THAT HIDEOUS EBOLA DISEASE

by Betty Luks
Any person with just a drop of the milk of human kindness would have been crushed by that photo of the Congolese man ("Ebola breaks out of gorilla population", The Australian, March 11th, 2003), victim of the Ebola virus, helplessly looking on as a Red Cross worker, fully clothed in protective 'anti-germ' gear, 'disinfected' the dirty hospital ward at the Kelle Hospital in the north western Congo. The article would have us believe the latest outbreak began when the tribal people of the region "ate infected gorilla meat". The tribal people would have been eating gorilla meat for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The question is, if it was infected with this new ebola-type virus, how did the gorilla get infected?
It also reported the "World Health Organisation says more than 1000 people have died from the virus since it was identified in 1976".

Emerging Viruses: Aids & Ebola – Nature, Accident or Intentional?
In his comprehensive work, above title, Leonard Horowitz sets out to trace the genesis of the Ebola and HIV viruses and in so doing, reveals some important facts about:-
• The World Health Organisation (WHO).
• Where the first known outbreaks occurred.

On the WHO he writes: "Dozens of WHO Chronicle articles revealed that by 1968 the WHO had been solely in control of the world's experimental 'biologicals' for almost two decades. "WHO has exerted a powerful influence on the quality control of biological substances since its very inception in 1948. ... Since 1952, when WHO interest in the establishment of international requirements for such biological products began, various possible measures have been examined for attempting to achieve a greater degree of uniformity in the quality, safety, and potency of vaccines, antisera, etc. ... for the control of substances of particular interest to WHO in relation to its mass immunisation and mass prophylaxis schemes in developing countries... (WHO Chronicle, 1968; 23; 1:3-15)

Monkey disease
The second point, tracking down where the first known outbreaks of ebola-type viruses occurred, led him to Germany and Yugoslavia in 1967. In 1967, the strain now known as Marburg struck three vaccine production facilities almost simultaneously. Two outbreaks occurred in two West German cities and another in Yugoslavia. Oddly the virus then 'disappeared' until 1975 when it 'reared its ugly head' in South Africa. Then, less than two years later two larger outbreaks erupted in southern Sudan and northern Zaire.

1969 World Health Organisation report
In 1969 the World Health Organisation released its second five-year research report on viral experiments it had funded or conducted since 1959. The report stated: "In the years 1964-68 the principal advances in virology were in knowledge of the fundamental structure of viruses and cells and of their interrelationship and interactions. A much greater understanding was gained of the natural behaviour of viruses as infectious agents, of the pathogenesis of virus diseases and of the means of controlling many of the common virus diseases - generally by improving existing vaccines or by developing new ones. Though direct proof of a causal relationship between viruses and human cancer still escapes the numerous investigators working on this subject, the quest continues to be energetically pursued. The hypothesis that at least some malignant neoplastic diseases such as leukaemia are associated with virus infection is perhaps even more strongly expressed now than in the past."

All this happened during the so-called 'cold war'. At the time, "Russian and American researchers were privy to the same vaccines, viral samples, and information about how the human immune system could be bolstered or destroyed by old and newly developed germs, including those produced from monkey viruses."

Marburg, Ebola and HIV engineered in laboratories?
The evidence Mr. Horowitz collected, led him to the conclusion the Marburg (Germany and Yugoslavia), Ebola (Congo) and HIV viruses did not naturally occur, they had to be genetically engineered strains made in laboratories, in the West – laboratories which he names in his book.

That poor man in the north western region of the Congo is just one of the now many innocent victims of germ warfare. No wonder Bush, Blair and Howard are concerned about Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' – the West first supplied him with them! We do not know where this horror will end, or who will be the future victims, what we do know is that those producing 'biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction' are quite mad – they have lost all sense of reality.

Peter Lock (The Great Harlot) warns us: "We do not know what further surprises Nature has in store for those who threaten her delicate vital sense of balance with their man-made evil positive feedback instabilities. Nature does not employ defensive mechanisms. Any offence against her stimulates her to attack and turn the situation to her own advantage."

WHEN THE POLLIES AND THE PEOPLE ARE POLLS APART

Melbourne columnist Terry Lane thinks CIR might be the way to go in the present political climate of elected dictatorship. The Sunday Age, March 9th, 2003.

What prompted him? Last Thursday, March 6th, one lone citizen by the name of Mark Gwynneth was thrown out of Parliament House having been crudely gagged by a security guard's hand over his mouth. His offence? Trying to gain his attention, he shouted at John Howard, "Killing Iraqi children is immoral." Now, writes Terry Lane, there is going to be a war vote in Parliament, but if the vote goes against Howard it won't make any difference. "That," says Mr. Lane, "is democracy at work, Howard-style."

