Top 10 Lowest Radiation Cell Phones

Most Updated List of Top 10 Lowest Radiation Cell Phones

Biopro Technology's ERT and MRET Cell Phone Protection Technology

Can We Legally Opt-Out of Paying Income Taxes?

Can We Legally Opt-Out of Paying Income Taxes?
disclaimer: I am not a tax expert or lawyer, use common sense. I encourage you to research this.

You have probably heard of people going to jail for "not paying taxes" or "not filing". This is all true. But to date, not one "Cracking-the-Code-educated non taxypayer" has been arrested or convicted because THE LAW IS ON OUR SIDE.

History:
Up until the 1940's, only 4% of Americans (those who worked for or were involved in the federal government) paid annual income taxes.

In WWII, the government called for Americans to pay an income tax to support the war effort. Patriotically, a large number of citizens complied.

The IRS code soon after grew to 3 million words. A wage-withholding program was instituted and thousands of professionals now help Americans with their tax returns.

Each year, millions of W-2 and 1099 reports are issued for "wages" or"non-employee compensation" by payers who do not understand that these forms are intended for federal entities making federal connected payments. W-2 and 1099 forms serve as legal testimony and, without rebuttal, make the named individuals liable for an "income" tax.

The Form "1040 US Individual Income Tax Return" is intended as a way for individuals to correct information "testimony" made about them by others. Americans have until April 15th of each year to correct their record. It is considered legal testimony and answers the question of whether you participated in "taxable activities" for that year. Not filing a tax return waives your right to properly report your "income."

Congress can not take money from you directly. It has created a tax code that is convoluted enough to deceive most people. "Income" "wages" "employee" are all defined in the code, yet most of us interpret these words in a common and everyday way.

The U.S. tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. The government will accept your money unless your inform it every year that you are entitled to non-payment or to a refund for what you have paid.

Do we have to pay income taxes?
In plain English, were you doing business with or paid by the federal government?

THE LAW IS ON YOUR SIDE.
You have probably heard of people going to jail for "not paying taxes" or "not filing". This is all true. But to date, not one "Cracking-the-Code-educated non taxypayer" has been arrested or convicted because THE LAW IS ON OUR SIDE.

If millions of people filed this way ...
*Millions of Americans would be able to keep MORE OR ALL of their Income, like we should be able to.
*The federal government would be forced to abandon its empire around the world that kills millions of people and causes the world to hate us and want to attack us. This would make us safer.
*Our government would spend less, and thus we will put a halt to inflation and prevent the erosion of our purchasing power and savings.
*The federal government would be forced to it's Constitutional size: it would be forced to halt spending trillions of dollars building underground bases, and stop funding particle accelerator projects that can create black holes, and all the other secret projects that cost us trillions of our dollars with no humanitarian benfits, but quite the contrary.

Watch a video here about how 1 day before 9-11-01, Donald Rumsfeld apologized for not being able to account for 2.3 TRILLION of the American people's money. How can they steal $8,000 from every man, woman, and child in America and not be convincted in a court of law and then wind up hanging from a tree for treason?

Are you pissed off? Then learn about how you may just have the LAW ON YOUR SIDE and be eligible to keep 100% of your paycheck, and obtain a refund of all income, social security, medicare/aid, city taxes paid for the last 3 years - unless of course, you work for the post office or another branch of the federal government in that case your shit outta luck.

Visit these two sites to start your journey:

http://www.notincome.com

http://www.losthorizons.com/

Read 'Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America' and avoid the pitfalls of such expensive-- and possibly dangerous-- misunderstandings as:

*That the income tax didn't exist, wasn't Constitutional, or was ruled unconstitutional, before the Sixteenth Amendment (or isn't Constitutional now).

*That the Sixteenth Amendment, properly ratified or not, has anything to do with the income tax as it is administered in regard to most private-sector citizens.

*That income only means corporate profits.

