Matt Rammelkamp's Blog

Personal blog of Matthew Rammelkamp from 2005 - 2009. Blog is now changing sites to

Monday, October 24, 2005

Funny Aim Convo

d: putting a piece of rubber in between a mouth and a pussy seems so hilarious
d: and licking the rubber?
SAT: thats so outta line !
SAT: on this issue i couldnt agree with you any more. this is one thing we will always stick together on.
d: we'll alwasy stick together that dental dams are stupid?
SAT: yes.
SAT: |=

Thursday, October 13, 2005


Click here for a reality check

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Take the Gullibility Factor Test!

I cannot stress enough the importance of taking this test - the Gullibility Factor Test. Your score will tell you whether you're a free-thinking individual, or a total mind slave.

It's 33 short questions - you answer TRUE or FALSE - and then you find out how many you got correct - and what the right answers are and why (in three to five sentences). Then there is a link where you can learn more information, buy a book written on the subject (or download for free), for EACH question.

I cannot stress this enough. I'm such a truth-seeker that after taking the test, it took me 3 hours of reading through the answers' links to learn more. I save about 10 sites on my favorites and plan on buying about 3 books.

Expand your mind - Learn shit you could die without ever knowing...In fact knowing it could make you and many others live a lot longer and happier.


Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a HOAX!!!

Yes that's right I said it. FUCK breast cancer awareness month. Up until reading this article written by an aquaintence, I thought that mammograms were good for women. Although I knew most of the charities were bullshit and that they are just in it for profit and they will never find a "cure" with the billions of dollars they steal from people. Actually, there is a cure for breast cancer - they just don't want you to know - otherwise they'd be out of jobs. Just more proof that you need to stop commenting so much, stop watching TV so much, and actually read some of the shit I post up on here - actually visit some of the sites linked on my page or on my blog. It might change your entire outlook on life - it might make you a happier person - it might save you life. ahead. Feel free to repost this - from now on tho, drop me a line and let me know how many people your talking to about this or sending this to. I'm curious how many people I'm reaching...

Pink Ribbon Deceit
October 2nd, 2005

It’s Pink Ribbon time when we are all urged do our best to walk and talk for a “Cure”. That’s right; it’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month again. Never mind that the last thing the “cancer cure industry” wants is a cure for cancer. After all, cancer is the single most economically productive disease in the history of mankind. Never mind that valid, successful and inexpensive cures for cancer are ruthlessly suppressed by the cancer industry, including the shameful performance of my profession, organized medicine. Pink Ribbon Season means well crafted messages to maneuver women all over America to have mammograms and undergo dangerous and often unnecessary treatment for it in the common event that the diagnosis of breast cancer is wrong.

Breast Cancer is a largely preventable disease on an epidemic rise and is now the leading killer of woman between 45 and 55, according to Preventing Breast Cancer. The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease. by Dr. John Gofinan. There is no doubt that finding and treating a malignant breast tumor early increases survival by at least 17 % according to the [highly suspect, Big Pharma dominated] American Cancer Society.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is, simply put, a corporate strategy , sponsored by, among others, Astra Zeneca, which makes Tamoxifen. Every word, walk and wink associated with the ubiquitous pink ribbon must pass their approval process. Perhaps you have noticed that, under their guidance, “prevention” has become “early detection” and early detection means, pure and simple, mammograms.

But do mammograms detect cancer? Well, no, not particularly well. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon pathology examination, show any presence of cancer.. How’s that? After an invasive technique like mastectomy (removal of a breast), lumpectomy (removal of a lump) or biopsy (sample material removed from the area for study), the false positive rate is between 70 and 80%? Right. But the cost is anywhere between $250-$500 per woman per year. You do the math. Industry can well afford to support those “Walk for the Cure” Events. Except they should be renamed “Walk for the Profit”.

Well, when a mammogram says there is no cancer, that’s correct, isn’t it? Actually mammograms are shockingly bad at finding cancers that really are there. Dr. Samuel Epstein in his book, The Politics of Cancer, notes that the false negative rate is, according to the National Cancer Institute, about 40 percent among women ages 40-49. The National Institutes of Health says that mammograms also miss 20 percent of malignant tumors in women.

But at least they can’t do any harm, right? Wrong. Mammograms currently deliver about 1 rad per breast per screening for a glandular dose of 0.1 rad per breast or a total glandular dose of 0.2 rad.. The National Cancer Institute estimates that each rad in a woman between the ages of 35 and 50 increases the risk of breast cancer by 1% so a bilateral mammogram each year increases a woman’s rate of breast cancer by 20% over each decade of screening! This is not a negligible risk.

But wait! There’s more.

Since mammography was introduced, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), the most common form of breast cancer has increased by 328% and 200% of this increase may be largely caused by mammography! Radiation, like that delivered by mammography equipment, is associated with sharp increases in breast cancer. In fact, Dr. John W. Gofman, an expert on the health impact of ionizing radiation, believes that 75% of breast cancer can be prevented by avoiding ionizing radiation altogether! Now, that’s good for us, but it’s not good for the people who make mammography equipment. Prevention is, unfortunately, very bad business if you make detection equipment or treatment options for a preventable condition like breast cancer. And there are a host of studies showing that mammography is, at best, a major question and, at worst, a serious problem.

