In a truly astonishing betrayal of public safety (even for the FDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today revoked its warning about mercury in fish, saying that eating mercury-contaminated fish no longer poses any health threat to children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.
Last week, the FDA declared trace levels of melamine to be safe in infant formula. A few weeks earlier, it said the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A was safe for infants to drink. Now it says children can eat mercury, too. Is there any toxic substance in the food that the FDA thinks might be dangerous? (Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite and now mercury...)
This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it "scientifically flawed and inadequate," reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org/) issued a letter to the EPA, saying "It's a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America's health, and now it's nothing more than a patsy for polluters."
Is anyone really surprised? The FDA is a drug-pushing, people-betraying, scientifically illiterate criminal organization that, time and time again, seeks only to protect the profits of powerful corporations whose products poison the people. This statement is no longer a mere opinion. It is an observable fact based on the FDA's own pattern of behavior and its outlandish decisions that predictably betray the American public.
The real reason this is happening
You want to know the REAL reason the FDA is easing up on its warning about mercury in fish? It's because the agency is being relentlessly pounded over two related issues: Mercury in dental fillings and mercury preservatives in vaccines. And the FDA can't keep up its lie about the "safety" of vaccines and mercury fillings if it has already declared mercury to be dangerous in fish, right?
To the criminal minds running the FDA, the clever solution is to revoke the warning about mercury in fish. Thus, the FDA takes the position that all mercury is safe, and suddenly they're off the hook on mercury fillings and thimerosal in vaccines.
In other words, the FDA has just aligned itself as a defender of one of the most neurotoxic substances that's ever been found. Only a truly corrupt regulator could even attempt to defend such a position, and only a truly insane individual could argue that mercury exposure is safe for infants, children and expectant mothers. Not coincidentally, mercury exposure causes insanity (look up the historical term "mad as a hatter").
Given that most of the FDA decision makers probably have mercury fillings in their mouths and mercury molecules lodged in their brains from getting their vaccine shots, it's no stretch to consider the possibility that the FDA decision have, in a very strict medical sense, lost their minds due to mercury exposure. There's hardly any other way to explain the mad behavior of FDA officials.
I think it's time we called for an FDA MUTINY and declared the leaders of that agency to be too incompetent to run it anymore. These people need to be relieved of command before their hazardous pronouncements lead to yet more consumers being poisoned or killed. The FDA scientists, in my opinion, should revolt (in a non-violent way, of course) against the politically-motivated decision makers spewing all this "eat more poison" advice.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
In a truly astonishing betrayal of public safety (even for the FDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today revoked its warning about mercury in fish, saying that eating mercury-contaminated fish no longer poses any health threat to children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley believes that not only did Vice President Dick Cheney "unambiguously" confess to a war crime during an ABC interview on Monday, but the US' future as a nation may depend on taking action.
Asked by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann whether Cheney had just confessed to a war crime on national television, Turley at first replied wryly, "It's an interesting question, isn't it? ... If someone commits a crime and everyone's around to see it and does nothing, is it still a crime?"
"It most certainly is a crime to participate, to create, to in many ways monitor a torture program," he added. "What [Cheney] is describing is most certainly and unambiguously a war crime."
During Monday's interview, Cheney was asked, "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohamed?" and replied, "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared."
"What happens if the next administration does not press this?" Olbermann asked. "Do we let the International Court at the Hague come in and take over all our responsibilities for policing our own act here?"
"That's what worries me the most," Turley replied, "is that you can't talk about change without having some moral component to it. It's not just about creating jobs or lowering the price of gasoline."
"What occurred in the last eight years was an assault on who we are," Turley said. "I think that President-elect Obama's going to have to decide whether he wants power without principle or whether he wants to start with a true change, to say that no matter where an investigation will take us, if there are crimes to be found they will be prosecuted."
"It will ultimately depend on citizens, and whether they will remain silent in the face of a crime that's been committed in plain view," Turley concluded. "It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing, and that is what the citizens are doing. There's this gigantic yawn."
