-Caveat Lector- www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-

"It may shock many Greens to discover that Peter Singer admitted in 1993 in
an Italian Court that he had been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation....
Doesn't it strike you as odd that Peter Singer ... has been funded by one of
the worst perpetrators of suffering against animals?"
------------------
http://www.animalvoices.org/ADAV/singer.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS PETER SINGER A PAID PUPPET OF THE DRUG TRUST?

from - Campaign Against Fraud in Medical Research
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/newsl/singer.html

An Open Letter to The Greens, members and sympathizers.

In the 1996 Australian Federal Election The Greens undoubtedly lost many
votes and suffered a tarnished public image, due in large part to the views
and actions of Peter Singer who ran as a Greens candidate in Victoria.
Numerous politicians and media had a field day citing Singer's past
statements where he proposed that it would be "ethical" to abort six-month
old infants. This was an easy target for Greens opponents to draw attention
to, and imply that because Singer was a Greens candidate, therefore these
views must be shared by all members of The Greens. This bad press no doubt
made many voters reluctant to vote Green and more likely to vote for an
industry-beholden major Party. As documented on ABC-TV's "Four Corners"
(5/3/96) Singer's actions during the election campaign also contributed
greatly to the split between The Greens and the Australian Democrats - a
split which may last for many years.

It is pretty clear that having Singer as a candidate was a major public
relations setback for The Greens in the March 1996 election. In light of the
following evidence about Singer's dubious connections, one might ask, was
Singer's campaign as a Greens candidate deliberately designed to setback The
Greens?

It may shock many Greens to discover that Peter Singer admitted in 1993 in
an Italian Court that he had been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. (1)

What is the Rockefeller Foundation? It is an arm of one of, if not the
largest, industrial empires ever to exist! For instance, the Rockefeller's
Chase Manhattan Bank and Citicorp intertwine with all major U.S. industry,
banks, utilities, insurance, transportation, such as Exxon, AT&T, ITT,
Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, U.S. Steel, et al. Chase Manhattan
controls Eastern Airlines, Pan Am Airways, Boeing, TWA, Mobile Oil, Sperry
Rand, as well as all major U.S. media such as ABC, RCA, CBS, New York Times,
Washington Post, L.A. Times etc. (2) David Rockefeller was a long-term
chairman of the board of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), as well as
the founder and driving force of the Trilateral Commission; these bodies are
considered by many to be the real governing forces of the United States. (3)

Furthermore, with most of the world's major drug companies under its
control, the Rockefeller organisation has, since the early part of this
century, been the largest single private source of funding for medical
science and education in the United States, Great Britain and other Western
countries. For instance, in the forty-four years up to 1948, the "gifts" the
Rockefeller Foundation made to universities, medical colleges and public
health agencies in the U.S.A. alone totalled over half-a-billion dollars.
(4) Of course, as a result, all those universities and colleges inculcate
their students with the belief that the only way to achieve health is
through the use of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals! (ie. the
pharmaceutical industry profits immensely from its "charitable donations" to
our educational institutions.)

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Peter Singer, dubbed by the Rockefeller
controlled press as the "Animal Rights Guru", has been funded by one of the
worst perpetrators of suffering against animals? Namely, the
pharmaceutical-chemical industry. Note that Peter Singer's arguments against
vivisection are solely moral-ethical arguments. These are very easily
combated by the pharmaceutical empire in a media debate. All they have to do
is parade a professor in a white coat who blurts out that "Animal
experiments cure sick babies!" and the vast majority of the public are
swayed in favour of animal research. Indeed, Peter Singer has actually made
many public statements where he approves of animal research. What better
"opposition" could the pharmaceutical industry wish for?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Peter Singer, who claims to abide by Green
values, has accepted funding from one of the worst perpetrators of the
destruction of the environment? Namely, the petro-chemical industry.

It may surprise you that all of the genuine anti-vivisection organisations,
leagues of doctors against vivisection, and many grass-roots health-advocacy
organisations around the world, have repeatedly denounced Peter Singer as
misinformed, a phoney, or a puppet of the pharmaceutical-chemical industry.

