Dec. 5, 2011

9/14/92  #1    HATONN

You-the-people will be told that there is no virus found in the water supply which is contaminated.  We speak here about the specific location of Golden Hills (Tehachapi area), Calif.  It is brought home because I am HERE and you ones will "listen" to me and act.  I do not yet have audience elsewhere who will act quickly enough to make impact.

We have gone through the entire process and explanation of "Groundwater" because in THIS instance it is ground water which is in point but the entire water supply of your nation is contaminated.  To understand and realize this I ask that you read on and digest the entire written offering--NOT just personal perusal and then toss aside if you think you live on the "safe" side of the break-down point of the piping system.  Tehachapi is in trouble also but no one has told you.  Due to drought you all have terrible water for consumption and a whole nation is being contaminated with substance (viruses) which cannot be ever "cured".  It may seem a small issue now but think what happens as the excretion from sick ones produces even more contamination for these particular viruses are NOT KILLED by any current water treatment methods.

 

HEPATIC DAMAGE

Ones with hepatic damage already present are targets for death and it will never be told what was the cause of death.  This assault is planned to serve that very need--depopulation without knowledge of cause of death.  If you are an abuser of drugs cleansed through the liver, a Lupus diagnosed person with organ involvement (this will always include "liver") or a simple "alcoholic" or frequent user to the extent of even minor damage to the hepatic system--YOU ARE A TARGET.

It IS the containment in the water right now which causes immediate reaction to the source problem in the liver of the human.  The REAL culprit is that which affects the liver and also causes the various forms of Hepatitis (meaning: inflammation of the liver).  The pathogen works in concert with the substance already present as toxins to and in the liver and causes exactly what you witness in Hepatitis, etc.  The toxins are in the hepatic system and when stricken by this particular type of virus there is a major reaction, illness and, in damaged persons, full blown seizures, convulsions, heart inflammation, heart/lung inflammation, heart "attack", symptoms of Hepatitis and Mononucleosis (general fatigue, malaise and liver damage symptoms of all kinds).  There will be a reaction to fatty foods and an inability to break down glucose properly; this being response of the mitochondria in inability to properly function.  The seizures are the most damaging and some will have been having them under certain circumstances without realizing it.  There WILL BE NO MEMORY OF THE ACTUAL SEIZURE ITSELF.  This will manifest in signs of falling, loss of bladder and/or bowel control, bruising from damage during falls at onset of seizure--IN AN ALCOHOL RELATED SITUATION IT WILL OCCUR MOST OFTEN FOLLOWING GASTROENTERITIS AND NO INTAKE OF SUBSTANCE.

The response of paramedics and hospital attendants will be "withdrawal" but in actuality the symptoms will not mimic fully withdrawal or substance seizures.  In fact, the patient will usually be considered well and be discharged within a very short time if brought to emergency care.

If admitted for hospitalization, the diagnosis will most likely be listed as Hepatitis (if organism can be isolated) or Lupus for this virus gives symptoms and can even mimic test results found in Lupus.  This is exactly the WAY AIDS WAS INTRODUCED--BEHIND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BUT IN THE U.S. IN THE INOCULATION AGAINST HEPATITIS.

The virus introduced will, at some time shortly noted, be categorized as an AIDS causing virus.  It is already on the list as revised. Check first your prison population and then the general public--you will find Hepatitis B and C now listed as "epidemic" in some states, such as California.

There are great interesting observations to make.  Check what is happening--especially in households where there is know alcoholic--AS THAT PERSON STOPS DRINKING.  THE SYMPTOMS WILL EXACERBATE IN ALL INSTANCES.  THERE ARE NOW ADDITIVES INTO WINES AND ESPECIALLY THE "CLEAR" ALCOHOLIC SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE INTRODUCED TO INTERACT WITH THE VIRUS IN POINT.  IT IS JUST AS A HERPES (COLD SORE) WILL BREAK FORTH UNDER GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS, JUST AS A HERPES VIRUS, IS NEVER CURED OF KILLED--IT WILL REMAIN IN THE BODY FOR THE REST OF THE LIFESPAN, READY TO BECOME ACTIVE IN GIVEN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, USUALLY ACCOMPANIED BY SEVERE STRESS.

In the situation wherein you have damage attack severe enough to affect the nervous system you have a really potentially deadly setup.  The same symptoms will be going on in affected areas, in hundreds of households.  If the person, for instance, is an alcohol user you can expect the worst responses to come with no intake of substance.  If you have persons with other causes and diagnoses (i.e., Lupus) you will have myocardial response in all probability with or without other symptoms but severe illness and acute (almost instant and sometimes "instant") response to simply a "drink of water" almost as in the response to rabies infection.

