoking bans will help encourage smokers to quit, and that would be good because smoking is bad for their health, whereas mountain climbing is morally uplifting and healthy exercise. O-kaaaay...

The truth is that mountainsides are littered with corpses. Mountain climbing is one of the riskiest activities known to man, and some people seem addicted to the "rush" of this suicidal activity. Climber Mark Inglish, whose legs were removed below the knee because of frostbite suffered on a climbing expedition in 1982, recently went up Mount Everest on prosthetic limbs. During the Everest climb, Inglish suffered blackened and swollen fingertips that will have to be removed, and further damage to the stumps of his previously removed legs.
"Heroic!", some people have said.
"Stupid!", is the painful reality.

In mountaineering, there have been 126 reported deaths in Canada over the last 20 years (averaging 6.3 annually). There were 83 British expeditions to peaks over 7000m, comprising 535 mountaineers visiting the Greater Himalayas, from 1968 until December 1987. 23 fatalities occurred on 10 of the 51 peaks visited. The overall mortality rate was thus 4.3% of mountaineers - or there was at least one fatality every fifth expedition.
The most frequented mountain was Everest, (8848m, 29,021ft); there were 121 individuals on 11 expeditions with 7 deaths (overall mortality rate 5.8%). On K2 (28 individuals on 5 expeditions) there were three deaths (overall mortality rate 10.7%).

Since the first ascent of Mt Cook, on Christmas Day in 1894, by a Timaru plumber who heard an English-Swiss team were planning to get there first, more than 200 people have lost their lives on the ice, snow and rocks in the 70,000ha Mt Cook National Park, which has the country's highest number of mountains.

Time for the carnage to stop. Time to ban mountain climbing, worldwide. Time for mountaineers to find something better to do with their free time, "for the sake of their health".

Surreality 1

Below this entry is a posting titled: "Warning! MK Ultra zombie trap", and below that posting is another titled: "Gosch Kidnapping Solved". Together, they are our first showcase for the surreal experience of life in our times and the realities that underlie this experience.

Readers who are unfamiliar with the MK Ultra/ Project Monarch/ SRA/ multiple personality paradigm may find "Warning" inscrutable and "Solved" lacking sufficient context. Briefly, then, a synopsis of backgrounds:

12-year-old Johnny Gosch vanished while working his morning newspaper delivery route on September 5, 1982, in West De Moines, Iowa. His mother, Noreen, started the Johnny Gosch Foundation in November of 1982, and wrote the "JOHNNY GOSCH BILL", which was passed into law in Iowa on July 1, 1984. Noreen Gosch seems to have experienced severe frustration in her early attempts to stimulate law enforcement and local media to give her son's case the priority she felt it needed and deserved.

By the mid 1980's, a social phenomenon that would later be labelled "the Satanic Panic" was spreading like wildfire through some conservative religious communities, local law enforcement agencies, child welfare agencies as well as the fields of psychiatry and less formal branches of psycho-therapy. Fuelled by irresponsible mass media - notably Geraldo Rivera and other daytime talk shows, but also major print media/journalism - many otherwise rational people in the United States, Canada, Great Britian and other nations came to uncritically believe in and accept the alleged existence of vast networks of satanic cults devoted to kidnapping, sexually brutalizing and murdering children in our society. This paranoid reality tunnel required a parallel belief that most social institutions, including law enforcement agencies, schools, medicine and local, state and national governments had been infiltrated and corrupted by secretive members of the alleged satanic conspiracy.

An obscure mental disorder known as MPD (multiple personality disorder) suddenly became the malady of the decade, with dozens and then hundreds of new cases being diagnosed every year, and many of the supposed MPD sufferers began relating terrifying tales of having been raised in "generational" satanic families wherein they suffered terrible abuse and participated in the ritual sacrifice of infants.

Simultaneously, some children began accusing virtually everyone in their lives of having subjected them to unimaginably horrific sexual abuse. Some adults also began to claim they had abruptly "remembered" being similarly violated in their own childhoods, by their own family members.

Ultimately, many "professional" satanic abuse victims and ex-satanic cult members - such as Mike Warnke - were proven to have fabricated and lied about their alleged pasts. Supposedly abused children were shown to have been seduced into making false accusations by improper and leading interview techniques, adult victims were shown to have had false memories implanted in their consciousness by quack hypnotherapies, and several MPD specialists were sued by former patients and had their licenses to practise pulled by state licensing boards.

The satanic abuse conspiracy reality tunnel didn't completely collapse, however, it simply morphed into another level of complexity as we will see.

In the mid 1980's, in the neighboring state of Nebraska, satanic panic was festering in the city of Omaha. Foster children began to make to predictable accusations of abuse by their guardians, and full scale investigations were instituted by the Foster Care Review Board. A consistent theme of the false allegations made by some children during this period, was that well-known community leaders, political figures and local celebrities had all participated in a conspiracy to abuse them. The more outlandish and improbable some of these allegations became (such as daycare children being flown across the country to be raped, threatened by lions and forced to eat feces sandwiches before being returned in time to be picked up by parents - on a daily basis - ) the more feverently they were championed by some well-meaning people who naively believed that children never lie (and can't be induced to lie) about being abused.

Omaha, Nebraska followed this pattern to a tee. Many prominent persons in Omaha and the state of Nebraska would eventually find themselves accused of having raped and brutalized hundreds of children. This theory of widespread abuse would become immortalized as "The Franklin Cover-up".

Among the young people claiming to have been severely abused by a widespread pedophile ring involving many prominent Nebraskans, were three young adults named Paul Bonacci, Alisha Owen and Troy Boner. The FBI and Omaha City police both came to conclude that the stories of abuse were nearly if not completely totally fictional. Over 60 complainants recant their allegations, and a grand jury eventually throws out the abuse allegations, labelling them "a carefully crafted hoax". Yet, Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen refuse to retract their allegations (Troy Boner recants, but later attempts to recant his recantation) and are charged with perjury.
Bonacci is imprisoned for child molestation and his perjury charges are dropped. Owen is imprisoned for her perjury.

While serving time for child molestation, Paul Bonacci confessed through attorney John DeCamp that he [Bonacci] kidnapped and sexually abused missing Iowa paperboy Johnny Gosch - supposedly under duress and as a helpless slave of a nation-wide child kidnapping, child prostitution and child sacrifice ring so powerful that the White House, the Congress, the Senate, the FBI and the CIA all take their orders from its leaders. Ooo-eee-ooo!

As the Satanic Panic wound down in the early 1990's, some of its ardent supporters continued to cling to the paranoid perspective it had provided rationalizations for. Unwilling to accept or admit that they had been duped (or, had deliberately duped others), they simply rationalized reality away with a new layer of conspiracy. Now they claimed, the satanic abuse had been only one component of a complex and systematic scheme for breaking down personality, so that victimized persons could be programmed to act as mindless sex-slaves, drug couriers, assassins, etc. in perpetual servitude to the real conspiracy cheiftains: the secretive forces behind the MK Ultra mind-control programs and the Project Monarch abuse programs. MPD, and its offshoot "Dissociative Disorder" were actually intentionally inflicted, through the staging of seemingly satanic ritualized abuse and a host of other personality disrupting processes that their own parents had allowed them to be subjected to, through secret agreements with the dastardly CIA-FBI population manipulation cabals.

And so we come at last to the surreal experience of life in our times. Consider the bizarre scenario described in the posting "Solved" (below). A convicted child molestor confesses to kidnapping a missing child (and later, confesses to sexually abusing that child), but instead of people howling to have this person prosecuted for the crime they've confessed to, that person becomes a hero to thousands of people (including the victim's mother). How surreal!

How can this possibly be? Essentially, large numbers of people actively choose to percieve and dwell within a reality far removed from that which the majority experience. They are proud of this fact - it defines them, to a large degree. Within the paradigm they have constructed, they are not the defenders of a confessed kidnapper and child abuser but rather an elite community of enlightened individuals fighting valiantly against the forces of mass deception and mass corruption. Seriously.

Now to the "zombie trap". This could be considered a satire on a specific paranoid belief system. It could, however, be exactly what it says it is. Your own personal paradigms and experience of reality determine whether it is a joke or a threat. The creators of this blog might be discordian rationalists playing jokes on people's belief systems - or they might be a mind-control operation controlled by the NSA.
I'm not telling.

Warning! MK Ultra zombie trap

To keep MK Ultra / SRA/ multiple personoid zombies off fnord this blog, we have embedded an MK Ultra master trigger code word fnord on this webpage. Only MK Ultra zombies can see it. The trigger will fnord cause them to experience an irresistible and overwhelming desire to shove twinkies in their nostrils and sit naked on their keyboards whistling "Camptown Races".

Gosch Kidnapping Solved

The case of missing child Johnny Gosch has been solved!
No, this has nothing at all to do with the ridiculous "Gosch=Gannon" nonsense that obsessed the blog-o-sphere for so long, nor the paranoid conspiracy theories about "MK Ultra", "Satanic Ritual Abuse" or even the Franklin Credit Union collapse.

The case of missing child Johnny Gosch was solved many years ago, though few - even among the most dedicated "Franklin cover-up" evangelists - seem to have noticed.

