Discount Gold and Silver Trading

American Survival Newsletter:
Combining the World of Finance, Health & Politics

American Gold

A weekly newsletter brought to you by
Discount Gold & Silver 800-375-4188
Edited by Alfred Adask
Friday, August 28, AD 2015
Between Friday, August 21AD 2015 and 
Friday, August 28, AD 2015, the bid prices for:

Gold fell 2.3 % from $1,160.40 to $1,133.80
Silver fell 4.9 % from $15.35 to $14.60
Platinum fell 0.2 % from $1,018 to $1,016
Palladium fell 2.7 % from $602 to $586
Crude Oil rose 12.6 % from $40.27 to $45.34
US Dollar Index rose 2.5 % from 94.80 to 96.15
DJIA rose 1.1 % from 16,459.75 to 16,643.01
NASDAQ rose 2.6 % from 4,706.04 to 4,828.32
NYSE rose 0.4 % from 10,195.70 to 10,242.10

"Only buy something that you'd be perfectly happy to hold
if the market shut down for 10 years." --Warren Buffett 

"If the markets shut down for 10 years, what investment would you dare to hold-- 
other than gold"? --Alfred Adask

IMF colonized Korea part I

by Alfred Adask

I first wrote and published most the following article in A.D. 1998. It's too long to be presented as a single article in this forum, so I've divided it up into "Part I-Description" and "Part II-Evidence". This week, the Description; next week, the Evidence.

I've also edited the original article, added some comments, made a couple of corrections and changed some verb tenses to make the text more readable and "current". Nevertheless, despite these changes, 80% of this article was written 17 years ago.

Why should anyone want to read an article written 17 years ago?

First, because the article explains how overly-indebted South Korea "voluntarily" accepted colonization by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) rather than risk filing for national bankruptcy. The process is almost exquisitely wicked.

Second, this article should help people to better understand what's recently happened to Greece. In order to avoid declaring bankruptcy, the overly-indebted Greece agreed to a bailout deal with the European Union (EU) and the European Central Bank (ECB) that essentially reduced Greece from the status of a sovereign nation that joined the EU voluntarily, to the status of a colony that's been conquered and is now owned and operated by the EU and ECB.

The most recent Greek bailout deal is so extreme, it's been described by some as less than an "agreement" than an unconditional surrender-the capitulation of an overly-indebted nation who feared the pain of bankruptcy more than the bondage of debt. (That's exactly what also happened to South Korea in A.D. 1997.)

Third, just like South Korea in A.D. 1997, overly-indebted Greece has been colonized-not by the IMF, but by the EU and ECB using the same financial tactics that were previously used by the IMF against Korea (and God only knows how many other nations).

Fourth, the overly-indebted governments of Portugal, Spain, Ireland and perhaps Italy will also soon be faced with choosing between "voluntary" acceptance of colonization by central bankers and a painful economic depression following national bankruptcy. If those governments are run by the same sort of self-serving, treasonous politicians that seem to thrive in most modern democracies, they'll surrender their last vestiges of national sovereignty to the central bankers and thereby become colonies and administrative districts of the EU and, ultimately, the New World Order.

Once you connect the dots between what happened to South Korea in A.D. 1997 and what happened to Greece in A.D. 2015, you'll understand what's likely to happen to every other overly-indebted nation on earth (including the US) that refuses to file for bankruptcy and instead opts for economic colonization.

Fifth, as philosopher George Santayana once observed, "Those who won't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." This article will hopefully illuminate some history concerning the national danger of national debt. Those who grasp that history may be able to prevent their overly-indebted countries (including the US) from being reduced from the status of sovereign nations to that of central bank colonies.


The "Agreement"

In A.D. 1997, the IMF and South Korea entered into a financial "bailout" agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, the IMF would supply overly-indebted and insolvent Korea with $55 billion so Korea could avoid declaring bankruptcy and sliding into an economic depression. In return for the $55 billion, Korea agreed to surrender control of some of its banking and financial systems to the IMF.

The agreement outlined a war, surrender, and conquest of an entire nation reminiscent of Joseph's conquest of Egypt. Ohh, this "war" wasn't like a script for a Rambo movie, full of bullets, bombs, and special effects. But this wasn't a Holly­wood war; this was real world economics.

The agreement described a real war fought according to ancient principles outlined by the Chinese warrior-king Sun Tzu in his book, "The Art of War." According to Sun Tzu, the highest form of warfare is that which overcomes your enemy without ever resorting to overt violence. In other words, any fool can win wars with firepower, but only a genius can wage and win war without firing a shot.