*That "United States citizens and residents" can only get "taxable income" from certain listed "sources".

*That filing a 1040 automatically makes one a "taxpayer".

*That "wages" are not income under the revenue laws.

*That FICA and FUTA taxes are not just income taxes.

*That the "subject" of the income tax is never identified in the law.

*That the income tax is connected with the 'Uniform Commercial Code'.

These fallacies, and many more, have arisen because most researchers, even when highly dedicated, make the mistake of looking no deeper than the misleading and legally irrelevant code.

AFTER CRACKING THE CODE, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND THE REAL REASON WHY YOU ARE PRESUMED TO BE LIABLE FOR THE TAX, AND HOW TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

disclaimer: I am not a tax expert or lawyer, use common sense. I encourage you to research this.

Essential Information on Hazards of Microwave Radiation - Video & Audio

24 Cumulative Hours on a Cell Phone is the equivalant of 1600 CHEST X-RAYS!

A male in a study using his cell phone 1 hour a day for 2 years , and had 63% of his cells in his entire body damage with micronuclei.



Learn the SCARY FACTS .

Download these audio files that I uploaded to share with you:

Ten Minutes Too Much to Talk.mp3 (1 min)
http://www.snapdrive.net/qs/e3271f95c41a

Why are EMFs Harmful to the Body.mp3 (10 min)
http://www.snapdrive.net/qs/cb0b18f06d12

Effects on Children.mp3 (10 min)
http://www.snapdrive.net/qs/ab6f0068b981

Most Updated List of Top 10 Lowest Radiation Cell Phones

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

HIV does NOT cause AIDS. It is a Scam. Learn More:

btw:
Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008
The Independent

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

The censored truth the Pharmaceutical Industry and the AIDS industry does not want you to know about:


Online Videos by Veoh.com

Watch HIV = AIDS: Fact or Fiction?

More info about the TRUTH:
http://hivaidspoliticaldenialism.blogspot.com/
http://www.healaids.com/
http://www.virusmyth.net

"AIDS" is not a death sentence. We know of increasing numbers of people who are alive and well 10, 12 and 14 years after their initial "AIDS" diagnosis. Since "AIDS" has only been around this long, it is clearly not "always fatal". Further, due to the 1993 definition, a distinction must be made between the 50% of "AIDS" cases where people are actually sick, and the 50% who are not. (Just being HIV+ and having low T-cells is not necessarily a sign of illness, let alone serious illness, although many of these people are eventually made sick by the toxic treatments they are given unnecessarily.) Imagine the greater number of recov-eries if, instead of being scared to death, people were encouraged to both expect their natural birth right - health - and to utilize safe, effective, holistic treatments as a means to it.

Testing positive to "HIV" antibodies is even more misleading because all positive tests are likely to be false positives. The June '93 issue of the prestigious journal Bio/Technology published a review declaring the test to be scientifically invalid. Additionally, seropositive people do not necessarily develop "AIDS" and seronegative people may nonetheless develop "AIDS".

"AIDS" is a multifactorial problem; it is defined by the Centers for Disease Control as 28 old diseases in the presence of "antibodies to HIV". The truth is that histories of medical and "recreational" drug abuse, chronic infections, chronically poor nutrition, environmental poisoning and intense, chronic stress are each sufficient in and of themselves to cause "immune deficiencies" and serious, life-threatening conditions. These "risk factors" are the real factors to address and, when honestly assessed and addressed, can lead to recoveries.

At worst, an HIV positive test result is a wake-up call, not a death sentence. If there actually is a true "positive" test result, it may indicate a high degree of "antigenic stress", i.e., an individual may have a considerable amount of foreign proteins and substances in their system.

The information on this website can assist you in taking steps toward creating for yourself some sort of physical/ emotional/ psychospiritual detoxification which, in addition to rebuilding your health, can help to considerably reduce the toxin load, thereby undermining the likelihood of any future health complications.

