Swine Flu: CDC Recommendations
CDC Recommends Tamiflu, Researchers Have Reservations
The CDC recommends Tamiflu for prevention and treatment of swine flu, as they did with the avian flu several years ago. Yet at the height of the avian flu scare, European researchers conducted a review of numerous studies of of anti-viral medications, which was then published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet on Jan. 19, 2006. According to this review of 51 randomized controlled trials, Tamiflu was useless against the avian flu and many other flus. Contrary to the CDC, their recommendation was not to use Tamiflu. What about now?
Swine Flu: A Pandemic of Fear
Intense media coverage of the swine flu has driven a pandemic wave of fear across our nation and world. Following the CDC's recommendations, people with a cough or a cold are staying home from work, some paralyzed by fear that they might die in the impending pandemic being predicted by newspapers and TV news programs around the world. Yet what or who is really behind the swine flu and this pandemic of fear? And why is the CDC recommending Tamiflu for prevention and treatment, when it's use with avian and other flus has been found to be ineffective in numerous studies? And most important, what can we do about it?
The CDC website states, "CDC recommends the use of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the treatment and/or prevention of infection with these swine influenza viruses." Oseltamivir is Tamiflu, the same drug recommended for the avian flu only a few years ago. Yet Tamiflu has been shown numerous times to be ineffective against avian flu, which in case you haven't noticed, never came close to being a pandemic. Excerpts from a Dec. 4, 2005 Times of London article on the experience of a top avian flu expert are revealing:
A Vietnamese doctor who has treated dozens of victims of avian flu claims the drug being stockpiled around the world to combat a pandemic is 'useless' against the virus. Dr Nguyen Tuong Van runs the intensive care unit at the Centre for Tropical Diseases in Hanoi and has treated 41 victims of H5N1. Van followed World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines and gave her patients Tamiflu, but concluded it had no effect. Roche, the company that makes Tamiflu, has sold stockpiles of the drug to 40 countries and insists there is clear evidence it will protect against a future flu virus. However, it stresses the drug must be given within 48 hours to be effective. The WHO admitted Tamiflu had not been widely successful in humans.
At the height of the avian flu scare, European researchers conducted a review of numerous studies of anti-viral medications, which was then published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet on Jan. 19, 2006. According to this review of 51 randomized controlled trials, Tamiflu was useless against the avian flu and many other flus. As reported in Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal, the study's authors found no "credible evidence" that Tamiflu works against avian flu. Contrary to the CDC, their recommendation was not to use Tamiflu.
As the media was spreading fear about the avian flu around the world, the CDC came out with the Tamiflu recommendation, yet provided little evidence of its effectiveness. Only later was the recommendation seriously questioned. How could the CDC be so confident in its recommendation without significant research? How can health officials claim Tamiflu is effective with any certainty now, when the current rash of swine flu cases were discovered such a short time ago?
Tamiflu: Resistant Strains, Side Effects, and Expiration Date
Using the avian flu again as a point of reference and caution, CBS and Associated Press reported on Dec. 12, 2005 that some avian flu victims died after developing resistance to Tamiflu:
In a development health experts are calling alarming, two bird flu patients in Vietnam died after developing resistance to Tamiflu, the key drug that governments are stockpiling in case of a large-scale outbreak. The experts said the deaths were disturbing because the two girls had received early and aggressive treatment with Tamiflu and had gotten the recommended doses.
And then there were the deaths not from the flu or drug resistant strains, but from the side effects of Tamiflu. According to a report in Australia's respected Sydney Morning Herald on March 1, 2007, there were 18 juvenile fatalities linked to side effects of Tamiflu in 17 months. And though the U.S. media largely failed to report it, Japan banned Tamiflu for teenagers that same month. According the the official Tamiflu website, "people with the flu, particularly children and adolescents, may be at an increased risk of self injury and confusion shortly after taking Tamiflu and should be closely monitored for signs of unusual behavior."
Yet governments spent billions of dollars stockpiling Tamiflu even after all this information was reported. According to a Feb. 2, 2007 New York Times report, the U.S. government at the time was creating a $1.4 billion stockpile of Tamiflu, while admitting that "it is useful only when taken within the first 48 hours, and Tamiflu-resistant strains of the flu have already been found in Vietnam and in Egypt." That's $1.4 billion tax dollars being spent on a drug of questionable effectiveness. Other countries cumulatively also spent massive amounts on the drug.
According to the pharmaceutical company which owns exclusive distribution rights to the drug, Roche Laboratories, Tamiflu's shelf life is 48 months, so all the medications stockpiled may eventually be useless. How many hundreds of millions of dollars will go to waste? How much more money will flow into the coffers of the major pharmaceuticals as a result of the current scare? And why are so few questioning the recommendation of Tamiflu to prevent and treat swine flu when conclusive studies have not been carried out?
Pharmaceutical Stocks Soar
As a result of all the fear built up around the avian flu a few years ago, stock prices for Roche and Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company which developed Tamiflu, soared when the drug was recommended by the government as the best treatment. And few know that Donald Rumsfeld was chairman of the board of directors of Gilead from 1997 until 2001, when he was appointed U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Gilead stock increased so much that Britain's respected daily newspaper The Independent reported on March 12, 2006 that Rumsfeld alone "made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu. $5 million is a nice little profit on one drug. The article further points out that Tamiflu is "the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of [avian flu]."
Here are other key excerpts from that revealing article on Tamiflu:
The drug was developed by a Californian biotech company, Gilead Sciences. Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding. The 2005 report showed that, in all, he owned shares worth up to $95.9m, from which he got an income of up to $13m. The firm made a loss in 2003, the year before concern about bird flu started. Then revenues from Tamiflu almost quadrupled [in 2004], to $44.6m, helping put the company well into the black. Sales almost quadrupled again, to $161.6m last year [2005].
The massive stockpiles of Tamiflu built up by governments around the world to combat the impending avian flu pandemic were never needed. The pandemic never came close to happening. As reported by the WHO on April 23, 2009, the total number of confirmed deaths worldwide due to avian flu since 2003 was 257. For comparison, the CDC estimates that influenza alone causes over 36,000 deaths every year in the United States. Yet look at all the profits generated by the massive amount of fear spread through the media for the pandemic that never happened.
In the current swine flu scare, Gilead, Roche, and the politicians invested in them are gifted with another major opportunity to fleece the public as their stocks soar and governments again move to stockpile this drug of questionable effectiveness. How much can we trust government when huge profits are at stake? How much influence do the lobbyists of the huge pharmaceuticals have over our elected representatives? And is there a possibility that the government might even have had a hand in the creation of both the avian flu and swine flu? These are questions that warrant media and public attention as this current wave of fear spreads.
Regarding pharmaceutical lobbyists, a 2007 CBS News article states, "Congressmen are outnumbered two to one by lobbyists for an industry that spends roughly a $100 million a year in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses to protect its profits."
Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor in chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, has stated, "Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself." Dr. Angell has penned a scathing essay on the widespread corruption in medicine which should be required reading for all citizens.
Profiting from Fear
A surprisingly inspiring, well researched article of only two pages on the respected WantToKnow.info website shows how fear is used by certain wealthy, elite groups to manipulate public perception and rake in the profits. Along similar lines, a revealing 2006 article in the Christian Science Monitor questions the pandemic of fear created by government and media in relation to the avian flu:
Americans consider the United States to be a country where debate flourishes. Yet with regard to avian flu, hyped sound bites predominate. When President Bush asked Congress for $7.1 billion toward "pandemic flu preparedness," even his critics replied "not enough." What is lacking in the overall discussion about pandemic flu is disagreement, criticism, and skepticism - once the bedrock of science - from researchers willing to question and test the data. There are better ways to promote America's health than selling sickness through the language of fear.
Even in the middle of the avian flu scare, some experts claimed that the flu was not a threat and was being used as hype. As one newspaper prophetically commented in late 2005, "Dr. Marc Siegel, a practicing internist and associate professor of medicine at the New York University School of Medicine ... isn't buying into the scare scenario. 'If anything is contagious right now, it's judgment clouded by fear,' Siegel said." Even a New York Times article questioned all the fear hype. And now, is the swine flu much different just a few years later?
In a most excellent article on the current swine flu crisis, popular health analyst Dr. Joseph Mercola states:
This isn't the first time the public has been warned about swine flu. The last time was in 1976, right before I entered medical school. I remember it very clearly. It resulted in a massive swine flu vaccine campaign. Within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the vaccine. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths. However, several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after they were injected with the swine flu vaccine. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics. And the swine flu pandemic itself? It never materialized.
For a list of excellent recommendations on how to protect yourself from the swine flu without dangerous drugs and vaccinations, see the list at the end of Dr. Mercola's highly informative article, which has already received well over 500,000 views.
What's Our Role in This?
At the same time as we question the media and government, we have to also ask ourselves, why are we so easily affected by fear and sensationalism in the media? Why is this what sells newspapers and TV news programs? What if instead of feeling an almost morbid fascination with all things sensational and fearful, we choose to look at fear as an opportunity for growth. The fear generated by the current swine flu episode is an opportunity for us to explore our own deeper fears and consider how we might transform them.
What if instead of imagining all of the terrible things that might happen to us, we imagine how in times of crisis we might come together to support each other and transform fear into love and community support? When we choose to shift fear within ourselves, a ripple effect is created which, when joined with the ripples of many others doing the same, create a wave of transformation which can pave the way for a brighter future for us all.
The box immediately below provides several ideas on what you can do to better educate yourself on the realities of the swine flu and the the avian flu scares, and to transform fear in yourself. Please take action so that we can all be better informed and work together to use this crisis as an opportunity for growth.
What you can do:
Inform your media and political representatives of this important information. To contact those close to you, click here. Urge them to pay attention to where the dollars flow as a result of the swine flu situation and to work towards building community support rather than promoting fear.
Learn more about the powerful influence of the drug companies over Congress at this link.
Read concise summaries of highly revealing major media reports on the flu scares available here.
Explore inspiring ideas on how we can build a brighter future for all by reading this short essay.
Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and bookmark this article on key news websites using the icons at the bottom of this page, so that we can fill the role at which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a difference.
Final Note: WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. Please visit our Inspiration Center at http://www.WantToKnow.info/inspirational for an abundance of uplifting material.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28.
Say Yes. What Are You Waiting For?
By Mark Regnerus
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Spring is here, that glorious season when young men's fancies lightly turn to thoughts of love, as the poet Tennyson once suggested. "Lightly" is right.
The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That's up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. If men weren't pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn't be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well. The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years. I used to think that only young men -- and a minority at that -- lamented marriage as the death of youth, freedom and their ability to do as they pleased. Now this idea is attracting women, too.
In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree." Actively considering marriage when you're 20 or 21 seems so sappy, so unsexy, so anachronistic. Those who do fear to admit it -- it's that scandalous.
How did we get here? The fault lies less with indecisive young people than it does with us, their parents. Our own ideas about marriage changed as we climbed toward career success. Many of us got our MBAs, JDs, MDs and PhDs. Now we advise our children to complete their education before even contemplating marriage, to launch their careers and become financially independent. We caution that depending on another person is weak and fragile. We don't want them to rush into a relationship. We won't help you with college tuition anymore, we threaten. Don't repeat our mistakes, we warn.
Sara, a 19-year-old college student from Dallas, equated thinking about marrying her boyfriend with staging a rebellion. Her parents "want my full attention on grades and school because they want me to get a good job," she told me. Understandable. But our children now sense that marrying young may be not simply foolish but also wrong and socially harmful. And yet today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one's personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too. We are sending mixed messages.
This is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s. Although male fertility lives on, it doesn't hold out forever, either: Studies emerging from Europe and Australia note that a couple's chances of conceiving fall off notably when men pass the age of 40, and that several developmental disorders are slightly more common in children of older fathers.
By Mark Regnerus
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Spring is here, that glorious season when young men's fancies lightly turn to thoughts of love, as the poet Tennyson once suggested. "Lightly" is right.
The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That's up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. If men weren't pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn't be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well. The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years. I used to think that only young men -- and a minority at that -- lamented marriage as the death of youth, freedom and their ability to do as they pleased. Now this idea is attracting women, too.
In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree." Actively considering marriage when you're 20 or 21 seems so sappy, so unsexy, so anachronistic. Those who do fear to admit it -- it's that scandalous.
How did we get here? The fault lies less with indecisive young people than it does with us, their parents. Our own ideas about marriage changed as we climbed toward career success. Many of us got our MBAs, JDs, MDs and PhDs. Now we advise our children to complete their education before even contemplating marriage, to launch their careers and become financially independent. We caution that depending on another person is weak and fragile. We don't want them to rush into a relationship. We won't help you with college tuition anymore, we threaten. Don't repeat our mistakes, we warn.
Sara, a 19-year-old college student from Dallas, equated thinking about marrying her boyfriend with staging a rebellion. Her parents "want my full attention on grades and school because they want me to get a good job," she told me. Understandable. But our children now sense that marrying young may be not simply foolish but also wrong and socially harmful. And yet today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one's personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too. We are sending mixed messages.
This is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s. Although male fertility lives on, it doesn't hold out forever, either: Studies emerging from Europe and Australia note that a couple's chances of conceiving fall off notably when men pass the age of 40, and that several developmental disorders are slightly more common in children of older fathers.
Viral Poppycock
4-30-9
For a population of seven million people, Hong Kong has stockpiled 20 million treatment courses of Tamiflu, a medicine to which the new swine flu virus has not yet developed resistance but it's a toss up which is more dangerous, the swine flu or Tamiflu. Dr. Russell Blaylock writes, "I was in the military during the first swine flu scare in 1976. At the time it became policy that all soldiers would be vaccinated for swine flu. As a medical officer I refused and almost faced a court martial, but the military didn't want the bad publicity. Despite the assurance by all the experts in virology, including Dr. Sabin, the epidemic never materialized. What did materialize were 500 cases of Gullian-Barre paralysis, including 25 deaths-not due to the swine flu itself, but as a direct result of the vaccine."