What to do about it? He thinks the time has come to put CIR into place. He sets out to demolish the arguments against CIR comparing the Swiss people's control over their governments and our lack of control over ours: "In Australia 100,000 people in the street accomplishes nothing. In Switzerland, 100,000 petitioners can force a government to seek popular endorsement for its actions." He doesn't accept the argument CIR would open the door to 'populist demagogues'. The evidence from Switzerland is that only about one in 13 non-government referendum proposals get a yes vote anyhow. He concludes: "South Australia could be about to become a CIR laboratory if its Speaker, Peter Lewis, gets his way on the constitutional reform that is his price for supporting government. All power to his arm."

CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN INDICTS 'WAR PARTY'

In this week's American Conservative, March 11th, 2003, editor Pat Buchanan issued a controversial 5000-word indictment of Bush's 'War Party.' He alleges:
'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Iraq had been 'in preparation far in advance of 9/11, and when President Bush was looking for a new front,' the neocons 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Bush dug into it.'

Richard Perle wrote a paper urging Israeli PM Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Peace Accords and target Iraq – five years before 9/11.
Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith urged Israel to ditch the Oslo and take back the West Bank though 'the price in blood would be high,' three years before the Camp David talks.
Pentagon official David Wurmser urged the U.S. to act in concert with Israel to 'strike fatally... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran and Gaza' – nine months before 9/11.
Bennett, Kristol, Podhoretz 'seized on the horrific atrocity [of September 11] to steer America's rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic 'rogue states that have resisted US hegemony and loathe Israel.'

The neocon vision is 'to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel.... [They] seek American empire and the Sharonites seek hegemony over the Middle East. The two agendas coincide precisely.' Mr.Buchanan can expect a backlash – as a matter of course.

DR. TOBEN'S NEWS UPDATE

PARADOXICAL HYPOCRISY

by Ron Owen
In Saturday's Gympie Times we had more evidence which supports the popular thesis that governments are only an, 'out of control', parasitical tumour that feasts off the product of the human race. We had our top General, Peter Cosgrove admitting that we have no Defence against North Korea's Nuclear Armed Ballistic Missiles. That even with our herculean Defence Budget of eight billion (in US dollars, which is an equivalent amount to the People's Republic of China's Defence budget), we cannot defend ourselves against a third world country that has been receiving Australian Aid for more than ten years, including assistance to its Nuclear Programme.
That's right, all through the nineties, our government has paid millions of your dollars and donated technical assistance from Lucas Heights NSW (Australia's sole reactor) to North Korea to assist in their Nuclear Reactor Building programme. So our governments cannot defend us against North Korea. Are we going to be amazed when we are told we cannot defend ourselves against Indonesia or Singapore?
Our Government, even with 12 days notice, utilizing our total defence resources cannot defend our Capital from a Bush Fire, 500 houses are destroyed. That time Nature or the Greens are the enemy, and even though the government has not yet banned hose-pipes, you can still (amazingly) defend your house against fire (but not people). Just think how our government is going to defend you from an external aggressor such as North Korea, when as at Pearl Harbour, no notice is given and in our case the people have been disarmed, so they cannot assist in defending their own homes... The headline "Prime Minister......first hand view of the perils of war", conjures the thought of Little Johnny, our conquering hero, running up the ladder, going over the top into the rain of death-withering machine gun fire, pausing to blow his whistle as he stands on the top of the parapets hunching his shoulders to shrug off the rain-like bullets, his revolver in the other hand, shouting "Charge Boys"; just before he fell in a gyrating blood-gurgling mess, hands still outstretched towards the hated enemy, risking his own life for his country, giving his all for his country even if his country is wrong.
If he was the Australian token gesture, to save the American Stock Market then I would believe that he had at least a conviction in his own myopia, but he has no right to put others in peril, as a token of his support, as the loss of our tiny contingent would not get as much world public notice, as the loss of John himself. So if there has to be a sacrifice, it should be only of himself. Our few troops, are too valuable to be lost in Jack-Boot John Howard's world stage ego-trip. Defending Australia is supposed to be what our Army is for.

ARREST FOR ASKING A FORENSIC QUESTION?

by Ian McNiven
Wow! What was the question? The following report was issued by Queenslander Ian McNiven of the "Firearm Owners Association of Australia". In part it deals with his treatment at a meeting convened by The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society Inc. advertised in the Courier Mail of Thursday, November 21st, 2002. The Society hosted a presentation by one of the leading forensic investigators into the Port Arthur killings held at the Nathan Campus of Griffith University of Queensland. We do not pretend to be experts in any of the fields which would be involved in an investigation of what happened that day at Port Arthur, but we do think Mr. McNiven has raised some important questions that should be answered.

