Many analysts and respected economists warn that a devastating worldwide economic crash is coming. Although not specifically predicted in the Bible, such an event is in line with key prophecies regarding the Endtime and would almost certainly hasten their fulfillment—particularly the rise of the world dictator known as the Antichrist and the implementation of his universal credit system, the mark of the Beast (“666“).
Modern economies are built largely on faith. People have faith in their currencies, but it is misplaced faith. They don’t realize that their currencies are not backed by any substantial amount of physical assets, such as gold or silver, and are issued by governments that are often deep in debt. When people do lose faith in their currency, its value plummets, stocks slump, and their country’s entire economy crashes.
In this era of Internet trading and globally linked economies and stock markets, a sudden and drastic downturn in one major financial market could create a worldwide panic that would send the global economy tumbling down like a house of cards.
In one possible scenario, if the American economy were to fail because of some international crisis like a major war in the Middle East or a severe oil shortage, the rest of the world could rapidly lose faith in the U.S. dollar. The dollar and other dollar-based currencies and international stocks would lose much of their value and, as a result, banks and financial markets worldwide would likely fail. Such an economic crash would also most likely lead to widespread political and civil chaos.
Another major factor is the international debt crisis. Nearly every nation in the world has been enticed by powerful international financiers, working through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to take out huge loans at interest rates that make it impossible for them to ever pay off their debts.
Why do you suppose the World Bank, the IMF, or anyone else would give out billions in loans that they know can never be repaid?—Because when nations fall into bankruptcy and default on their loans, the lenders gain control of their economies. As the Bible says, “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). That’s the real reason the international financiers loaned those countries the money in the first place, to gain control!
The World Bank and IMF are now dictating the economic and other internal policies of these nations—their governments, their industries, their banks, virtually everything. They are running these governments by proxy through financial pressure. Just look at the economic problems that have plagued Argentina and other countries in recent years and you can see where all of this is leading.
The world’s present economic woes are not accidental or merely the result of “basic market forces at work,” as we so often hear in the news. Through manipulation of the world’s money—cleverly choreographed crashes followed by temporary rebounds and more severe crashes—more and more of the world’s money is making its way into the hands of a few, while more nations are being pushed toward bankruptcy and forced to surrender control of their economies in return for foreign loans.
As time goes on and the situation worsens, there will be even more economic instability in the money markets of the world and unprecedented ups and downs in the major economies. When that happens, people are going to look for a savior. Paul Henri Spaak, first president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, once said, “What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him.” And that’s exactly what the world is going to do!
The people of the world will look for a financial superman to bring stability and prosperity, and when the Antichrist comes on the world scene and appears to do just that, they will hail him as a hero and welcome his rule and new economic system. He will “rescue” them from the economic ruin he led them into, and his plan will have succeeded—for a time.
* * *
The time to get ready for these soon-coming events is now, and the best place to start is by receiving Jesus as your Savior, if you haven’t already. Then learn to stay connected to Jesus in prayer so He can guide you and provide for you in the troublous times to come. Study what the Bible has to say about the coming Antichrist world dictatorship and other Endtime events so you won’t be caught by surprise when they happen, or duped into following the Antichrist. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Jesus has promised, “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. … I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe” (John 14:27,29).
As events unfold in the third millennium, many of us can’t help but wonder what the future holds for us and our planet. Are we on the threshold of a brave New World Order, with “peace and plenty for all”? Or are we tottering on the brink of unprecedented chaos and disaster?
Biblical prophets foretold many specifics about today’s world. Their predictions, now two to three thousand years old, accurately depict conditions and events that have either already taken place or will soon—quite possibly during our lifetime.
Among those prophecies are descriptions of modern rapid transportation systems, today’s unprecedented increase in world travel, the present explosion in knowledge of all kinds, technological advances such as electronic banking, a soon-to-be-implemented global financial and identification system, the effects of global warming, and outbreaks of lethal epidemics.
