Jim traficant will be missed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Farmers Set Tax Office On Fire

French Farmers Set Tax Office On Fire – Demise of Europe


French vegetable farmer have set a tax office and a building on fire destroying the government facility which was the symbol of the increasing administrative burden and sanctions that is killing farming. Hundreds of tractors and trailers of the farmers converged on Friday evening before the building of the Agricultural Social Insurance (MSA) in the town of Morlaix (Brittany). There they dumped unsold potatoes and artichokes before the MSA-building and added pallets and tires setting the entire lot on fire. Thereafter, the farmers moved on to the tax office set that on fire as well. The protests also took place in numerous other places as well, however, only these two government buildings were totally destroyed.

read more at http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/21/french-farmers-set-tax-office-on-fire-demise-of-europe/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

where has all the global warming gone? far far away!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fatca- another reason to get rid of the IRS

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA

FATCA & How It is Destroying International Commerce

letters to Martin Armstrong on FATCA.

One reader writes from Belgium:
I’m a Belgian but worked  in the USA during  1987-1990 on an  expat assignment . My daughter was born in the USA and therefore has dual nationality ( USA  and  Belgian Citizenship). She is now 26 years old.

She started work a few years and I warned her that as  US citizen she should make a tax declaration in the USA on her world-wide income even when she work and get taxed in  Belgium and has no income from the USA.

Her bank called a few weeks ago and told her  that they wanted to close her bank account as on her profile they saw that she was  born in the USA and because of this  their procedures to comply with FATCA they did not want to service USA citizen anymore .

I advised her to go the USA embasy  in Brussels and do the necessary work to cancel her USA citizenship . She was surprised that the fee for this was going to be 450 $ and that as of next week  the fee would go increase  to 2300$. ( talk about no inflation when paying taxes and dealing with the government !!!).

I wanted to report this to you so you get this story out because I found this an other example of the arrogance of the US Government and find ways to tax  anybody in the world they feel. Fatca regulation seems to become an other opportunity to collect money to spend more I suppose.


Another Writes about simply trying to withdraw $13,000 in cash from their account:

I just went to the bank today and I wanted to pull out $13,000 cash. I didn’t expect to be able to because of the limited amount they keep there. But what surprised me was that I was told I would need a lawyer to go over documents if I wanted to pull out more than $10,000 in cash. I asked the bank who pays for the lawyer and of course they said I would have to pay for a lawyer to get money out of my bank in cash…needless to say this 25 year old won’t be leaving more than 3000 in his bank account anymore and will be documenting it all in case the cops try to claim my money is illegal money and take it. What a world I get to be an adult in eh?
Thanks for the information,
                                 MY  ARTICLE ON INCOME TAX
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

RIG Blog Sept 8, 2014 by Bushy

Hello people,

My first blog here at ketchumandfleezem.com…

Someone came across RIG on the forum, which I am proud to be part (Stock Vision (http://www.garsworld.com/) – a stock/stock options trading technical tools/signals and services website, providing no delay live feed updates and multiple time frame charts, weekly down to 5 minutes) who wanted to trade it and the publisher of this website (KetchumFleezem.com) has been asking me to put a blog together on options.


RIG Sept 8 2014 Chart

Chart Courtesy stockcharts.com


My analysis for trading options on RIG is as follows:

Primarily, I use Pivot Points and Fibonacci Retracements, rarely do I rely on indicators, as I feel them to be lagging, whether they are or not, and on the verge of reversal at whim.  I find option open interest/option volume (call/put) a more reliable reflection of true market direction/trend, using Bollinger Bands and RSI for Trend/Momentum, respectively (but prefer the Ultimate Oscillator to the RSI).


RIG Pivot Points


Pivot Points             Daily            Weekly

Resistance 3:          $38.20         40.05

Resistance 2:          $37.98         39.46

Resistance 1:          $37.79         38.53

Pivot Point:            $37.57         37.94

Support 1:              $37.38         37.01

Support 2:              $37.16         36.42

Support 3:              $36.97         35.49


My favorite tools for trading options are Options Analysis (optionsanalysis.com), Fidelity, Covered Calls website (coveredcalls.com) and trained on options using TOS (Think or Swim, which also has some great scans for both stocks and stock options; those being Sizzle stocks for Stocks and Spread Hacker for options).  I will sometimes look review technical analysis signals on the Trade King website; excellent website technical analysis provided by Recognia, for Option Strategies a Scanner is provided by IVolatility, which I’ll openly admit, I like, but am not in love with).  For Earnings and Dividends, I use Zacks (Zacks.com), Fidelity (above), Earnings Whispers (EarningsWhispers.com) and Option Slam (OptionSlam.com), to get a feel for what has happened in past coinciding quarterly cycles and what may unfold into those events.

RIG closed (Friday, September 5th, 2014) on a doji, at 37.60, forming a possible bull flag with its RSI at 35.25 and a bit of a possible downtrend, breaking the lower Bollinger Band.  Seeing heavy Oct straddle volume at 38, selling Oct 40 calls while buying 39 calls, which could signal debit call spreads.  RIG prices are below both the 50 and 200 DMA.

Volatility was through the roof into earnings, as expected, on positive numbers, beating by 0.52.  August 4, 2014, one day prior to earnings, RIG ranged between 38.12 – 39.44.  Earnings day into next day ranged between 38.13 – 39.39.