It may interest you that the above-mentioned Italian court case was between
Peter Singer and Swiss medical historian, Hans Ruesch. Singer took Ruesch to
court because Ruesch called Singer "a big phoney" in an article in the
journal of the Italian Lega Anti-Vivisezione (LAV). (Under Italian law it is
forbidden to call a phoney "a phoney".)

Hans Ruesch is the author of the books Slaughter of the Innocent (1978,
1991), Naked Empress - or The Great Medical Fraud (1982, 1992), and 1000
Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection (1989). In these books Ruesch
has accumulated a vast amount of scientific evidence which shows that
vivisectionist experimentation has not only NOT been responsible for any
true medical breakthrough, but has actually retarded the progress of
medicine repeatedly, due to its misleading methodology and results. Ruesch
shows, through the use of testimonials from ex-animal researchers, medical
practitioners, and studies published in medical journals, that vivisection
is an unscientific method of research which is responsible for countless
human deaths and injuries. These occur through the numerous drugs and
chemicals, as well as operative procedures, which found to be "safe" for the
animal individuals and species tested on, were later found when marketed to
be dangerous and/or deadly to humans.

Ruesch's organization CIVIS has also published other monumental works such
as former animal researcher Professor Pietro Croce's book Vivisection or
Science - A Choice to Make (1991). These books seriously threaten the
financial profits and credibility of the pharmaceutical industry.

In court, Peter Singer, who, funded by the pharmaceutical-vivisection
industry and who gives lip-service to the "usefulness" of vivisection whilst
pretending to be against it, was represented by one of the top and most
expensive penal lawyers in Italy; a lawyer who has amongst his clients the
Industrialists Association of Italy, meaning all the automakers and the
pharmaceutical industries! (5) Who paid the expensive lawyers bill?

If you care about the future of The Greens credibility in Australia please
read the attached information and do all you can to ensure that Peter Singer
does not again have the opportunity to undermine your hard work. Don't let
him undermine the green-environmental movement in the way that he has been
used to undermine the worldwide human health advocacy and scientific
anti-vivisectionist movements over the past 20 years.

Supporting Articles:

"Now It's Official: Peter Singer's Lecture Tours Sponsored by Rockefeller's
Drug Lobby" and "The Drug Story: the Rockefeller Foundation" - Published in
the Fall-Winter 1993 issue of the CIVIS International Foundation Report,
Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS, POB 152, via Motta 51, CH 6900, Massagno-Lugano,
Switzerland. Available from CAFMR for $2.

Why do Pharmaceutical Drugs Injure & Kill? Because They Are Fraudulently
Tested? - By Robert Ryan

Animal Experimentation: The Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution? - By
Hoorik Davoudian

Doctors Against Vivisection - Excerpts from the book 1000 Doctors (and many
more) Against Vivisection, (Ed. Hans Ruesch), CIVIS, 1989. Published in the
Spring 1996 issue of the CAFMR Newsletter.

Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783,
Australia. Phone +61 (0)2-4758-6822. www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

This information may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed
without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is
required when this is done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

"Now it's official: Peter Singer's lecture tours sponsored by Rockefeller's
Drug Lobby", CIVIS International Foundation Report, Hans Ruesch (Ed.),
CIVIS, Massagno, Switzerland, Fall-Winter 1993, Nr 15, pp. 1-7.

"How infiltration prevents information", CIVIS International Foundation
Report, Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS, Massagno, Switzerland, Summer-Spring 1990,
Nr 9, p. 6: "According to the CFR s 1991 Annual Report, a whopping 382 of
its members were serving the Bush Administration as U.S. government
officials. The organization's total membership numbers only 2,790, meaning
that 14 percent of those who have joined this leading 'Insider' group hold
high government positions. No other remotely similar organization can claim
such clout within the government. This startling dominance over the nation's
affairs ought to be a burning issue, but similar CFR dominance of the mass
media keeps most Americans totally unaware of who is really running the U.S.
government. The Insiders, of course, hope that they remain unaware."

John F. McManus, The Insiders: Architects of the New World Order, John Birch
Society, Wisconsin, US, 1992.

Bealle, Morris, The Super Drug Story, Columbia Publishing Co., Washington
D.C., 1949, pp. 22-23.

"Now it's official: Peter Singer's lecture tours sponsored by Rockefeller's
Drug Lobby", CIVIS International Foundation Report, p. 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work. It
has no scientific value. One cannot extrapolate the results of animal
research to human beings and every good scientist knows that. Doctors
themselves will admit that animal experimentation is no good. For example,
if you say to the doctors, these experiments on animals show that this drug
is dangerous, it can cause cancer, it can cause all kinds of side effects.
The doctors will say, oh that's just animal experimentation. You can't
extrapolate that to human beings. They themselves admit that it's no good.
As far as I am concerned since animal experiments have no validity and since
they lead to quackery inside medicine, I have to be opposed to quackery and
therefore I have to be opposed to the animal experiments as a SCIENTIST.
Regardless of what my moral feelings are about animals." - Prof. Robert S.
Mendelsohn, MD, 1986, in the video Hidden Crimes. This video may be borrowed
or purchased from ADAV
-----------------------
http://members.iinet.net.au/~eye/propaganda/articles/animal_rights_fraud_bav
ap2.html

Peter Singer, the animal rights guru, is also
pro-vivisection and in bed with the drug industry.

... Singer, as Vice President of ANZFAS, was in the position of choosing two
representatives to accompany him to the Senate Select Committee Hearing on
Animal Experimentation. These were Richard Ryder, ex-vivisector and then
Chairman of the RSPCA's Animal Experimentation Advisory Committee, and
ex-vivisector Donald Barnes who went on to land the (well-paid) job of
Director of the US NAVS.

Photocopies of the November 1992 issue of 'Mobilise!' are available for
anyone wanting the whole New Zealand story, but now it is important for us
to take a closer look at Peter Singer. Singer is undoubtedly hailed by many
within the animal rights movement as some sort of guru, and yet it should be
of deep concern to all animal rights people that he was instrumental, along
with his allies Judith Hampson and Richard Ryder, in bringing about
legislation in New Zealand and Australia similar to that of the UK's phoney
1986 Act, designed to fool the population into believing that animal
research is essential, that animal experiments are only done when absolutely
necessary, and that animals do not suffer in vivisection laboratories.


"Peter Singer debated him (Peter Carroll of the pro-vivisection Incurably
Ill for Animal Research) on A Current Affair and actually agreed that some
experiments were necessary! Not once did he relate any scientific argument,
and on ringing the station the next morning we were informed that many
people had complained - not so much about Carroll, but about Singer and his
weak stand on vivisection." - From 'Strike Out', the newsletter of People
Against Vivisection, (Australia), Summer/Autumn 1992.

"Animal rights are not absolute. I can conceive of an experiment, important
in tackling AIDS, which could only be carried out on monkeys. I wouldn't
like it . . . But could accept such an experiment . . . if the prospects of
success were reasonable." - Peter Singer, Guardian,1 May 1995.

Indeed, on numerous occasions Singer has testified to the supposed value of
animal experiments. Why? Why would a supposed champion of the animals
repeatedly endorse a practice which growing numbers of doctors, scientists
and ex-vivisectors denounce as useless, and worse, damaging?

Peter Singer is funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry.

It was reported in the Spring-Summer 1992 issue of Hans Ruesch's "CIVIS
Foundation Report" that Peter Singer's Italian tours had been sponsored by
the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation is part of one of the
world's largest corporate empires; an empire that owns many pharmaceutical,
chemical and oil companies. It has also been the largest single private
source of funding for medical science and education in the US, Britain and
other Western countries since the early part of the 20th century.

As apparent champion for the animals Singer only speaks out against
vivisection on moral grounds, despite massive evidence as to its scientific
fraudulence. In an article in the newsletter of the abolitionist Italian
society, L.A.V, Hans Ruesch described Singer as a phoney, resulting in
Singer taking both Ruesch and LAV to court. Peter Singer was represented in
court by one of the top and most expensive lawyers in Italy, a lawyer whose
clients include the Industrialist's Association, meaning all the automakers
and the pharmaceutical industries. Who paid the bill?

Informed AVs who are able to read between the lines will quite easily be
able to decipher the many messages Singer gives in his book Animal
Liberation: his comments that vivisection works, and has been essential in
the past, although his views haven't been restricted to this book alone.

"Of this vast number of experiments only a few contribute to important
medical research." - Peter Singer in 'Animal Liberation'�





www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to