In A.D. 1997, the IMF defeated and colonized South Korea in a battle that was so "artful" that not only was no shot fired, but most of Korea didn't even know that a war was being waged. Closely exam­ined, the 46-page agreement between the IMF and South Korea was a peace treaty containing the terms of Korea's unconditional surrender to the IMF-a grand master of the "highest form of war": economics.

All of which may be interesting, but why should Americans care whether Korea was defeated in a bloodless war? Because the world's central bankers have almost certainly planned a similar coup for every other nation on earth-including the US. The most current victim is Greece. If you read the third Greek bailout agreement (see, Tsipras' Choice: Total Capitulation or Grexit), you'll see that it's also a surrender essentially identical to the Korean surrender of A.D. 1997.

You can bet that the next "bailout agreement" with the next overly-indebted nation to face bankruptcy will be virtually identical to the A.D. 1997 Agreement between South Korea and the IMF. Nothing new under the sun.

You can also bet that, because we live in an era where all modern currencies are "debt-based," all nations will eventually go so deeply into debt that they'll be forced to either file for bankruptcy or voluntarily choose to accept colonization by a central bank.

The strategy seen in South Korea 18 years ago is an example of a fundamental strategy used by the New World Order to colonize the world:

1) Establish a debt-based monetary system;

2) Seduce the politicians of each nation to go so deeply into debt that they can never repay all of their debts, become insolvent, and should therefore file for a painful bankruptcy;

3) Under the pretext of helping insolvent nations to avoid the financial and political pain of bankruptcy, central banks offer to provide additional loans (that put these nations even deeper into debt)-on condition that the insolvent nations surrender control of most of their national economic power (banks, tax rates, government regulations, etc.) to a central bank like the ECB or to central bank agents like the IMF; and,

4) Once the central bank has acquired ownership and control of a nation's primary economic and financial institutions, that nation will have been reduced from the status of a sovereign to that of a perpetually-indebted colony.


Are Central Banks Really Here To Help Us?

The IMF is generally viewed as an organization that "gives away" money to nations that are "developing" or recently destabilized by their own financial mismanagement.

In the late 1990s, the IMF was in the news for its repeated attempts to stave off financial chaos in Indonesia, South Korea, Japan and Russia by injecting capital into those unstable economies.

According to the Wall Street Journal (4/23/98), at that time, U.S. taxpayers provided $35 billion annually to the IMF, the largest share of the IMF's bank-roll. In doing so,

"[T]he U.S. ends up subsidizing the IMF's growing practice of making large loans at low interest rates to very risky economies-such as Russia, Thailand or Indonesia. The IMF loans that money to client countries at a rate currently averaging about 4.7%-far below what risky economies . . . would otherwise pay in the marketplace to borrow funds."

Presumably, the IMF's seemingly benign purposes justified the financial burden placed on the American taxpayers. I.e., by providing our currency to help stabilize foreign countries with irresistibly cheap loans, Americans preserved foreign markets and manufacturers necessary to maintain our own standard of living.

Some disagreed. Some said that, to receive IMF loans, "client countries" had to accept a measure of IMF "advice" (actually, control) on how to run and improve their faltering economies. In March, 1998, former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes wrote,

"The advice offered by the IMF and the Clinton-Gore Administration to troubled Asian economies has made things worse, not better. . . . Why should hard-working, middle-class Americans subsidize destructive institutions and bail out sophisticated, multinational investors and speculators? Why should middle-class taxpayers subsidize deadly prescriptions that are hurting others and will eventually hurt themselves?"

Economist James L. Green, claimed in the Economist magazine that, "the IMF is likely to cause more problems than it solves." The Economist also noted that global bankers are first-in-line to make loans in developing economies, and first-in-line to force bankruptcywhen those loans fall into arrears:

"They only need await the IMF bailout. Then they line up to buy assets at dirt-cheap prices . . . . Bargain basement buyouts of financial companies, retail and international firms and manufacturing corporation are everywhere on the block. For the most part, the buyers are Ameri­can multinational corporations."

The IMF was privatizing the profits indirectly derived from its loans, and socializing the losses. In other words, if the IMF loaned currency to a struggling nation, the primary beneficiaries of those loans would ultimately be private, multinational corporations who could buy the nation's properties at dirt-cheap prices. However, if the struggling nation fell into bankruptcy despite the IMF loan, who got stuck paying for the loss? The global "society" of taxpayers who provided the money to subsidize the IMF in the first place.