This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast Dec. 16, 2008.
“Purposeful domestic resistance” would require military to “rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States.”
A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”
The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.
“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.
“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”
“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concludes.
See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.
Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.
Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.
“The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”
We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.
In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.
After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.
The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a “military form of government,” following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.
Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.
“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.
Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.
The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.
The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.
Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.
The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.
For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?
[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:
“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”
The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.
The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is - another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.
The whistleblower who exposed the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program three years ago told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday that he was motivated by a sense that “this is crazy.”
Former Justice Department lawyer Thomas Tamm had remained anonymous until he spoke to Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff for an article last week. His appearance with Maddow was his first television interview.
Appearing clearly unaccustomed to public speaking, Tamm emotionally explained, “My entire life, really, was based on trying to enforce the law … and I believed that the law was being broken in the place where I was working.”
Tamm noted that he was not the only one in his office at the Justice Department who was aware of the wiretapping program, but he was the only one who stopped and said, “Wait a second. We assume that what they are doing is illegal? I don’t understand that. Why are we part of that?”
“I just stepped back and said, ‘This is crazy,’” Tamm told Maddow. “This is not what the Department of Justice is all about. This is not what the Constitution is about.”
Tamm would now like to see serious consideration of prosecutions for these crimes. “It offends me that we feel we’re not strong enough as a country, that our laws are not strong enough, that our Congress is not strong enough, that our courts are not strong enough to protect us,” he stated. “And I personally — I’m a prosecutor … I think it should be looked at very seriously.”
This video is from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast Dec. 15, 2008.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Jaw-dropping report concedes that “global governance” is a euphemism for anti-democratic global government
The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.
For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.
Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.
A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.
“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.
Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.
“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.
Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.
“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”
“So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.
Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.
So there you have it - one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.
Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact? Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?
Monday, December 8, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will simply make energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) much more expensive and severely cripple the economy.
"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
- Since the mid-1970s, the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks has improved by nearly 60%. (Source)
- Today’s SUVs are 50% more efficient than cars were a generation ago. (Source)
- The emissions from a new midsize SUV are cleaner than those of the average passenger car built just three years ago. (Source)
- All the cars and light trucks in the U.S. make up only about 2% of all man-made greenhouse gases worldwide. (Source)
- The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally "polluting" activities (Source)
- Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often, and with far less severity than is commonly believed. (Source)
- Areas in the United States with the highest pollution levels have improved the most (Source)
- Air quality in the United States will continue to improve (Source)
- Regulators and environmental activists exaggerate air pollution levels and obscure positive trends in the United States (Source)
Air Quality in America (PDF) (AEI)
(NaturalNews) A group of scientists working in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health division has revolted against the corrupt managers of its own department, accusing them of committing crimes by claiming, "There is extensive documentary evidence that managers at CDRH have corrupted and interfered with the scientific review of medical devices."
Read the letter yourself here (PDF):
The letter from the FDA's own scientists goes on to say, "It is evident that managers at CDRH have deviated from FDA's mission to identify and address underlying problems with medical devices before they cause irreparable harm, and this deviation has placed the American people at risk."
Congressman John, Dingell, chair of the committee which received the letter, went on to charge that these FDA bureaucrats "approved or cleared medical device applications in gross violation of laws and regulations..." (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr383.shtml)
None of this, of course, surprises readers of NaturalNews. Note, too, that the mainstream media has virtually ignored this story? You might think that a revolt of FDA scientists against their criminal bosses would be a huge story worthy of front-page treatment at USA Today or the Washington Post, right? Only the NY Times bothered to report this story, as far as I can tell. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/policy/18fda.html)
The FDA: A gang of unindicted criminals
The FDA, you see, is a criminal organization engaged in tactics of intimidation, censorship and oppression that can only be properly called "terrorism." Don't take my word for it, though: The FDA's own top scientists are now on the record saying much the same thing! Their complaint to Congress alleges top FDA managers "ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.”
