Farben had helped save Germany from final economic devastation after World War 1. It pioneered plastic fabrics and eliminated the need for Germany to go abroad for very expensive natural cloth. Farben's oil and rubber processing, in the 1930's were years ahead of the rest of the world's technology.

The Farben executives began ot believe they could synthesize anything from anything.

They began to believe that they had the minds to see into the complete core of nature.

Just as Hitler and Himmler were devoted to the idea of sysnthesizing a new created race of superior people, Farben was beginning to believe its creative sway in the field of chemistry was without limit.

All this self-promoted arrogance was spun into the web of mystical Germanic philosophy. Somehow, these political and scientific fanatics thought, the German physical body with its "pure blood" was the best in the world, was what the world intended itself to be.

The attempt was to manage furture bloodlines. Eugenics.

Many non-Germans were drawn into this bizarre invention of the super-race.

The current extreme fetishism about genes and genetic engineering plays right into this belief that blood is important. Never mind that current statements about genes drastically exaggerate the importance of those bits of coding. Genes in no way account for the overwhelming majority of important human traits or human actions of human choices. But once again we see people courting eugenics and bloodline-control.

Whether it is great sports figures, other celebrities, or the elites who run the world, millions of people want to know their secrets. And are falling into the trap of believing that, through genes, blood is central to the mstery of success, of talent, of intelligence.

People begin to think, subliminally, that success in life is arranged entirely as a gigantic crapshoot, and we can have no say in it. "It's all in the blood, in the genes."

"Maybe some day I can buy the genes I need, and then everything will change for me".

This is also the ultimate anti-history. Because the past and what happened in it are no longer cosidered of any use. What is useful is only physical manipulation of genetic structures. As that view spreads, the cruelty behind it will become more apparent.

After World War 2, the highest ranking scientist on the exectutive board of IG Farben, Dr. Fritz Ter Meer, was put on trial at Nuremburg. The charges? Mass slavery and murder.

Farben had built a rubber factory at Auschwitz. In fact, it built Auschwitz in order to ensure cheap labor in its adjoining rubber factory. Farben paid the SS to send over inmates every day to work in that factory. Those who were too weak to make it through the day were killed.

Well, for all this Fritz Ter Meer was given seven years in jail. A pathetic seven years.

...Sixteen years later, on August 1, 1963, the Bayer Corporation was celebrating its hundredth anninversary at Cologne. Big festivities.

The three largest original components of IG Farben--Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF-- were back in business and roaring on profit highs. They were now sanitized separate corporations, no longer parts of an official Nazi-aiding IG Farben.

The keynote speaker at he Bayer celebration was the one and only Fritz Ter Meer.

Out of jail.

Murderer.

Mass murderer.

Now chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer.

Chairman. Of the Supervisory Board. Of Bayer.

At all.

But the denizens of the major media do not believe in conspiracy. They reserve that only for films and TV shows.

They do not bother to think that the transnational corporations which own staggering amounts of this world, and step on the faces of millions of foreign nationals, are a friend to every US president.

That is not improtant.

Because that is business as usual.

Because the salaries of media anchors and editors and news producers are paid by some of these transnationals, and therefore those who shape the news must become outraged and sanctimonious on other fornts.

The National City Bank, the Chase National Bank, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford Motor Co., ITT, General Motors, the Davis Oil Company. This is just the beginning.

Take Dean Acheson, who, during the Second World War, campaigned for the silent and, yes, conspiratorial continuation of the notorious Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a depository of Nazi millions. Acheson, later to become US Secretary of State, knew that laying open the truth about BIS would reveal that US banking leaders and British leaders were sitting on the board of that bank, part of whose assets came from melted down gold teeth and jewelry of concentration camp victims.

As of 1993, 300 transnationals controlled 25% of the world's productive capacity. (See The Economist, Mar.27, 1993, "A Survey of Multinationals").

This is reality.

Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhone Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries, and Novartis are all researching and growing genetically engineered crops which the supreme quality of bieng able to absorb and tolerate more of the parent company's (specific) pesticides without curling up and dying in the fields.

Pesiticide drenched fields.

And drenched bodies of those who eat the foods.

No word from this administration about this. The Clinton White House is, in fact, enthusiastic about genetically engineered (GE) food. Or, as the government calls it , GMOs, genetically modified organisms.

There is no official US insistence that such foods be labeled or identified in any way. Because these GEs are said to be identical or equivalent to natural food. That is the fiat.

Yor're already eating gentically engineered soy beans from Monsanto.

Your're soaking in it.

Your're soaking in the power of transnationals to shape the world, to select genes.

But it's not a significant story on the evening news.

For health reasons (their cows get sick with mastitis infections, need more antibiotics, and then the medicine and pus can seep into the milk supply), farmers all over the world have been up in arms about BGH, and yet the US government has steadfastly refused to support labeling milk BGH.)

The mastitis and its consequences for the milk supply, as indicated above, were obvious to Monsanto from its own studies on BGH.

An employee of the FDA (1985-88), Dr. Richard Burroughs had the job of checking data supplied by Monsanto and other companies who were testing BGH with hopes of marketing it. He decided that the books were being cooked, that data were being falsified. He went to Congress and told them this, and he also said that his bosses at the FDA were covering up these lies. In 1989 he was fired.

In the revealing book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, John Stauber writes, "Monsanto was the manufacturer of most of the worlds's PCBs -- persistent chemicals used in electrical equipment which have been shown to cause cancer and birth defects. It is also the world's largest producer of herbicides, including products contaminated with dioxin (thought to be the world's most toxic small molecule).

Being that these transnationals are the most powerful aggregate on the planet, one would think that a politician's attitude toward them would be noticed, important.

Why isn't it?

Because.

Because some things are successfully hidden.

In 1989, Du Pont puts 250 million pounds of industrial wastes into the earth by the deep injection method. Like drilling for oil, except you PUT extremely toxic substances there, to drift horizontally, to come up into the water table.

This fact about Du Pont is at least as important as bombing strikes on Iraq.

But no one is told that.

No one makes that kind of dumping weird and foul and crazy enough to be on the news every night.

This science is beneficial to corporations who have a huge profit-stake in how their products are viewed vis-a-vis safety and efficacy.

How far could fraud go in this? How bizarre and destructive could false science be? How widely accepted could groundless research become?

In 1991, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of HIV, based in San Diego, collected over 300 signatures, the majority of them from scientists, at the bottom of a very spare letter, which simply said:

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group of diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question the hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing eveidence for and against the hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."

They had some very pominent scientists as signers. Two Nobel laureates.

But forget stimulating the funding of new reasearch. They couldn't even get the letter PUBLISHED in a reputable medical journal. Not Nature. Not Science. Not the New England Journal. Not The Lancet.

That's how tight the wagons of consensus were circled against them.

Kary Mullis, Nobel laureate in chemistry, has pointed out, many times, an incredibly corrosive fact: "There is no single published journal paper which proves that HIV causes AIDS. It does not exist. It never did."

The day after Robert Gallo announced on national television that he had found the cause of AIDS (spring, 1984), all government monies which had been granted to support research into the cause of AIDS evaporated. Now the grants had to be about finding out the mechanism by which HIV causes AIDS.

That's how research and publication of alternative views on AIDS causation were chilled.

That's how the fear among researchers was instilled.

No honorable researcher in his right mind would accept: science by press conference / and a lack of a journal paper which proves HIV causes AIDS. That is unthinkable, particularly when people are dying all over the world.

But it happended.

Came the march of the cowards.

ABC did several shows on the issue of HIV. I was interviewed for one of them, a Nightline piece in 1994. It was clear that Koppel was angered by the apparent lying that had gone on in the name of science at the highest levels.

But then ABC dropped the whole thing, as if it had never existed. A story far more potent in its implications, and more scandalous than Watergate.

