Pentagon-CIA-CDC: Depleted Uranium Conspiracy

Pentagon-CIA-CDC: Depleted Uranium Conspiracy
by SUE ARRIGO, MD
 (May 13, 2009)
Since I had both health data and DU use data by the day since the 1991, I had plenty of data points to make the correlation between the health and DU use. Note that DU had been used in the Balkan wars in the 1990s, but not in all years. As I am both a mathematician and physician by long training, having spend 16 years total at university, I had the necessary skills to make a proper assessment. In addition, because I had experience in intelligence, I was able to avoid many pitfalls, such as starting with already tampered with data.

The CIA has a sweet-heart relationship with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which allows it to dictate what the CDC reports and even what data it supplies to researchers requesting it. That is, the CDC keeps several different "books" on morbidity and mortality to supply to different "consumers".

In this way the CDC has helped the CIA and military cover-up incidents of Bio-warfare germs, released unintentionally or even intentionally, inside the US [and other countries as well].
The 1977 Congressional Hearing on MKULTRA revealed that the CIA was in the habit of keeping faked "cover files" to limit US liability and particularly liability of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers who were giving the CIA its orders behind the scenes, free of "democratic constraints".

But the CIA [Rothschild/Rockefellers] also had other agencies around the world cooking their books to cover up the illegal activities they were engaged in which included fomenting wars, preventing people from having water safe to drink [e.g. Iraq], preventing people from having access to food, medicines, distributing vaccines with Bio-warfare germs such as HIV, infertility drugs, toxins like mercury, anti-human chorogonaditropin antibody inducers, etc. for the purpose of genocide. To cover up these many crimes against humanity around the world, meant that they had their agents, often CIA and MI6 officers, committing black ops to bribe and coerce officials throughout the world to cook their books.

However, because they also wanted to know what was really the result of their genocidal policies, the CIA usually kept the original databases "off the record" at the CIA's headquarters at Langley as well as supplying them to the Fort Detrick US Army Chemical and BioWarfare Research Labs. That Lab as well as the CIA's own labs, needed the original data to prove the effectiveness of their "interventions".

For example, about 15,000 black Rhodesians died of Anthrax during the time CIA Bio-warfare expert Hatfield was in Rhodesia according to an internet article. I didn't have doubt in my mind, after reviewing the Labs, that the internet article was correct for the gist of the events leading to those many deaths.

However, most countries prefer to keep such secrets from the public, we could generously attribute the motive to not wanting to alarm the public (while killing them, or intending to still kill them later as soon as a suitable opportunity arise, or acquiescing to the CIA doing it in the name of progress in "freedom and democracy"). All this is to say that the CIA forced the CDC to alter its database in rather major ways after I delivered my report on the health consequences in the US from the DU. I should mention that because of my ties inside British intelligence I had included the real data on British use of DU in my mathematical analysis.

Both the CIA and British Intelligence asked me to look at the cooked books of morbidity and mortality data to determine if their cover-ups were successful. Each of the 3 times that they did this I was able to quickly recover most of the correlations at their correct strengths because, metaphorically speaking, the scientists employed to falsify the data were not able to cut down the trees without leaving evident the fact that a forest had once been there!

In fact, all one had to do was cut down a single tree and one had the whole story recorded in the rings -the impairment of the health of the tree and the radioactive particles that caused it. The leaves of the trees "breath in" the nanoparticles of DU rather like human lungs do. So, the fourth time the CIA brought me the re-cooked data to ask me if I could still find the relationship between the DU use in war zones and health in the US, I pointed out the window at a tree across the parking lot and said, "Yep, I still see it."

The CIA officials was not happy with my answer and insisted that I prove that the data exists in each tree which started growing before 1991. I asked the CIA to pick the trees. They brought in 3 trees; one from near the Arctic circle, one from botanical gardens in Washington, D.C. which was a bonsai, and another one from the French Riveria which is as far away as they could believe the effect could be demonstrated.

I called the botanical garden and found out the bonsai was a precious 200-year-old Japanese tree which had survived the A-bombs and had just been stolen. This particular bonsai was listed in a CIA data base as something which survived radiation well. I offered to return it to the botanical garden.

Thus exposed as the thieves, the CIA cut a deal with the botanical gardens to have one of their bonsai experts make an "artistic" cut in the tree to remove for analysis a wedge of it dating back to at least the atomic blasts in Japan. The botanical gardens graciously agreed in exchange for getting their tree back. The tree had experienced a near death once before. When it was brought to the US by ship by a marauding US soldier in his duffle bag in the late 1940s, it had dried up for lack of water. He took it to a botanical garden in the hopes they could revive it. The curator thought it was dead and put it in the trash. One of the gardeners dug it out again and brought it back to life. The bonsai's tree rings showed that, except for that one year in which it was transported to the US, it accurately recorded the relationship between the health of living cells and the toxic effects of radiation - even when the radiation was used half a world away in Iraq, Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan. Contrary to the common belief that humans are more sensitive to radiation than other living things like hard trees, the facts show that all life is remarkably susceptible to assaults on its genetic material.

The CIA then wanted to know how much damage to the human DNA had already occurred as a result of DU use. Actually I was given the question a little bit differently, "How much DNA damage is caused by the use of a thousand tons of DU?" My immediate response which turned out not to be far wrong was to pick up a marking pen and say, "This much is too much for any human being to ever be the same afterwards!" I rephrased the question as "How much human DNA is damaged by the use of one depleted uranium rod [about the size of a cigar]?"

The CIA official was taken aback and said, "No, we don't want an answer to that question. We want you to answer to my question. It will be too hard to explain our conclusion that it is safe to use a thousand tons of DU, if you answer the question based on one rod." So, the official withdrew the question from my inbox.

Some days later he came back and said, I still need an answer from you about the DU damage to the DNA. I naturally asked him, "Why do you need it since you are going to lie and say it is safe to use tons of it?" He said, "I need your name in my bibliography so that my report will be believed!" I replied, "You want my research, in order to substantiate your lies?" "Yes," he replied as if that was the most natural thing in the world to ask for. Well, it was at the CIA! That was their normal mode of operation - find out the truth just in the service of selling lies to a White House anxiously waiting for their order of them to be fulfilled!

I decided to investigate the answer to his question, but write my own report. He could still quote some irrelevant section of it to bolster his citations, but others would be able to read my report in full, if they chose to, so I thought at the time. The question is not "How much radiation does it take to make a change in the DNA of one base pair?" , but "How much radiation is safe to use to avoid damage to the DNA which results in illness, say an illness severe enough to send you to the doctor?" Parts of the question are "Does radiation cause illness only by mutations it causes to the DNA?" "Does it making a person sick through damage to their DNA, mean that they are also likely to have children with damaged DNA who will also be sick from it?"

About 83% of the a cell's dysfunction after radiation exposure is due to damage to the DNA. The damage to the DNA is more important than the damage done to other parts of the cell because the DNA is like the Commander in Chief of all of the cell's other functions.

The US veterans returning from the 1990s wars were mostly sick. The US government had not monitored their radiation exposure because it knew that the DU would make them sick and didn’t want the liability, including criminal liability for wittingly using DU knowing it would cause radiation illness indiscriminately for billions of years. However, the veterans and their children had DNA which could be examined, and estranged unexposed siblings and their children to act as a control group. Each Pentagon had the dates each veteran was at each base, Stateside or otherwise.

Since I had the data showing how much DU was used each day, it was not hard for me to run a study using willing veterans and their families. It is very sad that the US government would not come clean and give the results of my study to the veterans and the public.

Even if a soldier never left a US base they had DNA damage during their years in the service, from DU use in the war zones. Not only that, their children born later had DNA damage which matched their damage, and also had more damage for each year the US continued to use DU.

So, I looked at DU correlations with visits to a physician in which a veteran was paying out of pocket. The answer was that 2 rods of DU used in a war zone half way around the world was enough to make a significant difference in the number of veterans seeking urgent medical care. That was true for both chronic conditions like COPD and heart disease, and new conditions like a first stroke. How significant am I talking about- "statistically significant, but meaningless minor increases", or "what a moment, that impacts our bottom line in a major way due to days lost in sick leave, increased health insurance premiums, and real suffering by a lot of people".

The veterans who never left the US during their service, were so much sicker than they should have been that there was a conference in which industrialists argued to blacklist them from getting jobs in their companies so as not to raise their company’s health premiums.

Let me back up a little. Insurance companies have figured out that veterans returning from the war zones are at high risk of early death and don't want to give them life insurance or supplemental health insurance. But they also figured out that all the veterans on the bases which have planes from the war zones landing, are high risk customers. One of the underwriters I called up put it to me this way, "Those boys are sick - all of them. It doesn't matter where they served, the dirt falls downhill."

Satellites with equipment to record ElectroMagnetic spectrum photos, also record radioactive materials left on the ground. US bases where planes from the war zones land show up as hot spots on the globe from space. How hot the bases are depends on the number of planes returning and how much DU was used in the preceding 4.6 billion years from their point of take off. Some bases had much higher rates of sick days of leave than others. There was a direct correlation between the air traffic and the days of sick leave.

Going to a DU war zone was terrible for your health, and staying at a base was still pretty bad. Going to a war zone for a year was like cutting 20 years off your life and having the amount of disability of having a cold/flu for the rest of your life, not to mention the almost certainty of suffering from cancer, if you lived long enough. Going to a DU war zone for 2 years was like knowing you were destined to die before your kids graduated from high school and yelling at them anyway in helpless frustration. It was like wanting to get a job to pay the bills and knowing it was hopeless to even try because you were too sick.

It was like having to have a beer brought to your bedside to drink it, instead of going out to a bar with your friends. Going to a DU war zone for 3 years was like signing up for slow suicide by debilitating illness.

It was like feeling you were going to die in the next ten years even though you were only 30, and not usually being far off.

It was like standing in line to get an injection knowing it would give you cancer soon and being too tired and depressed to get out of the line. Staying on the support base for two years was like smoking like a fiend, even when you didn't, [cutting about 10 years off your life] and getting out of shape even when you worked out everyday.

To put things in perspective, living in the Los Angeles smog cuts about 2 years off your life and makes your lungs hurt if you jog, and gives you mild shortness of breath as an elderly person.

So what did the US's use of DU do to the average person living in the US? The average person can expect to have 3.5 years cut off their life, have twice as many sick days, feel "washed out", and have increasingly more cancer. During the Civil War, cancer was rare. Now a third to half of people in the US can be expected to suffer from it. But the cancer rates are not going to decrease any time soon because the DU is still being used and the amount of radioactive dust lodged in a person's body is going up over time, not down.

Everyone on the planet already has some base-change mutations in their DNA due to the US’s use of depleted uranium. And everyone already has a decrease in their body’s ability to heal from the US’s use of depleted uranium. That means that they have a decreased ability to heal their DNA as well.

The DNA is constantly being repaired, to the best of the body's ability to do so. When you get a regular sun burn you get damage to the DNA of your skin. If you take vitamin C right after getting the sun burn it helps to decrease the long term residual damage to your DNA of your skin. That damage can cause wrinkles and skin cancer, but it does not cause genetic defects and birth defects in your children.

The problem is that the DU gets deposited in the body and keeps on causing damage day after day, year after year, unlike a sun burn.

A subsequent study was done on children having accidents in the week after the Feb. 2004 nuclear explosions. The amount of radiation was measured in the scar tissue they formed. Remember that a significant number of children died due to their severe injuries instead of recovered from them because radioactive DU particles landed in their open wounds and impaired the healing of them. Scar tissue shrinks over time, concentrating that radiation even more. It is not that it is a large amount of radiation as Geiger counters measure it. It is a problem because it will be there the rest of the person's life, in addition to that which lodges in the lungs or gets eaten with food.

The CIA wanted to know whether that scar tissue should be cut out because it had more radiation in it than other tissue. The answer is that in some cases, to prevent cancers later, that scar tissue formed right after the US used mini-nukes or DU would be better cut out. But given that the US continues to use DU, on what day would it be safe to do it?

Also, if the US continues to use these radioactive weapons, the toxic particles will continue to be added into the person's body. Some of them migrate from the lungs by traveling in the blood. At a certain point, the previously untraumatized tissues of the body may end up with more radiation in them than the white scar tissue which has less blood supply. So, unless the US stops using radioactive weapons, cutting out scar tissue is fraught with risks and uncertain benefit.

However, for soldiers injured in the war zones where the dust was highly radioactive the answer is that their risk of cancer in adjacent organs or skin would likely be significantly reduced if they had surgical resection of their most radioactive scars, where it was safe to do so. That is, organs lying under such scars are at 2 to 3 fold increased risk of getting cancer and it is better to cut out a surface scar than suffer from the cancer of an organ later.

[Note: I am not revealing National Security secrets to terrorists. Satellite photos show where US bases are. Everyone with a satellite and the images from them already knows. Google Earth and other maps show them as well. If a military wants to keep the location of a base secret, it knows it has to build it underground without a runway for planes.]