Keep in mind this is from the FDA's own scientists! This isn't some outsider (like me) ranting about the FDA being a criminal organization; these are the words of the very people who work there!
Even the FDA director is like an evil character out of a Marvel comic. His name is actually Dr. von Doom... er, I mean Dr. von Eschenbach, and he has routinely ignored the multiple letters sent to him by these scientists complaining of the same criminal behavior taking place at the agency.
The FDA, of course, believes it is above the law and subject to no rules whatsoever. It is a political organization, and a criminal one at that. It will likely threaten these scientists just as it once threatened Dr. David Graham, and it will use every intimidation tactic at its disposal to discredit any employee who dares challenge the power and authority of the FDA.
I wouldn't be surprised one day to find one of these intimidated scientists showing up at work and going Columbine on a few of the top FDA officials who are the masterminds behind these crimes against humanity. If that happens, perhaps the saying, "Going Postal" will be updated as, "Going FDA."
Because if there's anyone with a justified reason to be violently angry at their bosses, it's gotta be this group of intimidated scientists who are trying to save people's lives by making FDA approvals based on solid science. Instead, they're being routinely overruled by politics and Big Pharma deception, which they know will result in the loss of human life as consumers are harmed or killed by dangerous medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
How would you like to work at a company with a crime boss, knowing your boss is a white-collar criminal whose decisions are going to get people killed? That's the reality these FDA scientists live with every day! And they're tired of it. They're beginning to revolt...
Violence will not solve this problem
Here's a question to you: When the FDA collapses, should the top managers be tried for their crimes, or simply hanged by their necks in the streets? Since I believe in non-violent solutions to such problems, I believe we should actually grant them all amnesty in exchange for their candid testimony before Congress, where they spill their guts about all the criminal acts they've engaged in over the years.
Their testimony will be a lot more valuable to society than a bunch of bodies swinging from the rafters. What we need here, folks, is to learn the lessons from this rogue agency, not to take revenge on its people.
Not everybody agrees with me on this. But I repeat to everyone listening: Do NOT engage in violent acts against the FDA, even if there is some social breakdown in the future that might give you such an opportunity. More than 90% of the people who work there are honest, hardworking individuals who are trying to fight the FDA's crimes from the inside. We need to let law and order sort out the criminals from the good guys, and then we'll work together to demand criminal sentencing for them, which I think should include ex-FDA bureaucrats going door to door selling Girl Scout Cookies to raise money to pay back the families of all the people killed by FDA-approved drugs.
Remember: The medical violence that the FDA now directs towards the public should NOT be met with vengeful violence on the part of activists. It should be met with justice and wisdom for future generations. A little compassion can help us move past this dark era of FDA dominance and into a new golden age of true healing. But we cannot get to an era of healing if our own actions are motivated by violent acts.
Violence is the tool of the weak. That's why the FDA uses the threat of violence to raid vitamin companies. Healing is the tool of the strong.
If we hope to move beyond the treacherous philosophies the FDA is demonstrating today, we must transcend violence and rely on healing (at many levels) to move us past this dark era.
The big question right now, of course, is: When will the FDA arrests begin? January 21st might be a good day to get that started...
Letter from FDA scientists:
Statement of Congressman John Dingell:
(Full copy included below)
Pharmalot article, the original source for this story:
Congressman John Dingell's statement:
Dingell, Stupak to Investigate FDA’s Medical Device Approval Process
Lawmakers Question Whether FDA Knowingly Allowed Unsafe & Ineffective Medical Devices into U.S. Market
Washington, D.C. - Reps. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, today launched an investigation into whether managers within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) knowingly corrupted the scientific review process and approved or cleared medical device applications in gross violation of laws and regulations designed to assure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. Such activity could allow potentially unsafe and ineffective medical devices into the U.S. market.
The investigation was prompted by receipt of an October 14, 2008, letter written on behalf of a large group of CDRH scientists and physicians who state that CDRH managers have “corrupted and interfered with the scientific review of medical devices.”