Jon Barron writes, "Pandemic doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means. A pandemic does not necessarily mean black-plague carts being hauled through the streets piled high with dead bodies. Nor does it mean flesh eating zombies wandering the streets feeding on the living. All a pandemic means is that a new infectious disease is spreading throughout the world. That's it. Symptoms associated with a given pandemic can be mild or deadly severe, but that has nothing to do with the word pandemic. It's quite possible to have a pandemic that kills very few people."
It is good to remember how the CDC comes up with their number
of deaths from the flu. It was convoluted in that it wasn't the flu
itself causing deaths but the complications that arose from flu.
What is Really Going On
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBeKB7aKzOs
Dr Leonard Horowitz makes a case for a vaccine manufacturer letting loose a genetically modified bug to get what they need to move forward and increase demand for their vaccines. Very convincing must see video. Authorities have admitted that the current flu is a new combination but they are mum about who made it and why. The WHO is just now raising the pandemic alert level to level 5 indicating widespread human to human transmission. Someone and I doubt it was God, designed this virus for maximum effect though perhaps it will not be more dangerous than other flu outbreaks. It seems significant that it is not flu season. No matter how many people get this particular swine flu we have to do our best to reduce complications and deaths. The first step in this direction is to not administer or accept dangerous vaccines and medications like Tamiflu for all evidence and testimony seem to point to the dangers of doing so.
The advisability of magnesium measurement, as a second step, appears to be convincing in many medical circumstances1 yet when the flu strikes doctors stand around like the deaf, dumb and blind. Electrolyte abnormalities, mainly hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia, are associated with an increased risk for complications like developing cardiac arrhythmias. Magnesium replacement reduces morbidity and prolonged hospitalization from atrial fibrillation or mortality from sustained ventricular arrhythmias. It would make sense it would be much more difficult to die of the flu if deficient magnesium levels were raised as quickly as possible. Dr. Joseph Mercola, of all people, champions magnesium IVs saying, "My favorite is an IV of magnesium and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Folks this is a genuine pearl. I learned this from Dr. Wright and the therapy is over 80 years old."
Cause of Death is Due to?
Due to lack of magnesium the heart muscle can develop a spasm or cramp and stops beating. Most people, including doctors, don't know it but without sufficient magnesium we die. It is more than helpful to understand that our life span will be reduced if we run too long without sufficient magnesium in our cells and that the principle way our life is cut short is through cardiac arrest. Yet when someone dies of a heart attack doctors never say "He died from Magnesium Deficiency." Allopathic medicine is designed to ignore the true causes of death and disease. In the field of cardiology this is more than telling.2 When it comes to the field of virology we have a sea of ignorance about these kinds of issues.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wants doctors to stop using the term "shaken baby syndrome," wanting instead to call it "abusive head trauma." This issue highlights dramatically how wrong the medical establishment can be about cause of death or injury. Many defense attorneys and doctors believe shaken baby syndrome doesn't exist, arguing that it's impossible to shake babies hard enough to cause brain injuries without breaking their necks. The National Institutes of Health says shaking can cause bruising, swelling, and bleeding, "which can lead to permanent, severe brain damage or death." The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome says an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 U.S. children are injured or killed by shaking each year, but that the number may be much higher since many cases likely are not detected.
When it comes to Hepatitis B they have gone after the babies of the world. Injecting new born babies with mercury for some illusionary viral danger that 99.999 percent are not at risk for is more than a bad idea. True medical insanity was born with this one. We live in an insane medical world and 90 percent of the people don't know it so they continue to vaccinate their children. Medical religion is the new religion of the world and there are more alters to it than the church ever had.
It is impossible for me to communicate my full feelings of disgust with the AAP and the medical industrial complex in general (which includes public health officials at the CDC and the FDA) about these issues. And I might as well include the medical staff reporters at the associated press and other mainstream media outlets because what they don't report on is the probability that Shaken Baby Syndrome is just one more cover up for massive vaccine damage.
Dr. Irene Scheimberg3 warns that, "by relying on this famous triad of symptoms - brain hypoxia, subdural hematoma (SDH) and retinal haemorrhages - to diagnose shaken baby syndrome, when there's no evidence of inflicted trauma, we may be sending to jail parents who lost their children through no fault of their own." The medical media and our present system of medicine are the most dishonest locusts to have ever inhabited our precious planet. It is truly sickening when they turn on children and their parents, which they routinely do with the childhood vaccination program that is killing many more children than are officially recorded by the federal government. That is absolutely correct. Vaccines kill children; there is no doctor or medical official that will deny that fact. The only question is if it is murder on a truly massive scale?
Investors hope this swine flu is the biggest thing since the bubonic plague. And they have it wrong on swine flu. It won't be an epidemic it'll barely even be a ripple. I've run medical clinics in Africa I know what an epidemic looks like. And this isn't it. Yes, they have apparently had some cases of bad swine flu in Mexico. They've had lots of dengue fever and chagas, too, but you don't need to stay up at night worrying about it. Beating the swine flu isn't any different from beating the regular flu.
Dr. William Campbell Douglass II.
4-30-9
For a population of seven million people, Hong Kong has stockpiled 20 million treatment courses of Tamiflu, a medicine to which the new swine flu virus has not yet developed resistance but it's a toss up which is more dangerous, the swine flu or Tamiflu. Dr. Russell Blaylock writes, "I was in the military during the first swine flu scare in 1976. At the time it became policy that all soldiers would be vaccinated for swine flu. As a medical officer I refused and almost faced a court martial, but the military didn't want the bad publicity. Despite the assurance by all the experts in virology, including Dr. Sabin, the epidemic never materialized. What did materialize were 500 cases of Gullian-Barre paralysis, including 25 deaths-not due to the swine flu itself, but as a direct result of the vaccine."
Jon Barron writes, "Pandemic doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means. A pandemic does not necessarily mean black-plague carts being hauled through the streets piled high with dead bodies. Nor does it mean flesh eating zombies wandering the streets feeding on the living. All a pandemic means is that a new infectious disease is spreading throughout the world. That's it. Symptoms associated with a given pandemic can be mild or deadly severe, but that has nothing to do with the word pandemic. It's quite possible to have a pandemic that kills very few people."
It is good to remember how the CDC comes up with their number
of deaths from the flu. It was convoluted in that it wasn't the flu
itself causing deaths but the complications that arose from flu.
What is Really Going On
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBeKB7aKzOs
Dr Leonard Horowitz makes a case for a vaccine manufacturer letting loose a genetically modified bug to get what they need to move forward and increase demand for their vaccines. Very convincing must see video. Authorities have admitted that the current flu is a new combination but they are mum about who made it and why. The WHO is just now raising the pandemic alert level to level 5 indicating widespread human to human transmission. Someone and I doubt it was God, designed this virus for maximum effect though perhaps it will not be more dangerous than other flu outbreaks. It seems significant that it is not flu season. No matter how many people get this particular swine flu we have to do our best to reduce complications and deaths. The first step in this direction is to not administer or accept dangerous vaccines and medications like Tamiflu for all evidence and testimony seem to point to the dangers of doing so.
The advisability of magnesium measurement, as a second step, appears to be convincing in many medical circumstances1 yet when the flu strikes doctors stand around like the deaf, dumb and blind. Electrolyte abnormalities, mainly hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia, are associated with an increased risk for complications like developing cardiac arrhythmias. Magnesium replacement reduces morbidity and prolonged hospitalization from atrial fibrillation or mortality from sustained ventricular arrhythmias. It would make sense it would be much more difficult to die of the flu if deficient magnesium levels were raised as quickly as possible. Dr. Joseph Mercola, of all people, champions magnesium IVs saying, "My favorite is an IV of magnesium and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Folks this is a genuine pearl. I learned this from Dr. Wright and the therapy is over 80 years old."
Cause of Death is Due to?
Due to lack of magnesium the heart muscle can develop a spasm or cramp and stops beating. Most people, including doctors, don't know it but without sufficient magnesium we die. It is more than helpful to understand that our life span will be reduced if we run too long without sufficient magnesium in our cells and that the principle way our life is cut short is through cardiac arrest. Yet when someone dies of a heart attack doctors never say "He died from Magnesium Deficiency." Allopathic medicine is designed to ignore the true causes of death and disease. In the field of cardiology this is more than telling.2 When it comes to the field of virology we have a sea of ignorance about these kinds of issues.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wants doctors to stop using the term "shaken baby syndrome," wanting instead to call it "abusive head trauma." This issue highlights dramatically how wrong the medical establishment can be about cause of death or injury. Many defense attorneys and doctors believe shaken baby syndrome doesn't exist, arguing that it's impossible to shake babies hard enough to cause brain injuries without breaking their necks. The National Institutes of Health says shaking can cause bruising, swelling, and bleeding, "which can lead to permanent, severe brain damage or death." The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome says an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 U.S. children are injured or killed by shaking each year, but that the number may be much higher since many cases likely are not detected.
When it comes to Hepatitis B they have gone after the babies of the world. Injecting new born babies with mercury for some illusionary viral danger that 99.999 percent are not at risk for is more than a bad idea. True medical insanity was born with this one. We live in an insane medical world and 90 percent of the people don't know it so they continue to vaccinate their children. Medical religion is the new religion of the world and there are more alters to it than the church ever had.
It is impossible for me to communicate my full feelings of disgust with the AAP and the medical industrial complex in general (which includes public health officials at the CDC and the FDA) about these issues. And I might as well include the medical staff reporters at the associated press and other mainstream media outlets because what they don't report on is the probability that Shaken Baby Syndrome is just one more cover up for massive vaccine damage.
Dr. Irene Scheimberg3 warns that, "by relying on this famous triad of symptoms - brain hypoxia, subdural hematoma (SDH) and retinal haemorrhages - to diagnose shaken baby syndrome, when there's no evidence of inflicted trauma, we may be sending to jail parents who lost their children through no fault of their own." The medical media and our present system of medicine are the most dishonest locusts to have ever inhabited our precious planet. It is truly sickening when they turn on children and their parents, which they routinely do with the childhood vaccination program that is killing many more children than are officially recorded by the federal government. That is absolutely correct. Vaccines kill children; there is no doctor or medical official that will deny that fact. The only question is if it is murder on a truly massive scale?
Investors hope this swine flu is the biggest thing since the bubonic plague. And they have it wrong on swine flu. It won't be an epidemic it'll barely even be a ripple. I've run medical clinics in Africa I know what an epidemic looks like. And this isn't it. Yes, they have apparently had some cases of bad swine flu in Mexico. They've had lots of dengue fever and chagas, too, but you don't need to stay up at night worrying about it. Beating the swine flu isn't any different from beating the regular flu.
Dr. William Campbell Douglass II.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Advanced paternal age increases risk of bipolar disorder in offspring
1: Evid Based Ment Health. 2009 May;12(2):59.
Comment on:
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Sep;65(9):1034-40.
Advanced paternal age increases risk of bipolar disorder in offspring.Dalman C.
Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet., Stockholm, Sweden.
PMID: 19395618 [PubMed]
Comment on:
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Sep;65(9):1034-40.
Advanced paternal age increases risk of bipolar disorder in offspring.Dalman C.
Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet., Stockholm, Sweden.
PMID: 19395618 [PubMed]
Monday, April 27, 2009
Baxter To Develop Swine Flu Vaccine Despite Bird Flu Scandal
Baxter To Develop Swine Flu Vaccine Despite Bird Flu Scandal
The fox has been given the duty of guarding the henhouse
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, April 27, 2009
A U.S. based pharmaceutical company that just weeks ago was involved in a scandal involving vaccines tainted with deadly avian flu virus has been chosen to head up efforts to produce a vaccine for the Mexican swine flu that has seemingly migrated into the U.S. and Europe.
Baxter confirmed over the weekend that it is working with the World Health Organization on a potential vaccine to curb the deadly swine flu virus that is blamed for scores of deaths in Mexico and has emerged as a threat in the U.S., reports the Chicago Tribune.
Baxter has previously worked with governments all over the globe to develop and produce vaccines to protect against infectious disease or potential threats from bioterrorism. After 9/11 Baxter helped supply stockpiles of a smallpox vaccine and in 2003 the company was contracted to develop a vaccine to combat the SARS virus. In 2006 the UK Government announced plans designed to inoculate every person in the country with Baxter’s vaccines in the event of a flu pandemic.
However, Baxter has a very recent and most disturbing connection to flu vaccines.
As reported by multiple sources last month, including the Times of India, vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus were distributed to 18 countries last December by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.
It was only by providence that the batch was first tested on ferrets in the Czech Republic, before being shipped out for injection into humans. The ferrets all died and the shocking discovery was made.
(Article continues below)
Czech newspapers immediately questioned whether the events were part of a conspiracy to deliberately provoke a pandemic, following up on accusations already made by health officials in other countries.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident.
Since the probability of mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible, this leaves no other explanation than that the contamination was a deliberate attempt to weaponize the H5N1 virus to its most potent extreme and distribute it via conventional flu vaccines to the population who would then infect others to a devastating degree as the disease went airborne.
The fact that Baxter mixed the deadly H5N1 virus with a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses is the smoking gun. The H5N1 virus on its own has killed hundreds of people, but it is less airborne and more restricted in the ease with which it can spread. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which as everyone knows are super-airborne and easily spread, the effect is a potent, super-airbone, super deadly biological weapon.
Indeed, some have already suggested that the current scare could represent the use of such a weapon.
Now it has been announced that Baxter is seeking a sample of the potentially lethal never before seen form of swine/avian/human flu virus in order to assist the World Health Organization in developing a new vaccine, reaping billions in the process.
Why should Baxter be trusted, when they have already been proven to be at the very least criminally negligent, and at worst a prime suspect in attempting to carry off one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind?
The company has already put the safety of the entire human race at risk, and now, just a few weeks later, we’re expected to invest our confidence in them and take their shots with a smile and a still tongue?
As Mike Adams of Natural News has commented, “If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter — which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world — getting away with saying, essentially, ‘Oops?’”
WHO officials are reportedly still closely monitoring the investigation into Baxter’s contaminated flu vaccines, seemingly they are not too concerned. Perhaps we should be.