If you are not in this category, the information here can still assist you in simply maintaining your health, and restoring it if ever you have any of the more "common" health challenges to deal with. Keep in mind that most of today's serious illnesses can be prevented simply by addressing minor illnesses with non-toxic and natural approaches in the first place.

Along with the modern "plagues" of pollution, love deprivation, malnutrition and a lack of sanitation, the chronic use of modern medicine may well be a major chemical cause of many of the degenerative conditions associated with the 20th century.

If you already have "AIDS", that is, if you have the physical clinical symptoms associated with what they call "AIDS", here too there are numerous approaches to detoxification, many listed and discussed here, that can help you turn your situation around. It takes time and energy to do it, but many have come to our meetings with "AIDS" related symptoms and have completely reversed their condition and regained their health, evidenced not only by subjective feelings but by clinical and laboratory results.

They have done this largely through an alternative and holistic approach which precludes the use of toxic, immunosuppressive drugs, but which includes physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual efforts. The best therapies in the world are meaningless if not applied within the over-all context of eliminating toxicities and deficiencies from the way we satisfy our basic human needs for love, sexual love, nourishing foodstuffs, full-bodied rest, shelter, and a sense of accomplishment. And fulfillment of these needs falls right in the realm of our own self-responsibility.

The "treatment" information which is provided at our meetings and here is meant to be an overview: to give you an idea of ways to bolster the "immune system", to help inhibit pathogenic activity in the body, and to enhance your overall health and well-being with methods that are non-toxic and have few or no side effects. While HEAL does not officially endorse or promote anything, we feel that if you take your time, study the available information and listen to your own intuition, you will be able to make the right choices and pursue the right course.

Some of the alternative and holistic approaches we investigate include acupuncture, Chinese and western herbology, nutritional therapy and supplementation, chiropractic, hypnotherapy, homeopathy, Ayurvedic medicine, Natural Hygiene, low-frequency magnetic energy, macrobiotics, water therapies, meditation and visualization, uropathy, body work, the typhoid vaccine protocol, AL 721, oxygen therapies, chelation therapy, "Homeopathic Immuno-Therapy" (HIT), syphilis link, etc.

In choosing healthcare practitioners, we urge you to use great caution. If someone assumes, explicitly or implicitly, that you have an unsolvable and "always fatal" problem, they will not help you. Treat all practitioners as your advisors, not as authorities who will supply you with "the answer". Most doctors are much too busy and have much too much invested in their medical belief systems to be learning about the many alternative and effective things that people are doing for themselves. Utilize their expertise, but do not count on them to heal you. You must learn to count on yourself!

Your greatest help will come from personal responsibility and self-empowerment.

If you are outside the New York City area, think about starting a HEAL group to provide support and information. Contact us for start-up help. Educate yourself, educate yourself, educate yourself. This, coupled with an approach to life which actively recognizes that health and healing are an expression of working with nature rather than against it, will enable you to access the practical tools, both within you and without you, that are essential to restoring and/or maintaining a productive and meaningful life, health and happiness.

WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS ON GSK BEING SUED OVER PAXIL

WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS ON GSK BEING SUED OVER PAXIL

The Wall Street Journal reports (below) that US Justice Department prosecutors met with plaintiffs' lawyers, Karen Barth Menzies and George "Skip" Murgatoyd of Baum Hedlund, representing families suing GlaxoSmithKline. The lawyers indicate that last year they were asked in detail about information they had collected for lawsuits about "what Glaxo told the FDA about Paxil's potential risk of suicidal behavior, between 1989 and 1992, while the drug's approval was pending." The attorneys "were also asked "if they had information about any activities by company representatives involving the promotion of Paxil's safety and efficacy for teens and children." Prosecutors wanted to know about the research Glaxo did --and whether the claim that "there were no suicidality problems" was a true reflection of what the data really showed. Prosecutors seek "information, documents and depositions concerning Paxil's potential link to suicidal behavior in adolescents and adults, and how the company portrayed that risk to doctors and to the Food and Drug Administration." Of note, a recently unsealed court document, an expert report by Harvard psychiatrist, Joseph Glenmullen, MD, reveals that GSK knew as early as 1989 that there was an 8-fold increased risk of suicide for patients taking Paxil. http://media.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/mg19726424600D1.pdf and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2008/02/gsk-needs-to-respond-re-paxil-suicide.html