Taxpayers provided the capital for the loans. Multinational corporations reaped the profits from the loans. Central bankers gained economic control over the insolvent nations.


Ungrateful Bailout Recipients

Those who received the benefit of the IMF's generosity didn't always regard the IMF as a loving benefactor. According to the November 7, A.D. 1997 Wall Street Journal,

"The son of Indonesia's Presi­dent Suharto takes his country's woes personally: He sees the IMF bailout of his country, in part, as 'an attempt to sully our family name in order to indirectly topple my father.'"

At the time, Suharto's son's carping about receiving cheap loans seemed ungrateful, ludicrous, almost paranoid.

But, Suharto's son wasn't alone in his accusations. Other nations (like the US) which seemed to contribute most of the endless sums of currency that the IMF "donated," also viewed the IMF as something vaguely sinister and conspiratorial. Judging by the IMF's A.D. 1997 bailout agreement with South Korea, they were right.


Easy Money

Note that the IMF's colonization strategy starts with "cheap loans". The IMF baits its trap with loans that are so cheap, the recipients can't resist. After all, only a real "benefactor" would lend currency at such low interest rates, right?


Because the loans are so cheap, the recipients borrow more than they need. They don't realize that they're borrowing more than they can hope to ever repay until it's too late. But the IMF knows that that sooner or later, the loan recipients will be forced to choose between being bankrupted by the excess of "cheap loans" or surrendering their national economic control (and national sovereignty) to the IMF.


Free Cheese for the Mice

There's an old saying, "build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door."

The central banks and IMF built a mousetrap (debt-based currency) that was so much better than previous traps, that even the mice beat a path to the bankers' doors.

In a conventional mousetrap, you dab a bit of cheese on the trigger, the mouse tries to get the cheese, triggers the trap, and dies.

In the IMF mousetrap, there's no conventional trigger. There's nothing to kill the mice, only to bind them down with chains of debt. Instead of using a dab of cheese to attract the mice to the trigger, the IMF places a block of "cheese" (debt-based currency) the size of your stove in the middle of the kitchen and lets the mice eat all they want.

Free cheese! Free lunches! A cheeseball in every pot!

Free debt-based currency. All you have to do is promise to repay! How easy is that?! Ha!--the IMF will trust you to make good on your promises. Surely, the IMF must be the greatest benefactor we've ever seen! Hail to the IMF!


Houston, We Have a Problem

The mice get so fat gorging on all the free cheese (debt-based currency) that they become too fat to work, too dependent on government handouts to support themselves, and too fat to run away when the benign IMF pussycat turns out to be a panther.

That's when the IMF reminds the mice that the cheese was not a gift, but only a loan that must be repaid or the bankers will completely cut off the supply of cheese. The mice are too fat, broke and lazy to repay, so the IMF seizes their mouse holes and puts the mice to work spinning hamster wheels.

The IMF's mouse trap doesn't kill the mice, it enslaves them with chains of debt.

And it all starts with tons and tons of seemingly free "cheese"-a debt-based monetary system.


Quid pro Quo

In A.D. 1997, like several other "Asian Tigers," South Korea nearly slid close to national bankruptcy and economic depression. Did the Asian Tigers slip accidently? Or, were they pushed by their "free cheese" distributors?

Whatever the cause, under the pretext of helping to avert that national bankruptcy, the IMF offered South Korea a $55 billion bailout. That bailout was not a gift. It wasn't wel­fare. Instead, it was a loan premised on Korea's acceptance of various new rules and some shocking political and economic concessions.

South Korea's avoidance of bankruptcy and economic depression was guaranteed-if South Korea agreed to surrender its economic and politi­cal sovereignty to the IMF. The IMF agreement precipitated much dissent among Koreans concerned with losing their nation's sover­eignty. But eventually, faced with the alternative of a painful national bank­ruptcy, the agreement was accepted, the $55 billion "loan" received, the economy sustained, and the sovereignty surrendered. South Korea traded its sovereignty for a bowl of pottage.



The 46-page IMF agreement with South Korea was marked "STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL" and "NOT FOR PUBLIC USE." However, in A.D. 1997, the Korean newspaper

Chosun published a photocopy of the document on the Internet at

. As I recall, there was a great commotion over

Chosun's publication of that "STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL" agreement. The IMF tried to intimidate Chosun with threats of lawsuit. Chosun refused to back down-at least initially. The report remained on the internet long enough for me to download a copy.