The fox has been given the duty of guarding the henhouse
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, April 27, 2009
A U.S. based pharmaceutical company that just weeks ago was involved in a scandal involving vaccines tainted with deadly avian flu virus has been chosen to head up efforts to produce a vaccine for the Mexican swine flu that has seemingly migrated into the U.S. and Europe.
Baxter confirmed over the weekend that it is working with the World Health Organization on a potential vaccine to curb the deadly swine flu virus that is blamed for scores of deaths in Mexico and has emerged as a threat in the U.S., reports the Chicago Tribune.
Baxter has previously worked with governments all over the globe to develop and produce vaccines to protect against infectious disease or potential threats from bioterrorism. After 9/11 Baxter helped supply stockpiles of a smallpox vaccine and in 2003 the company was contracted to develop a vaccine to combat the SARS virus. In 2006 the UK Government announced plans designed to inoculate every person in the country with Baxter’s vaccines in the event of a flu pandemic.
However, Baxter has a very recent and most disturbing connection to flu vaccines.
As reported by multiple sources last month, including the Times of India, vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus were distributed to 18 countries last December by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.
It was only by providence that the batch was first tested on ferrets in the Czech Republic, before being shipped out for injection into humans. The ferrets all died and the shocking discovery was made.
(Article continues below)
Czech newspapers immediately questioned whether the events were part of a conspiracy to deliberately provoke a pandemic, following up on accusations already made by health officials in other countries.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident.
Since the probability of mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible, this leaves no other explanation than that the contamination was a deliberate attempt to weaponize the H5N1 virus to its most potent extreme and distribute it via conventional flu vaccines to the population who would then infect others to a devastating degree as the disease went airborne.
The fact that Baxter mixed the deadly H5N1 virus with a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses is the smoking gun. The H5N1 virus on its own has killed hundreds of people, but it is less airborne and more restricted in the ease with which it can spread. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which as everyone knows are super-airborne and easily spread, the effect is a potent, super-airbone, super deadly biological weapon.
Indeed, some have already suggested that the current scare could represent the use of such a weapon.
Now it has been announced that Baxter is seeking a sample of the potentially lethal never before seen form of swine/avian/human flu virus in order to assist the World Health Organization in developing a new vaccine, reaping billions in the process.
Why should Baxter be trusted, when they have already been proven to be at the very least criminally negligent, and at worst a prime suspect in attempting to carry off one of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind?
The company has already put the safety of the entire human race at risk, and now, just a few weeks later, we’re expected to invest our confidence in them and take their shots with a smile and a still tongue?
As Mike Adams of Natural News has commented, “If you mail an envelope full of anthrax to your Senator, you get arrested as a terrorist. So why is Baxter — which mailed samples of a far more deadly viral strain to labs around the world — getting away with saying, essentially, ‘Oops?’”
WHO officials are reportedly still closely monitoring the investigation into Baxter’s contaminated flu vaccines, seemingly they are not too concerned. Perhaps we should be.
Human CO2 Hysteria: Spending billions on a non-existent problem
Human CO2 Hysteria:
Spending billions on a non-existent problem
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 27, 2009 “From error to error one discovers the entire truth.” Sigmund Freud.
The Issue
The US Congress is currently discussing the Obama climate change strategy and Cap and Trade. One part of the plan says, “Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.”
Spending billions on a non-existent problem
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 27, 2009 “From error to error one discovers the entire truth.” Sigmund Freud.
The Issue
The US Congress is currently discussing the Obama climate change strategy and Cap and Trade. One part of the plan says, “Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.”
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Credit Default Swaps
What Caused the Economic Crisis?
by Alexander Floum
Global Research, April 24, 2009
Examiner.com
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Warren Buffett called them “weapons of mass destruction” in 2003.
President Bush said they had to be regulated.
So did the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the current head of the Federal reserve.
As did the G-20 group of the world’s 20 richest nations.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan - after being one of their biggest cheerleaders - now says they are dangerous.
And a Nobel prize-winning economist said they should be “blown up or burned”, and we should start fresh.
What Are They Talking About?
What are the above-listed folks talking about?
A financial instrument called “credit default swaps” (CDS for short).
CDS are like an insurance contract, where the purchaser buys "insurance" that a company won't go out of business from a seller. If the company stays in business, the purchaser pays premiums to the seller, but if the company goes belly up, the seller has to pay the face value of the CDS "policy".
Why are CDS so dangerous?
According to the experts, CDS were largely responsible for bringing down Bear Stearns, AIG (and see this) and other giant financial companies.
Indeed, many leading experts say that CDS were the main cause of the financial crisis. As just 3 examples:
Newsweek called CDS "The Monster that Ate Wall Street"
Former SEC chairman Christopher Cox said "The virtually unregulated over-the-counter market in credit-default swaps has played a significant role in the credit crisis''
And - as mentioned above- a Nobel economist is so concerned about them that he thinks that existing CDS contracts must be "blown up or burned"
I'll explain the reason that CDS are so dangerous in a future post (basically, they let the financial players to pretend that they had less risk, less stretched-too-thin leverage, and more stability then they really did). But for now, just keep in mind that some of the world's top financial experts say that they are extremely dangerous. They are not the only cause of the financial crisis, but they are one of the main causes.
But At Least the Risk from CDS is Over, Right?
But at least the risks from CDS are over, right?
Not exactly . . .
Credit default swaps continue to bring down large companies, partly because they make it less likely that the companies can restructure.
And one of the main reasons that banks have been hoarding the bailout money instead of lending to consumers it because of CDS.Wall Street firms and banks have been hoarding cash. As the Financial Times wrote on October 7th:
Banks are hoarding cash in expectation of pay-outs on up to $400bn (£230bn) of defaulted credit derivatives linked to Lehman Brothers and other institutions, according to analysts and -dealers.
And as Fox News put it:
Massive positions are just starting to be unwound in the credit default swaps market as tens of billions of dollars worth of these contracts are now getting settled in the aftermath of several high-profile flops.
Banks are hoarding cash in expectation of expected payouts on anywhere from $200bn to $1 tn–no one knows the amount, adding to volatility–for defaulted credit derivatives linked to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the government’s seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government’s rescue of American International Group, and the failure of Washington Mutual.
And guess where most of the AIG bailout went? Yup - to corporations which bought CDS from AIG. $13 billion dollars worth of the bailout money paid to AIG went to Goldman Sachs for CDS contracts. $40 billion dollars worth of AIG's bailout money (and see this) went to foreign banks for CDS contracts. (Even AIG's former chief said that the government used AIG "to funnel money to other institutions, including foreign banks").
Unless something is done to change things, taxpayers may have to continue shelling out bailout money to keep bailing out CDS contract-holders.
Well, At Least the Regulators are Bringing CDS Under control so That They Can't Cause Damage Indefinitely. Right?
Unfortunately, regulators have so far caved into lobbying pressure from those in the CDS industry, and have failed to take any decisive action to reign CDS in.
As Newsweek writes:
Major Wall Street players are digging in against fundamental changes. And while it clearly wants to install serious supervision, the Obama administration—along with other key authorities like the New York Fed—appears willing to stand back while Wall Street resurrects much of the ultracomplex global trading system that helped lead to the worst financial collapse since the Depression.
At issue is whether trading in credit default swaps and other derivatives—and the giant, too-big-to-fail firms that traded them—will be allowed to dominate the financial landscape again once the crisis passes. As things look now, that is likely to happen. And the firms may soon be recapitalized and have a lot more sway in Washington—all of it courtesy of their supporters in the Obama administration...
The financial industry isn't leaving anything to chance, however. One sign of a newly assertive Wall Street emerged recently when a bevy of bailed-out firms, including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, formed a new lobby calling itself the Coalition for Business Finance Reform. Its goal: to stand against heavy regulation of "over-the-counter" derivatives, in other words customized contracts that are traded off an exchange...
Geithner's new rules would allow the over-the-counter market to boom again, orchestrated by global giants that will continue to be "too big to fail" (they may have to be rescued again someday, in other words). And most of it will still occur largely out of sight of regulated exchanges...
The old culture is reasserting itself with a vengeance. All of which runs up against the advice now being dispensed by many of the experts who were most prescient about the crash and its causes—the outsiders, in other words, as opposed to the insiders who are still running the show.
Credit default swaps may continue to deepen the economic crisis and prevent a recovery - and cause future crises - unless regulators stand up to the lobbyists and take real action to reign them in.
by Alexander Floum
Global Research, April 24, 2009
Examiner.com
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Warren Buffett called them “weapons of mass destruction” in 2003.
President Bush said they had to be regulated.
So did the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the current head of the Federal reserve.
As did the G-20 group of the world’s 20 richest nations.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan - after being one of their biggest cheerleaders - now says they are dangerous.
And a Nobel prize-winning economist said they should be “blown up or burned”, and we should start fresh.
What Are They Talking About?
What are the above-listed folks talking about?
A financial instrument called “credit default swaps” (CDS for short).
CDS are like an insurance contract, where the purchaser buys "insurance" that a company won't go out of business from a seller. If the company stays in business, the purchaser pays premiums to the seller, but if the company goes belly up, the seller has to pay the face value of the CDS "policy".
Why are CDS so dangerous?
According to the experts, CDS were largely responsible for bringing down Bear Stearns, AIG (and see this) and other giant financial companies.
Indeed, many leading experts say that CDS were the main cause of the financial crisis. As just 3 examples:
Newsweek called CDS "The Monster that Ate Wall Street"
Former SEC chairman Christopher Cox said "The virtually unregulated over-the-counter market in credit-default swaps has played a significant role in the credit crisis''
And - as mentioned above- a Nobel economist is so concerned about them that he thinks that existing CDS contracts must be "blown up or burned"
I'll explain the reason that CDS are so dangerous in a future post (basically, they let the financial players to pretend that they had less risk, less stretched-too-thin leverage, and more stability then they really did). But for now, just keep in mind that some of the world's top financial experts say that they are extremely dangerous. They are not the only cause of the financial crisis, but they are one of the main causes.
But At Least the Risk from CDS is Over, Right?
But at least the risks from CDS are over, right?
Not exactly . . .
Credit default swaps continue to bring down large companies, partly because they make it less likely that the companies can restructure.
And one of the main reasons that banks have been hoarding the bailout money instead of lending to consumers it because of CDS.Wall Street firms and banks have been hoarding cash. As the Financial Times wrote on October 7th:
Banks are hoarding cash in expectation of pay-outs on up to $400bn (£230bn) of defaulted credit derivatives linked to Lehman Brothers and other institutions, according to analysts and -dealers.
And as Fox News put it:
Massive positions are just starting to be unwound in the credit default swaps market as tens of billions of dollars worth of these contracts are now getting settled in the aftermath of several high-profile flops.
Banks are hoarding cash in expectation of expected payouts on anywhere from $200bn to $1 tn–no one knows the amount, adding to volatility–for defaulted credit derivatives linked to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the government’s seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government’s rescue of American International Group, and the failure of Washington Mutual.
And guess where most of the AIG bailout went? Yup - to corporations which bought CDS from AIG. $13 billion dollars worth of the bailout money paid to AIG went to Goldman Sachs for CDS contracts. $40 billion dollars worth of AIG's bailout money (and see this) went to foreign banks for CDS contracts. (Even AIG's former chief said that the government used AIG "to funnel money to other institutions, including foreign banks").
Unless something is done to change things, taxpayers may have to continue shelling out bailout money to keep bailing out CDS contract-holders.
Well, At Least the Regulators are Bringing CDS Under control so That They Can't Cause Damage Indefinitely. Right?
Unfortunately, regulators have so far caved into lobbying pressure from those in the CDS industry, and have failed to take any decisive action to reign CDS in.
As Newsweek writes:
Major Wall Street players are digging in against fundamental changes. And while it clearly wants to install serious supervision, the Obama administration—along with other key authorities like the New York Fed—appears willing to stand back while Wall Street resurrects much of the ultracomplex global trading system that helped lead to the worst financial collapse since the Depression.
At issue is whether trading in credit default swaps and other derivatives—and the giant, too-big-to-fail firms that traded them—will be allowed to dominate the financial landscape again once the crisis passes. As things look now, that is likely to happen. And the firms may soon be recapitalized and have a lot more sway in Washington—all of it courtesy of their supporters in the Obama administration...
The financial industry isn't leaving anything to chance, however. One sign of a newly assertive Wall Street emerged recently when a bevy of bailed-out firms, including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, formed a new lobby calling itself the Coalition for Business Finance Reform. Its goal: to stand against heavy regulation of "over-the-counter" derivatives, in other words customized contracts that are traded off an exchange...
Geithner's new rules would allow the over-the-counter market to boom again, orchestrated by global giants that will continue to be "too big to fail" (they may have to be rescued again someday, in other words). And most of it will still occur largely out of sight of regulated exchanges...
The old culture is reasserting itself with a vengeance. All of which runs up against the advice now being dispensed by many of the experts who were most prescient about the crash and its causes—the outsiders, in other words, as opposed to the insiders who are still running the show.
Credit default swaps may continue to deepen the economic crisis and prevent a recovery - and cause future crises - unless regulators stand up to the lobbyists and take real action to reign them in.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Link Found Between GMOs and Deadly Tuberculosis
Link Found Between GMOs & Deadly Tuberculosis
By Ingrid Blank
Instead of blaming multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis on patients and their alleged non-adherence to the prescribed drug regime, it would be prudent to investigate and eradicate the underlying cause for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and other drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases first—namely commercial gene technology.
The disaster unfolding on a global scale is exactly the reason why the first genetic engineers called for a moratorium in the Asilomar Declaration of 1975. For decades, reputable and ethical scientists such as Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins have warned—substantiated by scientific evidence— that horizontal gene transfer, i.e. the transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents) designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases.
According to these eminent genetic researchers, strains of bacteria “crippled” in the laboratory can survive in the environment and exchange genes with other organisms. DNA from dead and living cells persists in the environment and transfers to other organisms.
Naked viral DNA (virus without its protein coat) is even more infectious and may well be taken up by mammalian cells including our own! In addition, viral DNA has been shown to resist digestion in the gut of mice, and enters the bloodstream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells.