RIG rose as high as 39.59 on 8/11 then formed a doji at 39.76, one day prior to its dividends date of 8/20, which is normal and expected for the event; dropping prices for 4 days, bottoming at 37.33 on 8/25, then bouncing.

I don’t like that RIG Ultimate Oscillator is pointing down, but technically speaking, it has been seeing mostly inside days for about two weeks.  Darvas Box like formation.  I really don’t see it going up much, as the doji formation is a sign of indecision, as I’m facing, but may indicate a reversal to the upside, despite its weakness.  Evidently someone has interest in the 39 calls, as 7500 contracts traded at 1:13 pm on Friday.  RIG expected dividend of 0.75 cents on 11/20 and has paid its highest dividends to date since February/March 2012.

My trade of choice would be on Sept 26 calls broken wing butterfly , buy 1 39.50 – sell 2 43 – buy 1 47 at 0.13 cents, potential gain/loss $350/($50) – with high probability of being outside the strikes and about 27% being in the strikes zone.

Two other choices with better profit and slightly higher risk:

Nov 2014 butterfly using in-the-money (ITM) 36 calls, buy 1 36- sell 2 43 – buy 1 50 at 2.31 debit, potential gain/loss $469/($231).

Or, Oct 2014 butterfly using in-the-money (ITM) 37 calls, buy 1 37 – sell 2 41 – buy 1 45 at 1.19 debit, potential gain/loss $281/($119).

Don’t make your entries till you see what Monday’s market open looks like, as things are heating up in the Middle East and things may get ugly out there.  Always look to enter at the mid price when/where possible.

Economic Calendar for the week of September 8, 2014 (Courtesy of Briefing.com):


Week of September 08 – September 12 Summary
Date ET Release For Briefing.com Forecast Briefing.com Consensus Prior
8-Sep 15:00 Consumer Credit Jul $17.0B $17.8B $17.3B
9-Sep 10:00 JOLTS – Job Openings Jul NA NA 4.671M
10-Sep 7:00 MBA Mortgage Index 6-Sep NA NA 0.20%
10-Sep 10:00 Wholesale Inventories Jul 0.40% 0.50% 0.30%
10-Sep 10:30 Crude Inventories 6-Sep NA NA -0.905M
Week of September 08 – September 12 Detailed
Date ET Release For Briefing.com Forecast Briefing.com Consensus Prior
8-Sep 15:00 Consumer Credit Jul $17.0B $17.8B $17.3B
9-Sep 10:00 JOLTS – Job Openings Jul NA NA 4.671M
10-Sep 7:00 MBA Mortgage Index 6-Sep NA NA 0.20%
10-Sep 10:00 Wholesale Inventories Jul 0.40% 0.50% 0.30%
10-Sep 10:30 Crude Inventories 6-Sep NA NA -0.905M
11-Sep 8:30 Initial Claims 6-Sep 310K 300K 302K
11-Sep 8:30 Continuing Claims 30-Aug 2500K 2495K 2464K
11-Sep 10:30 Natural Gas Inventories 6-Sep NA NA 79 bcf
11-Sep 14:00 Treasury Budget Aug NA NA -$147.9B
12-Sep 8:30 Retail Sales Aug 0.30% 0.60% 0.00%
12-Sep 8:30 Retail Sales ex-auto Aug 0.30% 0.30% 0.10%
12-Sep 8:30 Export Prices ex-ag. Aug NA NA 0.30%
12-Sep 8:30 Import Prices ex-oil Aug NA NA 0.00%
12-Sep 9:55 Mich Sentiment Sep 83.5 83.5 82.5
12-Sep 10:00 Business Inventories Jul 0.30% 0.40% 0.40%


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

dj-30 next major turning points, one is scary!!


I see a strong turning point (cit) on 911, is this a coincidence? then another on 9/26th. Fyi I have a very short term one on the 29th of this month. click on graph to enlarge.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Possible resistance spots on INCC


this is up 6066% from where I bought.  Lets wish it keeps going!!!!!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



The next  major turning point day I have is 9/11. I wonder  if this means  something bad can happen?

click on graph to enlarge.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where is the warm weather?

Photo: Just some interesting info from the KC National Weather Service this morning.  This is just part of the reason the peaches are taking their time to ripen this year.  The extended forecast does look favorable for getting the peaches ripened!  Looks like by the end of the upcoming week we hope to be open daily with a good selection of peaches.  If you have liked our FB page we will announce here when we open here first!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First Energy chart for Alan.


support and resistance lines are shown with possible CIT’s.  It is possible to go  back up to the oval before it drops . I believe this stock could see close to 23  going into December. Watch  the support and resistant lines as time progresses.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

dj-30 CIT


Notice the wedge that is happening. This is like a spring building up a lot of tension. When it breaks the move can be as much as 2 times the widest part of the triangle. We on guard my friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

next CIT on DJ-30




Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Unsprayed Produce Creates Natural Carcinogens to protect itself. or Why do people ignore the science on how dangerous organic vegetables can be?

Or is it better for the crop to be protected from  the inside or the outside?


Scientific paper by Bruce Ames, the creator of the Ames test for testing for carcinogens.