As the liver becomes compromised the brain neuron interruptions result in seizures or heart attacks and usually the actual cause of symptoms is MISdiagnosed.

"YELLOW" JAUNDICE A CLUE

Your major CLUE in this local contamination report is the printed word regarding symptoms wherein "jaundice" is one of the symptoms along with gastrointestinal upheavals.  Jaundice is ALWAYS resultant of a compromise insult to the hepatic (liver)-billiary system.  If jaundice is present, as it was with persons immediately in point--the toxin is already at work and the person is already in toxic response in a major way.  It may not be apparent but the liver is under severe attack and this is irreversible damage.  If symptoms are allowed to continue there will be total nervous system response and actual brain damage resulting in seizures and ultimate mental incapacity.

The population is TRAINED to BLAME whatever APPEARS most obvious.  That is intentional so that no one notices until AFTER the damage is done that anything is going on.  The reactions will occur first in already compromised systems and therefore diagnosis will be missed in the first complaints and, therefore, there will be no assault against the perpetrators until AFTER the disease is in full-blown epidemic proportion.  Just as AIDS was intended for a certain segment to miss detection in time to stem the process, so is the next onslaught of introduced death-viruses.  This will hit, first, the alcohol and drug users and those already compromised by systemic dis-ease such as hepatitis and systemic lupus.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE YOU SEE, CHELAS, YOU ARE UNDERGOING TOTAL AND DEADLY ATTACK AND FEW ARE ABLE TO SHAKE OFF THE SHACKLES OF BLIND IGNORANCE TO TAKE ACTION IN TIME TO STOP THIS INSANITY.

Dharma, I ask that the items brought as confirmation be placed herein--if I cannot cause you to look at this--perhaps you will SEE SOLID EVIDENCE.  I know that you ones had no access to this information prior to my introduction of the matter--but please do not waste time in pondering and lingering over possible reactions of the public--GET IT OUT THERE! YOU ONES ARE BEING SLAIN AS DELIBERATELY AS IF YOU WERE ON THE BATTLEFIELD, WITH BULLETS AS AMMUNITION AGAINST YOU, THE TARGET.  THIS IS AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS.

QUOTE:

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, "THIS WORLD" section, AUG. 23, 1992.

FEAR OF FAUCETS; Do our water-treatment plants protect us against dangerous viruses in our drinking water?

[Editor's note: The author of this article is Bryan Jay Bashin who is executive director of the Center of Science Reporting, a Sacramento-based science news service.  This article originally appeared in the July/August 1992 issue of Eating Well magazine.]

For years a tiny handful of scientists suspected that there was something wrong with the way cities purify drinking water.  Pierre Payment, however, was not among them and, on a wager, the Montreal virologist designed an experiment to prove the water skeptics WRONG.  But science can turn upon small events:

Payment lost the bet and demonstrated that our drinking water may not be as pure as we like to think it is.

In dispute was the significance of a small number of viruses.  Although Payment had been finding viruses in Quebec rivers and tap water for years, conventional wisdom said that those viruses were not responsible for widespread disease.  In 1985, while attending a microbiology conference in Washington, D.C. the Canadian researcher decided to bet an American colleague that he could prove, once and for all, that the conventional wisdom was right.  Payment wagered that he and his colleagues at the University of Quebec's Armand Frappier Virology Research Center, who had a reputation for being tenacious virus-hunters, could demonstrate that a few stray viruses were nothing to worry about.

"We decided to find out what happens to people who drink water from a state-of-the-art plant meeting all U.S. and Canadian regulations, but which draws upon disease-contaminated source water", Payment recalls.

The experiment Payment devised went to the heart of a truth that people who drink treated water may not want to think about: Hundreds of U.S. and Canadian water plants routinely produce tap water from water that contains, at least in part, pathogens and micro-organisms from sewage.  American rivers slake the thirst of, and serve as sewers for, an enormous population.

"I used to live in Bozeman, Montana", says microbiologist Mark LeChevallier, who works for the American Water Works Service Company near St. Louis.  "The water they get here on the Mississippi is the water they've flushed in Montana six months ago."

Actually it takes the water slightly less than ONE month to make the journey from Montana sewage plants all the way down the Missouri to St. Louis.  By then the river is loaded with bacteria and discarded viruses from hundreds of upstream sewers, animal feedlots and slaughterhouses.  St. Louis treats that water in drinking water plants, uses it, treats it again in sewage plants, and puts it back in the Mississippi.  Ten days later and a thousand miles downstream, they're drinking it in New Orleans.

Yet those in the clean-water business, such as LeChevallier, offer a reassuring message.  "We believe that our water in the United States is well treated and safe to drink. ...Today people don't really have to think when they turn of the tap."