ABC eventually realized that three quite separate federal investigations of Robert Gallo had been undertaken. Into possible criminality vis-a-vis his reasearch on HIV. But even that didn't budge them into pushing this story into orbit.

The thousands of federal pages that were compiled on Gallo's strange activities wre eventually shelved by the Clinton administration. Pages, for example, on Gallo's outright theft of French viral research.

One of the key conversations I had in writing AIDS INC. was with Jay Levy, widely accepted as a world-class AIDS researcher.

I said,"How do we know that HIV causes AIDS? Where is the proof?"

He said without pause, "We know it because if you transfuse a healthy person with the blood that contains HIV he gets AIDS and dies.

I found that remark astonishing. I did a little checking around.

Here is what I wrote in AIDS, INC., in 1988: "Calculating from figures supplied by the American Association of Blood Banks, since 1978 about 29 million Americans have received blood transfusions. In most of these transfusions, more than one donor supplied the various pints injected, so there was ample opportunity to receive HIV in the bloodstream. The average size of a transfusion is 3.5 pints.

"As of February 1988, the CDC reports a total of 1466 transfusion-AIDS cases in the US (since AIDS was first reported). This means that about .00005 of those who have recieved transfusions in the last ten years have been diagnosed with AIDS. That's 5 thousandths of one percent.

"On that basis, could you possibly infer that HIV is the cause of something called AIDS? Obviously not. One could argue that these statistics don't absolutely rule out HIV ... but this is not the question."

So a top AIDS reserarcher told me how everybody knows that HIV causes AIDS. What he told me made about as much sense as Jerry Springer on acid.

This meminds me of DeNiro's remark to Dustin Hoffman in Wag the Dog: "They showed one smart bomb going down inside a building. That one thing, and the public bought the whole (Iraq) war."

How does a medical researcher prove that a germ causes a disease?

That's a damn good question.

The closer you look, the weirder it gets.

The researcher has something called Koch's postulates. As full of holes as this method is, it has often been cited as the way medical reserachers find out what is behind a new disease.

In the case of AIDS, you would remove and isolate HIV from several humans who have been diagnosed with the syndrome, and you would inject that into animals. If you saw the illness symptoms develop in EVERY ONE of those animals, you would know you were on the right track.

With AIDS, monkeys in a number of facilities have been used. The results have been zero. Over the last decade and more, the 150 or so primates have failed to show full-blown symptoms.

Of course, there are comebacks for this, and they have all been used.

"Let's wait another twenty years."

"We'll keep these damn monkeys out of their natural habitat long enough and their immune systems will finally collapse and they'll show AIDS-like sysmptoms."

"Monkeys just don't get AIDS."

"Let's wait thirty years."

"Two monkeys got the flu. That's good enough."

Point is, the traditional method failed.

So then the most oft used backup method is correlation. Take a group of people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive, and who do not have serious illnesses, and follow them over a period of time. Do they come down with the symptoms of what is being called AIDS?

The biggest group used in this respect is the San Francisco Men's study, which began as a hepatitias B study in 1978. Several thousand men have been part of this cohort, as it's called.

Researchers, when pressed, point to this as the best evidence that HIV causes AIDS. But there is a serious flaw or two. Although a large number of men who were HIV positive went on to develop illnesses called AIDS, the study did only spotty tracking on men who never tested positive for HIV.

One of the researchers on the San Francicsco study told me ftrankly that HIV negative men could have developed AIDS-defining diseases when they were not being tracked. In which case, positive or negative would not be the defining indication of AIDS.

What this researcher didn't say was this:

The San Francisco Men's Study showed that an extraordinary number of men, diagnosed as HIV positive, simply by not taking the drug AZT had remained healthy for ten years.

AZT happens to attack the bone marrow, where certain cells of the immmune-system are manufactured.

A surprise group of HIV-positive men who stayed healthy for ten years or more had not taken AZT or had stopped taking it.

This fact was not trumpeted by the San Francisco Study.