SCIENCE 244, 755-757 (May 19, 1989)
Pesticides, Risk and Applesauce

The tremendous attention in the media to the growth-regulator Alar raises important issues about the nations efforts to prevent human cancer by regulating chemicals that are carcinogenic in animal studies. Leslie Roberts, in her Research News articles “Pesticides and kids” and “Is risk assessment conservative?”, did not address several points that we think are important for putting possible risks in perspective.

1) Pesticides, 99.99% all natural. Although regulatory efforts are focused on identifying and controlling synthetic chemicals that are estimated to pose a possible carcinogenic risk to society greater than one in a million (such as Alar), we are ingesting about 10,000 times more natural than synthetic pesticides. (1) All plants produce toxins to protect themselves against fungi, insects, and predators such as man (2, 3) Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered, and every species of plant contains its own set of different toxins, usually a few dozen. When plants are stressed or damaged, such as during a pest attack, they increase their natural pesticide levels many fold, occasionally to levels that are acutely toxic to humans (4) Very few of these plant toxins have been tested in animal cancer bio-assays, but among those tested, about half (20/42) are carcinogenic (4, 5).

It is probable that almost every plant product in the supermarket contains natural carcinogens. The following foods contain natural pesticides that cause cancer in rats or mice and are present at levels ranging from a few parts per billion to 4 million parts per billion (pp b) (3, 4): anise, apples, bananas, basil, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, comfrey tea, fennel, grapefruit juice, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnips, peaches, black pepper, pineapples, radishes, raspberries, tarragon, and turnips.
Of the pesticides we eat, 99.99% are all natural, and, like man made pesticides, most are relatively new to the modern diet because of the exchange of plant foods among the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa within the last 1000 years. It is reassuring, however, that the many layers of general defenses in humans and other animals (1, 6, 7) protect against toxins, without distinguishing whether they are synthetic or natural.


Healthy Zucchini

2) Trade-offs. In response to fears about residues of man-made pesticides, plant breeders are active in developing varieties that are naturally pest-resistant. Such varieties contain increased amounts of natural pesticides. It should be no surprise, then,that a newly introduced variety of insect-resistant potato had to be withdrawn from the market, due to acute toxicity to humans caused by much higher levels of the teratogens solanine and chaconine than are normally present in potatoes (8). Similarly, a new variety of insect-resistant celery recently introduced widely in the United’ States is causing outbreaks of dermatitis in produce workers due to a concentration of the carcinogen 8-methdxypsoralcn (and related psoralens) of 9000 ppb, rather than the usual 900 ppb (9). Many more such cases are likely to crop up. Thus, there is a fundamental trade-off between nature’s pesticides and man-made pesticides.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has strict regulatory requirements for new synthetic pesticides and is steadily weeding out old substances such as Alar that are thought to pose a significant hazard; however, natural pesticides are almost completely neglected. Natural pesticides that are possibly hazardous to humans could easily be decreased by plant breeding.

Given the background of human exposures to natural carcinogens (1-7), the finding that about half the chemicals tested in rodents (whether synthetic or natural) are carcinogenic (1, 5), and the difficulties in risk assessment (discussed below), we have ranked possible hazards on a HERP index (daily Human Exposure dose/Rodent Potential dose, as a percent) in order to achieve some perspective on human exposure to the plethora of carcinogens (1). Our ranking suggests that carcinogenic hazards from current levels of pesticide residues or water pollution are likely to be minimal relative to the background levels of natural substances.

To put Alar in perspective, we estimate that the possible hazard from UDMH (the carcinogenic breakdown product of Alar) in a daily lifetime glass (6 ounces) of apple juice is HERP = 0.0017% (10). This possible hazard is less than that from the natural carcinogenic hydrazines consumed in one daily mushroom (HERP = 0.1%) (1) or that from aflatoxin in a daily peanut butter sandwich (HERP = 0.03%) (1). It is also less than other possible hazards from natural carcinogens in food, although few have been tested. These include 8-mcthoxypsora!en in a daily portion (100 grams) of celery (3, 11), allyl isothioaanatce in a daily portion of cabbage or Brussels sprouts (3, 12), and
alcohol in a daily glass of orange juice (13). The possible hazard of UDMH in a daily apple is 1/10 that of a daily glass of apple juice. Other HERP comparisons are shown in (1). Apple juice has been reported to contain 137 natural volatile chemicals (14), of which only five have been tested for carcinogenicity• (5); three of these-benzyl acetate, alcohol, and acetaldehyde–have been found to be carcinogenic.

The EPA has proposed cancellation hearings on Alar, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is trying to speed this process up by a year or two. The tradeoffs must be considered in efforts to prevent hypothetical carcinogenic risks of 10-6 or 10-5, because the results could be counter-productive if the risks of the alternatives are worse. What risks might we incur by banning Alar? Alar is a growth regulator that delays ripening of apples so that they do not drop prematurely, and it also delays over-ripening in storage. Alar plays a role in reducing pesticide use for some types of apples, particularly in the Northeast (15).