One such virus most commonly used as a promoter in genetic engineering is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) which, due to its recombination hotspot, is prone to break and join with other DNA to integrate into the cell’s genome, which could activate host genes and lead to cancer. In addition, CaMV is closely related to the hepatitis B and HIV virus and due to its ability to propagate in plant and insect hosts after recombination may also recombine with related hepatitis B and HIV to create a most powerful disease in a large number of people consuming large numbers of virus genes incorporated into crop plants.
In the South African setting, the number of people at risk could not get any larger, since our government unilaterally decided without the people’s knowledge and above all prior consent, to grow our staple food (white maize) in genetically modified form without adhering to the precautionary principle, thus violating our constitutional rights to healthy food.
For the reasons described above, it is therefore imperative to demand immediate implementation of mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products in compliance with our constitutional rights of informed choice and consent, participation in decision-making processes and above all the individual’s right to bodily integrity, the latter being the most significant provision of the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth legal requirements for human experimentation, i.e. “voluntary consent of subject is absolutely essential.”
Likewise, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unmistakably declares that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
By deliberately ignoring the precautionary principle and refusing to implement mandatory labeling of GM products, this government allows its citizens to be used as guinea pigs, sacrificing the nation’s health for corporate greed. There is no such thing as “substantial equivalence.”
This phrase was coined by scientifically illiterate lawyers of the biotech industry and in 1992 written into law by G.H.W. Bush, who proclaimed GM plants to be “substantially equivalent” to their traditional counterparts and therefore did not need any special health safety study or testing. Ethical scientists and researchers consider this the biggest farce and fraud ever committed in the science field.
Contrary to what the corporate yarn spinners of biotech companies want the public to believe, not one single human safety study has ever been conducted. One does not need a Ph.D. in genetics to see the correlation between GMOs and the sharp rise in HIV infections and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and other diseases. The decision-makers who keep violating our human right to bodily integrity by unleashing these toxins into our environment and food chain without our knowledge and consent must be held accountable.
Ingrid Blank is a South African of German descent who specializes in technical translations of medical treatises. This item originally appeared in Carotec’s TrueHealth newsletter. Carotec also sells extremely high quality vitamin supplements and natural health products. To find out more call Carotec at 1-800-522-4279. Write Carotec, Inc., P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
By Ingrid Blank
Instead of blaming multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis on patients and their alleged non-adherence to the prescribed drug regime, it would be prudent to investigate and eradicate the underlying cause for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and other drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases first—namely commercial gene technology.
The disaster unfolding on a global scale is exactly the reason why the first genetic engineers called for a moratorium in the Asilomar Declaration of 1975. For decades, reputable and ethical scientists such as Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins have warned—substantiated by scientific evidence— that horizontal gene transfer, i.e. the transfer of genes by vectors (viruses and other infectious agents) designed to cross species barriers and thus enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, will result in the creation of superbugs and multi-drug resistant diseases.
According to these eminent genetic researchers, strains of bacteria “crippled” in the laboratory can survive in the environment and exchange genes with other organisms. DNA from dead and living cells persists in the environment and transfers to other organisms.
Naked viral DNA (virus without its protein coat) is even more infectious and may well be taken up by mammalian cells including our own! In addition, viral DNA has been shown to resist digestion in the gut of mice, and enters the bloodstream to infect white blood cells, spleen and liver cells.
One such virus most commonly used as a promoter in genetic engineering is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) which, due to its recombination hotspot, is prone to break and join with other DNA to integrate into the cell’s genome, which could activate host genes and lead to cancer. In addition, CaMV is closely related to the hepatitis B and HIV virus and due to its ability to propagate in plant and insect hosts after recombination may also recombine with related hepatitis B and HIV to create a most powerful disease in a large number of people consuming large numbers of virus genes incorporated into crop plants.
In the South African setting, the number of people at risk could not get any larger, since our government unilaterally decided without the people’s knowledge and above all prior consent, to grow our staple food (white maize) in genetically modified form without adhering to the precautionary principle, thus violating our constitutional rights to healthy food.
For the reasons described above, it is therefore imperative to demand immediate implementation of mandatory labeling of genetically modified food products in compliance with our constitutional rights of informed choice and consent, participation in decision-making processes and above all the individual’s right to bodily integrity, the latter being the most significant provision of the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth legal requirements for human experimentation, i.e. “voluntary consent of subject is absolutely essential.”
Likewise, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unmistakably declares that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
By deliberately ignoring the precautionary principle and refusing to implement mandatory labeling of GM products, this government allows its citizens to be used as guinea pigs, sacrificing the nation’s health for corporate greed. There is no such thing as “substantial equivalence.”
This phrase was coined by scientifically illiterate lawyers of the biotech industry and in 1992 written into law by G.H.W. Bush, who proclaimed GM plants to be “substantially equivalent” to their traditional counterparts and therefore did not need any special health safety study or testing. Ethical scientists and researchers consider this the biggest farce and fraud ever committed in the science field.
Contrary to what the corporate yarn spinners of biotech companies want the public to believe, not one single human safety study has ever been conducted. One does not need a Ph.D. in genetics to see the correlation between GMOs and the sharp rise in HIV infections and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and other diseases. The decision-makers who keep violating our human right to bodily integrity by unleashing these toxins into our environment and food chain without our knowledge and consent must be held accountable.
Ingrid Blank is a South African of German descent who specializes in technical translations of medical treatises. This item originally appeared in Carotec’s TrueHealth newsletter. Carotec also sells extremely high quality vitamin supplements and natural health products. To find out more call Carotec at 1-800-522-4279. Write Carotec, Inc., P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
"An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999.
Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
THE EPA DESIGNATES C02 A HEALTH RISK
A week ago Friday the EPA, under new and more radical environmentalist leadership, made official what the Bush administration was heading for anyway--the designation of carbon dioxide and 4 other "greenhouse" gases like Methane as pollutants dangerous to human health. It is truly Orwellian to watch how they justify what amounts to calling white, black. If they can do that with science, they can do it with anything. Once they turn a beneficial and life-sustaining gas like C02 into an evil substance to justify regulation, there is no limit to the damage they can do. What's next, Oxygen?
The EPA engaged in a long, circuitous argument to justify the claim that C02 is a health risk. They started with the premise that global warming (which is mostly beneficial) is a grave danger to humanity--creating glacial melting and a resultant doomsday scenario of coastal cities flooded by rising oceans. Even if that were true, which it isn't, human beings could adapt by moving to higher ground and not a single life would be harmed--let alone health, the supposed justification for all this. Naturally, there is no way to limit C02 in any major way, but that won't stop them from using the quest to regulate every future internal combustion engine, at tremendous increased in cost. Nor will it stop them from engaging in the idiocy of swapping carbon credits (an invitation to corruption and manipulation of markets), or spending millions to create C02 filters or bury carbon in the ground.
All of this started as the worst kind of blatant media propaganda. It has been building for several years, beginning with co-opted scientists using phony criteria to produce skewed and falsified computer forecasts pointing to these doomsday scenarios. All of this was bogus, but that didn't stop the media and various politicians from declaring that "the science was settled."
It never was settled and the scientific opposition has grown by leaps and bounds--but you would never know it by listening to establishment media reports. Virtually every media story begins with the assertion that man-made global warming is an uncontested fact. The political pressure for conformance is so pervasive that almost every major corporation's advertising includes some reference to doing their part to reduce carbon emissions.
No one in a public position is allowed to challenge the false premise of man-made global warming. It is particularly galling to watch the media pretend to tell both sides of the story. As the News Hour with Jim Lehre showcased the story, they brought on a major environment lobbyist from the Sierra Club and matched him up with the "opposition" ----Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. But McCoy wasn't in opposition at all. He never once even hinted he disagreed with the premise. He only cautioned how difficult it would be to implement.
As Tom Deweese reported on NewsWithViews.com, "I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist. Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, 'It's the Sun, stupid.' Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, 'The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.' Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, 'It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.'
"In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That's 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists. Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth's climate.
"Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore's Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film 'An Inconvenient Truth,' which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom. Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.
"An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs. The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun." But, no matter what the weather does, the media response is to claim it is another result of Global Warming.
THE EPA DESIGNATES C02 A HEALTH RISK
A week ago Friday the EPA, under new and more radical environmentalist leadership, made official what the Bush administration was heading for anyway--the designation of carbon dioxide and 4 other "greenhouse" gases like Methane as pollutants dangerous to human health. It is truly Orwellian to watch how they justify what amounts to calling white, black. If they can do that with science, they can do it with anything. Once they turn a beneficial and life-sustaining gas like C02 into an evil substance to justify regulation, there is no limit to the damage they can do. What's next, Oxygen?
The EPA engaged in a long, circuitous argument to justify the claim that C02 is a health risk. They started with the premise that global warming (which is mostly beneficial) is a grave danger to humanity--creating glacial melting and a resultant doomsday scenario of coastal cities flooded by rising oceans. Even if that were true, which it isn't, human beings could adapt by moving to higher ground and not a single life would be harmed--let alone health, the supposed justification for all this. Naturally, there is no way to limit C02 in any major way, but that won't stop them from using the quest to regulate every future internal combustion engine, at tremendous increased in cost. Nor will it stop them from engaging in the idiocy of swapping carbon credits (an invitation to corruption and manipulation of markets), or spending millions to create C02 filters or bury carbon in the ground.
All of this started as the worst kind of blatant media propaganda. It has been building for several years, beginning with co-opted scientists using phony criteria to produce skewed and falsified computer forecasts pointing to these doomsday scenarios. All of this was bogus, but that didn't stop the media and various politicians from declaring that "the science was settled."
It never was settled and the scientific opposition has grown by leaps and bounds--but you would never know it by listening to establishment media reports. Virtually every media story begins with the assertion that man-made global warming is an uncontested fact. The political pressure for conformance is so pervasive that almost every major corporation's advertising includes some reference to doing their part to reduce carbon emissions.
No one in a public position is allowed to challenge the false premise of man-made global warming. It is particularly galling to watch the media pretend to tell both sides of the story. As the News Hour with Jim Lehre showcased the story, they brought on a major environment lobbyist from the Sierra Club and matched him up with the "opposition" ----Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. But McCoy wasn't in opposition at all. He never once even hinted he disagreed with the premise. He only cautioned how difficult it would be to implement.
As Tom Deweese reported on NewsWithViews.com, "I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist. Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, 'It's the Sun, stupid.' Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, 'The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.' Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, 'It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.'
"In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That's 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists. Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth's climate.
"Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore's Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film 'An Inconvenient Truth,' which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom. Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.
"An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs. The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun." But, no matter what the weather does, the media response is to claim it is another result of Global Warming.
3T MRI Detects Early Breast Cancer Not Seen on Mammography, Sonography
DGNews
3T MRI Detects Early Breast Cancer Not Seen on Mammography, Sonography
LEESBURG, Va -- April 22, 2009 -- High field strength (3T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) -- a powerful tool for evaluating patients with a high risk of having breast cancer -- can detect a significant number of lesions not found on mammography and sonography, according to a study that will be presented at the 2009 American Roentgen Ray Society Annual Meeting on April 29.
The study included 434 women who underwent mammography, sonography, and 3T MRI for the detection of malignant breast lesions; all women were at high risk.
Results showed that 3T MRI detected 66 of 66 malignant lesions; mammography detected 54 of 66 malignant lesions; and sonography detected 57 of 66 malignant lesions.
"3T MRI depicted a significantly higher number of malignant tumours of the breast than mammography and sonography," said lead author Haitham Elsamaloty, MD, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio.
"Our study detected 'early' breast cancer (lesions as small as 4 mm in size ) and also identified malignant lesions that were only detected by MRI and confirmed by MRI guided biopsy. These crucial findings led to a significant change in patient management in 18.2% of the cases in our study.
"Our study suggests an important role for 3T MRI in such high risk groups for an early diagnosis of breast cancer and better accuracy in evaluating the extent of disease -- a crucial factor in appropriate therapy planning," said Dr. Elsamaloty.
"High field strength MRI systems are becoming increasingly available in the clinical setting and more of them are being used for the evaluation of breast malignancy. 3T MRI is an important addition to mammography and sonography."
SOURCE: American Roentgen Ray Society
3T MRI Detects Early Breast Cancer Not Seen on Mammography, Sonography
LEESBURG, Va -- April 22, 2009 -- High field strength (3T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) -- a powerful tool for evaluating patients with a high risk of having breast cancer -- can detect a significant number of lesions not found on mammography and sonography, according to a study that will be presented at the 2009 American Roentgen Ray Society Annual Meeting on April 29.
The study included 434 women who underwent mammography, sonography, and 3T MRI for the detection of malignant breast lesions; all women were at high risk.
Results showed that 3T MRI detected 66 of 66 malignant lesions; mammography detected 54 of 66 malignant lesions; and sonography detected 57 of 66 malignant lesions.
"3T MRI depicted a significantly higher number of malignant tumours of the breast than mammography and sonography," said lead author Haitham Elsamaloty, MD, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio.
"Our study detected 'early' breast cancer (lesions as small as 4 mm in size ) and also identified malignant lesions that were only detected by MRI and confirmed by MRI guided biopsy. These crucial findings led to a significant change in patient management in 18.2% of the cases in our study.
"Our study suggests an important role for 3T MRI in such high risk groups for an early diagnosis of breast cancer and better accuracy in evaluating the extent of disease -- a crucial factor in appropriate therapy planning," said Dr. Elsamaloty.
"High field strength MRI systems are becoming increasingly available in the clinical setting and more of them are being used for the evaluation of breast malignancy. 3T MRI is an important addition to mammography and sonography."
SOURCE: American Roentgen Ray Society
Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
By Marc Morano Thursday, April 23, 2009
Washington DC—UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
By Marc Morano Thursday, April 23, 2009
Washington DC—UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Rothschild = Redshield: Now Greenshield?
Rothschild = Redshield: Now Greenshield?