Mammography also may spread existing cancer because, during the procedure, massive, and painful, pressure is applied to the breast. This may cause existing cancer cells to spread before immune processes can kill them (which a healthy immune system does routinely).

And, if you are unlucky enough to carry predisposing genes (Oncolgene A-T, BRCA1 and BRCA2), you are particularly susceptible to even small amounts of radiation and will perhaps be among the estimated 10,000 women who will succumb this year to breast cancer directly caused by mammography.

These are not unknown, controversial facts touted by obscure researcher. Dr. Gofman analyses NCI data showing that among women under 35, mammography can induce 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Canadian National Breast Cancer Study Canadian study tracking outcome showed that woman40-50 who had mammograms had a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality (that is, death) compared to similar woman who did not and that they were more likely to die of breast cancer if they were screened regularly than if they were not!

So what do I, as a woman, as a physician and as a health advocate suggest? First of all, I recommend finding, and using regularly, another screening technology called “thermography” which detects cancer sooner, far more accurately and with no harm at all to the body since it relies on heat emitted by your body and takes a sensitive heat picture of your body. Because malignancies grow extra blood vessels, they emit more heat so they are detectible early and without danger. So, from where I sit,

1. Women under 35 are not well served by mammograms as a screening tool and should not allow mammograms to be performed

2. Although the American Cancer Society advocates mammogram screening for woman 40-49 every two years, I suggest thermography, not mammography, for all women of all ages along with any one of several high sensitivity biochemical tests for cancer. Please note that many experts, especially those whose incomes depend, directly or indirectly, on mammography and treatment for cancers –even false positive cancers — do not agree with my conclusions. Although many experts feel that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure, many feel that for women over 55 the risk is high enough to warrant the significant risk of mammograms.

In 1997, NIH appointed a consensus panel to evaluate the risk of mammography. They found no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives and may do more harm than good. Rather than coming to a conclusion, the panel advised women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

I do not have mammograms. I also do not have the approval of the Pink Ribbon people to tell you this. (Tamoxifen is another, sad, deadly story. We’ll talk about it another time.) In the mean time, walk for a cure because exercise reduces the risk of breast cancer. Eat for a cure because sensible, natural diets reduce the risk of breast cancer. Laugh for a cure because stress and loneliness reduce immune competence. Pray for a cure because people with sincere religious convictions live longer and healthier than those without them.

Yours in radiation-free health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Original article posted w/ links:
scroll down to the october 2nd blog -

Thermography - a natural alternative to mammograms. No radiation - earlier detection, more reliable.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Updated: 10/6/05: Stop industry lobbyists from weakening our organic food standards!

Action Alert Update October 6, 2005

Sneak Attack on Organic Standards in Congress Continues--OCA Needs Your Help

Over the past two weeks Organic Consumers Association (OCA) network members have bombarded the U.S. Congress with over 100,000 emails and 15,000 telephone calls. Our calls and letters have urged elected public officials to reject the now discredited Organic Trade Association's "Sneak Attack" rider to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would seriously undermine organic standards by removing traditional organic community control over organic standards and centralizing power in the hands of the White House-appointed US Department of Agriculture.

OCA's allies such as the Consumers Union, the Center for Food Safety, the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, the National Coop Grocers Association, the National Organic Coalition, the Health Freedom network, and several hundred organic businesses have also generated thousands of emails and phone calls. Thank you for taking action. This massive grassroots outpouring prompted the U.S. Senate ten days ago to reject the industry Sneak Attack rider and propose a 90-day study to determine proper organic standards on synthetic substances, animal feed, and commercial availability of organic ingredients.

Unfortunately members of the joint House/Senate Conference Committee on Agricultural Appropriations still seem to be listening more closely to powerful industry lobbyists representing Kraft/Phillip Morris, Dean Foods/Horizon Organic/Whitewave, Dole, Smucker/Knudson's, General Mills/Small Planet, Danone/Stonyfield, Aurora Organic, Whole Foods, Wild Oats, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America (Wal-Mart and the supermarket chains), than they are to us. And because this is a last minute, back door Sneak Attack, most of the media, and even most organic consumers, are not yet aware of what's happening.

Take Action:

Click here to send a letter to your members of Congress. And if you can, click here to send OCA a tax-deductible donation so we can continue to defend the integrity of organic standards.

Novartis Uses Financial Muscle to Fire Professor for criticizing GM Crops

A well-respected and popular professor at the University of California in Berkeley has been fired after publishing a scientific paper regarding the uncontrolled contamination of irreplaceable native Mexican corn varieties by genetically engineered corn.

Dr. Ignacio Chapela, whose corn contamination article was published in the science journal "Nature," was mysteriously denied his tenure, despite the fact the UC Berkeley tenure review panel had actually voted almost unanimously to approve his tenure.