Yet, the company did not acknowledge a suicide risk to the public until 2006 after its concealment of evidence was the focus of a lawsuit by New York State Attorney General. http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/03.php Dr. Glenmullen's analysis of data in FDA's possession, focuses on GSK's misattributing suicides and suicide attempts that occurred during the "washout" phase (prior to randomization to drug or placebo) to the placebo. The hazardous effects occurring during the drug washout phase are attributable to the effects of drug withdrawal --not to placebo. GSK thus misrepresented the true findings. Shouldn't FDA officials have caught the misattribution of suicides to placebo--just as Dr. Glenmullen did? The WSJ reports that "Glaxo hasn't allowed Baum Hedlund's lawyers to share with the FDA the same sealed information that the company gave the Justice Department. Glaxo's outside counsel wrote, "If the FDA wanted additional information, such as the internal documents you propose providing it, they could have requested them from GSK..." Why did FDA officials look the other way --even after GSK's deceptive practices were uncovered by the BBC (2003), and after GSK's internal (1998) memo revealed that GSK-sponsored reports in medical journals deliberately misrepresented the pediatric safety - efficacy data?

The Wall Street Journal U.S. Probe of Glaxo's Paxil Widens by ALICIA MUNDY June 20th, 2008 WASHINGTON

For the full article click here.

12 Babies die during vaccine trials in Argentina

12 Babies die during vaccine trials in Argentina
Thu. July 10, 2008; Posted: 05:23 PM

At least 12 babies who were part of a clinical study to test the effectiveness of a vaccine against pneumonia have died over the past year in Argentina, the local press reported Thursday.

The study was sponsored by global drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and uses children from poor families, who are "pressured and forced into signing consent forms," the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, or Fesprosa, said.

"This occurs without any type of state control" and "does not comply with minimum ethical requirements," Fesprosa said.

The vaccine trial is still ongoing despite the denunciations, and those in charge of the study were cited by the Critica newspaper as saying that the procedures are being carried out in a lawful manner.

Colombian and Panama were also chosen by GSK as staging grounds for trials of the vaccine against the pneumococcal bacteria.

Since 2007, 15,000 children under the age of one from the Argentine provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and Santiago del Estero have been included in the research protocol, a statement of what the study is trying to achieve.

"Only 12 have died throughout the country, which is a very low figure if we compare it with the deaths produced by respiratory illnesses caused by the pneumococcal bacteria," pediatrician Enrique Smith, one of the lead investigators, said.

In Santiago del Estero, one of the country's poorest provinces, the trials were authorized when Enrique's brother, Juan Carlos Smith, was provincial health minister.

According to pediatrician Ana Maria Marchese, who works at the children's hospital in the provincial capital where the studies are being conducted, "because they can't experiment in Europe or the United States, they come to do it in third-world countries."

"A lot of people want to leave the protocol but aren't allowed; they force them to continue under the threat that if they leave they won't receive any other vaccine," said Julieta Ovejero, great aunt of one of the six babies who died in Santiago del Estero.

Fesprosa's Juan Carlos Palomares said that "in most cases these are underprivileged individuals, many of them unable to read or write, who are pressured into including their children" in the trials.

According to Fesprosa, "the laboratory pays $8,000 for each child included in the study, but none (of that money) remains in the province that lends the public facilities and the health personnel for the private research." EFE

hd/mc
For full details on Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) click here. Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) has Short Term PowerRatings of 5. Details on Glaxosmithkline Plc Adr (GSK) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.