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
April 21, 2009
In an unbelievable display of shamelessness, the youngest son of sir Evelyn de Rothschild claims that being heir to the Rothschild-fortune somehow makes it more unlikely that he should convince people to ‘go green’. In recent weeks several news outlets have reported on a coming television series presented by David Mayor de Rothschild on the dangers of ‘global warming’ and its supposed effects on the earths ecosystem as he sails around the globe, promoting his cause on a boat made of plastic bottles and recycled waste. The young Rothschild may have painted the family crest green, underneath the red is still shimmering through.
David Mayer de Rothschild:
On April 17, the New York Times ran a story about David Mayor de Rothschild and his television debut ‘Eco Trip: The Real Cost of Living’. In the article the journalist cancels all professional reservations to drool mindlessly over Rothschild’s geographical zigzaggings and ecological adventures. As we have come to expect of the New York Times, even the pretext of thinking is being abandoned as the global warming-myth is presented as a well-proven fact and its advocates are sprinkled with shining star- and gold dust.
Starting out by marvelling over David Mayor the Rothschild’s past globetrotting adventures ‘across Greenland’s shrinking icecaps’, the journalist wonders aloud how on earth it is possible for an offspring of the infamous banking family to protect Gaia from the evil oil-drillers.
‘It’s one of those weird things’, Rothschild said in response. ‘(Being a Rothschild) has given me a lot of opportunities, but I think I always have to work harder too.’
A couple of days before the New York Times published their deceptive little panegyric, an article about De Rothschild’s ventures appeared in the Guardian’s environment-section, pointing out that David de Rothschild ‘belongs to the country’s leading ‘eco-toffs’, those young men and women who use their inherited wealth to promote environmental causes.’
By projecting an image of himself as a rich man’s kid drifting away from his predestined path to choose a life of self-inflicted hardships, de Rothschild’s leaves out the fact that his activities are actually perfectly consistent with his family’s long-time ambitions. As so often is the case, we must peel off multiple layers of deception to arrive at the rotten apple-core. De Rothschild’s crusade against ‘climate change’ is not despite of his upbringing- on the contrary: it fits in perfectly with his families age-old trickery, to create and promote a crisis, let it rage for a while and then generously bring out the solution in favour of the globalist agenda. And as the young Rothschild’s environmental enterprises show, the methodology is still very much alive.
Besides making a television series for the impressionable, he specialises in directing the propaganda towards the very impressionable. On his own website AdventureEcology.Com, de Rothschild addresses the children saying ‘a range of learning opportunities connect children with nature, inspire proactive global citizenship and make learning an adventure.’
It was not even a month before the New York Times article appeared about David de Rothschild’s travels, that the PR Newswire announced that ‘Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.’ As the website Rothschild.Com brags, ‘Rothschild has been at the centre of the world’s financial markets for over 200 years. It ranks amongst the world’s largest privately-owned banks.’ A couple of paragraphs later, the website goes on to say that ‘Rothschild is committed to the pursuit of excellence, and for this reason concentrates on sectors and markets in which it can excel.’
Indeed. As the recent carbon credit scheme by the internationalist family clearly illustrates, their members are all too eager to point at the dangers of climate change, and even more eager to make huge profits out of the generated fear with the aim of consolidating control over international finance. David Mayor de Rothschild is certainly not a rogue descendant of the family, denouncing his family’s global ambitions. He is actually a most loyal member, promoting them with a wink and a smile.
Sources:
www.nytimes.com
www.guardian.co.uk
www.rothschild.com
www.adventureecology.com
www.prnewswire.co.uk
DarthDubious's blog | login or register to post comments
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
April 21, 2009
In an unbelievable display of shamelessness, the youngest son of sir Evelyn de Rothschild claims that being heir to the Rothschild-fortune somehow makes it more unlikely that he should convince people to ‘go green’. In recent weeks several news outlets have reported on a coming television series presented by David Mayor de Rothschild on the dangers of ‘global warming’ and its supposed effects on the earths ecosystem as he sails around the globe, promoting his cause on a boat made of plastic bottles and recycled waste. The young Rothschild may have painted the family crest green, underneath the red is still shimmering through.
David Mayer de Rothschild:
On April 17, the New York Times ran a story about David Mayor de Rothschild and his television debut ‘Eco Trip: The Real Cost of Living’. In the article the journalist cancels all professional reservations to drool mindlessly over Rothschild’s geographical zigzaggings and ecological adventures. As we have come to expect of the New York Times, even the pretext of thinking is being abandoned as the global warming-myth is presented as a well-proven fact and its advocates are sprinkled with shining star- and gold dust.
Starting out by marvelling over David Mayor the Rothschild’s past globetrotting adventures ‘across Greenland’s shrinking icecaps’, the journalist wonders aloud how on earth it is possible for an offspring of the infamous banking family to protect Gaia from the evil oil-drillers.
‘It’s one of those weird things’, Rothschild said in response. ‘(Being a Rothschild) has given me a lot of opportunities, but I think I always have to work harder too.’
A couple of days before the New York Times published their deceptive little panegyric, an article about De Rothschild’s ventures appeared in the Guardian’s environment-section, pointing out that David de Rothschild ‘belongs to the country’s leading ‘eco-toffs’, those young men and women who use their inherited wealth to promote environmental causes.’
By projecting an image of himself as a rich man’s kid drifting away from his predestined path to choose a life of self-inflicted hardships, de Rothschild’s leaves out the fact that his activities are actually perfectly consistent with his family’s long-time ambitions. As so often is the case, we must peel off multiple layers of deception to arrive at the rotten apple-core. De Rothschild’s crusade against ‘climate change’ is not despite of his upbringing- on the contrary: it fits in perfectly with his families age-old trickery, to create and promote a crisis, let it rage for a while and then generously bring out the solution in favour of the globalist agenda. And as the young Rothschild’s environmental enterprises show, the methodology is still very much alive.
Besides making a television series for the impressionable, he specialises in directing the propaganda towards the very impressionable. On his own website AdventureEcology.Com, de Rothschild addresses the children saying ‘a range of learning opportunities connect children with nature, inspire proactive global citizenship and make learning an adventure.’
It was not even a month before the New York Times article appeared about David de Rothschild’s travels, that the PR Newswire announced that ‘Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.’ As the website Rothschild.Com brags, ‘Rothschild has been at the centre of the world’s financial markets for over 200 years. It ranks amongst the world’s largest privately-owned banks.’ A couple of paragraphs later, the website goes on to say that ‘Rothschild is committed to the pursuit of excellence, and for this reason concentrates on sectors and markets in which it can excel.’
Indeed. As the recent carbon credit scheme by the internationalist family clearly illustrates, their members are all too eager to point at the dangers of climate change, and even more eager to make huge profits out of the generated fear with the aim of consolidating control over international finance. David Mayor de Rothschild is certainly not a rogue descendant of the family, denouncing his family’s global ambitions. He is actually a most loyal member, promoting them with a wink and a smile.
Sources:
www.nytimes.com
www.guardian.co.uk
www.rothschild.com
www.adventureecology.com
www.prnewswire.co.uk
DarthDubious's blog | login or register to post comments
A Meditation on Our Monetary System: State of Permanent Siege*
A Meditation on Our Monetary System: State of Permanent Siege* / By Richard Cook
⋅ April 22, 2009 ⋅ ⋅ Post a comment
THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC IGNORANCE on the topic of the U.S. and world monetary system is astonishing. This is part of the plan, of course, because the monetary elite control not only the financial system but also the news media, the publishing industry, and the educational system. The blueprint for control was put together over a century ago by Cecil Rhodes and his friends, including British financier Nathan Rothschild, as documented by Professor Carroll Quigley.
⋅ April 22, 2009 ⋅ ⋅ Post a comment
THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC IGNORANCE on the topic of the U.S. and world monetary system is astonishing. This is part of the plan, of course, because the monetary elite control not only the financial system but also the news media, the publishing industry, and the educational system. The blueprint for control was put together over a century ago by Cecil Rhodes and his friends, including British financier Nathan Rothschild, as documented by Professor Carroll Quigley.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Stock market bulls have got it wrong, warns Nouriel Roubini
Stock market bulls have got it wrong, warns Nouriel Roubini
'Dr Doom' predicts further shocks in the market
By Nick Clark
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Nouriel Roubini, the so-called "arch bear" economist who predicted the current financial crisis in 2006, added further gloom yesterday after he wrote off recent rises in global stock markets as no more than a dead cat bounce.
While an increasing number of analysts have in recent weeks urged investors to go back into equities, Mr Roubini, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business who has emerged as one of the most respected economic voices in the wake of the credit crunch, warned yesterday that he didn't yet see a buying opportunity.
He holds little faith in the recent market rallies, which prompted some to suggest a recovery was underway. "I'm still cautious and bearish," he said. "I believe we are closer to a bottom in the stock market than a year ago, but this is a bear market rally."
'Dr Doom' predicts further shocks in the market
By Nick Clark
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Nouriel Roubini, the so-called "arch bear" economist who predicted the current financial crisis in 2006, added further gloom yesterday after he wrote off recent rises in global stock markets as no more than a dead cat bounce.
While an increasing number of analysts have in recent weeks urged investors to go back into equities, Mr Roubini, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business who has emerged as one of the most respected economic voices in the wake of the credit crunch, warned yesterday that he didn't yet see a buying opportunity.
He holds little faith in the recent market rallies, which prompted some to suggest a recovery was underway. "I'm still cautious and bearish," he said. "I believe we are closer to a bottom in the stock market than a year ago, but this is a bear market rally."
Monday, April 20, 2009
A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF
A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF
Changes Suggest Shift in How Global Economy Is Run
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009
Inside a cavernous assembly hall in downtown Washington, dignitaries gather twice a year for routine meetings of the International Monetary Fund. Before long, though, the room could take center stage in the IMF's transformation into a veritable United Nations for the global economy.
Surrounded by blond wood paneling and a digital screen the size of a cinema's, central bankers and finance ministers would meet to convene a financial security council of sorts. Serving almost as ambassadors to the IMF, they would debate ways to put out the world's economic fires and stifle reckless policies before they ignite new ones.
Bowing to a new economic world order, the IMF would grant fresh powers to the likes of China, India and Brazil. It would have vastly expanded authority to act as a global banker to governments rich and poor. And with more flexibility to effectively print its own money, it would have the ability to inject liquidity into global markets in a way once limited to major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve.
That image of a radically transformed IMF -- whose role in the global economy had turned largely advisory in recent years -- is now coming together through internal IMF documents, interviews and think-tank reports. Finance ministers from major nations will begin grappling with the formidable details of the IMF's makeover this weekend when they converge in Washington for the fund's biannual assembly.
The changes, broadly outlined by President Obama and other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in London earlier this month, could take months, even years to take shape. But the IMF is all but certain to take a central role in managing the world economy. As a result, Washington is poised to become the power center for global financial policy, much as the United Nations has long made New York the world center for diplomacy.
The IMF's mission is expanding so broadly that its managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said in an interview that the organization -- which underwent deep cuts last year before the financial crisis swept the globe -- may boost staffing in coming months, potentially creating dozens of high-paying jobs in the District.
Changes Suggest Shift in How Global Economy Is Run
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009
Inside a cavernous assembly hall in downtown Washington, dignitaries gather twice a year for routine meetings of the International Monetary Fund. Before long, though, the room could take center stage in the IMF's transformation into a veritable United Nations for the global economy.
Surrounded by blond wood paneling and a digital screen the size of a cinema's, central bankers and finance ministers would meet to convene a financial security council of sorts. Serving almost as ambassadors to the IMF, they would debate ways to put out the world's economic fires and stifle reckless policies before they ignite new ones.
Bowing to a new economic world order, the IMF would grant fresh powers to the likes of China, India and Brazil. It would have vastly expanded authority to act as a global banker to governments rich and poor. And with more flexibility to effectively print its own money, it would have the ability to inject liquidity into global markets in a way once limited to major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve.
That image of a radically transformed IMF -- whose role in the global economy had turned largely advisory in recent years -- is now coming together through internal IMF documents, interviews and think-tank reports. Finance ministers from major nations will begin grappling with the formidable details of the IMF's makeover this weekend when they converge in Washington for the fund's biannual assembly.
The changes, broadly outlined by President Obama and other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in London earlier this month, could take months, even years to take shape. But the IMF is all but certain to take a central role in managing the world economy. As a result, Washington is poised to become the power center for global financial policy, much as the United Nations has long made New York the world center for diplomacy.
The IMF's mission is expanding so broadly that its managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said in an interview that the organization -- which underwent deep cuts last year before the financial crisis swept the globe -- may boost staffing in coming months, potentially creating dozens of high-paying jobs in the District.
Obama flunks Global Warming 101 on Fargo
Obama flunks Global Warming 101 on Fargo
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 20, 2009
“When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and never was free again.” Edith Hamilton.
President Obama used recent flooding in Fargo, North Dakota to push his misguided belief in global warming. His comment, “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’” is speculative and completely wrong. ...
A two-degree warmer North Dakota would mean less snowfall, therefore less flooding. Spring flooding along the Red River of the north is due to snow melt and the geography of the region. This year the cold winter caused heavy snow in the south basin and all across the northern continental US. Obama’s comments do what the focus on global warming does; diverts us from real issues. In this case it is flooding and people living in naturally high-risk areas.
I was a founding member of the International Coalition, a joint project of citizens from Canada and the US living in the flood plain of the Red River.
Sorry President Obama, the Fargo flooding was not due to global warming or even a harbinger of an increased potential. It was a natural event aggravated by a colder winter and more snow. If global warming were to occur, in the Red River case less spring flooding would result. All this diverts from the issues of people living in environmentally dangerous areas and being encouraged to do so by government policies that remove personal responsibility. As Lincoln said, “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” Those who discipline themselves won’t need our help as often and we are more likely to give it when unforeseen emergencies occur.
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 20, 2009
“When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and never was free again.” Edith Hamilton.
President Obama used recent flooding in Fargo, North Dakota to push his misguided belief in global warming. His comment, “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’” is speculative and completely wrong. ...
