Gary North's REALITY CHECK

Gary North's REALITY CHECK - No. 54

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Gary North's REALITY CHECK No. 54 October 3, 2000 E-Mail: ice@ballistic.com

THE REAPPEARANCE OF THE INVERTED YIELD CURVE
In 1989, I sent out a direct-mail promotion piece for my paper-based newsletter, REMNANT REVIEW. I forecasted a recession, which hit in 1990. I used the inverted yield curve as my early warning indicator. This is becoming relevant again. I'm not going to reprint all of that report here because it would fill 13 pages. I need the extra space for an update. But I'll give you some extracts that introduce you to the subject. Not many investors understand the yield curve. Read this, and you will.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ON OCTOBER 19, 1987, YOU WERE GIVEN A WARNING

Dear Investor:
When the stock market fell 508 points in one day, it was front-page news. By the time it was front-page news, however, it was way too late for you to do anything about it.
But there had been numerous danger signals. Two weeks before the crash -- on Monday, October 5 -- subscribers to my newsletter, Remnant Review, received this warning:

"I'm out of the market and into a nice, low- paying short-term money market. I am too concerned with capital preservation. . . .
"You have probably read of the 1929 crash, but few people are aware of the growing doubts that investment advisors had in 1928. But the prophets of crisis were wrong all through 1928, and then through the first few months of 1929. By then the mania caught many of the worry warts, and they re-entered the market.
"That's what I'm afraid of today. If I recommend that people get completely out of the stock market, and it continues to soar, they will kick themselves for having abandoned the greatest bull market of all time. Then they will be tempted to re-enter the market at the top. . . . [Y]ou must not ride this one all the way to the top. The downside risk is too great. . . . You want to get into near-cash assets to preserve your capital. There will be other buying opportunities after the bubble bursts."

Almost immediately, the bubble burst. The questions are: 1) Is 1989 the "day of opportunity"? 2) Or are we facing a second crash?
I'm betting on the second possibility. I'm not betting everything I own, but I'm betting a fat chunk of it. Why? Because of an event that took place on February 7 of this year. On that day, for the first time since 1981, the government debt market produced an inverted yield curve.
"So what?" you may ask. So, everything!
If your assets would be threatened by a major recession , or even a depression, you owe it to yourself to consider the financial implications of this unique event.

THE INVERTED YIELD CURVE
This term sounds technical. Well, it is sort of technical. But it's not that difficult to understand. Warning: If you don't understand it, your economic future is up for grabs.
What I'm about to present here is vitally important for every investor. If you think it's boring and not worth your time, then you might as well conclude that an economic depression is equally "boring" and "not worth your time" to prepare for. . . .
The inverted yield curve is a better-known phenomenon today than it was in 1981. It enabled me to predict the 1980 recession, as well as the 1981-82 recession. Not very many investment advisors talked about it back then. . . .
. . . Almost without exception, the appearance of this peculiar statistic heralds a recession within ten months, and sometimes less. (The main exception: very occasionally it has appeared after the economy was already in the recession.) The more inverted it is, the more sure the recession.
What is an inverted yield curve, anyway? What, exactly, is inverted? In the next few pages, I'm going to discuss the inverted yield curve and what it could mean for your financial survival. Also, for the country's financial survival.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
What's the problem? Short-term interest rates. That's not the main problem, however. What is really significant is that short-term rates moved above long-term rates on February 7.
"So what?" you may still be asking yourself. Good question. Let me answer this question in language so simple that even a Harvard economics professor can understand. But first I'm going to cheat a little. I'm going to answer this question with a question -- actually, with two questions:
1. If you were to loan a person money, which would be the safer loan: a 90-day loan or a 30-year loan?
2. Which loan is likely to be influenced adversely more by inflation?
First, we instinctively conclude that the shorter the loan period, the safer the loan. We can more easily assess the moral and financial character of the borrower and the market in general. Also, the borrower is more likely to pay immediate attention to his 90-day obligation than his 30-year obligation. There are fewer uncertainties about a 90-day loan.
Second, prices might double between the time of the loan and the time of repayment. Which seems more likely: doubling in 90 days or doubling in 30 years?
These answers are obvious. With respect to two of the three foundations of a market rate of interest -- the risk of default factor and the inflation factor -- the capital value of a short-term loan is less likely to be affected.
This being the case, why would short-term interest rates for "equally safe" government T- bills climb to over 9% if the rate on 30-year government bonds is under 9%? It's the same borrower. If it's safer to loan money short- term, why do lenders demand, and borrowers pay, a higher rate of interest for 90-day money than 30- year money?
Whatever the answer or answers -- we'll get to my suggestions shortly -- it should be obvious to you that this interest rate phenomenon is very peculiar. This is why it's called an inverted yield curve. What is normally "on top" -- long-term interest rates -- is now on the bottom, and vice versa. . . .
Let me also point out that the inverted yield curve has now appeared in Britain, Italy, and Switzerland. Overnight money rates (bank to bank) are now higher than 30-year money rates. This is an international phenomenon. This is why I believe it will have international repercussions.
In other words, there will be no "safe havens," just as there weren't on October 19, 1987 when all the world's stock markets fell simultaneously.

THE TRIGGER THAT LAUNCHES THE RECESSION
Take a look at a chart prepared by Merrill Lynch. It appeared in a November 18, 1988 special report. It charts the last 35 years of financial history in the U.S.

[Sorry, I can't reproduce the graph in this ASCII-text e-mail report.]

Notice that the 1958 recession was not telegraphed by the inverted yield curve. It got close, however, as you can see, in 1957. In 1959, the long-term and short-term rates matched; the curve wasn't quite inverted. A recession followed in 1960.
In 1966, the negative yield curve appeared early in the year; it ended the economic boom. The stock market peaked in early February, at just over 1,000 on the Dow, inter-day. If you discount for inflation, 1966-89, the Dow Jones Industrial Averages has never again reached this level. But the subsequent recession lasted only one quarter, and a recession has to last two consecutive quarters to be officially designated a recession.
(If you happened to lose your job or half your life savings during that disastrous quarter, you really didn't care about how official it was.)
So, the inverted yield curve isn't a magic number. There has been one recession which was not preceded by the inverted yield curve (1958). There has been one inverted yield curve without a full-scale recession (1966). But both exceptions took place over two decades ago.
After 1966, the relationship got extremely rigorous: 1969, 1973, 1979, and early 1981. Every time the inverted yield curve has appeared, a recession has followed. . . .
The presence of the inverted yield curve points to an increased demand for higher liquidity on the part of both lenders and borrowers. High liquidity means at least three things: the ability to sell an asset 1) rapidly; 2) without a high commission; 3) with very low advertising costs.
The best advice I can offer to the investor today is to honor the old adage: don't fight the tape. I don't mean the Dow Jones ticker tape, which may still be rising. (By the time you receive this report, it may not be.) I mean the inverted yield curve itself. It is telling us that there is an abnormal premium on liquidity today -- a premium that is seen only before recessions. If that's what the market wants, then you had better be in a position to supply it. . . .