All Pierre Payment set out to do was prove that this common premise was true.  He says he began his million-dollar experiment sure that "there were so few viruses in tap water that we could show water was causing no disease.  What we found was the reverse."

Payment didn't have far to look to find a dirty river.  Practically in his back yard was a plant that treats Des Prairies River water and pipes it to 40,000 people in one part of suburban Montreal.  What made the river ideal was that Payment already knew there were viruses in it--anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of the Des Prairies flow consisted of untreated sewage.  Yet no records existed that showed that Motrealers suffered an unusual amount of sewage-linked disease--the mysterious bouts of diarrhea and 24-hour "bugs" that strike most households once a year or so.  The neighborhood's tap water was locally considered of good quality and regularly met government standards similar to those that govern U.S. water.

Payment designed perhaps the most thorough study of tap water drinkers ever conducted, putting 2,400 people in suburban Montreal under close scrutiny.  To tease out useful data, he fitted half of the test families kitchens with extremely efficient $800 under-the-sink reverse-osmosis filters.  The filters were so selective that they passed no viruses or bacteria, enabling Payment to compare the health of families drinking and cooking with purified water with a control group that took water from the tap--from the treated water of the Des Prairies River.

Payment expected a tiny difference at best.  The state-of-the-art tap water plant used chlorine, ozone and a variety of filters to kill bacteria and viruses.  To produce telling statistics, he'd have to let the experiment run for 18 months.  No one had studied such a large group of water drinkers for that long.  It was a costly and difficult gamble.

The telltale illness Payment was looking for--gastroenteritis--is a good indicator of tap water's overall infection potential because any of dozens of different bacteria and viruses cause its symptoms: vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, cramps.  Gastroenteritis is also important because researchers are linking one of its causes--the extremely hardy enteroviruses--to far more serious illnesses.  (See accompanying story below, "More Than Just 'Stomach Flu'.)  One of the implicated enteroviruses, the Coxsackie virus, is associated with a devastating form of heart-muscle deterioration.  Researchers are homing in on other enteroviruses that may be linked to diabetes, meningitis and problems during pregnancy.  Payment's focus, however, was on the much more common and easy-to-measure incidence of short-term gastroenteritis.

To get the data, Payment's group decided on a tedious mix of biweekly phone checks and ongoing health questionnaires.  The results of the phone calls were startling.  "Almost from the first month, we started noticing the trend", says Payment. "Across every age group, sex and region, people were getting sick more often (than the drinkers of the filtered water)."

The experiment was detailed in the June 1991 American Journal of Public Health.  The control group of Montrealers drinking unfiltered tap water had a 30 to 35 percent greater chance of getting gastroenteritis compared with those who drink highly filtered tap water.  Something in the water was making the control group sick--but the use of sophisticated filters significantly reduced the incidence of such illnesses.  The filter reduced adult gastroenteritis by two cases per 10 adults per year. Children under 5 had even greater reductions; four to eight fewer sicknesses yearly per 10 children.

The dramatic reductions among the filtered-water drinkers would have been even greater if 5 percent hadn't contracted gastroenteritis from, oddly enough, the filter themselves (see story below, "A Filter that Breeds Bacteria").

One dismaying conclusion from the results is that this small, well-maintained plant may represent the tip of a microbiological iceberg.  After all, in one small community in 1988-89, that single water plant had spread some 8,000 cases of short-term disease--and, apart from a dogged virology team, no one noticed.  How much more disease may remain yet to be measured is any epidemiologist's guess, since U.S. government agencies haven't yet conducted a similar study here.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for its part, says drinking water must be so free of bacteria and viruses that no more than one consumer in 10,000 will be sickened per year.  [H: In a place like Golden Hills there should be "0", zero--none. And, no more than one in all of Greater Tehachapi.]  Payment's experiment shows that not one but 2,000 consumers are being sickened by something so preventable that certain undersink filters can knock it out.

Its not hard to find a reason why the effect has thus far remained undiscovered: The illness is relatively mild, and its normal incidence per family is relatively small, about one extra case of gastroenteritis per Montreal family every 15 months.  [H: Don't lose focus fro this virologist is speaking of "regular" strains of viruses of bacteria--NOT what is purposely in water systems in the local area, for instance.  You can know this because on of the "symptoms" mentioned in the paper releases, lists "jaundice" and that comes only from some type of liver involvement--not simple gastroenteritis.]

That may not sound like much--a miserable day in bed now and again for one family member or his or her neighbor--but if Payment's results hold true in the United States, tap water may, amazingly, turn out to cause at least as much gastroenteritis as is caused by bad food.  That's a remarkable rethinking of the sources of staggering amounts of American "stomach flu"--especially in a decade which has seen foodborne-disease outbreaks linked to raw eggs, chicken, soft cheeses, cantaloupe and seafood.