For example, without Alar, the danger of fruit fall from leaf miners is greater, and more pesticides are required to control them. Also, when apples fall prematurely, pests on the apples remain in the orchard to attack the crop the next summer; and more pesticides must be used. Since A1ar produces firmer apples, and results in fewer falling to the ground, treated fruit may be less susceptible to molds. Therefore, it is possible that he amounts and variety of mold toxins present in apple juice, for example, parulin (16), will be higher in juice made from untreated apples. The carcinogenicity of patulin has not been adequately examined (17). The EPA should, as NRDC emphasizes, also take into consideration that children consume large amounts of apple juice. Another trade-off is that fewer domestically grown, fresh apples would be available throughout the year and the price would be higher; thus, consumers might substitute less healthy foods.
3) Risk assessment. Currently, neither theory nor experimental evidence is adequate to guide scientists in extrapolating from rodent cancer tests at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)’ to human exposures that are thousands or millions of times lower. Therefore, for prudence’s sake, federal regulatory agencies routinely make worst-case assumptions to estimate the upper limit on risk for low doses; however, the real risks at low doses may well be zero. Conventional risk assessments at the low levels of human exposure thus are really quite speculative (1) and should not be viewed as if they were real risks. Accumulating scientific evidence (1, 6, 7, 18) suggests that chemicals administered in animal cancer tests at the MTD are causing cancer in quiescent tissues primarily by increasing cell proliferation, an essential aspect of carcinogenesis for both mutagens and non-mutagens. Because endogenous rates of DNA damage are enormous (6), cell proliferation alone is likely to be tumorigenic. Cell proliferation converts DNA adducts (either spontaneous or exogenous) to mutations or to epimutations (such as loss of 5-methylC) and exposes single-stranded DNA, a much more sensitive target for mutagens. It also allows mutant cells to escape from growth inhibition signals coming from surrounding cells (1, 6, 7).

If animal cancer tests are primarily measuring cell proliferation, then the dose-response curve should fall off sharply with dose, even for mutagens [as with diethylnitrosamine (18)] and should have a threshold for nonmutagens. Thus, the hazards at low doses could be minimal. Furthermore, humans have numerous inducible defense systems against mutagenic carcinogens, such as DNA repair, antioxidant defenses, glutathione transferees, and so forth, which may make low doses of mutagens protective in some circumstances. Even radiation-the classical DNA-damaging agent and carcinogen-may be protective in small doses against DNA damage at higher doses, as shown by recent work in human cells (19). Also, recent radiation experiments in mice show a dose threshold for the latency of tumor appearance (20). Thus, low doses of carcinogens appear to be both much more common and less hazardous than is generally thought. These scientific questions about mechanisms of carcinogenesis and the preventable causes of human cancer, in any case, are being resolved by the scientific community as quickly as resources allow.

Regulation of low-dose exposures to chemicals based on animal cancer tests may not result in significant reduction of human cancer, because we are exposed to millions of different chemicals-almost all natural-and it is not feasible to test all of them. Most exposures, with the exception of some occupational, medical, or natural pesticide exposures, are at low doses. The selection of chemicals to test, a critical issue, should reflect human exposures that are at high doses relative to their toxic doses and the numbers of people exposed. Epidemiology has been reasonably successful in identifying risk factors for human cancer, such as smoking, hormonal and dietary imbalances, asbestos, and several occupational chemicals; the data suggest that pesticide residues are unlikely to be a significant risk factor (6, 21).
Epidemiology, with molecular approaches, is becoming more sophisticated and will continue to be our main tool in analyzing causes of cancer. In order to minimize cancer and the other degenerative diseases of aging [which are associated with our constantly increasing life expectancy (6, 7)], we need to obtain the knowledge that will come from further basic scientific research.

Department of Biochemistry,
University of Califonua, Berkeley, CA 94720
Cell and Molecular Biology Division,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA



1. B. N. Ames, R. Magaw, L. S. Gold, Science 236,271(1987); ibid. 237,235 (1987); ibid., p. 1283; B.N. Ames, L. S. Gold, R Magaw, ibid, p. 1399; B. N. Ames and L. S. Gold, ibid. 238, 1634 (1987); ibid.240, 1045 (1998).
2. B. N. Ames, ibid. 221, 1256 (1983).
3. R. C. Beier, in Reviews,af Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, G. W. Ware, Ed. (Springcr-Verlag, New York, in press).
4. B. N. Ames a al., in preparation.
5. L. S. Gold et al., Environ. Health Perspect. 58, 9( 1984); L. S. Gold et al., ibid. 67.161 (1986); L. S.
Gold et al., ibid. 74, 237 (1987); L. S. Gold et al., ibid, in press.
6. . B. N. Ames, Environmental Mutagen., in press.
7. in important Advances in Oncology 1989, V. T.DeVita, Jr., S. Hellman, S. A. Rosenberg, Eds.(Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA, 1989), pp. 237-247.
8. S. J. Jadhav, R. P. Sharma. D. K. Salunkhc, CRC Crit. Rev. Toxical. 9, 21 (1981); J. H. Rrnwiek et al., Teratology 30, 371 (1984).
9. S. F. Berkley et al., Ann. Intern. Med. 105, 351 (1986); P. J. Seligman et al, Arch. Dermatol. 123,1478 (1987).
10. Environmental! Protection Agency, “Daminozidc special review. Crop field trials. Supplemental daminozide and UDMH residue data for apples, cherries, peanuts, pears, and tomatoes,” memo from L. Cheng to M. Boodee, 21 February 1989. The HERP is based on a TD50 of 4.83 mg/kg per day for UDMH. We have not calculated the HERP for Alar (daminozide), which would be much lower, F. Perera and P. Boffetta [J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 80, 1282( 1988) had reported a HERP for average Alar exposure in apples and apple juice of 0.02%, but this value is too high by a factor of 1000 due to an arithmetic error.
11. The HERP is based on a TD,o of 27.3 mg/kg per day for 8-methoxypsoralen.
12. C. H. Van Erten K et al., J. Agric .Food Chem. 24, 452(1976); G. R. Fenwick, R. K. Heanry, W. J. Mullin, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 18, 123 (1983); R. K. Heaney and G. R. Fenwick, J. Sci. Food Agric. 31,785 (1980); R. F. Mithcr, B. G. Lewis, R. K. Heaney, G. R. Fenwick, Phytochemistry 26. 1969 (1987). The HERP is based on a TD50 of 96 mg/kg
per day for allyl isothiocyanate.
13. E. D. Lund, C. L Kirkland, P. E. Shaw, J. Agri. Food Chem. 29, 361 (1981). The HERP is based ona TD50 of 9100 mg/kg per day for alcohol.
14. H. Maarse, Ed., Volatile Compounds in Food. Quantitative Data, vol. 2 (Division for Nutrition and Food Research, TNO-CIVO Food Analysis Institute ,Zeist, The Netherlands. 1983).
15. R. J. Prokopy, Fruit Notes 53, 7(University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, Amherst, MA, 1988)
16. C. F. Jelinck A. E. Pohlind, G. E. Wood, J. Assoc. off. Anal. Chem. 72, 225 (1989); D. M. Wilson, in. Mycotoxins and Other Fungal Related Food Problems, J.V. Rodricks, Ed. (American Chemical Society,Washington, DC, 1976), pp. 90-109; G. M. Ware, C.W . Thorpe, A. E. Pohland, J. Assoc. Off Anal. Chem. 57, 1111 (1974); J. L. Wheeler. M. A. Harrison, P. E. Koehler, J Food Science 52, 479 (1987).
17. International Agency for Research on Cancer, lARC :Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Some Naturally Occuring and Synthetic Food Components, Furocowmarins and Ultraviolet Radiation (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 1986), vol. 40, pp. 83-98
18. J. A. Swenberg et al., Environ. Health. Perspect. 76, 57 (1987).
19. S. Wolff, V. Afzal, J. K.Wiencke, G.Olivieri, A.Michaeli, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 53, 39 (1988); K. Sankarananyanan, A. v. Duyn, M. J. Loos, A. T.Natarajan, Mutat. Res. 211, 7 (1989); A. Bosi and G. Olivieri, ibid., p. 13.
20. A. Ootsuyama and H. Tanooka, Radiat. Res. 115, 488 (1988).
21. A. H. Smith and M. N. Batcs, in Carcinogenicity and Pesticides, N. N. Ragsdale and R. Menzer, Eds. (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, in press); R Peto, in Assessment of Risks from Low-Level Exposure to Radiation and Chemicals: A Critical Overview., A. D. Woodhead, C. J. Shelabarger, V. Pond, A. Hollaendcr, Eds. (Ptenum, New York, NY,1985), pp. 3-16.
22. We thank M. Profer, T. Slone, and N. Manley for assistance and criticisms. Supported by NCI Outstanding Investigator grant CA39910 to B.N.A., NIEHS Center grant ES01896, and`’NTEHS/DOE Inter-agency Agreement Y01-ES-10066.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Bruce Ames and carcinogens and fruits and vegetables and how news media can twist the truth

]]]]]]]]]]]]     PROF. BRUCE AMES REBUTS CBS     [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[               
             [From Priorities, Fall 1989, pp. 38-39]

[Published by  the American Council  on Science  and Health, 1995
Broadway, 16th Floor, New York, NY, 10023-5860, (212) 362-7044]

          [Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

Dr. Bruce Ames,  noted biochemist and  Chairman of the Department
of Biochemistry  at the  University of  California, Berkeley, was
also interviewed by Mr. Bradley.   His comments to ``60 Minutes''
were  also distorted,  as CBS  did their  best to  discredit him.
Specifically,  the  producers  misquoted  Dr.  Ames  --  and then
brought on Dr. William Lijinsky and allowed him, uncritically, to
challenge  the  distorted  statements  attributed  to  Dr.  Ames,
without allowing Dr.  Ames a rejoinder  to clarify points.  Below
is  the  letter Dr.  Ames  wrote  to Don  Hewitt,  ``60 Minutes''
producer, following the [14 May 1989] airing of the interview.

June 29, 1989

Mr. Don Hewitt
Executive Producer
524 West 57th Street
New York, N.Y. 10019

Dear Mr. Hewitt:


``60 Minutes''  interviewed me  for its  second program  on Alar,
which was shown on May 14, 1989.  Mr. David Gerber, the producer,
and  Mr.  Ed  Bradley,  the  interviewer,  grossly  distorted the
scientific arguments  I presented,  thus dishonestly discrediting
me.  The program dealt both  incompetently and dishonestly with a
scientific issue and was therefore unprofessional.  I assume that
such an egregious mistreatment of  a scientific issue was made by
``60 Minutes'' in  order to buttress  its previous scientifically
flawed  coverage  of the  Alar  issue [broadcast  on  26 February
1989], rather than to pursue the truth.

The focus of my discussion in  the interview was that the fear of
cancer  from  the   breakdown  product  of   Alar  was  based  on
misinterpretation of the meaning  of animal cancer tests.  Below,
I briefly summarize  the relevant facts,  which are documented in
greater  detail  in the  enclosed  papers.  I  also  indicate how
Gelber distorted the facts to make his case.