Glaxo 'downplayed' warning on heart-attack risk from Aids drug

Glaxo 'downplayed' warning on heart-attack risk from Aids drug

The multinational drugs company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) downplayed an early warning about the rising number of people who have suffered heart attacks after using one of its drugs, abacavir. An anti-Aids medication, abacavir is taken by tens of thousands of people worldwide.

GSK was officially told of the possible risk in May 2005, three years before it issued a statement to its investors saying that the findings of an even stronger potential link between heart attacks and abacavir are "unexpected" and "unconfirmed". The company also said that it could find no association between abacavir use and heart attacks following a trawl through its internal data. However, it failed to mention that its own summary of product characteristics issued when the drug was launched in the late 1990s had described "mild myocardial degeneration" in mice and rats given the drug for two years.

Some scientists moni-toring the safety of Aids drugs are privately furious with GSK for downplaying the significance of one of the biggest safety trials of abacavir – one of several anti-virals taken by Aids patients in combined HIV therapy – when the findings were published last month.

"GSK was extraordinarily well prepared in terms of a statement that downplayed the significance of the findings," said a scientist close to the safety study. "As a consequence, people are confused. They think there is something wrong with the study because GSK said it cannot find evidence to support findings of a link with myocardial infarction [heart attack]."

Alastair Benbow, European medical director for GSK, said the company takes information about drug safety seriously but did not want to highlight what may be "spurious observations" about abacavir.

The first public sign that abacavir may be linked with increased heart attack risk emerged this April when The Lancet published the worldwide "DAD" study into adverse reactions to anti-HIV drugs after clinical observations of 33,347 Aids patients across Europe, Australia and the US.

The study found that the risk of having a heart attack in patients taking abacavir was almost double that of HIV patients who did not take the drug.

Independent scientists who analysed the DAD findings said in The Lancet that the data was not strong enough to establish a causal connection because that would have required a different type of study; but they said the observed increase in the risk of heart attacks was "too strong to ignore".

The same scientists also pointed out that the studies on which GSK relied for casting doubt on the DAD study were themselves not powerful enough to discount a link between the drug and heart attack risk.

To coincide with The Lancet publication, GSK issued a statement to its investors playing down the association between abacavir and heart attacks.

The statement did not say GSK had been made aware three years earlier of a report involving 34 cases of heart attacks in patients taking abacavir. The report or "signal" was sent to the company in May 2005 by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre in Uppsala, Sweden.

Didier Lapierre, GSK's vice-president of clinical development, said to investors at the time of the April DAD study that the increased relative risk of heart attacks remained low in absolute terms and that patients should not discontinue treatment without medical advice.

The drug industry's long and ignoble history of secrecy

DRUG GIANTS WARNED - TELL TRUTH ON MEDICINES
The drug industry's long and ignoble history of secrecy

For the full article from the Independent, click here.

Leading article: The nation should kick this expensive drug habit By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

The pharmaceutical industry came under assault from senior figures in medical research yesterday over its practice of withholding information to protect profits, exposing patients to drugs which could be useless or harmful.

Experts criticised the stranglehold exerted by multinational companies over clinical trials, which has led to biased results, under-reporting of negative findings and selective publication driven by the market, which was worth £10.1bn in the UK in 2006, amounting to 11 per cent of total NHS costs.

The latest attack was triggered yesterday by an analysis of published and unpublished trials of modern antidepressants, including Prozac and Seroxat, showing they offer no clinically significant improvement over placebos (dummy pills) in most patients. But doctors said patients on the drugs should not stop taking them without consulting their GPs.

It was the first time researchers from the UK, Canada and the US had successfully used freedom of information legislation to obtain all the data presented to regulators when the companies applied to license their drugs. In some cases it had not been made public for 20 years.