That copy might still be in the archives of my own computers. I'm looking for it, but so far, haven't found it. 17 years is a long time to store documents on your computer.

Surprisingly, I can no longer find that report on the internet. Perhaps, I'm too inept to find it. But there's plenty of evidence that the agreement did exist. You can find a mass of articles describing that agreement if you Google "1997 IMF agreement with South Korea". But the complete text the agreement has, so far, eluded me.

More, I haven't even been able to find the text of the agreement on the IMF's website. There are articles about the agreement, but I haven't yet found the text of the agreement itself.

How strange is that?

Almost everything anyone's written in the past 50 years is somewhere on the internet-except (so far as I can tell) a copy of the 1997 IMF agreement with South Korea.

There may be a benign explanation for that omission.

However, having a suspicious mind, I believe that that file is no longer on the internet for the same reason I wrote about it 17 years ago-the world's central bankers don't want it found.

Why? Because, it shows exactly how the debt game is played:

1) Greedy nations are seduced by central banks into borrowing more fiat currency than they can ever repay;

2) The credit supply to the greedy nations is cut off;

3) Unable to borrow more, those nations are faced with bankruptcy.

4) The IMF (or some other central bank representative) offers to provide the insolvent nation with even more debt-provided that the insolvent nation agrees to surrender control of its financial and economic systems to the IMF;

5) The nation's leaders fear the political wrath of their own people for mismanagement, corruption and imprudence. Fearing the political repercussions of declaring bankruptcy and causing an economic depression, and determined to protect their own ambitions rather than their nation, the politicians capitulate to the IMF and/or central bankers' demands;

6) Result? A once sovereign, but imprudent, nation becomes a central bank's colony.

Get that? The once-sovereign nations surrender their sovereignty for a bowl of fiat pottage.

That's how it was done in South Korea in A.D. 1997.

That's how it was done in Greece in A.D. 2015.

That's how it will be done to the US at some point in the future-unless Americans become willing to "take their medicine" and elect leaders willing to declare national bankruptcy; destroy the national debt and the perpetual chains that debt will otherwise create; endure several years of the resulting pain of economic depression; rebuild from scratch; and move on with their lives with their national sovereignty intact.

What do you suppose are the chances that the American people are any more willing to take their medicine (bankruptcy) than the people of South Korea or Greece?

What do you suppose the chances are that, faced with a choice between national bankruptcy and economic depression on the one hand, and national colonization by central banks on the other, US politicians will be any less cowardly, treasonous and self-serving than those of Korea and Greece?


A Hard Lesson

The lesson in all this is that when the time comes to choose between a painful bankruptcy and economic depression and the illusory salvation of another bailout and deeper, endless debt, the responsible choice is bankruptcy. Given the chance to choose between more debt (bailout) and no debt (bankruptcy), smart nations and smart governments choose bankruptcy.

Economics is as much an "art of war" as an intellectual science. People must learn to recognize that when their nation is faced with choosing between national bankruptcy and the deeper debt and national colonization of bailouts, the responsible and patriotic choice is bankruptcy. You can't take the central bankers' bailouts without losing your freedoms.

Next week, in Part II, I'll present the evidence that supports my argument that central bank bailouts colonize nations, destroy national sovereignty and individual freedoms, and bind the people down with chains of debt.

VIEW ONLINE "The Patriot Post ( )"

The New U.S. Business Model: ObamaCorps

By Robin Smith · Aug. 31, 2015

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handed down a decision last week that could remake a vast swath of the economy. Where have we heard that before with this administration? The rule essentially took nine million American workers employed by just under 800,000 franchise businesses and moved their employment from the direct supervision of the franchisee to the big-brand parent company. To paraphrase Joe Biden's comments when ObamaCare was signed, this is a big freaking deal.

The Democrat-controlled NRLB, Barack Obama's instrument for decisions and rulings benefiting labor unions - involving issues such as collective bargaining and the minimum wage, just to name two - could potentially destroy the franchise business model. How? The NLRB blurred the lines of "direct and immediate" control over employees of franchises, meaning the corporation now has more control than the franchise.