Of  all chemicals  tested at  high  doses in  both rats  and mice
(about  400   chemicals),  about  half   are  carcinogens:  thus,
carcinogens,  as defined  by  such tests,  are  extremely common.
Synthetic industrial chemicals  account for almost  all (-85%) of
the chemicals tested.   However, despite the  fact that more than
99.9%  of the  chemicals  humans eat  are  natural, only  a small
number (about 70)  of natural chemicals have  been tested in both
rats and mice; again, about  half are carcinogens.  These results
imply that synthetic  chemicals, except in  the case of high-dose
occupational exposure,  are unlikely  to be  responsible for much
human cancer.   This is in  agreement with the  conclusion of the
epidemiologists  who   study  human  cancer:   only  a  minuscule
proportion, if any,  of cancer is  likely to be  due to pesticide

Nature's pesticides are one  important group of natural chemicals
that we have investigated.  All  plants produce toxins to protect
themselves  against fungi,  insects, and  predators such  as man.
Tens  of  thousands   of  these  natural   pesticides  have  been
discovered, and  every species of  plant contains its  own set of
different toxins, usually a few  dozen.  In addition, when plants
are  stressed or  damaged,  such as  during  a pest  attack, they
increase their  natural pesticide levels  many fold, occasionally
to levels  that are  acutely toxic  to humans.   We estimate that
99.9% of the pesticides we eat are all natural.

Surprisingly few plant  toxins have been  tested in animal cancer
bio-assays, but among  those tested, again  about half (20/42) are
carcinogenic.  Even though only a tiny proportion of plant toxins
in our diet have been  tested, natural pesticide carcinogens have
been shown to  be present in the  following foods: anise, apples,
bananas, basil, broccoli,  brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe,
carrots,  cauliflower, celery,  cinnamon, cloves,  cocoa, coffee,
comfrey   tea,   fennel,   grapefruit   juice,   honeydew  melon,
horseradish,  kale,  mushrooms,  mustard,  nutmeg,  orange juice,
parsley, parsnips,  peaches, black  pepper, pineapples, radishes,
raspberries, tarragon,  and turnips.   Thus, it  is probable that
almost every  plant product  in the  supermarket contains natural
carcinogens.  The levels of the  known natural carcinogens in the
above plants  are almost  always much  higher than  the levels of
man-made pesticides,  and many are  in the range  of thousands to
millions of parts  per billion.  I pointed  out to ``60 Minutes''
that a glass  of the suspect  Alar-contaminated apple juice posed
only  1/10th  the  possible carcinogenic  hazard  of  the average
peanut butter sandwich and 1/50th that  of a mushroom, as well as
other   relevant   comparisons  [see   ``Pesticides,   Risk,  and
Applesauce,'' Science, May  19, 1989].  Furthermore,  we need not
be alarmed by the presence of low doses of synthetic toxins and a
plethora  of  natural  toxins  in  our  food.   Humans  are  well
protected by many layers of general defenses against low doses of
toxins -- defenses which do not distinguish between synthetic and
natural  toxins.    In  addition,  new   research  suggests  that
conventional worst-case extrapolations from very high-dose rodent
cancer tests to very low-dose  human exposures to chemicals, such
as  the  NRDC  performed,   enormously  exaggerate  the  possible

Additionally, there  is a fundamental  trade-off between nature's
pesticides and man-made pesticides.  We can easily breed out many
of  nature's  pesticides, but  then  we will  need  more man-made
pesticides to protect our crops  from being eaten by insects.  In
contrast, growers are  currently breeding some  plants for insect
resistance  and   unwittingly  raising  the   levels  of  natural

Although  I am  considered  one of  the  world's leaders  in this
field, and I  devoted a day of  my time to  explain in detail the
above  points to  Gelber/Bradley, they  chose  to ignore  most of
these  facts.   The points  that  were  covered on  the  air were
handled in the following incompetent and unprofessional manner.

(1) My discussion of natural carcinogens was grossly misquoted:

Bradley: ``Dr.  Lijinsky disputes Ames'  claim that  99.9% of all
carcinogens come from natural foods.''

This   obviously  incorrect   claim   was  never   made   by  me.
Gelber/Bradley  made it  up.   What I  stated  was that  99.9% of
chemicals we ingest  are natural.  It  is well known  that 30% of
human cancer  is due to  smoking and another  large percentage of
cancer is  due to  viruses, hormones,  sunlight, alcohol, dietary
imbalances,  radon,  and  occupational  causes.   Thus,  Lijinsky
rebutted  a  statement  made  up  by  Gelber/Bradley,  and,  as a
consequence, publicly discredited me.   When I asked Gelber where
he got that statement from, he couldn't come up with an answer.

(2)  Gelber/Bradley  grossly  misquoted  me  again  and  publicly
discredited me in two unjustifiable ways.

          Bradley: ``Well, who's right?   This is the most recent
          listing   of   carcinogens   published   by   the  U.S.
          government's National  Toxicology Program.   That's the
          agency  which determines  which chemical  compounds are
          known to  cause tumors in  animals or  humans.  It does
          not  support Dr.  Ames' claim  that  there are  tens of
          thousands of carcinogens in  natural food.  He believes
          further tests will  show he's right.   But for now, the
          national toxicology  survey lists  just 148 substances,
          and the compounds  in celery and  broccoli aren't among
          them.  One  compound that  is, is  the one  produced by

          (a) The attribution to me  of the statement ``there are
              tens of thousands of  carcinogens in natural food''
              is not right.