He writes that the presentation by the guest speaker was quite professional and almost identical to the article in the Australian Police Journal, September 98, Vol 52 No 4. There were two statements made in the article and by the presenter that were of interest to Ian McNiven: "The killer never used the FN-FAL .308 rifle until he returned to the boot of the Volvo" and that "Bryant obtained the weapons used in the killings on the black market." Having read many of the witness statements, he had a specific reason for asking: "Was any solid empirical forensic evidence such as fingerprints or DNA found that links Martin Bryant to the shootings in the café?" The presenter avoided a direct answer, referring to "ballistics" and when pressed further, to "ballistic evidence" and "witness statements". Not one to give up, McNiven interrupted the speaker once again and insisted that his "question was not about ballistics but about fingerprints and DNA".
He asked once again: "Did you find Bryant's fingerprints on the bullet cases, or any of Bryant's DNA at the café?" He observed, "It then became obvious to me that there must be no empirical forensic evidence linking Bryant to the café or the speaker would have said yes, and given an outline of how and where it was collected.
When he mentioned witness statements I asked him if he was familiar with the statement of Graham Collyer?" The presenter then closed down question time saying publicly he would talk with McNiven 'outside'.
Upon approaching the presenter with the Collyer statement in hand (one of the surviving witnesses of the Port Arthur massacre) McNiven was ignored by the presenter who proceeded to walk away. Thereupon he was approached by some 'heavies' and warned not to go back inside to the meeting – he might be arrested if he did. At the time he was in the presence of the Queensland President and Secretary of the Forensic Society. He eventually left.

Witness statements
The question about the collection of DNA evidence was based on the witness statements of Rebecca M. and her boyfriend Michael B., who sat with the alleged killer on the balcony of the Port Arthur Café. He points out that very few people, who saw the killer's face from close range, survived. These two and the Collyer statement represent the bulk of them.

Rebecca M's statement
Rebecca M's statement was taken at Port Arthur at 10.35p.m.on April 28th, 1996, the day of the shooting. She and her boyfriend were sitting on the balcony of the cafe when the alleged killer sat at a table two metres away. McNiven quotes from the important parts of the statement:- "This male was carrying a tray with his food on it." "His facial skin appeared to be freckly and he was pale." "He was not wearing gloves." "When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table." "I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious"– "The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: "tipping" "didn't actually see it fall") of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria."

Rebecca M's companion stated
Rebecca's companion, Michael B. states in part:- "He had a really big video camera on his shoulder and was carrying a really big bag" "When I glanced again he seemed to be scoffing down his food." "As he tried to get through the door back into the restaurant he couldn't get through. He had the video camera on his shoulder and he had the bag and a tray in his hand. It was difficult to get the door open for him. Someone from inside opened it for him. He then went inside."

Fingerprints, DNA, saliva
Ian McNiven says: "What we have here is clear evidence of the alleged killer, who was not wearing gloves and was carrying a 'really big bag' carrying a food tray with a can of drink, in a plastic cup and food plate. We have clear evidence of him eating food and drinking from the cup and then carrying the tray back inside the cafe. Somewhere between the door and the first people to be killed was a food tray carrying the killer's fingerprints and DNA (saliva on the cup and food scraps and utensils) and prints on the tray, eating utensils, can and plastic cup. This information was in the hands of Tasmanian Police by midnight on the day of the shooting, ample time to collect all the food trays between the door and the first victims, early next morning.

Did the investigating police neglect to collect this vital evidence or was it collected and failed to match Bryant's prints and DNA and suppressed? That is why I asked the forensic officer if any of Bryant's DNA and prints were found in the cafe..."

The Collyer statement
Graham Collyer was shot through the throat at close range in the cafe. He saw the gunman's face at close range and his statement was taken while recovering in hospital. Ian McNiven quotes the relevant sections of the Collyer witness statement and then speculates on their importance: "He came through the doors on my right. I noticed him because of his overcoat I think it was green it was the type of colour you don't see that often that's why it stuck in my mind. I saw him carrying a long bag. It didn't seem unusual because all backpackers have long bags. He seemed somewhere about 20. He had long blonde bedraggled hair about 3-4 below the shoulder. He looked like he might have had a lot of acne. A pitted face. He had scraggly trousers. I don't remember what colour, I think I probably would identify him if I saw him again. I haven't seen any photographs of him." – "I looked around and I saw him running from where he had disappeared and he was pulling something from out of his bag. I think he had already started firing it before he got it out of the bag. He was forward of me and to my left slightly at this stage. He seemed to pull out an old SLR from the bag. It seemed to be painted or something it seemed to be a very light colour. It looked like a standard SLR service semi automatic. I have been in the Armed Services. I was an aircraftsman. I have had experience with firearms before. I was with the RAF in England for six months or so."