The partisan vote, supported only by Democrats in the majority on the NRLB, undermines the current responsibility of the franchise owner as the business owner and employer that hires, fires, pays employees, determines promotions, raises and benefits offered. As always, the Obama administration aims to make everything part of a centrally controlled process dominated by the government.

In effect, the NLRB's ruling has turned business entrepreneurs who have risked capital, hired staff and sacrificed for earnings as franchise owners into middle managers to oversee employees on the payroll of the big corporation.

In the era of economic failure caused by the too-big-to-fails, Obama's union thugs, who are federally tasked with representing worker rights as an agency, have only turned the large corporate entities into larger corporate entities.

Franchises are contracts to what are functionally small business owners, through which corporations can leverage the scale of purchasing, advertising and brand development to local businesses that agree to maintain product and service standards regarding quality and pricing. Otherwise, the franchise owner controls the business. A prime example: 90% of McDonald's restaurants are franchises, and those franchises employ 1.5 million of McDonald's 1.9 million employees. Other large brands using the franchise model include food-industry giants such as Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A and Wendy's, and service industry corporations like Hampton Inns, Hilton Hotel brands, Great Clips hair salons, Liberty Tax Service and Save-A-Lot Foods.

But as Beth Milito, senior legal counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, explains, "If ... corporations are suddenly responsible for the franchise employees, they'll be forced to exert more control over the franchisees." In fact, she adds, they might even "eliminate the franchise model entirely and take direct control over the locations."

Ironically, the first black president has made it tougher for minorities, who, according to The Heritage Foundation's James Sherk, are "almost 50% more likely" to own franchised businesses versus non-franchised businesses. So much for empowering minority-owned businesses in the Obama economy.

So why is the NRLB forcing employers to abdicate their business processes to the Giant Corporation model?

You already know. Large employers make easier targets for labor unions to win unionization. Soon, there could be the Ronald McDonald Teamsters, the Great Clips Scissorworkers, and the United Brotherhood of Hilton Garden Inn Employees. The "protections" offered by labor unions are documented and proven: The mediocre and worst employees are protected and any who work hard carry the load of the former. Many union members are good workers, but there are some very rotten apples in the bunch, too (like this New Jersey teacher who gets to keep his $90,000 job despite being tardy more than a hundred times). And above all, Big Labor is a critical Democrat constituency.

Union membership is at historical lows, especially outside the confines of government, with only 7.4 million workers in private-sector unions in 2014 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But those who fear competition and personal accountability in the workplace are using their favorite vehicle - tyrannical government - to create a situation inviting thuggery organized labor.

Obama has successfully socialized America's health care - ObamaCare; provided cell phones as part of welfare - ObamaPhones; created new controls for the Internet - ObamaNet; is working to force neighborhoods to build low-income housing run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - ObamaHoods. Why would this tyrant not move to destroy the free market system and effective business models through organized labor's oppression and government-controlled prices and wages with ObamaCorps? He's got a country to fundamentally transform, after all.

VIEW ONLINE "The Patriot Post ( )"

University of Tennessee Just Made Grammar More Confusing

By Patriot Post Staff · Aug. 31, 2015

From the infographic on UTC's website: hir, zir, xem. Got it?

If you're on one of the campuses of the University of Tennessee, watch out for the Grammar Nazis. If the university's experiment lasts longer than the first week of school, then those who enforce a strict adherence to the rules of the English language will do more than back a party line on they're, their and there. "Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth," the University of Tennessee's Pride Center Director, Donna Braquet, wrote on the university's website. She encouraged the school to start using a whole new set of pronouns - ze, xe, hir, zir, xem - to refer to people who wish to not identify with their gender. Braquet requested that teachers, rather than calling roll, instead ask each student to provide the name and pronoun he or she - or ze - wishes to be referred by. She says it relieves a burden for people expressing different genders or identities. "The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses," Braquet wrote. As Hot Air's Allahpundit notes, "I'm not sure I grasp the difference between 'hir/hirs' and 'zir/zirs.' Which one should you use for Caitlyn Jenner? One, I think, is for a man who identifies as a woman and the other for a woman who identifies as a man, but I'll be damned if I know which terms applies to which. The whole point of this exercise, I thought, was not to make any judgments about gender based on appearance."