Payment's experiment revealed the opposite of classic "outbreak" epidemic, with many people succumbing within a short period of time. Instead, water-drinkers may have come to accept occasional gastroenteritis as "normal".

"If you take the data we have, it isn't an epidemic.  In fact, the disease maintains a subepidemic level....  We might, as a society, now accept as normal a large chunk of gastrointestinal sicknesses which may be preventable."

 

If the Montreal subepidemic is projected across the U.S. population, the tally mounts to millions, if not tens of millions, of excess gastrointestinal bouts, with an economic cost of several billion dollars.  And if scientists find that U.S. water plants are also passing on excess gastroenteritis--even though their tap water may meet recently revised EPA standards--a major re-evaluation may be in order.

Most probably, the preventable illnesses that Payment had found were caused by viruses.  Payment had found viruses in Quebec municipal tap water before, roughly one human virus in each liter of raw Des Prairies River water.  Were the viruses present in Montreal, but in numbers so low that they were not detectable?

 

"I sat down and thought", recalls Payment.  "If the plant produced water with just one virus per 1,000 liters, the number of resulting diseases would be very close to what we saw in our study.  And we can't accurately measure those few viruses. Every time I detect one, there might really be 10, or 100, undetected.

"And even if you only have one virus in 1,000 liters, that means that one person will be infected per 1,000 per day.  That's why we've been trying to get that last virus."

That last single virus is enough to infect and individual; its public health importance is far greater than killing say, every last bacterium.  That's because it can take hundreds or thousands of, say, salmonella bacteria to cause infection, but even single viruses--more efficient in causing disease than bacteria--can infect a human.  A few viruses, then, can cause sickness in water supplies out of all proportion to their numbers.

"I think the potential is large for a viral cause, says Dennis Juranek, chief of epidemiology at the parasitic disease branch of Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.  "In over half of the outbreaks investigated, no [causal] agent is ever identified."

There has been no shortage of water-related illnesses to survey in the United States: From 1971 to 1985 there were 485 clusters of disease so widespread that the CDC has classified them as "outbreaks"--each averaging 7,400 cases of disease.  The outbreaks happened at diverse sites, from contaminated wells to city water systems, but nearly everyone in the field agrees that those numbers represent just a fraction of 1 percent of the true number of waterborne infections.

But to say that viruses may be the cause and that water-treatment methods may be to blame is not to say that proving Payment's theory will be easy.  "Virtually nobody has the lab capability and resources to do [necessary] large-scale investigations for viruses", Jruanek explains.

Water scientists are at a loss to explain how state-of-the-art treatment plants like the one in suburban Montreal could pass on so much illness.  A visit to most North American municipal plants--from which 83 percent of Americans get their water--is reassuring to a casual observer.  Sparkling-clean water passes through mazes of increasingly cleaner channels; the sharp and satisfying antiseptic smell of chlorine permeates the air.  Whirring pumps, white-coated technicians, authoritative banks of gauges--it's a perfect setting for a Mr. Clean commercial.  As river water gets chlorinated, sedimented, inoculated, coagulated, filtered and ozonated, might an occasional virus be able to get through?

[END QUOTE]H:  Indeed, indeed.  The virus now under point is one which is NOT KILLED OR TOTALLY FILTERED BY ANY KNOWN OPERATING SYSTEM TO 100%.  THE VIRUS IN POINT HAS A COVERING "SHELL" WHICH IS NOT PENETRATED BY AVERAGE "SAFE" AMOUNTS OF CHLORINE (REMEMBER THAT CHLORINE IS A DEADLY POISON).  THE VIRUS, LIKE THE HIV VIRUS, MOVES RIGHT THROUGH ALMOST ALL SAVE THE MOST INTACT MEMBRANE FILTERS JUST AS THE HIV PASSES EASILY THROUGH A CONDOM.  MOREOVER, THE HIV IS SECURE, ALSO, IN ANY SYSTEM OF PUBLIC WATER CLEANSING APPARATUS NOW IN USE.  YOU MUST UNDERSTAND, THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS NOW "CREATED" VIRUSES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND DEFENSES.  THIS IS HOW THEY CAN TELL YOU THAT ALMOST 100% OF YOU WILL TEST HIV POSITIVE BY THE TURN OF THE CENTURY!  IT IS A SURE THING--NOT JUST SPECULATION.

 

 

---

Source: THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR, September 15, 1992, Volume 20, Number 9.

http://www.phoenixarchives.com/liberator/1992/0992/091592.pdf

THANK YOU Rocky Montana