Over the past two decades the drugs, known as selective serotonin re- uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), have been among the biggest selling of all time, earning billions of pounds for their makers. Yesterday's finding suggests that the money may have been misspent. Drug companies are required by law to provide all data on a drug, published and unpublished, to the regulatory authorities when applying for a licence. But this requirement does not apply to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), which assesses cost effectiveness and recommends which drugs should be used by the NHS.

Peter Littlejohns, the clinical and public health director of Nice, said: "The regulatory authorities have access to everything. Obviously we have access to the published data and we do ask the industry for unpublished data, but it is up to the companies whether to deliver it or not. We have no power to demand it. The issue is that it relies on the good will of the industry."

Professor Mike Clarke, the director of the UK Cochrane Centre, an international collaboration between researchers in 100 countries which has published more than 3,000 systematic reviews of published trials to establish best medical practice, said lack of co-operation from the drug industry was damaging medical care.

"When we ask for details of a trial the company might tell us nothing. We have even less power than Nice. Researchers trying to make sense of trials for decision-makers need to have access to this data. If we have only got access to half of the data, when we see evidence that a drug works we don't know whether to believe it or not.

"It makes us doubtful that's the big worry. The companies are in the business of making profits but they are also in the business of providing safe, effective health care."

WHY DOESN'T BIG PHARMA PAY FOR DANGEROUS DRUGS? UK ADR COST: £2 BILLION

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/03/nhs.drugsandalcohol

The Guardian. 3 April 2008.
Adverse drug reactions cost NHS £2bn.
Sarah Boseley, health editor

The NHS is spending nearly £2bn a year treating patients who have had an adverse reaction to drugs prescribed for them by doctors, according to new figures from the centre-left thinktank Compass.

The amount of money spent on hospital care for those given the wrong medicine or who have reacted badly to a drug could pay for 10,000 new midwives or easily cover the estimated cost of combating MRSA infections, says Compass.

The health minister Dawn Primarolo confirmed to the organisation that 6.5% of hospital admissions are a result of an adverse reaction.

Total admissions in 2006 were 16 million, which means that 1,040,000 patients were there as a result of the drugs they were prescribed.

Compass bases its calculation on an average stay of eight days in hospital at a cost of £228 a day. That puts the annual NHS bill at £1,896,960,000 just for those admitted with ill-effects. It does not include those patients who had a bad reaction to their medicines while they were in hospital. If that cost were added in, the bill would top £2bn.

The new figures, which are substantially higher than any previous estimates, have been compiled as part of an investigation into the pharmaceutical industry, its relationship to public health and regulation. "It is increasingly apparent that the lack of effective regulation is costing the taxpayer, and in some cases is causing unnecessary suffering," said Zoe Gannon, who is leading the Compass investigation.

Scandals such as that over the arthritis painkiller Vioxx, which caused heart attacks, and the antidepressant Seroxat, which was found to increase the risk of suicidal thinking in young people, suggest that industry could do more, she said. "The industry knew about these adverse drug reactions and chose not to accept the responsibility because its ultimate goal is to make a profit," she said.

"From our perspective this £1.9bn figure is not completely reducible - we are going to have to accept some adverse drug reactions - but the sheer size of this figure is enormous. It is all about getting a balance between risk and benefit and we feel that the balance is wrong."

Drug companies have huge profit margins, she said - in excess of 14.3% against a business average of 4.6%. Yet the number of genuinely innovative medicines - as opposed to copies of those already on the market - is decreasing.

"The pharmaceutical industry has the upper hand in terms of research and development investment and is always promising the latest miracle drug but too often failing to deliver," she added.

"Now is the time for a debate about costs and policies about which drugs the healthcare service can afford as people are paying infinitely higher prices - the drugs bill to the NHS now stands at £11bn - for increasingly marginal rewards an higher risk from adverse drug reactions."

Compass's investigation will question whether it is appropriate for the Department of Health to take the lead in relations with the pharmaceutical industry. It will also be calling for a review of progress since the 2005 report of the health select committee. Compass aims to publish its own report in the autumn.