Common products that give pets cancer
by Herbalist Wendy Wilson

Beware that some common pet products could be the cause of pets developing cancer. Too many pets today are being treated for cancer as opposed to fifty years ago. According to, 50% of dogs over the age of ten have cancer and is the leading cause of pet death. You know something is very wrong when vet clinics have oncologists and radiology suites to treat pet cancer. The FDA approved the first drug to treat pet cancer in 2009. This industry has the potential to be almost as profitable as the cancer industry is for humans. Vets treat pet cancer with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation just like in humans. Pets are often the experimental subjects for cancer vaccines as well. Depending on the cancer, the treatments can range from $1,000 to $15,000. I knew a guy that took out a second mortgage to pay for the vet treatments for his dog was diagnosed with leukemia and needed blood transfusions. There are vet clinics that do bone marrow transplants on pets now. What are your chances that your pet will get cancer or if your pet already has benign cancer that it will become malignant? Vets tell us the chance is 60% or greater the cancer won't stay benign. So, what is happening to pets that they are now riddled with cancer?
According to veterinarians there are some signs to watch for if your pet has the likelihood of cancer:
  • Lumps or bumps - which do not resolve on their own. Vets will tell you the only way to tell if a lump is cancerous is to do a needle biopsy. Usually these lumps or bumps are called fatty tumors, which is a nice way of saying your pet has lipoma. It is supposedly a benign tumor and now is very common in middle-aged or older dogs. Female dogs which are overweight are more susceptible to getting fatty tumors. Vets will tell pet owners that some breeds are prone to fatty tumors such as: Dobermans, Schnauzers, Labradors and some mixed breeds. We're told by Vets that these Lipomas are a natural part of the aging process. I personally don't believe that. There is a risk these benign tumors can become malignant in which the name changes to liposarcoma. These tumors tend to be difficult to remove and they do come back in most cases. Vets will tell pet owners to watch the fatty tumor to see if it grows or spreads in size. They recommend using wax paper and draw a template of the tumor with a marker. Lay the paper over the area and trace the edges and put a date on the template. Check it monthly.
  • Attitude and Appetite - changes will also be a factor with pets that are ill with cancer.
  • Abnormal Odors - if your pet puts out an offensive odor from their mouth, ears or other body part it could be an indicator of cancer.
  • Abnormal discharges - any blood, pus or other weird substance coming out of your pet is a sign. Abnormal discharges could also bloat and cause distention in the pet indicating an accumulation of discharged substances.
  • Wounds that won't heal - another indicator that something is stressing the body of the pet. It could be an infection or skin disease but sometimes it is due to cancer.
  • Weight loss - indicates that cancer maybe present, especially if there is a sudden loss of weight.
  • Coughing or trouble breathing - any signs of abnormal breathing could be another disease (heart or lung) but could also be cancer that may have spread.
  • Lethargic behavior or depression - if your pet is not acting like himself, is sleeping more, less playful, not interested in taking walks can indicate cancer.
  • Changes in stool or urine - if there is blood being discharged it can indicate cancer.
  • Evidence of pain - if your pet is showing signs of discomfort when moving it could be arthritis or it could be bone cancer.
Many pet owners faithfully treat their pets with prescribed medications from the vet. These are products that are intended to dose the pet on a monthly basis usually for parasites such as worms, fleas and ticks. These products can cost pet owners $30 to $60 a month per pet. For this reason, some pet owners obtain these products over the Internet from other countries at a discount. However, what are these products doing to the health of the pet? Let's take a look at the monthly flea treatment. One popular brand called Comfortis is made by Eli Lilly in the UK. It is a chewable tablet. Some of the side effects on the enclosed leaflet state: vomiting, lethargy, anorexia, diarrhea, ataxia (loss of muscle control) and seizures. However, that is the drug companies list of adverse events. Could they be leaving important information out? It is also important to note that the common side effects occur in what are considered healthy pets. So, if you take your pet to the vet with these symptoms after starting the drug, vets may mistake the symptoms for something else and give the pet an additional drug.
Reading the list of ingredients Eli Lilly lists for Comfortis we find spinosad, which we're told is a common bacterium found in dirt. The lab breaks the bacteria down into spinosyn A and D and is a registered pesticide by the US Environmental Protection Agency since 1997. Spinosad is used in over 80 pesticide products used to kill agricultural pests. It comes in many forms (dust, granules, sprays) and is used in pet collars and other pet products. There is always a reference on the products to contact poison control if unauthorized exposure occurs. The FDA has approved spinosad to be used in drugs for head lice on humans and flea and tick products for dogs and cats. This chemical attacks the nervous system of parasites and also in humans and pets. The goal of the product is to paralyze the parasites and kills them within two days. You can find similar side effects with the monthly treatment for heartworm medications which are essentially insecticides. Everywhere you look there are reports that these products are safe and there is no known cause of disease in pets. However, the trial studies that give these chemicals a clean report are short and never go past a year of testing. Pets get these chemicals month after month, year after year.
Some vets are speaking out that pets all over the US are not at risk of heartworm and should not be given these toxic chemicals year-round. Vet and drug companies know that heartworm in pets is prevalent in the warm, moist climates of the US. The dry, arid regions have few if any cases of heartworm.  According to the heartworm drugs kill the parasites (if any) before they mature and successive treatments are unnecessary. They report that these drugs are not safe and they have very toxic consequences. Pet owners are told that the drug is in very small doses and is a prevention for heartworm. However, monthly doses of the chemicals have an accumulative effect in the system and become a serious health risk to the animal. No one in their right mind would take any dose, no matter how small, of an insecticide each month. It is a slow poisoning of the pet. Here are the extended health risks according to
  • Weakened immune system
  • Pet's system becomes overworked trying to rid itself of the toxins
  • Organ failure occurs (liver, kidney) under the strain
  • Pet's energy is reduced with an overall suppressed system
  • Pet's more susceptible to bacterial and viral infections and can't seem to shake off illnesses
What most pet owners don't realize is that they should take measures to neutralize the parasites before they bite the pet. There are plenty of natural parasite repellents which would offer an option to avoid the toxicity of the parasite drugs.
There are some alternative vets (if you can find them) which recommend using herbs to repel the parasites and mosquitoes. You can use some natural herbs and oils such as eucalyptus, cedarwood, citronella, rue and pennyroyal on pets to act as repellents. Inside the pet you can use parasite herbs such as black walnut or wormwood. If you are looking for a safer alternative for your pets. I would also suggest pet owners look into using dandelion root if they think their pet has a cancer risk. Dandelion root is knows to kill cancer cells and leave healthy cells alone in humans. Call Apothecary Herbs, they have the all natural flea and tick collars, shampoo, Black Walnut and Dandelion root you're searching for to protect your pet. Call Apothecary Herbs for a free product catalog 866-229-3663, International 704-885-0277, order online, because if you're serious about herbs you need Apothecary Herbs. Cooler weather is on the way, call not while supplies last.   
Herbalist Wendy Wilson on Herb Talk Live
Saturday morning show:
7 am EST on GCN
Weekday show:
7 pm EST on AVR
Shortwave show 8 pm EST WWCR 4840
Go to Herb Talk Live & Radio Archive area for network link access and past shows to download and share. For Android users you can download a FREE app for Herb Talk Live on GCN. See the download link under radio archives at top of page at