A two-degree warmer North Dakota would mean less snowfall, therefore less flooding. Spring flooding along the Red River of the north is due to snow melt and the geography of the region. This year the cold winter caused heavy snow in the south basin and all across the northern continental US. Obama’s comments do what the focus on global warming does; diverts us from real issues. In this case it is flooding and people living in naturally high-risk areas.
I was a founding member of the International Coalition, a joint project of citizens from Canada and the US living in the flood plain of the Red River.
Sorry President Obama, the Fargo flooding was not due to global warming or even a harbinger of an increased potential. It was a natural event aggravated by a colder winter and more snow. If global warming were to occur, in the Red River case less spring flooding would result. All this diverts from the issues of people living in environmentally dangerous areas and being encouraged to do so by government policies that remove personal responsibility. As Lincoln said, “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” Those who discipline themselves won’t need our help as often and we are more likely to give it when unforeseen emergencies occur.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'
Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
Global Research, December 13, 2008
www.worldnet daily. - 2008-12-11
WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.
It is 4 degrees Celsius (39 Fahrenheit
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
Global Research, December 13, 2008
www.worldnet daily. - 2008-12-11
WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.
It is 4 degrees Celsius (39 Fahrenheit
Illuminati Will Pretend to Lead Resistance to NWO
Illuminati Will Pretend to Lead Resistance to NWO
April 19, 2009
(Texas Governor, Rick Perry left)
by Henry Makow and Richard Evans
Secession has been a verboten issue in the United States since the end of the Civil War. Any group who've brought it up have been targeted by press and government as 'militant fringe groups" All of a sudden in 2009, we're seeing it endorsed by career politicians in several states simultaneously, and the media is giving them good press.
Last week, Rick Perry, Texas Governor since George W. Bush's departure in 2000, raised secession of Texas from the Federal Union at a Ron Paul type 'Tea Party" to protest Federal spending and the tax burden on the little guy.
Clearly the Illuminati intend to harness and divert popular discontent to advance their own secret agenda, i.e. the melding of the USA into their world government. Many people think the tea party movement in general exhibits a suspicious amount of organization and media acceptance. (Contrast Fox TV's coverage of this with "9-11 Truth.") ...
The melding of the United States into the world government continues apace at the Latin American Summit. Obama is offering Cuba a "new beginning" and exchanging Masonic handshakes with Chavez of Venezuela. He is telling them that the US is no longer a senior partner but an equal in the hemisphere.
None of this should be a surprise. Obama, Chavez and Castro are all Freemasons and Communists, and the New World Order is Masonic and Communist. Insider Christian Rakovsky said the purpose of Freemasonry is to bring about Communism.
The Agenda will advance without a glitch as long as the Illuminati can continue to pretend to represent their own opposition.
April 19, 2009
(Texas Governor, Rick Perry left)
by Henry Makow and Richard Evans
Secession has been a verboten issue in the United States since the end of the Civil War. Any group who've brought it up have been targeted by press and government as 'militant fringe groups" All of a sudden in 2009, we're seeing it endorsed by career politicians in several states simultaneously, and the media is giving them good press.
Last week, Rick Perry, Texas Governor since George W. Bush's departure in 2000, raised secession of Texas from the Federal Union at a Ron Paul type 'Tea Party" to protest Federal spending and the tax burden on the little guy.
Clearly the Illuminati intend to harness and divert popular discontent to advance their own secret agenda, i.e. the melding of the USA into their world government. Many people think the tea party movement in general exhibits a suspicious amount of organization and media acceptance. (Contrast Fox TV's coverage of this with "9-11 Truth.") ...
The melding of the United States into the world government continues apace at the Latin American Summit. Obama is offering Cuba a "new beginning" and exchanging Masonic handshakes with Chavez of Venezuela. He is telling them that the US is no longer a senior partner but an equal in the hemisphere.
None of this should be a surprise. Obama, Chavez and Castro are all Freemasons and Communists, and the New World Order is Masonic and Communist. Insider Christian Rakovsky said the purpose of Freemasonry is to bring about Communism.
The Agenda will advance without a glitch as long as the Illuminati can continue to pretend to represent their own opposition.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Parental Age and Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Pooled Analysis
: Epidemiology. 2009 Apr 15. [Epub ahead of print]
Parental Age and Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Pooled Analysis.Johnson KJ, Carozza SE, Chow EJ, Fox EE, Horel S, McLaughlin CC, Mueller BA, Puumala SE, Reynolds P, Von Behren J, Spector LG.
From the aDivision of Epidemiology/Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota;bDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas;cPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington;dDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington;eCancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas;fNew York State Cancer Registry, New York Department of Health, Albany, New York;gDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA;hNorthern California Cancer Center, Berkeley, California; and iUniversity of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
BACKGROUND:: Few risk factors for childhood cancer are well-established. We investigated whether advancing parental age increases childhood cancer risk. METHODS:: We assessed the relationship between parental age and childhood cancer in a case-control study using pooled population-based data. Our pooling was based on linked cancer and birth registry records from New York, Washington, Minnesota, Texas, and California. Subjects included 17,672 cancer cases diagnosed at ages 0-14 years during 1980-2004 and 57,966 controls born during 1970-2004. Individuals with Down syndrome were excluded. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by logistic regression for the association between parental age and childhood cancer after adjustment for sex, birth weight, gestational age, birth order, plurality, maternal race, birth year, and state. RESULTS:: Positive linear trends per 5-year maternal age increase were observed for childhood cancers overall (odds ratio = 1.08 [95% confidence interval = 1.06-1.10]) and 7 of the 10 most frequent diagnostic groups: leukemia (1.08 [1.05-1.11]), lymphoma (1.06 [1.01-1.12]),central nervous system tumors (1.07 [1.03-1.10]), neuroblastoma (1.09 [1.04-1.15]), Wilms' tumor (1.16 [1.09-1.22]), bone tumors (1.10 [1.00-1.20]), and soft tissue sarcomas (1.10 [1.04-1.17]). No maternal ageeffect was noted for retinoblastoma, germ cell tumors, or hepatoblastoma. Paternal age was not independently associated with most childhood cancers after adjustment for maternal age. CONCLUSIONS:: Our results suggest that older maternal age increases risk for most common childhood cancers. Investigation into possible mechanisms for this association is warranted.
PMID: 19373093 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Parental Age and Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Pooled Analysis.Johnson KJ, Carozza SE, Chow EJ, Fox EE, Horel S, McLaughlin CC, Mueller BA, Puumala SE, Reynolds P, Von Behren J, Spector LG.
From the aDivision of Epidemiology/Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota;bDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center, College Station, Texas;cPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington;dDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington;eCancer Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas;fNew York State Cancer Registry, New York Department of Health, Albany, New York;gDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA;hNorthern California Cancer Center, Berkeley, California; and iUniversity of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
BACKGROUND:: Few risk factors for childhood cancer are well-established. We investigated whether advancing parental age increases childhood cancer risk. METHODS:: We assessed the relationship between parental age and childhood cancer in a case-control study using pooled population-based data. Our pooling was based on linked cancer and birth registry records from New York, Washington, Minnesota, Texas, and California. Subjects included 17,672 cancer cases diagnosed at ages 0-14 years during 1980-2004 and 57,966 controls born during 1970-2004. Individuals with Down syndrome were excluded. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by logistic regression for the association between parental age and childhood cancer after adjustment for sex, birth weight, gestational age, birth order, plurality, maternal race, birth year, and state. RESULTS:: Positive linear trends per 5-year maternal age increase were observed for childhood cancers overall (odds ratio = 1.08 [95% confidence interval = 1.06-1.10]) and 7 of the 10 most frequent diagnostic groups: leukemia (1.08 [1.05-1.11]), lymphoma (1.06 [1.01-1.12]),central nervous system tumors (1.07 [1.03-1.10]), neuroblastoma (1.09 [1.04-1.15]), Wilms' tumor (1.16 [1.09-1.22]), bone tumors (1.10 [1.00-1.20]), and soft tissue sarcomas (1.10 [1.04-1.17]). No maternal ageeffect was noted for retinoblastoma, germ cell tumors, or hepatoblastoma. Paternal age was not independently associated with most childhood cancers after adjustment for maternal age. CONCLUSIONS:: Our results suggest that older maternal age increases risk for most common childhood cancers. Investigation into possible mechanisms for this association is warranted.
PMID: 19373093 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stiglitz Says White House Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue
Stiglitz Says White House Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue
By Michael McKee and Matthew Benjamin
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s bank- rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.
“All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.”
By Michael McKee and Matthew Benjamin
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s bank- rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.
“All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.”
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009
April 10th, 2009
Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009
Commentary by Jennifer Granick
There's a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.
Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.
One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.
Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop:
The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…
In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to “all relevant data” without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations. Even worse, it isn’t clear whether this provision would require systems to be designed to enable access, essentially a back door for the Secretary of Commerce that would also establish a primrose path for any bad guy to merrily skip down as well. If the drafters meant to create a clearinghouse for system vulnerability information along the lines of a US/CERT mailing list, that could be useful, but that’s not what the bill’s current language does.
A privacy threat still in the cocoon is the provision mandating a study of the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program with just a nod to “appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections.” There’s reason to fear that this type of study is just a precursor to proposals to limit online anonymity. But anonymity isn’t inherently a security problem. What’s “secure” depends on the goals of the system. Do you need authentication, accountability, confidentiality, data integrity? Each goal suggests a different security architecture, some totally compatible with anonymity, privacy and civil liberties. In other words, no one “identity management and authentication program” is appropriate for all internet uses.
Whether the bill is amended or rejected, the question remains what kind of actions would help cybersecurity, and what role the federal government has to play. As security expert Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the true causes of government cyber-insecurity are rather mundane:
GAO reports indicate that government problems include insufficient access controls, a lack of encryption where necessary, poor network management, failure to install patches, inadequate audit procedures, and incomplete or ineffective information security programs.
The Cybersecurity Act is an example of the kind of dramatic proposal that doesn't address the real problems of security, and can actually make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards – as opposed to simpler, practical measures that create real security by encouraging better computer hygiene. We’ll be watching this bill carefully to ensure that it doesn’t pass in its present form.
Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009
Commentary by Jennifer Granick
There's a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.
Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.
One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.
Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop:
The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…
In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to “all relevant data” without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations. Even worse, it isn’t clear whether this provision would require systems to be designed to enable access, essentially a back door for the Secretary of Commerce that would also establish a primrose path for any bad guy to merrily skip down as well. If the drafters meant to create a clearinghouse for system vulnerability information along the lines of a US/CERT mailing list, that could be useful, but that’s not what the bill’s current language does.
A privacy threat still in the cocoon is the provision mandating a study of the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program with just a nod to “appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections.” There’s reason to fear that this type of study is just a precursor to proposals to limit online anonymity. But anonymity isn’t inherently a security problem. What’s “secure” depends on the goals of the system. Do you need authentication, accountability, confidentiality, data integrity? Each goal suggests a different security architecture, some totally compatible with anonymity, privacy and civil liberties. In other words, no one “identity management and authentication program” is appropriate for all internet uses.
Whether the bill is amended or rejected, the question remains what kind of actions would help cybersecurity, and what role the federal government has to play. As security expert Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the true causes of government cyber-insecurity are rather mundane:
GAO reports indicate that government problems include insufficient access controls, a lack of encryption where necessary, poor network management, failure to install patches, inadequate audit procedures, and incomplete or ineffective information security programs.
The Cybersecurity Act is an example of the kind of dramatic proposal that doesn't address the real problems of security, and can actually make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards – as opposed to simpler, practical measures that create real security by encouraging better computer hygiene. We’ll be watching this bill carefully to ensure that it doesn’t pass in its present form.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Playing God with the Weather Will Outdo Mother Nature’s Worst Nightmares
Playing God with the Weather Will Outdo Mother Nature’s Worst Nightmares
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 13, 2009
Actions without thought or concern for the consequences are the pattern of the day as political agendas trump facts or logic. Consider the dangerous and baseless proposal to offset global warming by adding particulates to the atmosphere. It was in the news as a strategy, albeit a last resort, from a member of the Obama administration.
Unfortunately, last resorts often attain higher priority once considered, especially if blindness about the problem exists and persists. The idea is purely political because it is completely without scientific justification. If done it will trigger severe cooling, including global harvest failures and much more severe weather. It is a much greater threat than warming,
The proposal is in the category of geo-engineering, which I examined in a wider context here:
Even as a last resort the proposal underscores complete lack of knowledge of the science and the consequences of such actions. Simple theory says particulates reduce sunlight reaching the ground, creating a cooler surface and cooler air, because the ground heats the air. Here is a plot of reduction of sunlight caused by four volcanoes.
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 13, 2009
Actions without thought or concern for the consequences are the pattern of the day as political agendas trump facts or logic. Consider the dangerous and baseless proposal to offset global warming by adding particulates to the atmosphere. It was in the news as a strategy, albeit a last resort, from a member of the Obama administration.
Unfortunately, last resorts often attain higher priority once considered, especially if blindness about the problem exists and persists. The idea is purely political because it is completely without scientific justification. If done it will trigger severe cooling, including global harvest failures and much more severe weather. It is a much greater threat than warming,
The proposal is in the category of geo-engineering, which I examined in a wider context here:
Even as a last resort the proposal underscores complete lack of knowledge of the science and the consequences of such actions. Simple theory says particulates reduce sunlight reaching the ground, creating a cooler surface and cooler air, because the ground heats the air. Here is a plot of reduction of sunlight caused by four volcanoes.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
First lady's organic garden concerns chemical firms
The News
First lady's organic garden concerns chemical firms
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 04/09/09 04:20 PM [ET]
Michelle Obama planted an organic garden to promote fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet, but some chemical companies are worried it may plant a seed of doubt in consumers’ minds about conventionally grown crops.
“Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical,” the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) wrote the first lady last month a few days after she and fifth-graders from a local elementary school planted the White House Kitchen Garden.
The garden is designed to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for the first family and White House staff and guests. The garden itself doesn’t give the group heartburn. The letter also congratulates the first lady “on recognizing the importance of agriculture to America!”
But MACA, which represents agribusinesses like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Crop Protection, is rather less thrilled about the fact that no chemicals will be used to grow the crops. The group is worried that the decision may give consumers the wrong impression about conventionally grown food.