A TIME TO SOAR AND A TIME TO FEAST ON THE SIDELINES
The eagle has a good reputation. It soars. It inspires. It is the national bird of the U.S.
Vultures have a bad image. They do not inspire. They fly, but they are never said to soar. They are nobody's national bird. But they perform a crucial function in the cycle of life and death. They pick clean the remains of those animals that are dead but not yet gone.
Everyone has heard of venture capital. Not many have heard of vulture capital. Both are equally crucial to the prosperity of any economy.
Venture capital performs its greatest service during the upward phase of a business cycle. It allows innovative, high-risk projects to soar.
In contrast, vulture capital provides the economy with crucial services during the recession phase of the business cycle. When nobody wants to invest in new projects, vulture capital keeps the system going by reviving dying projects that worked in the boom phase but which have fallen on hard times.
The Achilles heel in a recession is a company's existing debt. The interest meter keeps ticking even when cash flow shrinks. Those who tried to soar even higher with borrowed money crash and burn during the recession.
There is more debt today -- personal, corporate, and government -- than ever before in U.S. history -- indeed, in world history. When the next recession hits, we will see the remains of high-flying projects littering the economic scene.
Fortunes will be made by those who have kept their heads (and their cash) in the final phase of the boom, and who can sort out the economically dead from the economically wounded.
It is precisely when the average investor thinks that he can get rich through debt, inventory build-up, and the boom that those who really will get rich pull back and let the eagles soar. It is when government officials assure us that recessions are produced by government mismanagement that you know the end of the cycle is near.
What I'm recommending today is the vulture strategy. It sounds awful. It sounds mean. But it is a strategy that keeps investors solvent in a recessionary crisis, and also provides them with the two crucial tools for long-run profits in the boom phase.
These crucial tools are cash and the knowledge necessary for timing the move back into the market.

PHASE ONE OF THE VULTURE CAPITAL STRATEGY
Today, it still pays to be flexible, meaning liquid. If you are in a switch-fund program, and if it still has you in the stock market, then until the inverted yield curve disappears, you should monitor the numbers daily. The name of the survival game today is speed. If you don't call in every day to see what the recommendation is, then you need to chart your own graph. I am not telling you to get out of your stock market mutual fund if you're self- consciously following a specific programmed strategy. Do it by the numbers. But do it. Don't assume that another October 19 can't happen again.
If you're not using a programmed trading system of some kind, then you have to ask yourself: How much longer will it be safe for me to keep my funds invested in anything except money markets?
On the other hand, has the Federal Reserve System taken steps that can overcome the effects of the inverted yield curve? And what about politics? If Congress were to vote for a lowering of capital gains taxes, wouldn't this create a boom in the stock market? Wouldn't the dollar climb in response to foreigners buying dollars in order to participate in a bull market?
Thus, you need to be aware of offsetting economic forces that could postpone the recession by reversing the inverted yield curve. You need to be aware of the appropriate strategies that are available to investors that can produce profits in a recession despite the added risks of corporate default. . . .
The trouble is, paralysis sets in during the recession. People stop subscribing to information services. They freeze up. Only those who have prepared in advance are equipped to profit from the new boom economy, and that is always a small minority of investors.
When it's time to become an eagle, most people are scurrying around like mice, trying not to be caught.
It has always been thus. I imagine that it will always be. My advice: be an eagle (debt-free) or be a vulture (cash in reserve), but avoid being a mouse. Mice spend too much time running frantically, and when they stop running, they get caught.
* * * * * * * * * * *
With this as an introduction, let me reproduce the latest report by my friend John Mauldin. He worked for me managing REMNANT REVIEW, my paper-based newsletter, in the 1980s. He has been in the money-management business since the late 80s, focusing on individual accounts. His company, Millennium Wave Investments, specializes in market timing using a proprietary system for measuring investor sentiment. He monitors the yield curve full-time. He also writes a weekly e-letter commenting upon the economy and the stock market. He is currently writing a book on the psychology of investing and investor sentiment. Email him at john@2000wave.com and ask to be put on his weekly economic report.
If you have doubts about any of this, click through to the documents. This is a great advantage of email newsletters: the writer can supply links to documentation so easily. The reader can then see how the writer is using this information.

* * * * * * * * * * *
THE PROBABILITY OF A RECESSION GROWS
John Mauldin

I get lots of email from readers asking me to tell them if I personally think we will have a recession next year. In this letter, I am going to try to answer that question.
(I want clients to please note that this is my opinion, and my opinion does not reflect the timing models based on investor sentiment we use to manage money. Our market timing models don't tell us what the economy will be doing next year. They are designed to hopefully predict what the next major turn of the stock market will be.)

THE YIELD CURVE GETS WORSE
Time for a yield curve update. When I wrote last month about the yield curve, I interviewed Dr. Arturo Estrella, one of the authors of the Federal Reserve paper which tells us the yield curve is the most important predictor of recessions. Download the paper at
http://www.ny.frb.org/rmaghome/curr_iss/ci2-7.html
You can read my analysis of that paper and an explanation of the yield curve at
http://www.2000wave.com/archivemain/fed.html
In that interview, he acknowledged that the yield curve is suggesting a possible recession in the future, but he noted that there were no confirming signals that a recession was imminent. He was therefore suspicious of the current negative yield curve signaling a recession. Chief among his reasons for being skeptical was the problem with the supply of the 10 to 30 year government bonds. To wit: since the government is running a huge surplus and visibly buying longer term bonds, is the government action messing around with normal yield curve rates?
The problem is, we have no precedent to look to because we have never run huge surpluses before. But as I will show below, this is NOT the first time 10-year bonds have paid more than 30-year bonds.
So, has much changed in the last month? The answer to that is yes. The 90-day average of the yield curve, upon which the study is based, has gotten worse. (see below.) There is now beginning to be some evidence that government long-bond availability is more normal than we might think.
I have been giving the yield curve a great deal of thought since I started writing about it in early spring of this year. My current thinking tells me we should have a heightened sense of concern about a possible recession within our future. Let me try to briefly state my case for my increasing concern before I put a probability number to the issue later in this letter.