          (b) Bradley's statement that the natural carcinogens in
              celery and  broccoli aren't listed  by the National
              Toxicology Program  (NTP) is  not correct.   In the
              ``60  Minutes''  interview,  I  said  that Brussels
              sprouts,  cabbage,  broccoli,  and  celery  contain
              carcinogens.   Gelber later  phoned me  asking what
              these carcinogens  were.  The  information on three
              of  these foods  was  in the  article ``Pesticides,
              Risk, and Applesauce,'' which  I had sent to Gelber
              and which he had promised to read before he came to
              interview me, and which has since been published in
              Science.   Nevertheless, I  told  him on  the phone
              that allyl  isothiocyanate is  in cabbage, Brussels
              sprouts, and  broccoli, and  that 8-methoxypsoralen
              is in  celery, and  that both  plant compounds were
              found  to  be carcinogens  by  the NTP  in  its own
              bioassay program.  Bradley said  in the quote above
              that these compounds are not in the latest NTP list
              of carcinogens, thus discrediting  me.  The list he
              waved was years  old.  The compounds  are, in fact,
              on other lists that NTP sends out to all interested
              parties several times  a year: allyl isothiocyanate
              was evaluated by NTP as positive for carcinogenesis
              in    1982   and    8-methoxypsoralen    in   1988.
              Gelber/Bradley could have  clarified this easily of
              they  had  wanted to,  but,  apparently, scientific
              truth was not on their list of priorities.

          (3) Gelber/Bradley  turned   the  Alar   issue  into  a
              question of  motives rather  than of  science.  For
              example,  they attempted  to  tie me  to  the ``bad
              guys''  --  the American  chemical  industry  -- by
              introducing me as follows:

              Bradley:  ``At  the   urging  of  the  agricultural
              chemical industry,  we spoke  with Dr.  Bruce Ames,
              chairman   of   the   Biochemistry   Department  at
              Berkeley.    Dr.   Ames  says   he   is  completely
              independent and does no consulting for industry.''

Gelber/Bradley, of course, could as  well have chosen to say that
I  am a  member  of the  National  Academy of  Sciences,  or have
received  a  long   list  of  scientific   honors  from  numerous

In any scientific controversy, a professional reporter wishing to
obtain  an  unbiased  view should  ask  advice  from  the leading
scientists in  the field.   Gelber did not  do this  in the first
Alar  program.  If  Gelber had  wanted  to obtain  a professional
scientific  opinion on  Alar he  could have  assembled a  list of
outstanding  scientists   in  the   field  by   consulting  Nobel
prizewinners or  other leading  scientists who  are familiar with
the field.  If these scientists were asked to name leaders in the
field, I am confident that I  would be near the top of everyone's
list -- not  just the agricultural  chemical industry's.  I doubt
if Lijinsky  would be  on anyone's  list.  Lijinsky,  who was the
scientist given the  most time on the  program, was introduced as
the head of  a chemical carcinogenesis lab  at the National Cancer
Institute (NCI),  yet Lijinsky  is not  an NCI  employee.  Gelber
didn't talk to any of  the leading chemical carcinogenesis people
at NCI,  e.g. Richard Adamson,  the head of  Cancer Etiology, for
their opinions of either Lijinsky or myself or Alar.

The theme of the ``60 Minutes''  program seemed to be that anyone
who has  consulted for or  is connected with  industry is biased,
without considering that bias can  exist on both sides.  Although
I do no consulting for industry or  law firms, I am aware from my
experience in 20  years in toxicology  that the American chemical
industry is extremely  competitive and consistently  tries to get
the best toxicologists  in the country to  advise them because it
is  in their  self  interest to  do so.   On  the other  hand, my
experience  with  the environmental  organizations  is  that they
specialize more in ideology than in expert science.  The activist
lawyers of the  NRDC and similar  organizations choose scientists
who  are selectively  interested in  rodent carcinogens  that are
produced  by chemical  companies,  and they  believe  that anyone
connected  with a  chemical company  or  industry works  only for
greed  (profit) while  they work  for altruism.   Perhaps feeling
virtuous  compensates  for   their  lack  of   success  in  being
competitive  in science.   Such scientists  can profit  very well
from their ``altruism''  by testifying for a  generous fee in the
flourishing toxic torts industry.  For example, testifying that a
few parts per billion of some man-made rodent carcinogen will, as
Lijinsky  phrased it,  ``put someone  over  the edge  and they'll
develop cancer''  can be very  lucrative.  But  Lijinsky's or the
NRDC's possible biases did not interest ``60 Minutes''.