Chapela, who was kicked out of his office on December 31, 2004, has since filed a lawsuit against UC Berkeley. The former professor says the University removed him under pressure from Novartis, a multinational biotechnology corporation and customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences who had provided the school with $25 million in funding. Novartis is a company that does GM crop or animal testing at notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences*. They also do xenotranplantation studies at HLS - after a 2 1/2 year legal battle, in 2004 was released the biggest leak of documents ever related to an animal experiment - in which Novartis violated over 500 Good Laboratory Practice Laws. This experiment involved transplanting genetically modified frozen pig hearts into the necks of baboons. One monkey which had a pig heart attached to the blood vessels in its neck was seen holding the transplant which was "swollen red" and "seeping yellow fluid" for most of the last days of its life.

Documents show that over a quarter of the animals died on the operating table or within a few days because of "technical failures" in the surgical procedures. In one experiment, this accounted for 62 per cent of lives. In another, 13 out of 22 monkeys died within two days of the operation, a fact not mentioned in their published paper. Imutron maintains all the relevant data was included in the scientific paper. There have been a number of awful mistakes. One monkey had to be "sacrificed" when researchers discovered the pig kidney it was about to be given had been mistakenly frozen.

In the documents, Imutran acknowledges that it has had "severe problems" with the data. The documents have gone to animal rights group which compiled a report - Diares of Despair - to present to the Government calling for a halt to xenotransplantation research and an independent judicial enquiry. Those animals are also transported halfway across the globe in tiny cages. In one shipment three animals died - probably from suffocation - in a 35-hour trip from the Philippines.

*In 1999, workers at Huntingdon were caught on film punching 4 month old beagle dogs in the face, and breaking animal welfare laws hundreds of times. HLS has tested dangerous pesticides, DDT, toxins, and other dangerous chemicals used in industrial developement or sprayed over our farms, into our food and drinking water; many of these are carcinogens. HLS makes money by testing the products "safe" even if they are not, and animal tests are easy to conceal and manipulate (as you can see in this case). (You can always use a different animal, and the drug or product might not harm can always not publish a report and just say it never happened).

Continued approval of a customer's products (no matter how unsafe) means more business, so many dangeous products are tested safe, put on the market, and they wind up killing people. Such is the case with Merck's recent anti-arthritis drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn after causing 50,000 premature heart attacks.

Activists has forced over 200 companies, including some of the world's largest financial institutions (the worlds largest bank, insurance broker, stockholders, etc) such as Citibank, HSBC, Charles Schwab, and others, to abandon the lab. It's pillars of financial support are falling - they are $76 million dollars in debt - due back in June of 2006. HLS has come very close - within 2 hours - of filing for bankruptcy twice before.

To learn how to get involved - add STOP HUNTINGDON ANIMAL CRUELTY to you friends list - read or subscribe to their blogs and visit their website.

How Drug companies create bias in medical journals

The truth about medical journals, and how drug companies exert heavy influence over published scientific articles

Can the medical journals be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information about medicine even as they are almost entirely funded by drug companies? In her book, Vaccination, Peggy O'Mara writes that the current era of medical beliefs (or dogma) began to develop soon after Louis Pasteur's demonstration... more

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Busy shit happening in the world of Action Alerts:


After 35 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a multi-billion dollar alternative to industrial agriculture, based upon strict organic standards and organic community control over modification to these standards.

Now, large corporations, such as Kraft, Wal-Mart, & Dean Foods--aided and abetted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and members of the Organic Trade Association, are moving to lower organic standards by allowing Bush appointees in the USDA National Organic Program to approve a broad list of synthetic ingredients and processing aids that would be allowed in organic production. Even worse these proposed regulatory changes will reduce future public discussion and input and take away the National Organic Standards Board’s (NOSB) traditional lead jurisdiction in setting standards.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has released its long anticipated report on the human health effects of perchlorates, a byproduct of rocket fuel. Perchlorates, which are a common pollutant near military sites, have recently BEEN FOUND IN DRINKING WATER IN 35 STATES AS WELL AS IN 93 PERCENT OF LETTUCE AND MILK.

Along with the report, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set drinking water standards indicating that perchlorates are roughly TEN TIMES MORE TOXIC to humans than the Department of Defense has been claiming. Perchlorates can inhibit thyroid function, cause birth defects and lower IQs, and are considered particularly dangerous to children. Monitoring wells across the U.S. are now finding perchlorate levels as high as 30,000 times what the EPA indicates would be safe exposure.

To avoid liability, the Pentagon is currently pressuring Congress to pass a new bill that states the military does not have to adhere to any environmental regulations (as a matter of national security). Please take 30 seconds to send a quick online letter urging your Congressperson to protect the nation's food and water by reducing perchlorate pollution.

Take action and learn more about this issue here!

3. Take Action on other similar issues

4. Tell Washington Mutual to stop funding human suffering and animal cruelty!

Artifical Sweeteners Harmful For You

Click here to see what's wrong w/ artifical sweeteners Aspartame, Splenda, etc etc (you know, they cause Alzheimers, migrane headaches, fatigue, cancer, MS, et)