1. Estrella rightly points out that we are seeing no signs of a recession. But his study shows the yield curve predicts a recession 4 quarters out. If that is the case, we should be looking to see a recession next summer at the earliest and probably next fall. As I think back over the last few recessions, there were very few signs one year ahead that a recession was coming. For most economists and analysts, the recession was a surprise even one quarter out!
Since the yield curve is an EARLY predictor, it would be more worrisome if we were seeing confirming signs in the economy now. That would mean the recession was probably going to be a very deep one. Thus we shouldn't be surprised that we see no recession clouds on the horizon.

2. For all of this year, 30 year bonds have paid a lower rate than 10 year bonds. The difference has been as much as 30 basis points, or 3/10ths of 1%. The standard reason given for this anomaly is that the government is buying up the supply of long term bonds. But in the last week, this situation has changed.
Today, the 30 year bond is paying 10 basis points more than the 10 year bond (5.82% for the 10 year vs. 5.92% for the 30 year). Has the government started issuing 30 year bonds and thus increased the supply? Obviously not.
(I hear questions out there. The argument from many economists is that the lower rates on the 30 year bond is the result of the government buying 30 year bonds because of the budget surplus. Therefore, if the government is buying up the supply of 30 year bonds, that reduces the supply of bonds. If the demand for these bonds does not also go down, then supply-demand theory tells us that should mean the price of bonds will go up. If bond prices go up, then interest rates or the yield on those bonds goes down. Remember that if bonds are going up in value then interest rates are going down. Got it?)
The relationship between the 10 and 30 year bond has started to become normal over the last week. Just for kicks, I went to the Federal Reserve web site
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/H15/data.htm
and downloaded the interest rates on 10 year and 30 year bonds since 1977. Then I did a comparison. Curiously, it is not at all uncommon for the 10 year rate to go above the 30 year rate.
In fact, it seems to happen about 18 months or so before a recession or a stock market crash. Not just one time but every time the 10 year/30 year rates became inverted since 1980 we had either a recession (in 1980, 1982 and 1990) or the '87 stock market crash.
I should point out that in 1987 we did not see an overall negative yield curve while we did prior to the recession years.
Does that mean we are going to have a recession next year? No, it doesn't. I can think of several reasons why we could avoid a recession. Oil could go back to $12 and Bush could win and decide to phase in his tax cuts starting in January, as an example. Greenspan could ease up on us. This would all be a great stimulus to the economy. (I can see most of you rolling your eyes and wondering what I am smoking.)
What it does mean is that I no longer buy the reason for the 10-year/30-year rates being inverted as being due to the government messing up the supply-demand balance.
It appears to me that we are seeing the yield curve begin to correct itself from the long side as it has done before prior to past recessions.
What I mean by that is the negative yield curves precedes a recession. By the time we are in a recession, the yield curve has already gone back to normal. If this pattern holds true, we would expect to see the yield curve normalize prior to any recession in 2001.
For you historical comparison buffs, in 1989 the yield curve went negative for one day on March 27 and went negative in late May through August and then again in late October through December. The recession is counted as the last quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. The 90 day average of the yield curve which is what the Fed study is based on was negative in the third quarter of 1989 and then we had the recession four quarters later.
This year, the yield curve went negative for a few days in early April but has been decidedly negative since July 7. The worst the yield curve has been this cycle is a -.58. The 90 day average is -.40.
The Fed study says at this level there is an approximately 35% chance of a recession within four quarters. I would remind you that the study also says the probabilities should be raised somewhat due to the more fluid bond markets of today, so the number is probably around 40-50% or so. Further, the 1990 recession was preceded by a negative 90 day average yield curve of only a -.13 percent
That also means there is a 50% chance we won't have a recession. But every time we have been at these yield curve levels for the last 40 years we have had a recession.
If you are interested in looking at the current interest rates and yield curve you can go to
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/C13.html?sidenav=front.

3. Coincidentally, high oil prices have been associated with three past recessions. (The oil shocks of 1974, 1979 and 1990).
Ed Yardeni says Americans are paying $161 billion more for their oil, and the price worldwide is approaching $500 billion. The talking heads last Sunday were analyzing Bush's $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. These cuts would be phased in over ten years, and much of the $1.6 would be in the later years. The thought hit me that the rise in oil prices would more than offset any cut in taxes, if we were to be so lucky as to actually get them.
Further, that $161 billion is just the increase in oil prices. It does not include the increases we are all feeling in electricity and natural gas. It is as if someone increased our corporate and personal income taxes by 15-20% almost overnight. I think many (if not most) economists would assert that a tax increase of this size at this time would tilt the economy towards a recession.
Side Question: Many of you ask me why the rise in the price of energy is not resulting in a return to higher inflation? The reason is pricing power. With the dollar so high most American companies cannot raise prices because they have to compete with cheaper imports and more competition from here and abroad. They simply are not able to pass through increased costs and thus are having to accept lower profit margins or forego sales. The same holds true for Europe. If European costs are going up because the Euro is going down (which means they pay more for their imports) and the price of oil is going up there as well, then why isn't there any more inflation in Europe? Without oil it is only 1.3%, and even with oil it is only 2.5%. Once again, companies are losing their pricing power. We are in a long term dis-inflationary cycle which could turn to outright deflation next year if there is a recession. If I am right, we will see a lot of earnings warnings for the next quarter.