Awareness of these predictions will give you a new perspective…
The Earth flag is not an official flag, since there is no official governing body over Earth. The flag holds a photo transfer of a NASA image of the Earth on a dark blue background. It has been associated with Earth Day. Although the flag was originally copyrighted, a judge ruledhttp://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Copyrightability/articles/EarthFlagVsAlamoFlag_A.shtml that the copyright was invalid. Earth Flag Ltd. v. Alamo Flag Co., 154 F. Supp. 2d 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Virtually everyone favors an environment that is clean and healthful for human existence. Most also desire the conservation of areas of natural and scenic beauty for man’s use and enjoyment both now and for generations to come.
However, the organizations that comprise the modern environmental movement have become increasingly monolithic in outlook. Especially in the 20 years since the first “Earth Day,” all have become heavily involved in lobbying, litigation, political activism and scaremongering designed to impose their extreme preservationist ideology on the entire nation through ever greater governmental control and regulation of land and resources.
With media coverage reaching the saturation point on April 22, 1990, many hundreds of thousands of Americans celebrated the 20th anniversary of Earth Day by cleaning up beaches and roadsides, and planting trees.
The May 5 issue of Human Events, a Washington-based weekly, covered the Earth Day celebration in that city where movie, TV and rock stars greeted a crowd of around 100,000.
Most of the speakers and organizers came from the portside (left) of the ideological spectrum, preaching collectivism, the value of a no-growth society, disarmament and the pagan notion that “human beings have no more rights than animals and plants.”
Quarterly Report II of Patrick Buchanan’s From the Right Newsletter, mailed May 17, 1990, was written by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. In his report, Rockwell exposes the environmental movement in these words:
Like socialism, environmentalism combines utopianism, statism, and an atheistic religion. But it ups the ante. Marxism at least professed a concern for human beings; environmentalism harks back to a Godless, manless, and mindless Garden of Eden.
In holy scripture, God told us to `fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth, for they are ours to feed upon.’ …Thus any philosophy that equates man with animals or plants, or subordinates him to nature, is a heresy of astounding proportions.”
According to Rockwell:
“If the environmentalists were merely noisy lobbyists, we would not have to worry. But they seek to use government, and even a World government, to achieve their chilling vision.”
In the Denver Post of April 20, Michael Rosen stated:
“Twenty years from now, if the eco-freaks haven’t taken over the World, the environmental hysteria of the 1990s may go down in history as one of the all-time great frauds. The public-relations success of environmental alarmists can be credited to their guile in extracting a pound of lie from an ounce of truth.”
Such highly publicized crises as those involving global warming and the “greenhouse effect,” acid rain, and ozone depletion are based on incomplete data and questionable logic. The true aim is not a cleaner environment, but a Socialist environment.
In his Report of March 9, 1990, Don Bell declared:
“National sovereignty and defense have always stood in the way of forming a World government. But if global defense (environmentalism) can be promoted instead, then the people and their governments will more readily accept global government. And if the World Court can be given absolute authority to enforce laws established by other UN agencies, then World government is possible. And through demand for global protection against pollution, Earth warming, etc., people will welcome the surrender of national sovereignty and defense.”
In conclusion: World government by definition would mean the abolition of the United States of America.
Over five years ago, Berkeley biologist Peter Duesberg stunned and infuriated the scientific community by insisting that the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) does not cause AIDS. He was so certain, he said, he would volunteer to be injected with it.
Duesberg’s critique of the HIV-AIDS theory began with the observation that HIV is a latent, inactive, and barely present virus. This virus, he said, which infects only an insignificant amount of immune cells, could not possibly explain the total immune devastation seen in AIDS, and he claimed that something else, possibly the widespread use of recreational drugs, chronic promiscuous male homosexual activity, parasitic infections or malnutrition must be the real culprits.
Over the years, his has not been the only voice of dissent in the HIV debate, but it has been the loudest, most persistent and most credible one.
Who is this man that dares to challenge the entire medical establishment, & has offered to be inoculated with the HIV virus to prove that it does not cause AIDS? Dr. Duesberg has been a molecular biologist at the University of California at Berkeley since 1964, a member of the prestigious National Academy of Science, one of the world’s most respected retro-virologists and is the first person to draw a genetic map of a retrovirus.