“We live in a very different world than that of our grandparents. Americans are juggling jobs with the needs of children and aging parents,” the letter states. “The time needed to tend a garden is not there for the majority of our citizens, certainly not a garden of sufficient productivity to supply much of a family’s year-round food needs.”
The blog La Vida Locavore posted the letter last month.
Although pesticides or chemical fertilizers won’t be used on the White House garden, Camille Johnston, spokeswoman for the first lady, said Mrs. Obama wanted to plant the garden to promote the eating of fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet.
MACA members just want a little love pointed their way: “As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S. in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply.”
First lady's organic garden concerns chemical firms
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 04/09/09 04:20 PM [ET]
Michelle Obama planted an organic garden to promote fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet, but some chemical companies are worried it may plant a seed of doubt in consumers’ minds about conventionally grown crops.
“Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical,” the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) wrote the first lady last month a few days after she and fifth-graders from a local elementary school planted the White House Kitchen Garden.
The garden is designed to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for the first family and White House staff and guests. The garden itself doesn’t give the group heartburn. The letter also congratulates the first lady “on recognizing the importance of agriculture to America!”
But MACA, which represents agribusinesses like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Crop Protection, is rather less thrilled about the fact that no chemicals will be used to grow the crops. The group is worried that the decision may give consumers the wrong impression about conventionally grown food.
“We live in a very different world than that of our grandparents. Americans are juggling jobs with the needs of children and aging parents,” the letter states. “The time needed to tend a garden is not there for the majority of our citizens, certainly not a garden of sufficient productivity to supply much of a family’s year-round food needs.”
The blog La Vida Locavore posted the letter last month.
Although pesticides or chemical fertilizers won’t be used on the White House garden, Camille Johnston, spokeswoman for the first lady, said Mrs. Obama wanted to plant the garden to promote the eating of fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet.
MACA members just want a little love pointed their way: “As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S. in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply.”
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Town 'ignored warning' of imminent earthquake
Town 'ignored warning' of imminent earthquake
By Sarah Delaney in L'Aquila
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Share Digg It del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Print Article Email Article Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large
AFP
Rescuers recovering bodies in L'Aquila yesterday
© More pictures
As Italy reeled yesterday from a powerful earthquake that killed at least 179 people and flattened entire towns while people slept, a seismologist who claimed he could have given up to 24 hours notice of the disaster said his repeated warnings had been ignored.
Emergency workers were still hunting frantically for survivors last night in the medieval city of L'Aquila, near the epicentre of the quake, and in scores of surrounding villages across the mountainous Abruzzo region in the country's centre There were reports that one team had rescued at least 60 people from the rubble.
More than 1,500 people are thought to have been injured and up to 17,000 left homeless. Dozens of people are missing and officials said the death toll was likely to rise significantly.
Related articles
Strong aftershock hits Italian quake region
Steve Connor: Deadly fault lines that run down the spine of Italy
The medieval gem reduced to ruins
The survivors: 'I don't know who was protecting us, why we are the ones left alive'
But even as Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi declared an emergency and promised a record number of rescue teams, a bitter row was raging over whether lives could have been saved by evacuating homes before the quake struck at 3.32am. The quake measured 5.8 on the Richter Scale, according to the Italian National Institute of Geophysics. The US Geological Survey measured it as 6.3.
A flurry of earth tremors struck the L'Aquila area in mid-January, prompting Giampaolo Giuliani, a researcher at the National Institute of Nuclear Physics, whose laboratories are deep beneath the Gran Sasso mountain on L'Aquila's skyline to sound the alarm.
In interviews before the earthquake struck he claimed that he had developed an early warning system based not on seismic waves but on radon which is only expelled from the earth under intense pressure.
After his warnings, vans with megaphones toured L'Aquila urging people to leave their homes. But the mayor, Massimo Cialente, allegedly served the seismologist with a warning of criminal charges for scare-mongering, even though the region had experienced nine tremors since the start of April.
"Now there are people who have to apologise to me and who will have what has happened on their conscience," Mr Giuliani told La Repubblica. The expert said he was helpless to act as it became clear to him on Sunday that a quake was imminent. "I didn't know who to turn to, I had been put under investigation for saying there was going to be an earthquake."
Mr Berlusconi, who cancelled a trip to Russia to fly to the disaster zone, appeared on the defensive when asked about official complacency.
Now was the time to concentrate on relief efforts he said, and "we can discuss afterwards about the predictability of earthquakes".
In the centre of L'Aquila piles of rubble, cement, furniture and roof tiles were strewn on the ground. Grey dust carpeted the streets and covered parked cars. The roof of the cupola on one of the churches on the Piazza Duomo was completely gone.
Local people told of the horror of finding their city falling away beneath them in the night. "I woke up hearing what sounded like a bomb," Angela Palumbo, 87, said. "We managed to escape with things falling all around us. Everything was shaking, furniture falling. I don't remember ever seeing anything like this in my life."
In L'Aquila alone, 30,000 buildings were thought to have been affected.
Outside one collapsed four-storey apartment building, dozens of rescue workers were digging both with heavy equipment and bare hands. Every now and then they ordered the machines to stop so they could hear human voices – they had heard a young woman named Francesca buried beneath urging them to "hurry up", they said.
Scenes of grief and despair played out across the city as dazed survivors, some still in their underwear, others wearing pyjamas and slippers, wept or sought out family members.
Parts of the main hospital had to be evacuated because of fears of collapse and injuries had to be treated in the open air. As the city trembled repeatedly with aftershocks, one woman, whose sister was still trapped inside the ruins of a building cried out: "Enough God! Enough! Enough of these earthquakes."
About 5km away, in Paganica, all 8,000 residents had been evacuated and the small 18th century Church of the Immaculate Conception had a gaping hole in the roof, another in the centre on the façade, and its bells askew.
In Bazzano, relief workers were distributing pizza, water and soft drinks to the hungry, dusty locals. Nicoletta Tarquini, 78, looked lost as she sat in her purple pyjamas, crying. She said she didn't know when she would have the courage to return home.
Last night, rain was complicating rescue efforts but one firefighter in L'Aquila, Antonio Giangiobbe, had a miracle to report. He had been working from 10.30am on a building: "We knew there was somebody alive in there, and after digging for eight hours we pulled her out. "A wardrobe had fallen on her, protecting her from the two floors of debris that fell on top. She was calm but said, 'Hurry up hurry up, because I can feel the pressure on my legs.' She had been protected by the wardrobe."
By Sarah Delaney in L'Aquila
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Share Digg It del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Print Article Email Article Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large
AFP
Rescuers recovering bodies in L'Aquila yesterday
© More pictures
As Italy reeled yesterday from a powerful earthquake that killed at least 179 people and flattened entire towns while people slept, a seismologist who claimed he could have given up to 24 hours notice of the disaster said his repeated warnings had been ignored.
Emergency workers were still hunting frantically for survivors last night in the medieval city of L'Aquila, near the epicentre of the quake, and in scores of surrounding villages across the mountainous Abruzzo region in the country's centre There were reports that one team had rescued at least 60 people from the rubble.
More than 1,500 people are thought to have been injured and up to 17,000 left homeless. Dozens of people are missing and officials said the death toll was likely to rise significantly.
Related articles
Strong aftershock hits Italian quake region
Steve Connor: Deadly fault lines that run down the spine of Italy
The medieval gem reduced to ruins
The survivors: 'I don't know who was protecting us, why we are the ones left alive'
But even as Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi declared an emergency and promised a record number of rescue teams, a bitter row was raging over whether lives could have been saved by evacuating homes before the quake struck at 3.32am. The quake measured 5.8 on the Richter Scale, according to the Italian National Institute of Geophysics. The US Geological Survey measured it as 6.3.
A flurry of earth tremors struck the L'Aquila area in mid-January, prompting Giampaolo Giuliani, a researcher at the National Institute of Nuclear Physics, whose laboratories are deep beneath the Gran Sasso mountain on L'Aquila's skyline to sound the alarm.
In interviews before the earthquake struck he claimed that he had developed an early warning system based not on seismic waves but on radon which is only expelled from the earth under intense pressure.
After his warnings, vans with megaphones toured L'Aquila urging people to leave their homes. But the mayor, Massimo Cialente, allegedly served the seismologist with a warning of criminal charges for scare-mongering, even though the region had experienced nine tremors since the start of April.
"Now there are people who have to apologise to me and who will have what has happened on their conscience," Mr Giuliani told La Repubblica. The expert said he was helpless to act as it became clear to him on Sunday that a quake was imminent. "I didn't know who to turn to, I had been put under investigation for saying there was going to be an earthquake."
Mr Berlusconi, who cancelled a trip to Russia to fly to the disaster zone, appeared on the defensive when asked about official complacency.
Now was the time to concentrate on relief efforts he said, and "we can discuss afterwards about the predictability of earthquakes".
In the centre of L'Aquila piles of rubble, cement, furniture and roof tiles were strewn on the ground. Grey dust carpeted the streets and covered parked cars. The roof of the cupola on one of the churches on the Piazza Duomo was completely gone.
Local people told of the horror of finding their city falling away beneath them in the night. "I woke up hearing what sounded like a bomb," Angela Palumbo, 87, said. "We managed to escape with things falling all around us. Everything was shaking, furniture falling. I don't remember ever seeing anything like this in my life."
In L'Aquila alone, 30,000 buildings were thought to have been affected.
Outside one collapsed four-storey apartment building, dozens of rescue workers were digging both with heavy equipment and bare hands. Every now and then they ordered the machines to stop so they could hear human voices – they had heard a young woman named Francesca buried beneath urging them to "hurry up", they said.
Scenes of grief and despair played out across the city as dazed survivors, some still in their underwear, others wearing pyjamas and slippers, wept or sought out family members.
Parts of the main hospital had to be evacuated because of fears of collapse and injuries had to be treated in the open air. As the city trembled repeatedly with aftershocks, one woman, whose sister was still trapped inside the ruins of a building cried out: "Enough God! Enough! Enough of these earthquakes."
About 5km away, in Paganica, all 8,000 residents had been evacuated and the small 18th century Church of the Immaculate Conception had a gaping hole in the roof, another in the centre on the façade, and its bells askew.
In Bazzano, relief workers were distributing pizza, water and soft drinks to the hungry, dusty locals. Nicoletta Tarquini, 78, looked lost as she sat in her purple pyjamas, crying. She said she didn't know when she would have the courage to return home.
Last night, rain was complicating rescue efforts but one firefighter in L'Aquila, Antonio Giangiobbe, had a miracle to report. He had been working from 10.30am on a building: "We knew there was somebody alive in there, and after digging for eight hours we pulled her out. "A wardrobe had fallen on her, protecting her from the two floors of debris that fell on top. She was calm but said, 'Hurry up hurry up, because I can feel the pressure on my legs.' She had been protected by the wardrobe."
Monday, April 6, 2009
Italy muzzled scientist who foresaw quake
Italy muzzled scientist who foresaw quake 06 Apr 2009 11:22:00 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Gavin Jones
ROME, April 6 (Reuters) - An Italian scientist predicted a major earthquake around L'Aquila weeks before disaster struck the city on Monday, killing dozens of people, but was reported to authorities for spreading panic among the population.
The first tremors in the region were felt in mid-January and continued at regular intervals, creating mounting alarm in the medieval city, about 100 km (60 miles) east of Rome.
Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani predicted a large quake was on the way, prompting the mayor's anger.
Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for "spreading alarm" and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.
Italy's Civil Protection agency held a meeting of the Major Risks Committee, grouping scientists charged with assessing such risks, in L'Aquila on March 31 to reassure the townspeople.
"The tremors being felt by the population are part of a typical sequence ... (which is) absolutely normal in a seismic area like the one around L'Aquila," the civil protection agency said in a statement on the eve of that meeting.
"It is useful to underline that it is not in any way possible to predict an earthquake," it said, adding that the agency saw no reason for alarm but was nonetheless effecting "continuous monitoring and attention".
As the media asked questions about the authorities' alleged failure to safeguard the population ahead of the quake, the head of the National Geophysics Institute dismissed Giuliani's predictions.
"Every time there is an earthquake there are people who claim to have predicted it," he said. "As far as I know nobody predicted this earthquake with precision. It is not possible to predict earthquakes."
Enzo Boschi said the real problem for Italy was a long-standing failure to take proper precautions despite a history of tragic quakes.
"We have earthquakes but then we forget and do nothing. It's not in our culture to take precautions or build in an appropriate way in areas where there could be strong earthquakes," he said.
Source: Reuters
By Gavin Jones
ROME, April 6 (Reuters) - An Italian scientist predicted a major earthquake around L'Aquila weeks before disaster struck the city on Monday, killing dozens of people, but was reported to authorities for spreading panic among the population.
The first tremors in the region were felt in mid-January and continued at regular intervals, creating mounting alarm in the medieval city, about 100 km (60 miles) east of Rome.
Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani predicted a large quake was on the way, prompting the mayor's anger.
Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for "spreading alarm" and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.
Italy's Civil Protection agency held a meeting of the Major Risks Committee, grouping scientists charged with assessing such risks, in L'Aquila on March 31 to reassure the townspeople.
"The tremors being felt by the population are part of a typical sequence ... (which is) absolutely normal in a seismic area like the one around L'Aquila," the civil protection agency said in a statement on the eve of that meeting.
"It is useful to underline that it is not in any way possible to predict an earthquake," it said, adding that the agency saw no reason for alarm but was nonetheless effecting "continuous monitoring and attention".
As the media asked questions about the authorities' alleged failure to safeguard the population ahead of the quake, the head of the National Geophysics Institute dismissed Giuliani's predictions.
"Every time there is an earthquake there are people who claim to have predicted it," he said. "As far as I know nobody predicted this earthquake with precision. It is not possible to predict earthquakes."
Enzo Boschi said the real problem for Italy was a long-standing failure to take proper precautions despite a history of tragic quakes.
"We have earthquakes but then we forget and do nothing. It's not in our culture to take precautions or build in an appropriate way in areas where there could be strong earthquakes," he said.