4. Greenspan has been trying to slow this economy down for over 18 months. The second quarter saw us growing by a still red-hot 5%. Several of my readers point to this and tell me to stop worrying.
But there is evidence St. Greenspan is having success. Help wanted ads are down by 15% or so from early 1999. There are still plenty of jobs, but maybe not as many as before.
Look at all the earnings warnings we are getting. Just in the last few days Intel, Apple Computer, Xerox, Eastman Kodak -- the list goes on and on. (Jim Cramer of TheStreet.com had the best line of the day, "tell me three plagues Xerox did not blame for its poor performance.")
Greenspan was worried about the Wealth Effect. But the Wealth Effect was produced as much by expectations as by the actual gains. If you are positive your investments are going to grow by 25% every year, you don't mind spending a little of it now. But 25% is a distant memory. Many would settle just to get back to even for the year. Every market Index is down for the year, except utilities. The Internet stocks are down over 50% and going further. When someone starts to buy that extra goody today, they are wondering if they are spending fat (excess earnings) are they are cutting into muscle (savings). If you are even slightly worried about the future, you tend to spend less.
It seems from looking at the earnings reports that consumers are pulling their horns in a little. Not so much as would bring on a recession, but enough to slow the economy down.
It is not just in the United States. Singapore, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all turned in lower numbers for the Purchasing Managers Index. Every week I see new statistics to show Europe is slowing down.
5. For new readers, I again point out that one of our most reliable long-term indicators tells us we should see a major drop in the DOW and the S&P 500 within another quarter or two. Whenever this pattern has developed, 7 times out of 7 in the last century there has been at least a 15% crash. This would have a major effect upon the economy as it would be a negative Wealth Effect, coming as it would on top of a NASDAQ that will get hit just as hard or harder.

SUMMING IT UP
Bluntly, I think there is a 40% chance of a recession, based upon the above plus other points I have written about over the past few months. (Consumer credit problems, over-valued dollar, investor sentiment, etc.)
If many of the pieces of the puzzle were frozen today (money supply, interest rates, dollar value, energy prices) that probability would be a lot higher. But they are not frozen.
Greenspan will open the money supply if he thinks this economy is getting ready to roll over. OPEC does not want the world to slide into a recession. Just an Asian crisis led to $12 oil. What if demand in Europe and the US were to drop? You can bet that the Saudis, at least, will increase production. We could see a tax cut which would be a major positive. Interest rates could drop. Newer technologies are constantly coming on-stream which lower costs and increase profits. There are lots of good things which are happening in the economy every day. Probabilities, even those of a Fed paper are just that: probabilities. They are not certainties.
In short, there are too many factors and too much time in front of us to make an absolute prediction.
But we also should not stick our heads in the sand. I can see nothing which tells me that the Fed paper which predicts a recession is wrong this time. I readily admit there is no confirmation yet. Look at the charts carefully. You will notice the stock market is almost worthless as a predictor of recessions, and the so-called leading indicators don't begin to give us a clue until one and sometime two quarters out. In short, there is no reason to expect that we should see anything now.
There is no reason to panic or make major changes to our lives yet. But we should be on Red Alert. We should be sounding DefCon 3. I am a businessman or investor. I look at my longer term plans and see which hurts me more: m

-- NorthFan (GN@getreal.con), October 07, 2000

Answers

Thanks for sharing!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 07, 2000.

Six and a half thousand words to say "We don't know what will happen, be alert".

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 07, 2000.

NorthFan,
And what warning, exactly, were we given on October 19, 1987? That the Great Depression was about to occur...again? That crappy paper money would become worthless? That we should all run to the hills because the end was nigh? Any idea how much money you'd have lost if you exited the market in 1987 and invested in ...say...gold?
Why would anyone give a rat's ass about Gary North, a man with a degree in HISTORY, has to say about the economy? A man who has not just been wrong about his predictions, but spectacularly wrong? Has not his incredible performance with the whole Y2K thing taught you anything?
Apparently not.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), October 07, 2000.

Jim--
Not to defend North but do you seriously believe that an intelligent person can't have a valid opinion on a subject other than what his/her degree was in 20 years ago?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 07, 2000.

YES.......an intelligent person could be right or wrong about many things. HOWEVER, in Gary Duct Tape's case, there is a great big Body of Evidence that suggests that North has few peers........at being ***completely wrong*** over only 35 years.
Y2k-is-only-the LATEST-"BOO BOO"-for=DuctTape
http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 07, 2000.

NOTHING REALLY CHANGES WITH Brer Duct Tape. Here is one of his typical farts from 1980.
LINK

The barbarians are at the gates, threatening the West with destruction, yet the overwhelming majority of pastors have not begun to alert their congregations of the need for prayer, national repentance, Christian reconstruction, and preparation for national disaster. They apparently do not believe that the law-order which prevailed in the Old Testament still has any effect.

Gary North, "Impending Judgment," Backward Christian Soldiers? (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), p. 13.

The reality of judgment has been with us since 1914. The Soviet Union, the most consistent humanist regime in history, has escalated its pressures on the West, and by 1982 will probably be in a position to launch a successful first strike against Americas undefended missiles. Yet any pastor who would dare to mention the wisdom of buying dehydrated food, gold coins, and a home in a small town would be branded as an extremist. What is an extremist? A prophet. And you know what respectable priests and rulers did to the prophets...
Then we come to our recommended strategies. These include gold, silver, a safe place outside the major cities, local barter societies, churches that are organized to deal with civil breakdown, food storage programs, and all the other preparations that are sensible preceding a war, a revolution, an economic collapse, or mass inflation...
If you are a pastor, and you dont think your congregation wants to hear this kind of message, think about forming a new congregation. It wont be difficult. Just start preaching like a prophet of God, and the losers will leave, or toss you out. Your income as a pastor is going to wipe you out anyway; better seek alternative income now, while you have the opportunity.
If you are a layman, and your pastor refuses to preach like a prophet, find a new church, or do what you can to get a new pastor. Being surrounded by Christian lemmings (grasshoppers, in Aesops fable) when the crisis hits will be unpleasant. You will need friends who are better prepared than lemmings in that dark day.
Gary North, "Impending Judgment," Christian Reconstruction, IV, No. 3 (May/June 1980).

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 07, 2000.

The "Classic Gary Duct Tape" on AIDs:
                      The Plague Has Come at Last
                             by Gary North
          "Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of 
     recurring in the world; yet somehow we find it hard to 
     believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue 
     sky.  There have been as many plagues as wars in history; 
     yet always plagues and wars take people equally by 
     surprise." -Albert Camus, THE PLAGUE (1948) 
The time has come to fish or cut bait. Because of my concern for reprisals, I have kept my mouth shut, or at least I have whispered, for too long. I even turned down a national radio show interview last month on the topic. But something happened to me a week ago that has changed my attitude. I am not remaining quiet any longer.
On the final weekend of February, I attended a conference. Because of restrictions imposed by the organization, I am not allowed to mention its name. This was a rule established in 1981, at the first meeting. It's not a secret society; it's more of a publicity- shy group. The major "New Right" leaders in the U.S. belong, and a lot of them were in attendance this time.
There is no question what became the focus of attention: a special briefing on AIDS. I don't think most of the attendees really knew what AIDS is all about when they walked in. They were stunned when they walked out. So was I, and I had heard most of it before. But not all of it.
I can mention who one of the speakers was, since he has agreed: Gene Antonio. Gene wrote THE AIDS COVERUP? (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), by far the best researched and most frightening book on the topic. Subscribers to FIRESTORM CHATS have already heard some of the information Antonio has. Another speaker was a U.S. Congressman.
Because of what I learned at that session, and because of two other public developments that happened that weekend, I am going to put my reputation on the line and "come out of the closet" myself--the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" closet that the homosexual community has put us in. I am going to lose some subscribers over this. I am also pulling the copyright. I want this issue reprinted.
A generation ago, French existentialist philosopher Albert Camus (caMOO) wrote a grim novel, THE PLAGUE. The plot centered around a town in which a plague had broken out. Would public health officials and politicians admit it in time for people to flee, but in doing so admit defeat for the public health program, or would they simply sit quietly and let the plague take its course? They did the latter for far too long. Safety first. For the bureaucrats.
That same decision now faces us again. Only we are not talking about a town this time. We are talking about the whole world. There will be few places for people to flee to.
               WILL THE PLAGUE BECOME OFFICIAL IN TIME?  
. . . . . small official notices had been put up about the town, though in places where they would not attract much attention. It was hard to find in these notices any indication that the authorities were facing the situation squarely. The measures enjoined were far from Draconian and one had the feeling that many concessions had been made to a desire not to alarm the public.
So wrote Camus in 1948. So writes North in 1987. But the plague I'm writing about isn't fiction. It's real. It's here.
On Sunday morning, March 1, a local radio station in the Miami area broadcast a most remarkable program. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) broadcast a show dealing with AIDS. They opened their phone lines to the whole world. Then they started giving the facts. The facts, if they do not change, are going to restructure Western Civilization as nothing has in over 400 years. But no one quite gets around to saying this.
But what they do admit is bad enough. Before the disease has run its course, world public health officials estimate, ABOUT ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM AIDS, WORLDWIDE. That figure was confirmed later that evening by Surgeon General Koop on the Larry King television show.
A hundred million people is as many people as those who died in all the wars and concentration camps of the twentieth century (excluding China -- no one knows how many died in China). I am using the estimate of Gil Elliot, TWENTIETH CENTURY BOOK OF THE DEAD, Scribners, 1971, p. 1. But it will happen in a little over a decade.
At present, the number of those coming down with the third stage of the disease, called full-blown AIDS, is doubling each year. The mathematical precision is uncanny. The head of the public health department predicted to Rev. Ed Rowe in 1985 the number of people who would die from AIDS in 1986. His estimate was accurate TO THE MAN.
VANITY FAIR is no doubt the most cleverly and accurately named magazine in the U.S. (Vanity Fair was the city of hedonism in John Bunyan's 17th century allegory, PARADISE LOST.) The March issue contains an article, "One By One." It surveys AIDS's impact on New York City's artistic community. In every field -- opera, dancing, music, painting, drama -- they have died. The deaths are accelerating.
But it goes far beyond the arts. It goes to the heart of the modern welfare State: the health-care delivery system. The VANITY FAIR article cites Dr. William Grace, chief of oncology (cancer) at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City. What he says is happening all over the country, but quietly -- for the public has not yet begun to panic, and no official wants to be blamed:
        "Every ten to twelve months the number of AIDS 
patients 
     doubles.  Right now at St. Vincent's, 45 medical beds -- of 
     our 315 beds available -- are occupied by AIDS patients, and 
     most of these are middle-class patients, not the drug users 
     or others without medical coverage, who get sent to 
     Bellevue.  What happens next year, when we have ninety 
     patients?  And 180 the year after that?  In four years we 
     will have exhausted all the medical beds in New York." 
Read it again: "IN FOUR YEARS WE WILL HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL THE MEDICAL BEDS IN NEW YORK." And what he admits for New York City is what faces every hospital in the U.S. Dr. Grace is blunt: "I think AIDS is going to devastate the American medical system."
The National Academy of Sciences has released a study -- a CONSERVATIVE study -- that estimates 270,000 cases of full-blown AIDS in 1991. There will also be 179,000 deaths from AIDS. Now, let's look at the number of beds in the U.S. Gene Antonio's carefully researched book points out that there are 1,360,000 hospital beds available. Of these, about three-quarters are occupied at any given time. This leaves about 325,000 beds unoccupied. But as he points out, not all of these beds are suitable for full-blown residents. The first 10,000 patients who died from AIDS stayed an average of 167 days in the hospital before they died.
The actual outlay on each patient was $147,000. This means that it cost about a billion and a half dollars to care for them before they died. This does not count the loss of income associated with each person's death. It does not count the taxes that will never be collected from them to fund the public health, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security systems.
If prices remain the same, which they won't, as hospitals approach 100% occupancy -- and it cost about $150,000 per dying victim -- in 1991 it will cost in the neighborhood of $40 billion just to house them before they die.
In 1992, we will run out of available hospital beds. This means that when you take a family member to stay in the hospital, you will either be sent away, or be sent to a very expensive private hospital, or they will start stacking AIDS victims up in minimal-care, crowded facilities.
     By then, many victims will be heterosexuals.
But after 1991, it starts getting really serious. Unless a cure is found, or for some reason the disease ceases to be lethal, the doubling process gets us. Those infected today now number between three million and four million. The incubation period, says Dr. Koop, is ten years. They don't know how many people presently infected will actually get full-blown AIDS, but it may be as high as half. It may be 100%, if we wait long enough. But the disease is spreading fast. If it continues to double, 64 million Americans will be infected by the end of 1990. If it slows to half the present rate, and does so immediately, then "only" 15 million will be carriers in 1990.
This is why the BBC reported that medical health officials expect that 10 MILLION U.S. residents will die of AIDS by the year 2000. If we can keep the cost per patient to $150,000, it will cost $1.5 TRILLION just to care for them until they die. This does not count the permanent loss of jobs, skills, productivity, and the widows who will be thrown into the system with a few thousand dollars of life insurance -- assuming that in the year 2000, there will be any private life insurance companies still in existence.
The disease is not hitting elderly couples now on Medicare. It is hitting the young. It is hitting those who are expected to finance the U.S. welfare system. It is hitting those who expect to be supported by the State in their "golden years."
But this isn't front-page news. Iran is. Or the latest gossip from the White House.
The day it becomes front-page news, the West is going to have a revolution. It will mark the end of the present statist, humanist, fist-in-God's- face road.
In THE PLAGUE, the public authorities admitted a crises at the end of Part I of the book. When will Part I of OUR "book" occur?
                KOOP'S CONDOM ARGUMENT HAS A HOLE IN IT
Dr. Koop is preaching condoms for teenagers. He wants a huge sex education program in the public schools. Here is the ultimate irony: the Christian conservative is now promoting the one program above all others that conservatives have fought for three decades: Federal sex education in the schools. The Koop report could have been written by the Gay Liberation Task Force on AIDS. Its solution is educational and technical, not moral and religious.
The only long-term solution is MORAL AND RELIGIOUS. We are not saved by knowledge. For three decades we have seen that sexual promiscuity increases with every sex education program introduced into the public schools. Conservatives have been yelling about this the whole time. Now, I fear, they will remain silent, and a full-scale sex education program with no holds barred will be given to our children.
Not MY children. They are in a private school, and that's where they are going to stay. There is going to be a panic soon. When stories begin to get out about the AIDS plague in the local high schools and junior high schools, THERE IS GOING TO BE A WILD EXODUS FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. You KNOW I'm right. All talk about "white flight" will end; regardless of race, color, or national origin, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO BE ABANDONED. It will begin to happen in waves, all over the country. The bureaucrats should know it's coming. They will be desperate. The humanist left's major institution of middle-class indoctrination is going to perish. I think it will happen before the mid-1990's.
I suggest that if you have your children in a private school that the headmaster demand a blood test from all students 12 or over, at the beginning of each school year. Eventually, this will be expected. When the exodus begins, private schools will have to defend their students from outside contamination. We are talking about a plague, not the measles.
Dr. Koop wants us to teach eighth graders about the proper use of condoms. Baloney! We need to get our children educated about moral behavior, faithfulness, sexual restraint, and the horrendous risks to life if they violate these standards. Koop has become a kind of bureaucratic condom himself: preaching a prophylactic solution to a world facing a religious crisis. He has betrayed his trust. As a Christian, he has so far missed the key assignment of his career. No other Surgeon General in U.S. history has ever had the limelight focused on him, and he has become the agent of the conservatives' mortal enemies. If you thought Siecus was a threat, consider Dr. Koop's recommended program.
Look, PEOPLE DON'T USE CONDOMS WHEN KISSING. The Centers for Disease Control announced on January 11, 1985, that "There is a risk of infecting others by ... exposure of others through oral-genital contact or intimate kissing" (cited by Antonio, p. 108). Is Koop crazy? No, Koop is simply a faithful representative of a morally corrupt and scared medical and governmental bureaucracy. He fears taking the needed message to the people. He fears public controversy more than he fears God. WE NEED A PROPHET, NOT A PUBLIC RELATIONS AGENT FOR CONDOMS.
But his gospel is having economic effects. Stocks in condom manufacturing companies have doubled or tripled. But Koop is being unfaithful to the God he worships and the community he serves. He has retreated into medical techniques as the nation's haven of safety. It will not work.
First, people refuse to use them. By the time they are scared enough to begin, it will be too late. AIDS is an incredible killer. A single virus -- or lenti (slow) virus -- invades the victim's cell, passes the genetic material to it, and then the victim's own body does the rest. The cells multiply, replicating through the victim's body. The immunity system is rendered ineffective. And in those rare cases where the victims survive the loss of immunity, THE AIDS VIRUS ATTACKS THE BRAIN. DEMENTIA IS THE RESULT.
Ed Rowe cites the only scientific study of condoms as a defense device. Of those couples using condoms, where one was infected, the other was infected in one out of six of the couples in the test. As Rowe says, this is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with one bullet in the chamber. Of those who did not use condoms, five out of six transmitted it. This is Russian Roulette with five bullets out of six -- far worse odds, but is it worth your life to rely on condoms? (FIRESTORM CHATS subscribers will receive my interview with Rowe in a few weeks.)
I agree entirely with Phyllis Schlafly's open letter to Dr. Koop. He must publicly come out in favor of sexual abstinence until marriage. Nothing else will work. Nothing else has a chance. Our children will die unless they abandon sexual promiscuity. The sexual revolution, unless reversed, will kill them. Koop is betraying his trust -- as a physician, as a Christian, and as the top medical spokesman of the Federal government. He was the only public official picked by President Reagan as a gesture to placate the Christian vote, and now Dr. Koop has turned to medical solutions that cannot do more than DELAY THE DEATH SENTENCE for millions of teenagers. He is betraying his calling. No public health official in U.S. history has ever had such a responsibility. None has been the key figure at the beginning of a plague. Yet he can only recommend condoms.
THERE IS NO SAFE SEX ANY MORE. There is SOMEWHAT SAFER SEX inside the marriage relationship, and nowhere else.
Here we find Dr. Koop, a vocal Christian, recommending condoms. HE IS SENTENCING YOUNG PEOPLE TO DEATH. They may believe him, and if they do, they will die. There is only one answer, at best: monogamy. He should be telling them that they are risking death if they try sex at all before marriage, and only in marriage after blood tests. I say tests, because a new AIDS virus, called LAV-2, has now appeared that does not show up in the present AIDS blood test.
The problem with AIDS is that the virus mutates rapidly. Any defense against it is thwarted by the rapidly evolving virus.
An EVOLVING virus: what a perfect means of bringing the age of Darwinian self-confidence to an end! God has a sense of humor.
                           GUERILLA TACTICS
At the briefing, one of the speakers related an unforgettable story. It's a true story. It was reported a few weeks ago in Ft. Worth, Texas. A young married man was propositioned by a good looking woman. He hadn't been a swinger, but he decided to take advantage of a special situation. When he awoke the next morning, the girl was gone. On the mirror, she had written a message in lipstick: "Welcome to the world of AIDS."
He went for testing. He tested positive. Almost certainly, he will die from AIDS. Only somewhat less certainly, so will his wife.
There are thousands of AIDS victims who know they are going to die within 24 months. Some of them are resentful. ENVY IS DOMINANT. They have decided to bring down the "straights", not because they can gain anything by the pain of others, but simply because they want to destroy them.
In New York City, 10% of the AIDS victims are women. Surveys indicate that 80% of women with bisexual husbands are unaware of this fact (TIME, Feb. 16, p. 52). Wives who trust their husbands had better have husbands worth trusting, and vice versa. Their lives depend on it.
Then come blood bank donations. According to Congressman Dannemeyer, there is a rule against allowing intravenous drug users from donating blood to public blood banks. These people supply about 17% of all AIDS-contaminated blood. There is no restriction against donations from homosexuals, who supply 83% of the AIDS-contaminated blood. Gays are asked voluntarily to refrain from giving blood if they SUSPECT that they might be carriers. As he said, "If gray- eyed people were found to carry AIDS, they would not be allow to donate blood. They have no powerful lobby in Washington."
An outraged homosexual need only give blood to exact envious revenge against the straight community. Nothing is being done to protect the straights. The straights have no lobby to protect them. Yet.
If it takes a political revolution to get such a lobby, then this nation will experience a political revolution within three or four years. The backlash is coming, on a scale so massive that today's liberals cannot comprehend it (and probably will not survive it -- not if they remain liberals), and today's conservatives, hiding in their closets, afraid to speak out to defend themselves or this civilization, will not be in there much longer.
I'm getting out of my closet with this issue. We are under siege. The homosexuals didn't create this plague; God did. But they are the primary distributors.
Of course, it is really a waste of time to get angry with them. They won't be around much longer. A decade from now, they will all be dead. There will be no gay lobby because there will be no male gays. (The irony of all this is that the one group that is probably safest is the lesbian community.) But we must recognize what we face. The disease will be here in a decade because judgment has come.
All over the country, physicians are personally donating their own blood before they submit themselves to an operation. This is being done quietly. I spoke to a surgeon about this recently, and he confirmed it. The Red Cross and other blood centers used to discourage this practice -- too much paperwork. But for an extra fee, they do permit this arrangement.
If your are considering surgery, this is a must. If you belong to a conservative church, try to get other members with your blood type, or universal donors (type O) to donate for you. Blood donating for other members will become a major aspect of church charitable giving from now on. But understand, this is no sure-fire answer; it simply reduces risks. The AIDS plague will be in the churches soon enough.
The hospitals refuse to segregate AIDS patients from others. Former nurse Candice Comstive testified to the Houston City Council on Sept. 25, 1985. She had been fired from her job at the Memorial City Medical Center. She had been employed in the cancer wing. They assigned her AIDS patients without telling her that's what they were suffering from. Those without infections but carriers of the AIDS lentivirus were not isolated. The patients were not confined to their rooms.
         "I had one AIDS patient in January, 1985, who was 
placed 
     on "STRICT ISOLATION".  He was in the kitchen at 7:30 a.m. 
     pouring himself coffee, which was not unusual.  I suggested 
     he return to his room, and with that he turned and vomited 
     on me and the kitchen as well.  I changed into "scrubs" and 
     returned to my assignment of patients for the day.  An 
     unsuspecting "house-cleaning" employee with mop in hand 
     cleaned up the mess left on the cabinets and floor." 
They had no designated rooms for AIDS patients in the hospital. You will love this: "Rooms at the end of the hall used for AIDS patients are also used by pediatric patients."
She was fired. She was also told that "they did not think I would be able to find work in any hospital, though, because AIDS is being treated in the same manner all over. Nurses elsewhere have verbally validated that statement." (Antonio, pp. 150-52).
Nurses are becoming the heroines of this story. Hospital administrators and physicians are the gutless villains. And you and I are the potential victims.
                                INSECTS
They keep telling us that the disease can be transmitted only by sexual contact. How do they know? They say that mosquitos carry it, but they do not transmit it. How do they know? Ed Rowe made this observation. To test the validity of the theory regarding insect transmission they need an infected person, an insect to bite him, and a volunteer who does not have the disease who will allow the insect to bite him. IF THE TEST PROVES POSITIVE, THE VOLUNTEER IS ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO DIE. They have had no volunteers, so far.
The prestigious British medical journal, LANCET, published this report two years ago (Feb. 16, 1985):
         There is little evidence for homosexual activity 
among 
     African AIDS patients and seriopositive subjects.  In Africa 
     HTLV-III (the AIDS lentivirus - G.N.) appears to be 
     transmitted through heterosexual contact or exposure to 
     blood through insect bites or scarification. ... (Cited by 
     Antonio, THE AIDS COVER-UP?, p. 72.) 
If it turns out that mosquitos can transmit it, then you and I are in the hands of God.
     An Associated Press report last August revealed the 
following:
         PARIS (AP) -- Insects contaminated with the AIDS 
virus 
     have been found in two African nations, but there is no 
     evidence that they pose a threat to humans, a leading French 
     researcher said Tuesday, Aug. 26, 1986.  Most of the 80 
     mosquitoes, cockroaches, ant-lions, tsetse flies and other 
     insects tested from Zaire and the Central African Republic 
     were infected with the deadly virus, said Dr. Jean-Claude 
     Chermann of the Pasteur Institute. 
Having announced this, Chermann then took the Camus road to a calm public: "There is no way of transmission to humans by mosquitoes or other insects." Scientists are usually very guarded with their language. They use qualifying phrases, such as "at the present time, we believe..." and "There is no clear-cut positive research indicating..." This enables them to cover their professional backsides if counter-evidence is discovered. It also allows them to ask for more research money. But in this case, Chermann was certain - CERTAIN THAT IF HE ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO DRAW OBVIOUS CONCLUSIONS FROM WHAT HE HAS DISCOVERED, HE MIGHT CAUSE A WORLDWIDE PANIC. So he said that the obvious is not possible.
Antonio, in a paper released after his book, refers to studies of African children. Over 15% of small children in the high AIDS regions of central Africa have been infected, and researchers believe bedbugs are the transmitters. As I told Antonio when he told me this: "Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite!" ("Taint funny, McGee," as Molly used to say.)
Dr. Mark Whiteside and Dr. Carolyn MacLeod, researchers at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Miami, Florida, discovered evidence that AIDS was being transmitted by mosquitos in the town of Belle Glade, Florida (Antonio, p. 106). They presented their findings as early as April of 1985, but little coverage was given to them.
One public health official later broke a gag order from his superiors and went to the press about the Belle Glade crisis. Gus Sermos was (at the time) a public health official from the Atlanta Centers for Disease Control Assigned to Florida. He was abruptly moved from his post when he challenged CDC's position that environmental factors had nothing to do with AIDS there. The community has a high percentage of NIR: Not Identifiable Risk. He testified before the state legislature in early January, 1986.
In 1986, an official with the county health organization of Houston said that he believes that mosquitos transmit AIDS. In 1987, he was fired. Camus was on target.
Dr. James Slaff of the National Institutes of Health reports that the AIDS virus can stay alive outside the body for several days, unlike most other retroviruses. It can survive for up to a week in a dried-out tube or petri dish (LANCET, Sept. 28, 1985). Later studies indicate that the beasties survive for 10 days (Journal of the American Medical Association Medical News, 22/29 Nov. 1985, p. 2866; cited in Antonio, P. 111.) Six months later, the Pasteur Institute said it survived for over 15 days at room temperature (p. 112).
But what does the Federal government say? In 1986, Dr. Robert Redfield, who is with the Department of Virus Diseases of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, wrote a report for Abbott Laboratories in which he assured us, "The virus is fragile outside the human host and appears to be easily killed by detergents, hand soaps, alcohols, hydrogen peroxide, phenolics, and sodium hypochloride. High and low pH and an exposure to high temperatures will inactivate or kill it."
But it can survive at room temperature if someone coughs, and remain dormant for over two weeks. A real "fragile" disease.
What is fragile is the government's sense of calm, and its public image of being fully in control.
                          LIFETIME CONTAGION
Other epidemics could be controlled by quarantine. They came fast, and they went fast. The exception was tuberculosis. Now, horrifyingly, this dread disease is returning as a side-effect of AIDS.
How can you quarantine a hundred million people? You can't execute them, yet this is the only means of removing the first cousin of the AIDS lentivirus which attacks sheep.
You simply wait. And pray. And take steps to reduce the likelihood of your family's contracting the disease. But the problem is, pandemics reach a stage called CRITICAL MASS. At some point, the disease leaps the normal transmission barriers and spreads far beyond. This may not happen with AIDS. Yet it may.
In Texas, there have been 2,000 people with full-blown AIDS. So far, 1,300 have died (62%). By 1991, state health officials estimate there will be 16,000. It will be 60,000 by 1996. The plague is here. The world will eventually panic. When it does, who will be ready with answers? Which group will pick up the pieces?
                                THE END
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 07, 2000.

Lars,
Now that we have had the obligatory 30k of saved material from CPR....
Perhaps you missed this bit from Dr. North's missive:
"Bluntly, I think there is a 40% chance of a recession, based upon the above plus other points I have written about over the past few months. (Consumer credit problems, over-valued dollar, investor sentiment, etc.) "
You see, it's not a matter of having an opinion. As the old saying goes - opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. No, once again, Dr. North is making another prediction. At what point does a person of Dr. North's prodigious accomplishments in failed predictions absolve us of any courtesy we would otherwise give to an intelligent person?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), October 08, 2000.

GAWD!!! I had no idea that AIDS was so pervasive! Perhaps we all need to wear form fitting body suits at all times that are insect proof and will also keep in precious body fluids....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 08, 2000.

LINK-FOR-THE_Slow-of-MIND&SPIN

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 08, 2000.

The On Again, Off Again Inversion Story
http://www.dismal.com/thoughts/th_mb_092700.asp

-- Back to (the@original.topic), October 08, 2000.

Wow. I would say that mr. gary is scarey on his take regarding AIDS.
But FWIW, I do agree with 'little' of what he says. Hiv is already at epidemic levels. The sad truth is when you read about the disease, it is usually shoved in the back of newspapers. Many young people have been diagnosed.
There is little help available as far as medical treatment goes if one has no coverage, they must go the 'freebie' route. There is too much wrong information out regarding 'how' you can catch the disease. Imho, I dont think they really know for sure.
What I do know is this, within 2 years we will ALL know somebody who is HIV positive. Truth is we probably do know someone, however, they may choose NOT to inform us. Reason being the stigma attached. Mr Norths hatred of homosexuality is the reason many people hide their illness. That is sad.
As for the single man who woke up with the lipstick which read Welcome the the world of Aids......BULLSHIT. That is yet another urban legend. It is AGAINST the law to have intercourse here in the state of Ohio IF you have been diagnosed HIV + and do not inform your potential partner.
When you test positive, you must tell who you have been with, and the clinic will notify the individuals annonymously. This is a serious health problem, the saddest part of all is that imho, not alot is being done. Trust me on this matter.
I predict that when we begin to see the TRUE death tolls, then and only then will we get busy to find a cure. As for the new drugs available, great, however, my son has a low viral load count now, and because he is being treated for 'free' they will not put him on meds till it drops below 200.
At which point he is classified as FULL BLOWN AIDS.
For once I say thanks Cpr, for the post. Most informative and imho it really shows what a creep mr north truly is. More misinformation more BS predictions and a HATER to say the least.
Must be nice to wish to blood test all children and live in a shell while kicking back and mocking those who have been diagnosed with a fatal illness. My he is a true ASSHOLE.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 08, 2000.

KOS:
May I assume from your comment on "precious bodily fluids" that you are a Dr. Strangelove fan?
And, yes, one can not be too careful with "OPE"

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@about.it), October 08, 2000.

E.H.: I was wondering if anyone would make that connection -- an oldie but a goodie!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 08, 2000.

Wasn't it OEP?

-- Bat Guano (Guano@bats.in.bellfry), October 08, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