On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.
Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:
1) war (Viet Nam); and,
2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.
Executive Order 11110
AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963
Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:
Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:
EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;
EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;
EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617
The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.
The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".
The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".
The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them".
Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!
No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:"
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".
In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:
"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."
In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.
This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne
What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.
There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."
Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.
In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.
Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.
Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.
This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.
The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.
Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.
Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.
Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?
Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
Do you think they will do it again?
Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.
Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?
Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?
Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.
Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.
This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.
In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.
Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.
Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.
The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.
Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.
Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.
It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.
Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.
If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
It is no secret that our world is seeing a huge increase in poor health and cancer cases. It should come as no surprise when we look at what we eat daily, the condition of our environment and the types of body care products we use daily that contain a ton of cancer causing agents. Mainstream medicine suggests that chemotherapy and radiation are the best means to go about treating cancer, but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest there exist much better cures.
Cannabinoids may very well be one of the best disease and cancer fighting treatments out there. If you have heard of Rick Simpson you have heard of his methods of preparing cannabis or hemp in such a way where he is able to extract the oil from it and use that oil to treat cancer. Rick has been very successful in his work and his popularity is growing as a result. At the same time, he has received a great deal of flack for his methods as they pose a serious threat to the business that is cancer.
What are cannabinoids?
Cannabinoids refer to any of a group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate canbinoid receptors in the body. The body itself produces compounds called endocannabinoids and they play a role in many processes within the body that help to create a healthy environment. Cannabinoids also play a role in immune system generation and re-generation. The body regenerates best when it’s saturated with Phyto-Cannabinoids. Cannabinoids can also be found in Cannabis. It is important to note that the cannabinoids are plentiful in both hemp and cannabis. The differentiation between hemp and cannabis is simply that hemp only contains 0.3% THC while cannabis is 0.4% THC or higher. (Technically they are both strains of Cannabis Sativa.)
Cannabinoids have been proven to reduce cancer cells as they have a great impact on the rebuilding of the immune system. While not every strain of cannabis has the same effect, more and more patients are seeing success in cancer reduction in a short period of time by using cannabis. Contrary to popular thought and belief, smoking the cannabis does not assist a great deal in treating disease within the body as therapeutic levels cannot be reached through smoking. Creating oil from the plant or eating the plant is the best way to go about getting the necessary ingredients which are the cannabinoids. Another aspect of smoking the cannabis that must be looked at is the fact that when the cannabis is heated and burnt it changes the chemical structure and acidity of the THC which changes its ability to be therapeutic. Further, anytime you burn something and inhale it, you create oxidation within the body. That oxidation is not healthy for the body and can lead to health issues itself.
Cannabinoids can prevent cancer, reduce heart attacks by 66% and insulin dependent diabetes by 58%. Cannabis clinician Dr. William Courtney recommends drinking 4 – 8 ounces of raw flower and leaf juice from any Hemp plant.
Cannabis – whether Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, male, female, hermaphrodite, wild, bred for fiber, seeds or medicinal resin – is a vegetable with every dietary essential we can’t synthesize: Essential Amino Acids, Essential Fatty Acids, Essential Cannabinoid acids and hundreds of anti-Cancer compounds. It is important to note that when we isolate to important compounds of cannabis and take them in supplement we miss out of the bio-synergistic compounds that go along with it in full plant form. This makes it more difficult for the body to determine what exactly it is taking in.
“If you heat the plant, you will decarboxylate THC-acid and you will get high, you”ll get your 10 mg. If you don’t heat it, you can go up to five or six hundred milligrams & use it as a Dietary Cannabis. . . and push it up to the Anti-oxidant and Neuro-protective levels which come into play at hundreds of milligrams,” stated Dr. William Courtney.
The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) maintains our biological systems by regulating each cell tissue. It uses Arachadonic acid/Omega 6 to make Endo-Cannabinoids: fatty molecules that communicate harm between cells. Dietary Cannabis mimics the ECS by providing Cannabinoids when there is an Arachadonic acid deficiency or Clinical Cannabinoid Deficiency.
Doctors who have been researching cannabis and it’s benefits in diet for some time have recommended that people make cannabis a part of their everyday diet. To reiterate, the plant does not need to contain high levels of THC and it can simply be hemp. Eating Cannabis that does contain THC will not get you high. Also, smoking it does not give the same results as eating or juicing the plant. If we view the plant simple as a vegetable like all other vegetables we eat, it makes sense that we wouldn’t put it inside rolling papers and smoke it to get the nutritional benefits.
The hospital imposed mandatory vaccines, responding to rising concerns about the spread of influenza.
Ethel Hoover wore all black on her last day of work as a nurse in the critical care unit at Indiana University Health Goshen Hospital. She said she was in "mourning" because she would have been at the hospital 22 years in February, and she's only called out of work four or five times in her whole career , she said.
"This is my body. I have a right to refuse the flu vaccine," Hoover, 61, told ABCNews.com. "For 21 years, I have religiously not taken the flu vaccine, and now you're telling me that I believe in it."
More than 15,100 flu cases have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since Sept. 30, including 16 pediatric deaths. Indiana's flu activity level is considered high, according to the CDC, which last month announced that the flu season came a month earlier than usual.
When Hoover first heard about the mandate, she said she didn't realize officials would take it so seriously. She said she filed two medical exemptions, a religious exemption and two appeals, but they were all denied. The Dec. 15 flu shot deadline came and went. Hoover's last day of employment was Dec. 21.
Fellow nurse Kacy Davis said she and her colleagues were "horrified" over Hoover's firing, calling her their "go-to" nurse and a "preceptor."
"It was a good place to work," Hoover said. "We've worked together all these years. We're like a family."
The hospital said in a statement that it implemented the mandate to promote patient safety based on recommendations from the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It announced the mandate in September. Of the hospital's 26,000 employees statewide, 95 percent complied. That means 1,300 employees did not comply, but only eight were fired.
"IU Health's top priority is the health and wellbeing of our patients," said hospital spokeswoman Whitney Ertel. "Participation in the annual Influenza Patient Safety Program is a condition of employment with IU Health for the health and safety of the patients that we serve, and is therefore required."
The CDC recommends flu shots for everyone older than six months of age. Dr. William Schaffner, chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said hospital patients are especially vulnerable to flu complications because their bodies are already weakened.
"I cannot think of a reason for any health care professional to decline influenza immunization that's valid," said Schaffner, a former president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, adding that people with egg allergies may have to avoid the flu shot to prevent anaphylactic shock, but even that hurdle has been remedied. The Food and Drug Administration approved an egg-free vaccine in November.
Schaffner said invalid excuses to avoid the shot include being afraid of needles and simply promising to stay home when they're sick. Patients now have the option of a vaccine nasal spray if they want to avoid needles. And since flu victims become contagious before they start to feel sick, they can get patients sick even if they stay home when they have symptoms.
Over the last several years, hospitals have been moving toward mandatory vaccinations because many only have 60 percent vaccination rates, Schaffner said. He is leading an effort for a similar mandate at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Nurses in particular tend to be the most reluctant to get vaccinated among health care workers, Schaffner said, citing his opinion.
"There seems to be a persistent myth that you can get flu from a flu vaccine among nurses," he said. "They subject themselves to more influenza by not being immunized, and they certainly do not participate in putting patient safety first."
In October 2011, Vanderbilt broke the world record for number of vaccines administered in an eight-hour period in an event called Flulapalooza. From 6:50 a.m. to 2:50 p.m., they vaccinated 12,647 people. By that evening, more than 14,000 people had been vaccinated, and there were no severe adverse reactions, he said.
But still, Hoover's lawyer, Alan Phillips, says his client had the right to refuse her flu shot under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination of employees. Religion is legally broad under the First Amendment, so it could include any strongly held belief, he said, adding that the belief flu shots are bad should suffice.
"If your personal beliefs are religious in nature, then they are a protected belief," Phillips said.
Phillips, who is based out of North Carolina, has made a name for himself fighting for employees' rights to get out of mandated flu shots, but he has never needed to go to court. Although he usually handles a couple dozen health care workers per year, he had 150 this fall in 25 states.
Dr. Damon Raskin, an internist with his own practice in the Pacific Palisades in Los Angeles, said hospitals should mandate flu vaccines as a matter of public safety. The flu can lead to complications like pneumonia and death, said Raskin, who is also affiliated with the Cliffside Malibu Addiction Rehabilitation Center.
"I think if the health care worker has some problem with religious faith then perhaps during flu season, they shouldn't do that job," Raskin said, suggesting that the worker do something administrative instead during flu season. "It's not fair to the patient. The people who are most at risk are in the hospital."
The announcement, from the Church's House of Bishops, would allow gay clergy to become bishops if they promise to be celibate.
Conservative evangelical Anglicans say they will fight the move in the Church's ruling general synod.
The issue has split the church since 2003 amid a row over gay cleric Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Reading.
Mr John, now Dean of St Albans, was forced to step down from the role after protests from traditionalists.
He was also a candidate for Bishop of Southwark in 2010 but was rejected. Evidence emerged that this was because of his sexual orientation.
The Church of England has already agreed to allow people in civil partnerships to become clergy, provided they promised they would remain celibate, and repent for active homosexuality in the past.
In July last year, the House of Bishops (HoB) said it would review this decision, made in 2005, to decide whether it could also relate to bishops.
This amounts to a lifting of the moratorium on the appointment of clergy in civil partnerships as bishops, the Church Times said.
Fiercely resisted
The Rt Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, said on behalf of the HoB it would be "unjust" to exclude anyone for consideration for the role of bishop who was "seeking to live fully in conformity with the Church's teaching on sexual ethics or other areas of personal life and discipline".
He said: "All candidates for the episcopate undergo a searching examination of personal and family circumstances, given the level of public scrutiny associated with being a bishop in the Church of England.
"But these, along with the candidate's suitability for any particular role for which he is being considered, are for those responsible for the selection process to consider in each case."
BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said given the tension surrounding the issue of sexuality, the Church's decision to allow men in civil partnerships to become bishops represented a major concession and one with considerable symbolic significance.
Evangelicals have warned they would be willing to bring in bishops from overseas to avoid serving under a gay bishop.
Rod Thomas, chairman of the evangelical group Reform, said the idea of appointing people in civil partnerships as bishops had not been agreed or debated by the wider Church.
"That would be a major change in church doctrine and therefore not something that can be slipped out in the news, it is something that has got to be considered by the General Synod."
He said there would be great divisions in the church if clergy in a civil partnership were appointed as a bishop.
Worldwide, anger over the appointment of actively gay men and women as bishops, especially in the US, has actuated the conservative Gafcon movement, through which conservative Anglican provinces in Africa and elsewhere have begun to function independently of the official Anglican Communion.
Gafcon has condemned those who preach a "false gospel" which "claims God's blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony".
Here we glimpse some of the potentials for the unabated and bizarre proliferation of GMOs. Some of these developments you will already know about (hopefully), but some will come as a surprise. As I see it we are now at a crossroads where we can still dismantle this dangerous and perverted manipulation of the very fabric of life, the sacred code of nature, which will undoubtedly affect each and every one of us in profound ways now and in the future.
Here we are reminded that the fight against GMOs and to save organics is not just a battle for what we knew yesterday, which is bad enough. It is a fight against the future of the GE movement and the unlikely and increasingly creepy, scary, and deranged turns it will likely take. Just today I read elsewhere that 35 species of fish, in addition to salmon, are slotted to be genetically engineered for various traits. I am not going to preview the highlights of what is below, but maybe you too will be left wondering, “What will they think of next?”
I hope we never have to find out. We have to stop this now before we and future generations have to be genetically engineered, RoundUp and 2,4-D Ready at the least perhaps, to withstand the onslaught of the weird stuff being channelled into our food supply and into our environment. If you haven’t already, perhaps after reading this article you will be more ready to take a real stand against GMOs by enacting the 11 Simple Steps to Eradicate GMOs and join our GMO Eradication Movement. Now put down that bowl of GMO corn chowder, buckle your seatbelts, clear you ears and clean off your eyeglasses for the list of 20 GMOs coming soon and already arrived to supermarket shelves near you.
Good luck distinguishing these Frankenfoods from real, natural food as they flood our supermarkets.
Genetically altered to withstand heavy applications of toxic chemicals, resist disease or contain more nutrients, so-called “Frankenfoods” are appearing on supermarket shelves at a rapid rate. Currently, genetically modified (GM) corn and soy can be found in many processed foods, and the produce section may contain GM zucchini, corn on the cob and papaya. But beyond those that have already been approved for human consumption, many more GMOs are on the way – and they probably won’t be labeled. These 20 crops and animal products include both those that are already available (whether we like it or not) and some that are still in development, like cows that produce human breast milk.
Corn
If you eat any kind of processed food on a regular basis – tortilla chips, cereal, granola bars – chances are, you consume genetically modified corn. The Center for Food Safety estimates that over 70% of the processed foods in American grocery stores contain genetically modified corn or soy. Corn is altered to contain proteins that kill insects that eat them, so they effectively produce their own pesticides.
Rice
Rice plants are often modified to be resistant to herbicides and pests, to increase grain size and to generate nutrients that don’t exist in the grain naturally. Varieties include Bayer’s herbicide-resistant “LibertyLink” rice, vitamin A-infused “golden rice” and the bizarre Ventria Bioscience “Express Tec” rice, which has been altered to contain human proteins naturally found in breast milk. The latter is used globally in infant formula.
Tomatoes
Among the first foods to be genetically altered, GM tomatoes have been developed to be unnaturally high in anti-oxidants, to have more intense flavor and to stay fresh longer. While there are not currently any genetically modified tomatoes on store shelves, they’re being used extensively by scientists to study the function of genes that are naturally present in the plants.
Soybeans
The most common genetically engineered food of all is the soybean. Since 1996, scientists have been creating varieties of soybeans that are resistant to both pests and herbicides, and they wind up in places you’d least expect them, like candy bars. A new GM soybean with higher levels of healthy oils was approved by the USDA in 2010; chemical companies DuPont and Monsanto are both working on their own versions of the biotech bean.
Cotton
We don’t think of cotton as a food, and technically it isn’t – but we still end up eating it. Cotton isn’t classified as a food crop, so farmers can use any chemicals they want when growing it. That means cottonseed oil, which is present in products like mayonnaise and salad dressing, can be packed full of pesticides. Along with soy, corn and canola, cotton grown for oil extraction is one of the most frequently genetically modified crops in the world.
Canola Oil
Canola, a cultivar of rapeseed, produces one of the most commonly consumed food oils, and it’s one of America’s biggest cash crops. What you may not know is that canola stands for “Canadian oil, low acid,” referring to a variety of rapeseed developed in the 1970s. 80% of the acres of canola sown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and a 2010 study in North Dakota found that the modified genes of these plants have spread to 80% of wild natural rapeseed plants.
Sugar Beets
Despite the fact that an environmental impact study has yet to be completed, the USDA has announced that farmers may now plant Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, which have been altered to withstand the company’s herbicide. This decision comes despite a 2010 court order that prohibited planting the GMO beets until the study was performed. Sugar beets provide about half of America’s sugar.
Salmon
Salmon may become the first genetically modified animal to be approved for direct human consumption. The FDA has decided that a variety of GM salmon that grow twice as fast as their natural, un-modified peers is both safe to eat and safe for the environment.
“We’re looking here at a scenario where the fish might wind up sooner or later in the ocean,” Brian Ellis, plant biotechnologist at the University of British Columbia Vancouver, told Discovery News. “I think if we go down this route, we have to be prepared to accept some potentially unknown consequences.”
Sugar Cane
Providing the other half of America’s precious sugar, sugar cane is set to debut on our shelves in genetically modified form sometime soon. Brazil’s state-owned agricultural research agency has been hard at work developing drought-resistant sugar cane that also bears increased yields for years now, and may have it certified for commercial use within five years. Australia is also working on its own version.
Papaya
After the Ringspot Virus nearly destroyed all of Hawaii’s papaya crops, a new variety was engineered to resist the disease, and it now represents the majority of the papayas grown in the United States.
“Papaya would be unique in the sense where the industry in Hawaii is dependent on biotech,” says Kevin Richards, director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau. “What you have in Hawaii is a very contained, isolated agro-eco system, which is vulnerable to diseases.”
Potatoes
The first genetically modified food to be approved for cultivation in Europe in over a decade, Amflora potatoes are currently being grown in Sweden. High in starch content, the potatoes are actually meant for use in paper, glues and other commercial products rather than as food, but that doesn’t mean they won’t end up affecting the food chain. Nearby farmers worry about their rabbits, deer, and especially their bees.
Honey
Could genetically modified crops have something to do with the mysterious ailments that are killing honeybee colonies by the billions? Some researchers believe so. A zoologist in Germany found that genes used to modify rapeseed crops had transferred to bacteria living inside bees. GMOs are currently considered to be among the possible causes of Colony Collapse Disorder. And if the genes are causing changes within the bees, they’re also likely to cause changes to the honey that the bees produce.
Bananas
After banana crops in Uganda were affected by a bacterial disease that caused the plants to rot, scientists developed a genetically modified variety that could help alleviate the $500 million annual loss. The ban on GM crops was waived to make way for the GM version of Uganda’s staple food. A gene from sweet pepper was inserted into the bananas that make them resistant to the bacteria. Cultivated bananas have almost no genetic diversity, so supporters of this decision argue that introducing the GMO fruits will actually help bananas as a whole.
Tick Removal: A nurse discovered a safe, easy way to remove ticks where they automatically withdraw themselves when you follow her simple instructions. "I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. "
Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tickwith the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20); the tick will come out on its own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. Please pass on.
Mohandas Karamchard Gandhi, detto il Mahatma (in sanscrito significa Grande Anima, soprannome datogli dal poeta indiano R. Tagore), è il fondatore della nonviolenza e il padre dell'indipendenza indiana.
Il nome Gandhi in lingua indiana significa 'droghiere': la sua famiglia dovette esercitare per un breve periodo un piccolo commercio di spezie.
Nato il 2 ottobre 1869 a Portbandar in India, dopo aver studiato nelle università di Ahmrdabad e Londra ed essersi laureato in giurisprudenza, esercita brevemente l'avvocatura a Bombay.
Di origini benestanti, nelle ultime generazioni la sua famiglia ricoprì alcune cariche importanti nelle corti del Kathiawar, tanto che il padre Mohandas Kaba Gandhi era stato primo ministro del principe Rajkot. I Gandhi tradizionalmente erano di religione Vaishnava; appartenevano cioè ad una setta Hindù con particolare devozione per Vishnù.
Nel 1893 si reca in Sud Africa con l'incarico di consulente legale per una ditta indiana: vi rimarrà per ventuno anni. Qui si scontra con una realtà terribile, in cui migliaia di immigrati indiani sono vittime della segregazione razziale. L'indignazione per le discriminazioni razziali subite dai suoi connazionali (e da lui stesso) da parte delle autorità britanniche, lo spingono alla lotta politica.
Il Mahatma si batte per il riconoscimento dei diritti dei suoi compatrioti e dal 1906 lancia, a livello di massa, il suo metodo di lotta basato sulla resistenza nonviolenta, denominato anche Satyagraha: una forma di non-collaborazione radicale con il governo britannico, concepita come mezzo di pressione di massa.
Gandhi giunge all'uguaglianza sociale e politica tramite le ribellioni pacifiche e le marce.
Alla fine il governo sudafricano attua importanti riforme a favore dei lavoratori indiani: eliminazione di parte delle vecchie leggi discriminatorie, riconoscimento ai nuovi immigrati della parità dei diritti e validità dei matrimoni religiosi.
Nel 1915 Gandhi torna in India dove circolano già da tempo fermenti di ribellione contro l'arroganza del dominio britannico, in particolare per la nuova legislazione agraria, che prevedeva il sequestro delle terre ai contadini in caso di scarso o mancato raccolto, e per la crisi dell'artigianato.
Diventa il leader del Partito del Congresso, partito che si batte per la liberazione dal colonialismo britannico.
Nel 1919 prende il via la prima grande campagna satyagraha di disobbedienza civile, che prevede il boicottaggio delle merci inglesi e il non-pagamento delle imposte. Il Mahatma subisce un processo ed è arrestato. Viene tenuto in carcere pochi mesi, ma una volta uscito riprende la sua battaglia con altri satyagraha. Nuovamente incarcerato e poi rilasciato, Gandhi partecipa alla Conferenza di Londra sul problema indiano, chiedendo l'indipendenza del suo paese.
Del 1930 è la terza campagna di resistenza. Organizza la marcia del sale: disobbedienza contro la tassa sul sale, la più iniqua perché colpiva soprattutto le classi povere. La campagna si allarga con il boicottaggio dei tessuti provenienti dall'estero. Gli inglesi arrestano Gandhi, sua moglie e altre 50.000 persone. Spesso incarcerato anche negli anni successivi, la "Grande Anima" risponde agli arresti con lunghissimi scioperi della fame (importante è quello che egli intraprende per richiamare l'attenzione sul problema della condizione degli intoccabili, la casta più bassa della società indiana).
All'inizio della Seconda Guerra Mondiale Gandhi decide di non sostenere l'Inghilterra se questa non garantirà all'India l'indipendenza. Il governo britannico reagisce con l'arresto di oltre 60.000 oppositori e dello stesso Mahatma, che è rilasciato dopo due anni. Il 15 agosto 1947 l'India conquista l'indipendenza. Gandhi vive questo momento con dolore, pregando e digiunando. Il subcontinente indiano è diviso in due stati, India e Pakistan, la cui creazione sancisce la separazione fra indù e musulmani e culmina in una violenta guerra civile che costa, alla fine del 1947, quasi un milione di morti e sei milioni di profughi.
L'atteggiamento moderato di Gandhi sul problema della divisione del paese suscita l'odio di un fanatico indù che lo uccide il 30 gennaio 1948, durante un incontro di preghiera.
Negocierile, esec total: “orice împrumut nou este exclus!”
Guvernul pastreaza o tacere mormântala despre vizita FMI de saptamâna trecuta. De ce? Simplu, pentru ca au dat-o-n bara. Discutiile au fost foarte dure, iar premierul Victor Ponta efectiv a fost palmuit.
La negocieri, Ponta a cerut doua lucruri:
Înca 10 miliarde de euro, de urgenta (in contul celebrei “centuri de siguranta”).
Daca nu, macar un nou acord formal cu FMI, pentru ca România sa se poata împrumuta in continuare de la banci.
Raspunsul FMI:
N-ati respectat nimic din ce ati semnat pana acum.
Companiile de stat falimentare NU au fost închise, ba chiar dau salarii mai mari ca privatii.
Numarul bugetarilor NU a fost redus. N-ati dat pe nimeni afara! Ati crezut ca ne pacaliti reducând posturile neocupate si pensionând câtiva fraieri.
Evaziunea fiscala NU a fost redusa, din contra, a explodat.
Deci orice nou împrumut este exclus.
Deci orice nou acord este exclus.
Adica... muie.
Ponta s-a speriat!
Marele socialist Victor Ponta stie si el ca fara FMI e mort. La propriu: adica nu mai sunt bani de pensii si salarii si îl linseaza oamenii. Si culmea, exact aia care l-au votat: pensionarii, bugetarii, asistatii social. Adica cersetorii.
Asa ca a cerut FMI-ului un ragaz: va rog sa nu anuntati ruperea relatiilor, înca! Dati-ne doua luni de proba si va promit ca o sa facem ce nu s-a facut in 20 de ani.
Delegatia FMI a izbucnit in ras: nu zau?! Hai sa va vedem!
Ce face acum guvernul?
In clipa asta, Ponta e disperat.
Evaziunea fiscala, stie ca n-are nici o sansa s-o reduca.
Reforma n-are de gând sa faca. Pentru ca reforma înseamna de fapt distrugerea statului social, pe care l-au muls toate partidele timp de 20 de ani. Fara stat pe care sa-l fure, adio contracte cu Hidroelectrica, adio verisoare angajate in ministere, adio deplasari in strainatate, adio tot! Daca se privatizeaza statul, clasa politica moare in doua saptamâni.
Singurul lucru pe care o sa-l faca, este sa mareasca taxele, in speranta ca vor creste veniturile statului. Dar stie si el ca economia româneasca e ca o vaca costeliva si bolnava: ce sa mai mulgi la ea?
De ce a cerut atunci doua luni? Pentru ca spera ca in astea doua luni sa gaseasca praf de aruncat in ochii FMI. Adica sa le dea iar vorbe goale in loc de fapte, si sa primeasca in schimb bani (exact cum a facut si Boc). Iar daca n-o sa reuseasca sa-i pacaleasca, in astea doua luni macar sa se împrumute cat mai poate de la bancile private.
De aceea l-a trimis de urgenta pe Daniel Chitoiu, ministrul Economiei, sa declare ca 120.000 de bugetari vor fi concediati.
De aceea l-a trimis si pe Constantin Nita, ministrul Energiei, sa declare ca companiile de stat falimentare (minerit, CFR, TAROM, Oltchim etc.) vor fi in fine închise.
Evident, nu vrea sa faca nici una, nici alta: pai in companiile alea freaca menta 600.000 de cersetori! Plus 120.000 de bugetari!
Pentru Victor Ponta, nu se mai pune problema sa-si termine mandatul: ci sa scape cu viata.
De câti bani are nevoie Ponta?
10 miliarde la pensii + 8 miliarde salarii bugetari + 16 miliarde ajutoare sociale si alte pomeni. In total 34 de miliarde de euro (nu lei!). Sursa: bugetul pe 2013.
Plus spagile pentru activistii USL, ca altfel îl debarca ca pe Razvan Ungureanu (pai ei de ce s-au zbatut sa câstige alegerile?). Asta e mai greu de estimat, dar in buget am vazut ca Guvernul si-a rezervat cam 14 miliarde de euro pentru contracte de stat, din care va fura minim 50%.
Deci, USL-istii se asteapta sa manânce si gura lor, macar 7 miliarde de euro. Pai e nasol, bai Ponta! N-ai nici o sansa!
“You can’t talk your way out of this!”
Ce înseamna asta? E o expresia americana. In traducere aproximativa: nu poti sa ne duci cu vorba. Ce legatura are cu acest articol despre FMI?
Hehehe... las’ ca stie Ponta legatura...
Ce se va întâmpla de fapt?
Stim cu totii:
FMI nu va mai da nici un ban României.
Bani de la banci, s-ar putea sa mai gaseasca in astea doua luni. Dar sunt ultimii! Si la ce foame are statul român, n-o sa-i ajunga pana la sfârsitul anului 2013.
In concluzie: comunistilor, ati intrat in anul mortii!
La luce è in grado d'influenzare direttamente le capacità di apprendimento e di disturbare l'umore agendo su specifiche cellule della retina, le cellule gangliari. Lo hanno dimostrato Tara A. LeGates del Dipartimento di Biologia della Johns Hopkins University a Baltimore, nel Maryland, e colleghi di un'ampia collaborazione internazionale, che firmano in proposito un articolo sulla rivista "Nature".
E' un fatto acquisito che le variazioni di luce possono alterare negativamente l'umore e sulle funzioni cognitive: per esempio, l'esigua durata del giorno durante l'inverno, particolarmente evidente nei paesi del Nord, può portare a sindromi depressivi. Si è verificato sperimentalmente, inoltre, che studiare in condizioni di luce diurna è più proficuo che studiare di notte alla luce di una lampada.
Tuttavia, finora non si conoscevano i circuiti neuronali attraverso i quali si esplica questa influenza delle condizioni di luce, né era chiara la funzione di tali circuiti. L'ipotesi prevalente era che le variazioni dell'esposizione al sole alterassero i ritmi circadiani (i processi che controllano il nostro “orologio biologico” con ciclo di 24 ore). Un altro fattore indiretto sulla funzionalità del cervello, finora ritenuto cruciale, era la deprivazione del sonno.
Per verificare queste ipotesi, LeGates e colleghi hanno sottoposto alcuni topi di laboratorio a un ciclo di luce/buio aberrante definito ultradiano (3,5 ore di luce seguite da 3,5 di oscurità, quindi evitando di far prevalere l'esposizione alla luce o viceversa all'oscurità) verificando che non avesse effetti né sul ritmo del sonno né sui ritmi circadiani. L'isolamento dei diversi fattori implicati ha consentito di dimostrare che la luce regola direttamente i comportamenti collegati all'umore e alle funzioni cognitive.
Gli animali hanno mostrato infatti un incremento dei comportamenti di tipo depressivo e chiari deficit di apprendimento. In particolare, i risultati della sperimentazione dimostrano che i problemi di umore precedono quelli di apprendimento, dal momento che la somministrazione dei farmaci antidepressivi fluoxetina e o desipramina ha consentito di ristabilire i corretti ritmi di apprendimento e di sonno nei topi esposti al ciclo di luce/buio aberrante.
Con un secondo test, i ricercatori hanno individuato anche la via neuronale che media questa processo: si tratta delle cellule gangliari retinali fotosensibili. I topi mancanti di queste specifiche cellule della retina, infatti, non hanno manifestato alcun deficit di apprendimento né alterazioni nell'umore.
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