Paul Bonnaci confessed to kidnapping Johnny Gosch.

Bonacci confessed this to John DeCamp, in 1989, while Bonacci was serving a prison term for molesting a small boy. Bonacci subsequently repeated his confession to members of the Gosch family, and accurately described details about what Gosch looked like naked that had never been publicly released.

Paul Bonnaci confessed to kidnapping Johnny Gosch, but has never been arrested, charged, or tried for that crime. You would imagine that all the website owners hosting "Franklin Cover-up" or "Conspiracy of Silence" data/related interview data, including Johnny's mother Noreen Gosch, would be outraged about that and constantly demand that Bonacci stand trial. After all, they all claim to be motivated to host this material by their heart-felt concern for child victims of abuse, kidnapping, rape and murder. But you'd be wrong...

"I kidnapped Johnny Gosch!" proclaims Paul Bonacci, and the "patriots", the concerned citizens, John DeCamp, Ted Gunderson and even Noreen Gosch herself all reply:

"That's great, Paul! Now, how can your confession help us to slam the rich and powerful people that we hate?"

"I kidnapped Johnny Gosch!" proclaims Paul Bonacci, a convicted child molestor, and all the alleged defenders of innocent children everywhere reply:

"That's great, Paul! Now, how can that help us to slam our political/ business/ celebrity enemies?"

"I kidnapped Johnny Gosch!" proclaims Paul Bonacci, a convicted child molestor who knew what Gosch looked like naked, and all the caring conspiracy theorists reply:

"That's great, Paul! Now, how can that help us to slam the Jews, or the Masons, or the Mormons, or the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the Catholics, or the FBI, or the CIA, or..."

The best possible suspect in the kidnapping of a missing child, would be a person who confessed to doing it and provided accurate description of the time, place and circumstances of the child's disappearance. Paul Bonacci.

If the kidnapped child was molested or raped and subsequently murdered and buried after his disappearance, the best suspect would be a person who confessed to kidnapping him, had been convicted of sexual offenses against children, and described the kidnap victim's unique features when undressed. Paul Bonacci.

But...Bonacci was only 14 or 15 when he claims to have kidnapped Gosch. He must have been forced to do it by an adult - teens don't do such things on their own...

Oh yes they do! Child molestors, child rapists and child murderers frequently begin their criminal sexual attacks in their teenage years. Not only is that a fact, but it is also a fact that teen male sex offenders frequently select younger boys as victims. This pattern of offending is so prevalent that the "older boy-younger boy" theme was a common feature of the commercially produced child pornography of the 1970's - a reality documented through the investigation and prosecution of Arnold Friedman and his son on multiple counts of child rape. Arnold Fiedman ordered child pornography with this thematic content, from Europe, and used it to relive the memory of having repeatedly assaulted his own younger brother when he (Friedman) was a teen. The popularity of the "older boy assaults younger boy" theme in child pornography reflects the offending behaviour of the pedophiles who seek it - many of them began their sexual criminal careers in just that manner.

If the kidnapper of Johnny Gosch had accomplices, the best suspects would be known associates of the kidnapper at the time of the offense, who also had a history of sexual deviancy and/or criminal behaviour. Troy Boner and his older brother, and Alisha Owen and her older brother, were friends of Paul Bonacci at the time of the Gosch disappearance according to their own testimonies. Troy Boner claimed to have been a male prostitute and confessed to being an active heroin addict. Alisha Owen had convictions for passing bad checks.

Paul Bonacci described the use of teens as lures when approaching prospective kidnappees, and described the reasons for using teens: the child to be kidnapped would feel less threatened and more at ease with someone closer to their own age. Kids trust kids (and teens) more readily than adults. There is no reason why this approach to preying on children necessarily requires an adult to be masterminding it. This plan, described in detail by Bonacci, could have been devised by a group of drugged-out teenaged child-molestors driving around looking for younger children to seduce, pick up, sexually abuse and dispose of. In fact, the plan would probably work best if one of the gang of molestors was a female - especially if the plan was to lure away vulnerable boys.

There was probably another plan, devised by Bonacci and whoever may have helped him to kidnap Johnny Gosch (and who knows how many other children?) - and this plan sounds so incredible that no one would ever believe it could actually work. The only reason to take this other plan seriously at all, is that it did work, and exceptionally well. The other plan appears to have been - to avoid ever being charged or prosecuted for the kidnapping of Johnny Gosch -
by confessing to the crime and simultaneously burying the confession under such a complex and convoluted load of crapola and nonsense, involving rich and powerful people, that almost everyone would focus on the accusations against the rich and powerful and ignore what was right in front of their faces...Paul Bonacci's confession.