Impressed? Many of the members of the medical research establishment once were before he opposed their pet theories about HIV & AIDS. They now call him an academic jerk, & refuse to continue the funding for his research after 22 years of continuous support.
If Duesberg is right, the federal medical establishment is wrong. And if their seven-year old hypothesis that the HIV virus causes AIDS is wrong, thousands more will become the ultimate victims of what Duesberg believes is a co-factor associated with drugs and/or malnutrition. “Duesberg is a thorn in the side of the establishment for the simple reason that he”, as one of his colleagues said, “probably knows more about retroviruses than any man alive.”
In the last two years, with intensity and attention that ebbs and flows, the scientific community, media and AIDS community have been embroiled in an often confused and visceral catfight over Duesberg. As one of the most controversial figures in AIDS, he is both admired and scorned, depending on whether you’re willing to entertain the possibility that he is right.
Duesberg’s critique of HIV is massive, and in parts complex, and although several scientists have taken a stab at debunking him, he says none have succeeded.
Meanwhile, the “implications” of his critique have been frowned upon by journalists and health care workers alike, who insist that Duesberg is irresponsible “for confusing the public” and discouraging AIDS patients from taking the anti-HIV drug AZT. Dr. Duesberg says that AZT, which is a chemical therapy which allegedly combats AIDS, was developed exclusively to kill bone marrow cells & lymphocytes, the only known result of which is to terminate life.
Concerning the use of AZT against AIDS, another respected scientist, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, who is a professor of physiology at Michigan State University, said the following: “AZT is like any chemotherapy, for example those that are used for treating cancer patients. I use an analogy which I think is quite accurate, which is the following. It’s like having rats in your barn. You go into the barn and you set fire to the straw to drive the rats out and then you hope you can put the fire out before the barn goes up in flames. That’s the risk you’re taking whenever you do cancer chemotherapy and AZT is the same way. In the long term it’s not going to save anybody.” In other words, if the HIV virus does not kill you, which is debatable, AZT surely will.
At the peak of his frustration over Duesberg, Dr. Robert Gallo, a leading AIDS researcher who claims to be the co-discoverer” of HIV, but who in an ironic twist of events has seen his reputation tarnished lately, blurted out that Duesberg’s theory, and his emphasis on alternate causes, is …”cock and bullshit…,” and assured the public that HIV killed like a truck.” Dr. Mathilde Krim sighed and told SPIN: “It’s true, we cannot prove that HIV causes AIDS, and Dr. Duesberg cannot prove that it doesn’t. That’s science.” To this Duesberg responded, “You can never prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. And those that claim the credit for the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS–those who sell test kits, who treat AIDS with AZT, which is in itself very dangerous–carry the burden of the proof. Not those who ask, ‘where is the evidence?'”
Eventually, things started to change, slowly at first, and then in big sweeps. Today, researchers are quoted regularly saying that “co-factors seem to be necessary in the development of AIDS.” Gallo himself came up with a new herpes virus that he said worked in conjunction with HIV and which explained the loss of T-cells, clearly not brought on by HIV.
In January this year, the New York Times reported on its front page that one of the three major AIDS diseases, “Kaposi’s Sarcoma, is not caused by HIV, but by an as yet unidentified infectious agent.Researchers had arrived at this by studying men with the cancer who had no trace of HIV. People with KS were now told that they may not have AIDS at all. Researchers were quoted as saying that they always wondered about this,” and needed to keep an open mind,” apparently forgetting that Gallo and other scientists wrote elaborate research papers demonstrating how HIV causes Kaposi, even though it has never been found in the cancer.
AIDS started with Kaposi’s Sarcoma, appearing primarily in gay men, and eventually afflicting nearly half of all gay men with AIDS. Today the figure is 21 percent of AIDS classified cases in gay men. How many people have been put on AZT for a disease which now, 10 year later, is said not to be AIDS but a whole new sexually transmitted disease”?
All of a sudden, the HIV theory isn’t so solid. Here is a new agent, not a virus, that is also capable of causing what appears to be AIDS. The tragic question is how many lives could have been saved had the AIDS establishment been open to other theories and alternative research from the beginning?