McNiven speculates
"At first I thought that the presenter was worried about his clear description of the gunman's pitted, acne scarred face, which corroborates Rebecca M.'s statement that the killer had freckles. We all know that Bryant is good looking and has a smooth baby face. While this is a big enough problem, I think what was really scaring the hell out of the presenter was Collyer stating that he had been shot with an SLR... "Incidentally, SLR and FN-FAL are both descriptive terms for rifles which are virtually identical in every detail. It also has a distinctive shape and is a very long rifle.

Therein lies the big problem... I think it was too long to fit in the blue sports bag which was left on a table in the café, along with the video camera which was alleged to belong to Martin Bryant. If the SLR was too long for the blue sports bag, it must have been carried in a 'really big bag' or a 'long bag' exactly as the witnesses stated. "Supposedly the gunman carried both rifles back to Seascape, so how did he get both of them and the spare magazines back to the Volvo. In the long bag of course. But that is two bags, the long bag and the sports bag on the table. We know from the witness statements that the gunman only had one bag when he went into the café so the only conclusion I can make is that the blue sports bag was inside the long bag with the rifles and spare magazines. "So we come to the nub of the matter. We have a freckled faced or acne scarred pitted faced gunman dropping a blue sports bag and video camera which were alleged to have belonged to Martin Bryant on a table in the café before or during the shootings... This theory can only be correct if G. Collyer was shot through the throat and neck with an SLR as he clearly states. "I believe that is what happened because it is supported by the performance of the two types of projectile used. This is clearly laid out in The Wound Ballistics Review published in The Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association Vol 3: N04...

Two types of ammunition used
"Two types of ammunition were used in the killings, .223 Chinese Norinco manufacture fitted with 55 grain boat tail F.M. 5 (full metal jacket) bullets fitted with a knurled cannular, the other was a .308 cartridge made in Australia and loaded with a 144 grain boat tailed F.M.J. bullet. "In summary, The Wound Ballistic Review demonstrates quite clearly that the .223 projectile was prone to separation or fragmentation while passing through the victims bodies and almost always left large exit wounds. The .308 wounds were quite different to those caused by the ..223. All the victims except one who were shot with the .308 rifle sustained complete perforating injuries and no bullets or fragments were recovered. In other words the heavier stronger bullet from the SLR tended to go clean through the victims without "exploding" like the ..223.

I believe Collyer survived being shot clean through the throat and neck because as he states, he was shot with the .308 SLR/Fn FAL. This raises the question, why were no spent cases and projectiles found in the café? Who collected them and where are they? Why do Police react so strongly when someone asks questions about these things? Why has a major Australian TV Company filmed a documentary about these matters but has been sitting on it for over a year, refusing it show it? Why has our presenter claimed that Bryant bought the guns on the black market, when it has been alleged in the Australian Media that the Colt .223 used in the killings was handed into Victorian Police in an amnesty?

If Bryant bought the guns illegally on the black market, why has no one ever been charged with selling them to him. Why has no forensic evidence been produced that links Bryant to the guns and to the shootings in the café. Why on the next day, April 30th, was a carpenter sent into the café to paint out the windows and nail the doors shut. Possibly a first in Forensic examination of a major murder site... And finally... why was Bryant's plea of guilty accepted without a proper enquiry or even a complete Coroner's Inquest?"

PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS - FREE ASSOCIATION MEETING

The Mackay FREE ASSOCIATION is holding its AGM and a PUBLIC FORUM 7.15pm, Thursday, April 3rd, 2003 – after the AGM which commences at 6.15pm. Venue is: Fairview Tavern, Farleigh. Guest speaker will be Narrabri's Bevan O'Reagan of the Constitutional Property Rights Committee.
Topics for discussion include:
• The appointment of an advisor of Constitutional and Common Law.
• The lodging of a CLASS ACTION in the appropriate court; funding this type of action is beyond the capability of the individual.
• To review the Community Rights to control and direct elected representatives of Local Government. Ample time is allocated for constructive questions and answers.

Come and hear the facts! Further information: Mick Hodge Phone/Fax 4954 6607 or Neville Halliwell Phone 4942 2776

Book...