I won't elaborate  on the many inaccuracies  in your treatment of
Elizabeth  Whelan.  The  American Council  on Science  and Health
(ACSH), directed by Dr. Whelan, is that rare creature, a ``public
interest'' organization that is based in science.  Dr. Whelan has
assembled  an  impressive  list of  knowledgeable  people  on her
scientific advisory  board.  I  have been  as impressed  with the
scientifically sound pamphlets that ACSH has published, as I have
been  unimpressed by  the  scientifically unsound  claims  of the

There  are  many  important issues  concerning  cancer  that ``60
Minutes''  could  tackle without  bankrupting  apple  farmers and
falsely convincing  the public  that their  apples are poisonous.
One real  issue in  environmental cancer  is how  a few ideologue
lawyers and second-rate scientists working through the media have
convinced   many   Americans  that   pesticide   residues,  water
pollution, and ``toxic chemical'' pollution are serious causes of
cancer or  birth defects, and  that what  this misdirected effort
costs the  country by  diverting attention  from real  to trivial

A final  thought: Reed  Irvine of Accuracy  in Media  (AIM) was a
pleasure to deal with, in contrast  to Gelber.  He was a stickler
for  detail and  cared about  scientific  integrity.  When  I was
first contacted by him, I didn't know who he was, but he deserves
more  than a  brushoff.   He raised  a  lot of  issues  that need
answers, and so does my letter.

Yours truly,

Bruce N. Ames
Professor and Chairman
Department of Biochemistry
University of California
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Weather change has always been man made and here is the proof.

The AGW believers are actually witches?

Video | Posted on by | 2 Comments

Christine Lagarde – The Most Dangerous Woman in the World

Christine Lagarde – The Most Dangerous Woman in the World – IMF Advocates Taking Pensions & Extending Maturities of Gov’t Debt to Prevent Redemption


I have gone on record that the most dangerous organization is the now French led IMF with Christine Lagarde at the helm, which has presented a concept report that debt cuts for over-indebted states are uncompromising and are to be performed more effectively in the future by defaulting on retirement accounts held in life insurance, mutual funds and other types of pension schemes, or arbitrarily extending debt perpetually so you cannot redeem. Yes you read correctly, The new IMF paper is described in great detail exactly how to now allow the private sector, which has invested in government bonds,  to be expropriated to pay for the national debts of the socialist governments.

I have been warning that there is an idea that has been running around behind the curtain that the national debt of the USA could be settled by usurping all pension funds in the country. Here is a remarkable blueprint that throws all previous considerations concerning the purchase of government bonds over the cliff. The IMF working paper from December 2013 states boldly:

Read the rest here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trading sub pennies.

JB sent this to me do not know if true but worth looking at.


If you look at the charts back when the highest PPs in march was low volume when this was in .04-.06 territory. The recent volume was not as high as these last few months showing numerous high volume days since then, only for this to be heavily diluted to the current pps we are at today. If you watch the level2 on this every time good news is announced VFIN sits on the ask with huge bid orders to fill, know your MMs.

Once you learn how to use L2 dilution is very easy to spot. Always pay attention to who is on the ask. If it is just NITE or UBSS then most likely you won’t see any manipulation. If you see VFIN, VERT or cosmetic MM’s, know that they are the #1 diluters in the market. Cosmetic MM’s are special MM’s used by the company to help hide dilution from less learned traders. Sometimes it’s easier to use them then the well known one’s like VERT. If you are watching L2 and one of the diluters are there you will see massive volume on the ask but it will not UT on your stock, it’s because they have a certain amount of shares to sell and will not move until they are gone.

You might think it’s all buys but they are masked due to selling on the ask since they will come up green instead of red. Another thing here also is you can have millions bought on the ask and then it down ticks, posters will say MM manipulation but what is going on is it down ticked because the OS has gotten bigger due to VFIN and others selling shares on the ask.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment



As you can see the one on 5/30  was a miss but the rest have been very good at hitting turning points.

double click on graph too enlarge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Halflines and trading

these  work  mamy times on all time periods. They can give you an idea where to get in and out.Image

The line starts at a cit point and usually goes  about 1/2 way between the next move. And usually  work better than the pitchfork. This is pretty much a visual thing so try to balance the total move to get placement

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DRN with parallel line on arithmetic and how they look with log scale


Above is DRN done in arithmetic scale. Both lines are parallel.

The one underneath is done in log scale with the same trendlines and as they would look and position if they were drawn using arithmetic scale. My suggestion  except in rare cases always draw your trendlines using arithmetic scale .Notice how the lines on the log scales get closer together as prices increase.

BTW  the next CIT  on DRN  look like the 16th.


We are open for discussion.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

DJ-30 Is it possible we could see panic selling into june 20th?


We just came off my last CIT  2 days ago and if it holds into Friday , I think we could have a very big down week next week, maybe into the oval I have on the graph. The CIT June 20th has come up on many stocks also , so I see it as a major event. Be careful be wise and check your 180. Good day all.

PS to enlarge graph , just double click on it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Who owns the sandwich

Dinesh D’Souza & Michael Shermer in debate at Oregon State University. Questions from the student body regarding Universal Health Care / ObamaCare. The answers were quite well presented and the student body seemed to agree.

Video | Posted on by | 1 Comment

The EPA wants to write more rules that will definitly destroy farming and large property owners.

The “Waters of the U.S.” proposed rule lets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate small ponds, ditches, rainwater flowing through low spots and isolated wet spots – the same as if they were a river or other navigable waterways.

This proposal will be a serious threat to farming and ranching, home-building, energy production and other land uses.

What happened to property rights?

Video | Posted on by | 2 Comments




CIT  on TWTR  on the 9th. I think it can go up  in Am then there will be a good  shot at shorting it. Pay attention to support and resistance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment