Les dessous de l’information mondiale-Downside World News

Barres chocolatées, sodas, plats préparés, autant de produits hyper-phosphatés qui sont un désastre pour les enfants et entraînent hyperactivité, agressivité, céphalée et insomnie. Frédérique Caudal, pédiatre, après deux ans d’expérience en cabinet, a constaté qu’une diète alimentaire sans additifs phosphatés rattrape en quatre jours les enfants et leur évite le médicament à la mode, la Ritaline.

Les phosphates sont quasiment présents dans tous les aliments contenant des additifs. Leur utilisation est telle que, depuis 10 ans, leur présence a augmenté de 300 %. Si les phosphates sont nécessaires à la croissance des enfants et au bon fonctionnement du corps, ils entraînent, lorsqu’ils sont en excès, de graves troubles du comportement.

Perturbateur hormonal

Chez les sujets sensibles, l’intoxication au phosphate provoque un dérèglement du métabolisme, en bloquant la sécrétion de l’hormone noradrénaline des glandes surrénales, laquelle commande et règle le flux des excitations nerveuses cérébrales. D’où un dérèglement du comportement qui se manifeste dès le sevrage lorsque l’enfant passe du lait maternel au lait de vache. La situation se détériore avec l’alimentation « normale » vers 2 ou 3 ans (avec l’apport de céréales enrichies à la lécithine de soja) pour atteindre un point culminant vers 10-13 ans et se poursuit à l’adolescence puis à l’âge adulte.

Il faut noter que cette hypersensibilité aux phosphates ne concerne que 5 % des filles alors que 10 % à 20 % des garçons sont touchés et plus particulièrement les enfants longilignes ou athlétiques et musclés. Étrangement, les obèses ne sont pas atteints.

La Ritaline, seule solution de la médecine officielle

Hyperactivité, violence, instabilité émotionnelle, difficulté de concentration en classe, insomnies, impulsivité, incapacité à s’adapter et s’intégrer, distraction permanente, morosité, susceptibilité exagérée, difficultés de langage et troubles du sommeil majeurs peuvent souvent être dus à cette overdose de phosphates. Mais, face à la vague des troubles lourds du comportement qui touche, depuis une décennie, des millions d’enfants des pays développés, la médecine officielle ne propose qu’une solution : une amphétamine nommée Ritaline. Cette drogue (interdite depuis les années 70 car elle servait de dopant aux sportifs) n’offre pourtant que peu de résultats et s’accompagne d’effets secondaires catastrophiques.

Une diète de quatre jours et du vinaigre de vin

• Pour confirmer ce premier diagnostic, éliminez de l’alimentation de l’enfant tout additif phosphaté pendant quatre jours. Son état devrait s’améliorer de manière spectaculaire.

• L’antidote incontesté contre les phosphates est le vinaigre de vin (acide acétique) qui annule l’effet des phosphates à petite dose (alors que l’ingestion de 75 mg de phosphates suffit à provoquer une rechute en 20 à 30 minutes), la prise d’une cuillère de vinaigre de vin avec autant d’eau et un peu de miel (pour le goût) va prévenir toute rechute et peut se pratiquer préventivement. À prendre une fois par jour pendant huit jours.

Attention : Le vinaigre de cidre (acide malique) ou le citron (acide citrique) aggravent l’effet des phosphates.

Pour plus d’infos, lire :

« La drogue cachée : les phosphates alimentaires », de Herta Hafer. Éditions du Madrier,
tél. 00 41 21 887 78 21.

Le caddie sans phosphates

Ôter de l’alimentation :

• E 322 : lécithine de soja, de jaune d’œuf… (que l’on trouve dans les plats préparés, les glaces, le Nutella…).

• E 338 : acide phosphorique dans les sodas… à E 341 dans la charcuterie et le fromage fondu.

• L’acide citrique présent dans les sodas et autres Ice tea et jus concentrés.

• E 450 a, b, c : en particulier dans les fromages en portion (Kiri, P’tit Louis, Vache qui rit…).

• Levure chimique (type Alsa) et additifs E 1410 à 1414 et E 1442 présents dans de nombreux biscuits, cakes, gâteaux et goûters…

• Le riz traité pour ne pas coller.

• Les barres chocolatées et chewing-gums qui n’existent pas sans phosphates.

• Diminuer les oléagineux, les légumineuses, les jaunes d’œufs, le lait de vache (qui contient six fois plus de phosphates que le lait maternel) si la consommation est très importante.

Prendre à la place :

• Comme céréale infantile : la gamme Biocarrefour qui est exempte de lécithines (gluten et protéines de lait de vache), entre autres…

• Diluer les jus de fruits (100% pur jus) vendus en grande surface. Ou mieux, les préparer soi-même.

• Préférer le bicarbonate de sodium pour faire lever les gâteaux ou le sachet : « poudre à lever sans phosphate » en magasin diététique.

• Choisir comme cacao du matin : Banania ou le moins cher des marques de grande surface…

• Utiliser du riz normal.

• Chocolat en tablettes : marque Grand Jury à 80 % de cacao ou la plupart des tablettes du commerce équitable (sauf chocolat dessert)

Les marques Montignac, Bonneterre, Le moulin des moines (sauf chocolat dessert), La Vie Claire… dans les magasins diététiques.

• Plus généralement opter pour les fruits, les légumes, le poulet, le poisson, la dinde.

http://soignez-vous.com/2005/08/15/phosphates-dans-lalimentation-les-enfants-pousss-au-bord-de-la-folie/

by Osamah Khalil

Since the towering metal and concrete border wall that Israel began to erect in 2003 was demolished by Hamas early Wednesday morning, hundreds of thousands of Gazans have crossed the border with Egypt daily. Traveling by foot, car, truck, and donkey cart it is an unbelievable — almost indescribable — movement of people. The highway is jammed with packed taxis and pick-up trucks whose beds are filled beyond capacity and racing from Egyptian Rafah to al-Arish. Some journalists have called it a huge “jail break” and while the analogy to a prison is apt it does not accurately describe the horrors and humiliation suffered by Gazans during forty years of occupation and over 18 months of sanctions and siege. While this appears to be a temporary “break” in the siege, perhaps the best description of how Gazans feel is a deep exhale of relief and some joy — both rare commodities here.

Gaza’s economy has been devastated by the combination of sanctions since Hamas was elected in January 2006 and the siege after their militia defeated Fatah forces in June 2007. In the first 24 hours after the wall fell, Palestinians rushed to buy needed supplies which had become scare in Gaza, everything from gas to flour. Items barred by the Israelis from entering the territory during the siege were also among the first items purchased, including concrete, the lack of which has brought construction in Gaza to a halt.

As the border stayed open, many Palestinians returned to buy different consumer goods, including televisions and blenders, or stock up on different supplies. Some enterprising Palestinians were buying up as much as possible, either to sell immediately or once the border closed. A liter of gasoline could be purchased in Egypt for 20 Israeli shekels ($5 USD) and then sold in Gaza for 80 ($21 USD). Before the wall fell individual packs of cigarettes were almost unaffordable at 20 Israeli shekels ($5 USD), but by Saturday a carton was available for 70 Israelis shekels ($18). Motorcycles, rare and expensive in Gaza only a week before, were selling briskly. Indeed, those heading back toward Gaza all seem to be carrying some recent purchase, either food, fuel, or a household item.

During last month’s Eid al-Adha celebration, the traditional slaughtering of sheep was almost impossible for the vast majority of families in Gaza, as the few which were available were too expensive and underfed. In the past few days, sheep, goats and cows were being sold and brought into Gaza. As were Egyptian camels, which have been rare in Gaza since the occupation began. However, the price of meat is still prohibitively high across the territory, as the status of the border and consistent supplies remains uncertain.

Although the wall has come down, the siege continues. Rafah, which gets some power supplies from Egypt, still has daily blackouts of eight hours a day. Northern and middle Gaza, including Gaza City, which rely on Israel for the vast majority of their power needs, have less than eight hours of electricity a day. Israel’s resumption of fuel supplies has ensured that only the most basic needs will be met, in particular that of the health sector.

While the media has played up incidents of border violence, what is perhaps most remarkable is how few problems there have been since Wednesday. One is able to cross by foot between an international border with few controls or inspections in a manner that somehow manages to be chaotic and organized at the same time. In al-Arish, young men from across Gaza crowd the souq’s coffee houses and sandwich shops. An even greater number simply hang out, walking the city streets, talking, joking and smoking cigarettes, clearly enjoying the different scenery and “smelling new air.” The different squares in Rafah and al-Arish have become major gathering points, and there is barely a police presence within the towns except to guide traffic. Like Times Square on New Year’s Eve, the streets are littered with the detritus of thousands of plastic wrappers, paper, cans and cigarette butts. Indeed, it feels like a huge holiday, Independence Day and New Year’s Eve combined, but neither quite sums up the feelings of a brief respite or the underlying dread of what is to come next.

In contrast, Gaza’s streets are empty and eerily quiet. Stores are closed either for lack of goods, or because the owners have also gone to Egypt to buy needed supplies. Even shops that would normally open during holidays are shuttered. The lack of people and cars on normally busy streets provides a solemn backdrop to the silent gazes from Gaza’s ubiquitous martyr posters, constant reminders of the individual toll of the past eight years.

Gaza City is a ghost town and its al-Rimal district, once the center of the Oslo boomtown days, is deserted. Jundhi al-Majhool square adjacent to the Palestinian parliament building, once alive with activity in the afternoon, is now empty save a few children selling tea or candy and a Hamas security patrol shooing away curious photographers. Nor I am told, is this just because of the opening of the border. Since the fighting between Hamas and Fatah broke out over a year ago this area is no longer a meeting place for young couples and families.

It remains a fluid situation, fueled by constant rumors and speculation of when the border will be closed. Friday night Egyptian security forces, hoping to get Palestinians to return to Gaza, made a half-hearted announcement in al-Arish that the border would be closing. Although a greater number of forces were deployed Saturday morning, cars bearing Palestinian tags were in Egypt and Egyptian cars were seen in Gaza for the first time since the occupation began in 1967. The movement of cars was aided by the full opening of the Salah al-Din Gate by Hamas, using a bulldozer to push open the massive steel doors that were once an entry point for Israeli tanks and D-9 Caterpillar bulldozers. However, by Saturday evening Egyptian security forces were turning Palestinians back from al-Arish. Many made the long trek home by foot on a cold winter evening with scattered rain showers because taxi drivers had dramatically raised their rates, one indication of the subtler means of cutting the flow of Palestinians into the Sinai.

A Palestinian man takes in the unbroken horizon at the destroyed border wall, 25 January 2008. (Osamah Khalil)
Walking the length of the now partially demolished Rafah wall one is struck by two contrasting and competing realities. On the one side lies the sliced and twisted remnant of Israel’s siege policy backed and underwritten by Washington, a clear demonstration that a people can only be suppressed and oppressed for so long. On the other side is the human cost, the over 3,000 houses demolished by Israel in plain view of the world, as they built the wall in preparation for their “withdrawal” from Gaza.

The remnants of those houses remain, creating a vast moonscape of blasted concrete and sand, roughly a kilometer wide and several kilometers long. My friend Fida, a teacher and blogger from Rafah, points out where her house once stood, as well as those of her grandfather, grandmother, uncles, aunts, and other relatives. Beyond the sea of demolished houses are those still inhabited but riddled with bullet and shell holes, some dating from the beginning of the second intifada in 2000 and others more recent. Her young cousin Walaa explains, “this is our life,” and it sums up both realties.

Whether the destruction of the Rafah wall will change the reality of life in Gaza remains to be seen. Whatever the outcome, Hamas has managed to shock and embarrass the coalition allied against it for the third time in 24 months. It has demonstrated yet again that those who continue to try and ignore and isolate Hamas do so not only at their own detriment, but only prolong the inevitable and in the process increase the toll of human misery in a region that has already seen enough.

In part this has been due to the arrogance, incompetence, and maliciousness of its opponents in Israel, the United States, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Egypt. Rather than attempting to negotiate with Hamas, and in the process helping to moderate some of its policies, the coalition pursued a policy of collective punishment of the Palestinian people. However, Hamas must now demonstrate an ability to build upon these actions and demonstrate that it can do more than just upset American and Israeli policies, but more importantly help build a future for the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza.

It is also unclear how the anti-Hamas coalition will respond. Although Fatah still has strong support in Gaza, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ continued refusal to engage in national unity talks and power sharing appears to make him complicit in the siege of Gaza. In addition, Hamas has demonstrated that they could achieve what Abbas’ negotiations have not, a break in the siege, however brief. In spite of the attempts at damage control, for Israel and the United States this is nothing short of disastrous. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could hardly afford another blunder after the Lebanon War debacle and he now has one.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s policy of punishing Gaza while “rewarding” the West Bank with aid and attention, while still supporting Israel’s occupation of both with even greater aid, is now in tatters. Moreover, the renewed peace process, which has yet to demonstrate a single improvement in the lives of Palestinians in spite of the claims of some delusional and self-serving proponents, will now be under even greater pressure to show results. It will be up to Washington to deliver them.

Yet, the past few days have demonstrated that there is more to the destruction of the Rafah wall than the simple Hamas-Fatah dichotomy or the endless inane commentary of its impact on the “peace process.” Hamas could destroy the wall, but unless Palestinians were willing to cross the borderline and face the threat of Egyptian security forces it would have been a futile gesture. That Palestinians went over that line again and again illustrates the powerful urge for freedom from oppression and occupation. More importantly, it demonstrates what Palestinians can do when they act as a collective body, not along factional lines but as a people.

The destruction of the Rafah wall was quite simply a victory of and for the Palestinian people. As I stare at the rusted hulk and watch children climbing and playing along and on top of it and the steady movement of people between the two Rafahs, I am reminded of my previous trips to Gaza and similar moments of elation that turned to bitter disappointment and tragedy. I can only hope that this time will be different and that this is but the first wall of many to fall in Palestine.

“What binds Turkey are the resolutions of the UN and not US presidential decrees or Congressional decisions,” a Turkish diplomat told the Turkish Daily News.

US officials have told bankers around the world that Iran is funding terrorists and seeking nuclear technology. Banks such as UBS AG and Deutsche Bank AG have responded by ending – or severely reducing – their business with Iran.

However, in Ankara US requests have not been responded to in a similar way, according to officials.

Stating that foreign banks operate according to the regulations set by the current Banking Law and are inspected periodically, the official underlined that the conditions of suspending one bank’s operations are clear.

“Obviously we cannot move upon a third party’s requests,” he said.

Although some banks in Europe and Japan have bowed to US pressure, a host of analysts and diplomats believe that the move has proved futile.

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate by half a percentage point to 3 percent, the second cut in nine days, to prevent the U.S. economy from sinking into a recession.

“Today’s policy action, combined with those taken earlier, should help to promote moderate growth over time and to mitigate the risks to economic activity, the Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement after meeting today in Washington. “However, downside risks to growth remain.

The language signals the central bank is prepared to make additional reductions to prevent a credit squeeze from further weakening the economy. Hours before the decision was announced, the Commerce Department reported that gross domestic product grew at an annual pace of 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter.

“They’re going full-bore trying to keep the economy from recession, said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York. “There’s nothing in reserve here.

Stocks rallied, while the dollar fell and Treasury notes weakened. The cumulative reduction in rates since Jan. 22 is the fastest easing of monetary policy since 1990.

“The Fed has gotten religion and is going do what they need to do,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Readiness to Respond

Fed officials said they will continue to assess financial markets and the economy “and will act in a timely manner as needed.”

“Financial markets remain under considerable stress, and credit has tightened further for some businesses and households, the Fed said. “Recent information indicates a deepening of the housing contraction as well as some softening in labor markets.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and the Fed’s Board of Governors also voted to cut the discount rate, the cost of direct loans from the central bank, to 3.5 percent from 4 percent.

Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher dissented from today’s decision, preferring no change.

Policy makers presented revised three-year economic forecasts at this week’s gathering. The Fed will release the projections along with minutes of the meeting on Feb. 20.

Today’s Commerce Department figures showed the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge rose at a 2.7 percent annualized rate last quarter. Fed officials in October forecast the personal consumption expenditures price index minus food and energy would rise 1.6 percent to 1.9 percent in 2010, offering a measure of their longer-term inflation objective.

Inflation

“The Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, but it will be necessary to continue to monitor inflation developments carefully,” the Fed said in today’s statement.

Wall Street firms including Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. are forecasting the first recession since 2001 this year. Still, executives at firms such as Dow Chemical Co. said they don’t detect a downturn yet, while risks remain.

This year “will be slower than 2007, Andrew Liveris, the chairman and chief executive officer of Dow Chemical, said yesterday. “It is an inconvenience, not a catastrophe.

United Parcel Service Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and General Electric Co. are relying on gains overseas to counter slower growth at home.

Fed policy makers have struggled since August to contain the economic damage sparked by the worst housing recession in a quarter-century. The world’s largest banks and securities firms have recorded more than $133 billion in asset writedowns and credit losses since the beginning of 2007, which analysts blamed on weak and fragmented supervision and poor credit analysis.

Housing Downturn

Foreclosure rates rose 75 percent in 2007 as a record amount of adjustable-rate loans to borrowers with weak or limited credit histories reset to higher rates, RealtyTrac Inc. data show. Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas fell 7.7 percent in November from a year earlier, the 11th consecutive decline, the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index showed yesterday.

“We are in a historic housing bust right now, comparable to that of the Great Depression, said Robert Shiller, chief economist of MacroMarkets LLC in Madison, New Jersey, who co- founded the house-price index. “The unraveling of that has unpredictable consequences.

Delay in 2007

Fed officials waited until September to cut the benchmark lending rate, even though premiums on corporate bonds and lower- rated securities began to climb in late June.

By December, Fed policy makers had cut the benchmark lending rate 1 percentage point, yet still described the policy rate as “somewhat restrictive” as they deliberated whether to cut again that month, minutes show.

The government’s December payroll report, which showed a loss of 13,000 private sector jobs, the first decline since July 2003, began to reshape Fed officials’ views about risks.

Bernanke used a Jan. 10 speech to update the public. “The baseline outlook for real activity in 2008 has worsened and the downside risks to growth have become more pronounced, he said, breaking with the Fed’s statement a month earlier which only expressed “uncertainty about the outlook. He pledged “substantive additional action as needed.”

According to The Daily Telegraph, the authors of the report are convinced there is a real risk that terrorists could lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction in the near or immediate future. To counter this, the alliance may consider suppressing the enemy with nuclear weapons.

Though the report is likely to cause controversy in NATO countries, the authors appear to be merely echoing an idea originally broached by Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky. Speaking at a meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences on January 19, Gen. Baluyevsky declared that force should be used not only in the course of hostilities, but also to demonstrate the readiness of leaders to uphold their national interests. “We are not going to attack anyone,” he reassured his audience, “but we want all our partners to realize that Russia will use armed force to defend its own and its allies’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. It may resort to a pre-emptive nuclear strike in cases specified by its doctrine.”

It is strange that many esteemed domestic military experts consider this statement simply a repetition of Russia’s old military doctrine, which allowed it to use nuclear weapons first. Under the 2000 doctrine, Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons not only in retaliation against a nuclear attack, as was previously the case, but in response to “a large-scale conventional aggression in a situation critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies.” This certainly broadens the rules of engagement, but still does not envisage a pre-emptive nuclear strike without hostilities.

Gen. Balulevsky’s announcement appears to change this, in which case Russia will need a new military doctrine. This is not a new task. In early March last year, the Security Council press service released a statement saying that the Security Council would revise the 2000 military doctrine to account for new realities. The statement added that the new doctrine would be drafted by the Security Council in conjunction with interested government bodies and a number of scientific institutions.

Baluyevsky thus made his recent statement at an organization which is quite suitable for the drafting of the new doctrine.

If the new doctrine endorses the General Staff’s nuclear ideas, we will have new armed forces, with all the ensuing consequences.

First, these forces will become strictly offensive because of the very nature of a pre-emptive strike. This will require totally different mobilization plans and a new approach to recruiting for the Army and Navy. Considering the number and geography of military-political conflicts in which Russia is in some way involved, this will require the deployment of mobilized troops on a territory stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific.

It is not difficult to predict the economic consequences Russia would face in this case. But let’s come back to the Armed Forces. Permanent readiness to resolve tasks militarily – by offensive operations in an indefinitely vast number of directions – implies the permanent enhanced combat readiness of all units, without exception. Otherwise the very idea of a pre-emptive strike will not work. For such a policy to be effective, Russia should be ready to deal this strike from a broad diversity of geographical locations on its own territory, neutral air space, and the world’s oceans.

If Baluyevsky’s words are heeded, Russia will have to equip all services of the Armed Forces with permanently combat-ready nuclear weapons. Nobody can guess who will use them first.

This only concerns tactical, rather than strategic, nuclear weapons. It is clearly impossible to counter terrorist threats in the South-East direction, or neutralize U.S. ABM deployment in Europe with intercontinental ballistic missiles or their submarine counterparts.

In other words, Russia will need a very broad range of non-strategic nuclear weapons. Such weapons are designed to destroy battlefield-targets, rather than entire cities, and could take the form of medium and shorter-range missiles launched from air, land or sea, as well as artillery ammunition and nuclear demolition charges.

Considering that Russia has a huge advantage over the United States in tactical warheads, bilateral relations could become quite complicated if we start deploying our weapons on the ground, in the air and at sea.

It would be natural to ask why Russia is choosing the offensive option, and whether there are alternatives to it. But that is a subject for another discussion.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080129/97936766.html