Another blow that shook the HIV establishment was the 70,000-word expos on “Dr. Gallo, co-discoverer” of HIV, published late last year in the Chicago Tribune. The piece, which detailed, among other things, how Gallo may have stolen credit for the discovery of HIV from Dr. Luc Montagnier in Paris, triggered a long overdue skepticism in the people who are running AIDS research.
The article, which apparently took two years to complete, struck so hard that Congress has launched a full-scale investigation into the allegations of scientific fraud and misconduct of Gallo and his lab workers. Issues were raised in the article that, “if proven true, are professionally unacceptable at best, and illegal at worst,” said a spokesman for Congressman John Dingell’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
It is ironic, against this backdrop, that Duesberg has been singled out as the black sheep of AIDS research. We caught up with him in his UC Berkeley lab, where he worked intently through the weekend, clad in white and peering through plastic safety glasses at strips of rubbery DNA gells, glowing pink on an ultraviolet lit table. His manner is bubbly for a scientist, and he speaks with a distinct German accent. The phone rings regularly, and Duesberg darts back and forth between the phone and cutting blocks of DNA from his slab of gel. Finally, he settles down and we have this talk:
SPIN: Since our first interview two and a half years ago you’ve taken a lot of heat. Are you still as convinced as you were then that HIV is not the cause of AIDS?
Yes, more than ever. Now that it has been reported that one of the most common AIDS diseases, Kaposi’s Sarcoma, is not caused by HIV, do you think this is a breaking point in the HIV debate?
No, I’m sure they will recover and say there are two types of Kaposi’s Sarcoma or that it’s a cofactor, or something.
It’s unbelievable what information you can feed 250 million Americans, provided it comes from the “right” sources. Even the science writers don’t criticize, don’t ask questions: They just follow every little move the AIDS establishment makes. What’s worse is that the HIV establishment–which couldn’t get enough of saying how “off the wall” I was, how “pernicious,” “dangerous,” “irresponsible,” “attention-seeking,” “leather-jacketed,” “homophobic,” “homosexual,” all of these words, for, among other points, questioning how one of the major AIDS diseases, Kaposi’s, is caused by HIV–these same people are now saying that for years they have wondered about this. So they said that the immune deficiency caused by HIV paved the way for this process to take place?
Well, that is the major implication, which I have challenged all along. That is one of the biggest misconceptions in that field to begin with. Cancer is not caused by immune deficiency. That theory essentially died with a little animal called the nude mouse. The nude mouse doesn’t have an immune system, so if that theory were correct, the nude mouse would get cancer all the time. But it doesn’t have any more cancer than the rest. That’s why immuno-therapy against cancer has never worked.
Immunotherapy against cancer was a favored hypothesis by big minds–like George Klein, who in his keynote speech at the AIDS conference in Stockholm called me a “charlatan.” He wrote that in the Journal of AIDS Research as well, but I wrote a letter asking him to retract unless they could prove that I am a charlatan. I am trying to claim damages for this, you see. The queen of Sweden was there at the conference, and she hasn’t talked to me since. She never talked to me before either, but who knows? Maybe she would have.
But back to the other issue: with Kaposi’s Sarcoma gone, we should have a new definition of AIDS again, shouldn’t we? All this time the HIV-AIDS hypothesis proponents have only asked how HIV causes KS. Now suddenly they’re quoted for wondering whether the cancer is caused by HIV. I raised this question persistently. How can they be justifying AZT treatment, which was solely based on the virus hypothesis, if they don’t know what the cause is? How can that be justified, if all of these people in one stroke changed their minds after one paper? You said that Dr. Luc Montagnier [discoverer of HIV] has said that you are essentially right. Tell me about that.
That’s right. I’m currently in a debate with him in the Journal of Research in Immunology. They’ve asked me to debate the cause of AIDS with him in what they call a mutual interview. He hasn’t responded yet, but I heard from two sources, one from the NIH, that Montagnier told John Crewdson [author of the Chicago Tribune expos on Gallo] that he agrees with me–that the virus is not sufficient to cause AIDS. It says that you have …”outraged health-care workers by suggesting that AIDS patients abandon treatment with drugs meant to control the virus, and by claiming that, in fact, heterosexuals need not use condoms or change their sexual practices.”