The Financial New World Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government
... by Andrew G. Marshall ...
Indeed, the current “solutions” being proposed to the global financial crisis benefit those that caused the crisis over those that are poised to suffer the most as a result of the crisis: the disappearing middle classes, the world's dispossessed, poor, indebted people. The proposed solutions to this crisis represent the manifestations and actualization of the ultimate generational goals of the global elite; and thus, represent the least favourable conditions for the vast majority of the world's people.
It is imperative that the world's people throw their weight against these “solutions” and usher in a new era of world order, one of the People's World Order; with the solution lying in local governance and local economies, so that the people have greater roles in determining the future and structure of their own political-economy, and thus, their own society. With this alternative of localized political economies, in conjunction with an unprecedented global population and international democratization of communication through the internet, we have the means and possibility before us to forge the most diverse manifestation of cultures and societies that humanity has ever known.
The answer lies in the individual's internalization of human power and destination, and a rejection of the externalization of power and human destiny to a global authority of which all but a select few people have access to. To internalize human power and destiny is to realize the gift of a human mind, which has the ability to engage in thought beyond the material, such as food and shelter, and venture into the realm of the conceptual. Each individual possesses – within themselves – the ability to think critically about themselves and their own life; now is the time to utilize this ability with the aim of internalizing the concepts and questions of human power and destiny: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where should we be going? How do we get there?
The supposed answers to these questions are offered to us by a tiny global elite who fear the repercussions of what would take place if the people of the world were to begin to answer these questions themselves. I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the answers lie in the human mind and spirit, that which has overcome and will continue to overcome the greatest of challenges to humanity, and will, without doubt, triumph over the New World Order.
Indeed, the current “solutions” being proposed to the global financial crisis benefit those that caused the crisis over those that are poised to suffer the most as a result of the crisis: the disappearing middle classes, the world's dispossessed, poor, indebted people. The proposed solutions to this crisis represent the manifestations and actualization of the ultimate generational goals of the global elite; and thus, represent the least favourable conditions for the vast majority of the world's people.
It is imperative that the world's people throw their weight against these “solutions” and usher in a new era of world order, one of the People's World Order; with the solution lying in local governance and local economies, so that the people have greater roles in determining the future and structure of their own political-economy, and thus, their own society. With this alternative of localized political economies, in conjunction with an unprecedented global population and international democratization of communication through the internet, we have the means and possibility before us to forge the most diverse manifestation of cultures and societies that humanity has ever known.
The answer lies in the individual's internalization of human power and destination, and a rejection of the externalization of power and human destiny to a global authority of which all but a select few people have access to. To internalize human power and destiny is to realize the gift of a human mind, which has the ability to engage in thought beyond the material, such as food and shelter, and venture into the realm of the conceptual. Each individual possesses – within themselves – the ability to think critically about themselves and their own life; now is the time to utilize this ability with the aim of internalizing the concepts and questions of human power and destiny: Why are we here? Where are we going? Where should we be going? How do we get there?
The supposed answers to these questions are offered to us by a tiny global elite who fear the repercussions of what would take place if the people of the world were to begin to answer these questions themselves. I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the answers lie in the human mind and spirit, that which has overcome and will continue to overcome the greatest of challenges to humanity, and will, without doubt, triumph over the New World Order.
Nothing is more imaginary than the claim that CO2 is causing global warming
Nothing is more imaginary than the claim that CO2 is causing global warming
C02 Global Warming’s IPCC-created Hobglobin
Dr. Tim Ball Bio
Email Article
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 6, 2009
Over 50 years ago H.L.Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Nothing is more imaginary than the claim that CO2 is causing global warming and the proposal designed to lead us to safety is unnecessary and will create real problems.
Imagine basing a major global policy on the output of a grossly simplistic computer model of a very complex system. Worse, the model considers only one miniscule variable known to have no effect while it ignores the major variables. In any area of science, social science or politics the insanity would be soundly rejected. However, that is what the entire world is planning to do with global energy policy to counteract the non-existent problem of global warming.
It is non-existent because the world has cooled since 2000 as CO2 increased and temperatures correlate with changes in the sun. Many climate experts expect the cooling to continue at least until 2030. Why? What is their evidence it is the sun? ...
C02 Global Warming’s IPCC-created Hobglobin
Dr. Tim Ball Bio
Email Article
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, April 6, 2009
Over 50 years ago H.L.Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Nothing is more imaginary than the claim that CO2 is causing global warming and the proposal designed to lead us to safety is unnecessary and will create real problems.
Imagine basing a major global policy on the output of a grossly simplistic computer model of a very complex system. Worse, the model considers only one miniscule variable known to have no effect while it ignores the major variables. In any area of science, social science or politics the insanity would be soundly rejected. However, that is what the entire world is planning to do with global energy policy to counteract the non-existent problem of global warming.
It is non-existent because the world has cooled since 2000 as CO2 increased and temperatures correlate with changes in the sun. Many climate experts expect the cooling to continue at least until 2030. Why? What is their evidence it is the sun? ...
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Monsanto’s Dream Bill - Dr Mercola’s take on HR 875
Congressional Bill HR 875 was introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto.
The bill is essentially a giant gift package for Monsanto, mandating the criminalization of seed banking, prison terms and confiscatory fines for small farmers and 24 hour GPS tracking of their animals, and of “industrial” standards to independent farms.
The corporations want nothing less than full control of the land, the end of normal animals so they can substitute patented genetically engineered ones, and the end of normal seeds and thus of seed banking by farmers or individuals.
And now Monsanto wants its own employee, Michael Taylor (the man who forced genetically engineered rBGH on the country when the Clintons placed him over “food safety” in the 90’s) back in government, this time to act with massive police power as a “food safety tsar”. HR 875 would give him immense power over what is done on every single farm in the country and massive police state power to wield over farmers.
Rosa DeLauro and Stanley Greenburg have a great deal to account for in attempting to force through a mislabeled “food safety” bill with hidden intent to wipe out farmers and harm everyone.
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
Although I’m not familiar enough with this bill in its entirety to make any definitive declarations about what it would mean for the future of small organic farms should it pass, I will say this: any law introduced by someone with ties to Monsanto is likely to be grossly tainted by industry bias.
Who Does This Bill Benefit the Most?
And Monsanto in particular – one of the most evil companies on the planet — is a powerful entity that has repeatedly proven its clout. Monsanto has already managed so many reprehensible acts, it boggles the mind. Including:
Leading the world into a new age of potentially hazardous genetic modification of seeds.
Patenting not only their own GMO seeds, but also a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time — without a vote of the people or Congress.
Not allowing farmers to save their seeds to replant the next year – a practice that has been done for generations. Instead, they aggressively seek out and sue farmers they suspect of doing so.
Suing farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of Monsanto’s GE pollen or seed onto their land for patent infringement!
Producing two of the most toxic substances ever known — polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange).
Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply already is what’s known as terminator technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!
So, would it be safe to say that Monsanto stands to gain from H.R. 875?
Absolutely! With thousands of organic farmers driven out of business, they would be that much closer to dominating the food supply of the world, since organic farms don’t use Monsanto seeds or toxic products.
Based on their history, I believe it’s prudent to question what the future of our small farms will hold, should a bill with such blatant ties to Monsanto be allowed to pass without further scrutiny.
It is quite possible, perhaps even most probable, that the bill entitled H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is designed to halt the growing trend of small organic farms – not through a direct, frontal assault on organic farming, but rather by insidiously creating rules and laws that make it extremely difficult, and incredibly expensive, for small farms to comply.
And in this case, the rules and regulations created by this proposed bill are mandatory, not voluntary, meaning they apply equally to a tiny farmer with half a dozen cows as it does to a massive factory farm.
What are the Potential Hazards of HR 875?
The stated purpose of H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is:
To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.
As detailed in the articles above, some of the potential hazards of HR 875 include:
It includes small farmers who just sell their fruits and vegetables at farmer’s markets
Anyone engaged in food growing, or “holding food for consumption” in the U.S. would have to register annually, and create and maintain extensive records of the foods they grow and/or store
The definitions of who this law pertains to are so broad and loosely defined that they could potentially even include your personal backyard fruit or vegetable garden, even if you don’t sell anything but grow them for personal consumption
It appears it could dictate how all food growers would have to grow their food, including potentially the necessity to use certain pest control measures, for example
Authorities would have the ability to inspect any food production facility at random to make sure it’s operating in compliance with the food safety law, and again the definition of “food production facility” is so loosely defined it could apply to your personal orchard, vineyard, or vegetable garden, as long as it produces something edible
After the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture will promulgate regulations to establish “science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food” by food production facilities. Meaning, no one even knows what the food production standards are yet, but whatever they turn out to be will have to be followed
It is prohibited to: fail to register; refuse to permit access to an inspector; refuse to allow copying of all records; fail to establish or maintain any record required under the law
Should you fail to comply with any of the rules and regulations, there are both civil and criminal penalties, going as high as $1 million per violation, something that could clearly wipe out any small farmer in a blink of an eye
What Can You Do?
I believe everyone should take the time to look this bill over and decide for yourself — Do you, or do you not believe industry will use every loophole they can find to further their own interests over up-and-coming small, organic family farms?
If you believe this bill warrants further scrutiny before being blindly passed, here are a few ways you can get involved and make your voice heard:
Contact your Congressional members at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and S 425.
Find out who sits on your states agriculture and farming committee and contact them with your concerns.
Contact your local elected officials and let them know your position on legislation and why.
Attend a local Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) meeting, this is a good start to learning about what is going on in farming, as well as getting involved with local and state initiatives .
Support the Farmers Legal Defense Fund
The bill is essentially a giant gift package for Monsanto, mandating the criminalization of seed banking, prison terms and confiscatory fines for small farmers and 24 hour GPS tracking of their animals, and of “industrial” standards to independent farms.
The corporations want nothing less than full control of the land, the end of normal animals so they can substitute patented genetically engineered ones, and the end of normal seeds and thus of seed banking by farmers or individuals.
And now Monsanto wants its own employee, Michael Taylor (the man who forced genetically engineered rBGH on the country when the Clintons placed him over “food safety” in the 90’s) back in government, this time to act with massive police power as a “food safety tsar”. HR 875 would give him immense power over what is done on every single farm in the country and massive police state power to wield over farmers.
Rosa DeLauro and Stanley Greenburg have a great deal to account for in attempting to force through a mislabeled “food safety” bill with hidden intent to wipe out farmers and harm everyone.
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
Although I’m not familiar enough with this bill in its entirety to make any definitive declarations about what it would mean for the future of small organic farms should it pass, I will say this: any law introduced by someone with ties to Monsanto is likely to be grossly tainted by industry bias.
Who Does This Bill Benefit the Most?
And Monsanto in particular – one of the most evil companies on the planet — is a powerful entity that has repeatedly proven its clout. Monsanto has already managed so many reprehensible acts, it boggles the mind. Including:
Leading the world into a new age of potentially hazardous genetic modification of seeds.
Patenting not only their own GMO seeds, but also a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time — without a vote of the people or Congress.
Not allowing farmers to save their seeds to replant the next year – a practice that has been done for generations. Instead, they aggressively seek out and sue farmers they suspect of doing so.
Suing farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of Monsanto’s GE pollen or seed onto their land for patent infringement!
Producing two of the most toxic substances ever known — polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange).
Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply already is what’s known as terminator technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!
So, would it be safe to say that Monsanto stands to gain from H.R. 875?
Absolutely! With thousands of organic farmers driven out of business, they would be that much closer to dominating the food supply of the world, since organic farms don’t use Monsanto seeds or toxic products.
Based on their history, I believe it’s prudent to question what the future of our small farms will hold, should a bill with such blatant ties to Monsanto be allowed to pass without further scrutiny.
It is quite possible, perhaps even most probable, that the bill entitled H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is designed to halt the growing trend of small organic farms – not through a direct, frontal assault on organic farming, but rather by insidiously creating rules and laws that make it extremely difficult, and incredibly expensive, for small farms to comply.
And in this case, the rules and regulations created by this proposed bill are mandatory, not voluntary, meaning they apply equally to a tiny farmer with half a dozen cows as it does to a massive factory farm.
What are the Potential Hazards of HR 875?
The stated purpose of H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is:
To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.
As detailed in the articles above, some of the potential hazards of HR 875 include:
It includes small farmers who just sell their fruits and vegetables at farmer’s markets
Anyone engaged in food growing, or “holding food for consumption” in the U.S. would have to register annually, and create and maintain extensive records of the foods they grow and/or store
The definitions of who this law pertains to are so broad and loosely defined that they could potentially even include your personal backyard fruit or vegetable garden, even if you don’t sell anything but grow them for personal consumption
It appears it could dictate how all food growers would have to grow their food, including potentially the necessity to use certain pest control measures, for example
Authorities would have the ability to inspect any food production facility at random to make sure it’s operating in compliance with the food safety law, and again the definition of “food production facility” is so loosely defined it could apply to your personal orchard, vineyard, or vegetable garden, as long as it produces something edible
After the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture will promulgate regulations to establish “science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food” by food production facilities. Meaning, no one even knows what the food production standards are yet, but whatever they turn out to be will have to be followed
It is prohibited to: fail to register; refuse to permit access to an inspector; refuse to allow copying of all records; fail to establish or maintain any record required under the law
Should you fail to comply with any of the rules and regulations, there are both civil and criminal penalties, going as high as $1 million per violation, something that could clearly wipe out any small farmer in a blink of an eye
What Can You Do?
I believe everyone should take the time to look this bill over and decide for yourself — Do you, or do you not believe industry will use every loophole they can find to further their own interests over up-and-coming small, organic family farms?
If you believe this bill warrants further scrutiny before being blindly passed, here are a few ways you can get involved and make your voice heard:
Contact your Congressional members at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and S 425.
Find out who sits on your states agriculture and farming committee and contact them with your concerns.
Contact your local elected officials and let them know your position on legislation and why.
Attend a local Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) meeting, this is a good start to learning about what is going on in farming, as well as getting involved with local and state initiatives .
Support the Farmers Legal Defense Fund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)