 at Apothecary Herbs

MORE HERB SECRETS IN THE POWER HERBS e-BOOK. By popular demand The Power Herbs e-book is available with symptom/herb reference guide, information on organ cleansing and how to make your own herbal tinctures plus a whole lot more. You must have email to order and receive the e-book a PDF version of The Power Herb book for just $14.99. At this time, we do not offer this title in hard copy. The book is now available in KINDLE and IPAD formats. Select the book you need on the drop down.

Try Dandelion Root Tincture for inflammation, blood purification, respiratory infections, digestion and cancer protection at Apothecary Herbs 866-229-3663 
MALE & FEMALE ORGAN CLEANSES KITS - Don't give disease a foothold. You will have the power to cleanse the bowel, urinary, liver, gall bladder and blood system with this cleanse package. For added cleansing, ask about how you can upgrade your order to include the prostate cleanse for men or the Kidney/Bladder cleanse for females.  Go to or call their 24-hour live customer service line 866-229-3663, International 704-885-0277.
The information contained herein is not designed to diagnosis, treat, prevent or cure disease. Seek medical advice from a lincensed medical physician (if you dare) before using any product or therapy. 
All content is copyright © Independent News Journalist Disclaimers of FARE USE

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "Fair Use" Allowance is made for purposes such as: Criticism, Comment, News Reporting, Teaching, Scholarship, and Research. "Fair Use" is a use permitted by Copyright Statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, Educational or Personal use tips the balance in Favor of "Fair Use". Conclusions drawn from these articles or audio files do not necessarily represent the Opinions/Beliefs of those subjects People/Musicians/Participants/Entities therein. "Fair Use" says it all....Produced by FREELANCE AUTHOR.