Yes, I mean, I have said there is no proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, and it’s just a hypothesis which I consider unlikely on top of it, but certainly it’s not more than a hypothesis. Why should I give this hypothesis preference over the hypothesis that we’re going to be invaded by Martians next week? Why shouldn’t we spend money in building an interplanetary system to protect us from the Martian invasion? I think I have the same right to call them irresponsible for not participating in this interplanetary defense system to keep the Martians out of this planet.
No, seriously speaking, why doesn’t anybody think they are irresponsible for giving AZT when they don’t even know what it’s doing–when they don’t know if the virus is causative, or even if it is, how AZT could be working against an inactive virus. Here they are involved in scientific fraud charges–Gallo, Baltimore and others–and I’m the one who gets called “irresponsible” all the time. And what about the activists? How do you feel when they say that you’re “homophobic” for saying that AIDS could be caused by environmental or behavioral factors? Are you in fact, making a moralistic judgment on gays when you say this?
I want to know what homophobic means, actually.
That you have an intrinsic distaste for gay people, and you’re biased by that.
But homo” means human. Intrinsic distaste for humans?” I mean, I feel that way a lot lately, I guess. (laughs) No, but seriously, how do you respond?
Well, if I were so homophobic, why would I care how they die? If I wanted them to die, I would promote Fauci and Broder’s AZT therapy program. I don’t think they are logical. If I were homophobic, I would say HIV causes AIDS and they’re spreading it, wouldn’t I? Nothing is more homophobic than saying AIDS is caused and spread by this virus.
Council on Foreign Relations (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Suppose a single, privately-run organization made up of only 2,556 persons could boast that 348 of its members were U.S. government officials? Wouldn’t you want to know about it?
Suppose that same organization’s members dominated the nation’s mass media, banks, multi-national corporations, colleges and universities, even the military?
And suppose the members of this small but extremely influential group were responsible for a parade of foreign policy disasters in China, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba and Africa? Wouldn’t you want to know who these individuals are and what their agenda for the 1990s might be?–They’re known as the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR in short.
The CFR’s quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs, brazenly called for “World government” at the expense of the independence of the United States as far back as December 1922. Repeatedly airing this subversive goal, Foreign Affairs published its most explicit yearning for the destruction of an independent United States in a 1974 article entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.” It boldly advocated an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.
Today, under President George Bush, 348 CFR members (out of a total CFR membership of only 2,556) serve as U.S. government officials. Once a member of the organization’s board of directors, the President remains a friend of the CFR.
When the Chinese Communist leaders drenched Tiananmen Square with the blood of student demonstrators, CFR member Henry Kissinger led a chorus of foreign policy experts” urging the U.S. not to apply sanctions against the Peking regime. Mr. Bush said that our relationship with China must continue even in the face of the massacre.
Within a month of the savagery in Peking, two of the highest ranking Bush Administration officials (Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft–both CFR veterans) secretly journeyed to Peking to reassure the Chinese murderers that U.S.-China relations would proceed on a business-as-usual-basis. And Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping accurately predicted that his use of tanks and troops against unarmed young people would soon be forgotten and the West would continue dealing with his government. He was right!
Most Americans are completely unaware of the CFR’s influence. The reason? They rely on the nation’s mass media for their information. The CFR has achieved a frightening dominance in all areas of mass communication. The organization’s own Annual Report notes that 271 of its members are journalists, correspondents and communications executives.
CFR members hold publishing and editing positions at such magazines as Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, Readers Digest, Harpers, National Review, and Insight. They can also be found among the top officials of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and numerous other newspapers. Top executives of ABC, CBS and NBC are CFR members. And among the on-air personalities whose names can be found on the CFR roster are Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Daniel Schorr, Bill Moyers, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, Jim Lehrer, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters. Several of these well-known television stars have proudly indicated how heavily they rely on CFR publications for their perspective on World events.
The Council denies repeatedly that it establishes positions on the issues affecting the U.S. and the World. Its spokesmen claim that the organization is merely a sounding board for important discussion. But what actually goes on at CFR meetings remains a closely guarded secret. This is so because it is an express condition of membership that any disclosure of what transpires behind the CFR’s closed doors constitutes grounds for termination of membership. What is known, however, is the CFR’s enthusiastic endorsement of the “New World Order!”
In a previous election year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) bought a full-page ad in the New York Times in which it attacked the organisation known as the Moral Majority, and other Conservative groups.
Ira Glasser, head of the ACLU, said that the rise of fundamentalist Christian groups represents an “exceptional threat” to the civil liberties of all Americans. He referred to the fact that the Moral Majority and other groups called the New Right set out explicitly to defeat the staunchest civil libertarians in Congress, and they succeeded.
Indeed, yes. The majority of voters did defeat these extreme Left-wing civil libertarians in the Congressional elections.
What is the Goal of the ACLU?
It has a nice name: The American Civil Liberties Union. Who can be opposed to that? And it was planned that way.
But the facts are that the ACLU’s main goal is to use all facilities at its command to undermine the American way of life, and the religious and moral foundations of this nation.
The ACLU’s Attack on Religion
On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court issued a decree which in effect has banned prayers in public schools. As could be expected, the American Civil Liberties Union supported the five parents who objected to the prayer composed by the New York State Board of Regents (even though no school child was forced to recite the prayer or even hear it).
In its campaign against religion in this country based on the doctrine of separation of church and state, the ACLU purposely avoids cognizance of the fact that the First Amendment expressly states that Congress may not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. But what Congress, representing the people of this country, cannot do, the Left-wing-extremist ACLU has been doing for years.
The fact is that the Constitution does not ban religious expressions in public affairs. Sessions of Congress open with prayer. Presidents and other officials are sworn in with Bibles.
In 1968, the ACLU even complained that references made to God and religious philosophy in character-guidance courses given to soldiers, were, in effect, religious indoctrination.
In her syndicated column, Phyllis Schlafly pointed out: “For many years, a consortium of atheists, agnostics and the American Civil Liberties Union has had a field day in our courts, knocking out any shred of religious observance in public schools and public places.” “They’ve eliminated prayers from the schools, Nativity scenes from schools and public buildings, and replaced `Silent Night’ with secular songs such as `Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ and `I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus Last Night.'” “The weapon used by the ACLU is the threat of lawsuits, which could, and have, proved costly to local communities defending, for example, their right to display a Nativity scene at Christmas time.”
ACLU Pushes for Massive Marijuana Use
For a decade the American Civil Liberties Union has been engaged in a nationwide legislative campaign aimed at the repeal of all criminal laws pertaining to marijuana. In this campaign they have joined forces with a radical organization called the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws which not only seeks the removal of all criminal penalties for the use or possession of marijuana, but favors making it available through sellers licensed by the State.
The myth promoted by the ACLU that the use of marijuana is no more harmful than the ingestion of alcohol or the smoking of cigarettes, has now been exploded.
THC is the active ingredient in marijuana that produces the “high” effect. Here’s what Dr. C. W. Dempsey of the Tulane University School of Medicine had to say about THC: “Alcohol washes out of the body, and nicotine from an average tobacco cigarette stays in the bloodstream about 60 seconds. But THC hangs in there. After smoking one joint, the THC effects can still be found in the body 30 days later.”
The April 1980 issue of Consumer’s Research magazine contained a special report which reviewed new medical data showing that marijuana contains more cancer-producing agents than tobacco, has bad effects on lung capacity and interferes with driving and flying skills.
Among other findings reported by the magazine:
Male users may undergo reduction in the sperm count and lowered fertility. Women users are more likely to suffer abnormal menstrual cycles.
Use by young people can cause acute damage to the developing personality.
Studies show that marijuana interferes with production and effectiveness of white blood cells which help protect the body from disease.
Free Bible Studies Online 