“These allegations are deeply concerning, and we intend to uncover whether any FDA activity has compromised the health and safety of America consumers,” said Dingell. “I commend the FDA scientists for courageously sounding the alarm on what appears to be a serious problem. I look forward to pursuing the steps necessary to ensure that the medical devices Americans depend on are safe and effective.”
“Our investigations have found that the FDA has allowed contaminated food and unsafe drugs to enter the market, and now serious allegations have been raised about the scientific integrity of the FDA medical device approval process,” Stupak said. “Although the FDA has launched its own investigation into this matter, no corrective action has been taken. The committee intends to learn what action the FDA plans to take to ensure the integrity of the medical device approval process and prevent retaliation against the scientists who blew the whistle on these activities.”
This Committee has been provided with compelling evidence to support the charges that senior managers within CDRH “ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify their scientific reviews, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law.” The CDRH scientists also claim that CDRH managers ordered them “to make safety and effectiveness determinations that are not in accordance with scientific regulatory requirements, to use unsound evaluation methods, and accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid or obtained in accordance with legal requirements, such as obtaining proper informed consent from human subjects.”
Additionally, documentary evidence reviewed by this Committee indicates that CDRH scientists who raised concerns up their chain of command have experienced reprisals for their insistence on adherence to a scientific and regulatory basis for medical device review. To protect these CDRH scientists who have risked their careers to bring their concerns to the attention of this Committee, we will not disclose their identities at this time.
Since January 2007, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have been investigating the ability and commitment of the Food and Drug Administration to protect Americans from unsafe food, drugs, and medical devices. For more information about the Committee’s ongoing drug safety investigation visit:
During this Congressional session, Committee leaders released draft legislation aimed at improving the safety of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics. Work in this draft bill, the “Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act," continues. Committee leaders plan to introduce comprehensive legislation early next session. For more information visit: http://energycommerce.house.gov/FDAGlobalAct-08/index.shtml
In a letter sent today to FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach, Dingell and Stupak requested a briefing on what actions the Commissioner has taken to date and how the Commissioner intends to resolve all issues raised by the CDRH scientists and physicians.
(NaturalNews) What comes to mind when you think of arsenic? For most people, it conjures up a deadly poison used by killers in fictional mystery novels and some real-life murderers, too. But the danger of this toxic substance most often comes not from some evil-doer but simply from exposure to it through our environment, including the water we drink. Unwittingly taken into the body over many years, arsenic can result in lung, bladder and skin cancers, as well as heart disease, diabetes and neurological damage.
In the U.S., many locations are known to have groundwater containing arsenic concentrations in excess of the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard of 10 parts per billion. But now comes research that suggests the EPA's supposedly "safe" level of arsemic allowed in water supplies for public consumption isn't safe at all. In fact, water laced with the federally-approved amount of arsenic could be causing high blood pressure and artery-clogging arhterosclerosis.
According to animal research by University of Pittsburgh scientists set to be published in the December issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, and available online now at http://www.jci.org/articles/view/35092, arsenic at EPA-approved levels for drinking water causes pores in liver blood vessels to close, potentially leading to cardiovascular disease and hypertension. This study calls into question whether present Environmental Protection Agency standards (currently based only on the risks of arsenic causing cancer) are stringent enough.
Aaron Barchowsky, Ph.D., associate professor of environmental and occupational health at the University Of Pittsburgh Graduate School Of Public Health, and his research team studied sinusoidal endothelial cells in the livers of mice. These specialized cells normally remove waste from the blood and allow nutrients to regulate metabolism. But when mice were exposed to ten to 100 parts per billion (ppb) of arsenic over a period of 14 days, the arsenic increased the activity of an enzyme called NADPH oxidase and the levels of oxidants it produces. In turn, the sinusoidal cell functions became less able to remove damaged proteins from the blood. What's more, the cells lost their characteristic pores or "windows". Bottom line: the cells' ability to effectively handle nutrients and waste was extremely compromised.
Although mice are, of course, tiny compared to people, their bodies are known to be far less sensitive to arsenic's effects than humans'. And that makes the study even more worrisome. "These results are important since this type of cellular dysfunction, over time, can impair the body's ability to clear fats and waste proteins that build up in blood vessels and can lead to cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and atherosclerosis," Dr. Barchowsky said in a statement prepared for the media.
The current federal standard for arsenic in public water systems not only may be too high, but it only applies to drinking water sources that serve more than 20 people. "We are especially concerned about water from individual wells in small, rural and semi-rural communities that are exempt from the EPA requirement and often contain levels of arsenic that exceed the EPA limit," Dr. Barchowsky stated in the press release. "Our findings raise some concerns about whether current EPA-developed standards can effectively protect against cardiovascular risks posed by arsenic in drinking water."The study is a strong reminder that no one in the U.S. should assume that because their water supply is dubbed "safe" by the EPA that it doesn't contain not only arsenic but other toxins. For example, most public water supplies are known to contain a host of pharmaceutical and pesticide residues,too. Testing your water or finding a proven system of safe water filtration are the only known ways to make sure you are putting pure water into your body.
After years of legal maneuvering, Pfizer may soon face its Nigerian guinea pigs in court.
What if a drug company experimenting on critically ill children doesn't get the proper parental consent, 11 of those children die and a whistleblower is fired?
Those are the charges leveled against Pfizer in a legal battle that has dragged on for the past seven years in Manhattan federal court and in Nigeria, where the government is seeking $8.5 billion in restitution and damages--and jail terms for various Pfizer officials, including former chief executive William Steere.
Things may come to a head soon. A federal appeals court is expected to rule on whether the children's parents can go after Pfizer in New York. Meanwhile, to avoid what's shaping up to be an ugly court battle, Pfizer is said to have offered to settle with the Nigerian government for $150 million, plus money to modernize and equip a Nigerian infectious disease hospital.
Pfizer says the children died from the disease, not from the drug trial, won't confirm a possible settlement, and says it's "proud" of its role during the 1996 epidemic, an ugly trifecta of meningitis, cholera and measles. Twelve thousand Nigerians died from meningitis alone, many of them children.
What really happened at a remote sub-Saharan hospital in Kano, Nigeria may never be known. But interviews with Pfizer employees, parents of some of the victims, Food & Drug Administration officials, court filings and other legal documents provide an unsettling look at the pitfalls of doing hurried drug trials in Third World countries.
That's happening more often these days. Under pressure to reduce research costs and win fast-track approvals, drug companies do 43% of their clinical trials abroad, up from 14% ten years ago. The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development says that number will rise to 65% within three years.
Roll the tape back to the spring of 1996. Outside the cluster of cinder block structures that make up Kano's Infectious Diseases Hospital, hundreds of sick children are lined up, awaiting treatment from Doctors Without Borders, the nonprofit group, which has set up a tent on hospital grounds.
The doctors are injecting the children with oily chloramphenicol, endorsed by the World Health Organization as the recommended treatment for bacterial meningitis epidemics. The half-century-old drug is rarely used in developed countries because of a sometimes fatal side effect (blood disorders). But it's readily available in Third World countries because it is economical and effective.
Five thousand miles away in a Pfizer research lab in Groton, Conn., infectious disease specialist Scott Hopkins is surfing the Internet when he spots a story on the epidemic--and sees opportunity. Pfizer was waist-deep in an ambitious test of Trovan, an antibiotic showing promise against a wide variety of infections, from bronchitis to pneumonia. It had potential to be Pfizer's answer to Bayer (nyse: BAY - news - people )'s Cipro, then the leader in the $11 billion anti-infection market.
Pfizer had already enrolled thousands of adults in Trovan clinical trials but had not tested it yet on children, which posed a problem. Trovan belongs to a category of powerful antibiotics called quinolones, which have the ability to penetrate tissues to kill bacteria.
But there can be serious side effects, including liver problems and cartilage and tendon abnormalities. In early stage testing quinolones had caused liver and joint damage in young rats and dogs. In order to gain maximum market share, Pfizer would have to develop an oral form of Trovan that proved safe for pediatric use.
Hopkins put together a group of five researchers and within six weeks had chartered a DC-9 to Kano, Nigeria. Normally, it takes nine months to design a late-stage drug trial. Pfizer says the trip could never have been made so quickly if a global pediatric trial hadn't already been in the works.
One physician stayed behind. Pfizer had hired Juan Walterspiel, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Yale Medical School, in 1994 for Trovan's pediatric clinical development. Pfizer says it doesn't know why Dr. Walterspiel wasn't selected to go to Nigeria. But Dr. Walterspiel, who declined to speak with FORBES, would later write to chief executive Steere that the Nigerian study was "in violation of ethical rules for the conduct of medical experiments in humans."
Once in Nigeria, Dr. Hopkins and his team set up shop near the Doctors Without Borders tent. Over the course of two weeks they picked 200 out of the thousands of children awaiting treatment, between 3 months and 18 years old. Half got a full daily dose of Trovan, orally or by injection, depending on age and/or ability to swallow, for five days. The control group got an injectable dose of Rocephin, a Hoffmann-La Roche drug widely used against meningitis. Those kids got 100mg of Rocephin on the first day but only one-third of that dose each of the next four days.
Why? Pfizer argues that Rocephin injections can be painful. The full dosage takes several seconds to inject. "Kids don't like needles," says a spokesman.
Plus, Pfizer says one of its on-site doctors had helped develop Rocephin at Roche and believed the lower dose "more than enough." But that wasn't proved until seven years later, when a Doctors Without Borders study showed the lower dose to be effective.
A month later five children in the Trovan group and six in the Rocephin group were dead. Pfizer says those results were "remarkable," given that the epidemic killed 10% of those infected.
But parents of the dead children in the Trovan group claim they were never shown--or were read--a consent form and weren't told about Trovan's risks or that a proved treatment from Doctors Without Borders was just steps away.
Parents of the dead children in the Rocephin group argue their children would have lived had Pfizer given them the full dose. Dozens of others allege that the trial left their children paralyzed, deaf, mute or blind.
Pfizer says it had bilingual nurses on-site who obtained oral consent from all the parents. The company also says it has all the patient charts with "yes" and "oral" boxes checked as to whether and how their consent was obtained. But Pfizer declined to show these consent forms to a reporter.
Are all the plaintiffs in fact the parents of the dead and injured children? Pfizer says that not all the names on the complaint match up with initials of patients listed on the medical charts. (Pfizer says it's common to record only initials to protect confidentiality.)
The drug trial ended in May 1996. Dr. Walterspiel's letter to Steere, dated Dec. 18, 1997, was not well received. Among the points he made: "Some of the children were in critical condition and most of them malnourished, which made oral absorption even more unpredictable. At least one died after a single oral dose; such a patient … should never have received an experimental antibiotic orally."
Responding in a Feb. 26, 1998 letter, a Pfizer lawyer refuted everything in Dr. Walterspiel's letter: "The company acted appropriately and with complete regard for all legal, ethical, and humanitarian concerns."
The next day Dr. Walterspiel was fired. Pfizer confirms that, but says it was "completely unrelated" to his complaints. Really? A wrongful termination suit subsequently filed in a
Connecticut federal court was later settled. Neither Pfizer nor Dr. Walterspiel would comment on the settlement.
During a 1997 FDA audit Pfizer produced a letter dated a week before the trial began from a Nigerian hospital granting it ethical clearance. But the letter doesn't really help Pfizer's case: It was backdated.
Pfizer concedes the backdating is "unfortunate" but now argues there's no Nigerian law or regulation requiring ethical committee approval before conducting a clinical trial. "Therefore," Pfizer argues, "there was no need to obtain what the law did not require."
However the lawsuits turn out, no more patients will be exposed to Trovan. Having initially applied to use it for pediatric meningitis, Pfizer withdrew that use from its application after the FDA audit found dozens of discrepancies in Pfizer's records. The company says it intended to renew its application following a global pediatric trial already under way.
But it never had the chance. After approving Trovan for 14 other uses in 1997, the FDA advised Pfizer to pull the drug--two years and more than 2.5 million prescriptions later--citing "safety concerns." The problem: deaths from Trovan-linked liver injuries.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The issue of cognitive decline and the more advanced Alzheimer’s disease is predicted to be a public health crisis in America over the next 20 years, as the swell of baby boomers hits the age when problems manifest. This past week the Wall Street Journal ran an article on a man getting Alzheimer’s in his 40s, one of 500,000 Americans with early onset. The notion that this problem is striking ever earlier sent shock waves through the country and left people wondering why this is happening.
Clearly, there are many inflammatory factors in a person’s life and gene-related weaknesses are involved. However, theoretical data on the inflammatory nature of vaccines, especially in the large numbers given to children at an early age while their nerves are developing response patterns for future life, means that they cannot be ruled out as one main factor that primes the Alzheimer’s pump.
How inflammation causes Alzhimer’s
We already know from existing research the recipe that leads to Alzheimer’s risk. Data coming from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging found that aging in general, fewer years of education (less brain exercise), and the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele were significantly associated with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Other research has shown that heavy smoking and drinking speed the onset of Alzheimer’s. A sluggish thyroid also increases the risk.
On the other hand the Canadian researchers found that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, wine consumption, coffee consumption, and regular physical activity were associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease. There are many great anti-inflammatory nutrients that readily replace the concept of drug use, including the grape seed extracts of red wine (which have been shown to reduce Alzheimer’s plaque formation).
Natural vitamin E at the dose of 2000 IU per day has been shown to extend the life of Alzheimer’s patients by two years. DHA and folic acid have been shown to be protective against Alzheimer’s. Moderate coffee intake has a brain-activating effect, which would be synergistic with learning or other forms of constructive brain exercise that help keep your brain cells fit. Physical exercise is proven to elevate levels of brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF) vital for your brain to withstand stress and inflammation and keep your brain cells living longer in a healthier condition. The common theme is that using your brain constructively helps keep it fit and factors that induce brain inflammation, of which there are many, send you in the wrong direction.
Besides the above, obvious factors that cause brain inflammation include a lack of sleep, emotional stress, physical exhaustion, cell phone use, and a poor quality diet. This means that there will never be a specific cause of Alzheimer’s identified, other than the idea that too much inflammation combined with genetic weaknesses will lead to the problem. Too much inflammation is the common theme behind all nerve-related diseases, heart disease, and cancer. Thus, the manifestation of various shades of cognitive decline will be common in the overall population and progression into full Alzheimer’s, compared to some other serious problem, will depend on genetic weak spots.
For example, healthy children of Alzheimer’s patients have adverse changes in their brain structure before any symptoms appear. The greater the amount of inflammation, combined with an individual’s ability to tolerate inflammation, will determine the age of onset.
Recently researchers did autopsies on the brains of individuals who maintained sharp memory into their 80s. Those with sharp memory compared to the brains of those with “normal aging” had far less brain tangles. Thus we see a sliding scale of tangles, going from virtually none in true health, to the common averages of “normal aging,” down into the diseased ranges of cognitive decline, and eventually into Alzheimer’s. With this understanding, “normal aging” can be seen as abnormal from an optimal health point of view. Such brain tangles are driven by inflammatory processes.
The Immunization-Alzheimer’s Controversy
The adjuvants used in vaccines (putting the mercury issue aside) are intentionally highly inflammatory so as to provoke a more active immune response to the weakened pathogen. The fact that American children are the most vaccinated in the world at such an early age, when their brains are setting up shop, runs the high risk that vaccinations will “train” nerves to become more hyper-active to future inflammatory stress of any kind.
Such issues would be magnified if a child had a history of stress in the womb, stress as an infant (unstable environment), poor nutrition in the womb or early life, other health problems as an infant, or has family-related gene weaknesses predisposing to Alzheimer’s (or any other nerve-related disease for that matter). These massive numbers of early vaccinations could easily set the stage for early onset Alzheimer’s. At this point there is absolutely no science that refutes this theory, and plenty of science to predict it.
Our government, bless their little hearts, has no interest in proving this not to be the case or in figuring out a safety threshold for the number of vaccines or the age they are given. Rather, they operate on the assumption that any number of vaccines is harmless. This public health mentality of “fire a shot gun and ask questions later” (or never ask any questions at all) is good for herd mentality and not so good for personalized wellness and quality of life.
Any notion that the treatment is problematic, such as a contributor to autism, is met with flat out denial. It does not matter to them what data is presented or what new science obviously predicts. Our government’s illness is their bizarre concept of control at all costs by unelected bureaucrats, risks be dammed. The bottom line, our government doesn’t actually care what adverse effects vaccinations may cause to your child, they are treating a herd.
1,000% Increase in Alzheimer’s Risk
This issue flared up back in 1997 when a leading proponent of the vaccine-autism link, Hugh Fudenberg, MD, presented his research at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington, VA. His data showed that if an individual had five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied) his / her chances of getting Alzheimer’s disease is 10 times higher than if he / she had one, two, or no shots. This data was never published in a peer reviewed journal. Supporters of Fudenberg describe him as “the world’s leading immunogeneticist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals).”
The Alzheimer’s Association website attempts to discredit Fudenberg, but not the data he presented, stating that his “license was suspended by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners.” This is true, but that was due to a classic witch hunt because of his anti-vaccine position. The Alzheimer’s Association went on to reference a meaningless study in which those with a negligible vaccine history had no apparent risk of Alzheimer’s. The data does not begin to approximate the potential risk of massive numbers of vaccines given to American children and future Alzheimer’s risk.
Thus, the question of the immunization link to Alzheimer’s is an open-ended and controversial issue. A responsible government would have demanded animal studies with different levels of immunizations at different ages in relation to the onset of Alzheimer’s. These studies aren’t being conducted because OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER.
Since Americans are more vaccinated than Europeans, a detailed analysis of vaccine amounts compared to Alzheimer’s risk or early onset of Alzheimer’s could be conducted. However, if the government is behind this study they will use statistical techniques that water down the results so that risk disappears, the favorite strategy employed when any drug or medicine has potential risks that would cause people not to take them.
Stopping Problems Early
Regardless of factors that set the stage for Alzheimer’s it is quite clear that an overall strategy that balances your inflammation checkbook is central to preventing the problem. On one side of the equation is the wear and tear in your life. On the other side are the healthy things you do to rejuvenate and recover. No matter what you believe in, you’d better figure out a way to balance this checkbook.
We definitely know that it takes many years of wear and tear for full blown Alzheimer’s to manifest. It is vital to act aggressively to prevent the problem if you are sliding down the Alzheimer’s slope. Managing inflammatory stressors is at the top of your list. It is easiest to make changes in your brain before the problem gets large. Various memory glitches are normal and others are not. The Alzheimer’s Association does have a list of the ten warning signs that is helpful:
1. Memory loss. Forgetting recently learned information is one of the most common early signs of dementia. A person begins to forget more often and is unable to recall the information later. What’s normal? Forgetting names or appointments occasionally.
2. Difficulty performing familiar tasks. People with dementia often find it hard to plan or complete everyday tasks. Individuals may lose track of the steps involved in preparing a meal, placing a telephone call or playing a game. What’s normal? Occasionally forgetting why you came into a room or what you planned to say.
3. Problems with language. People with Alzheimer’s disease often forget simple words or substitute unusual words, making their speech or writing hard to understand. They may be unable to find the toothbrush, for example, and instead ask for “that thing for my mouth.” What’s normal? Sometimes having trouble finding the right word.
4. Disorientation to time and place. People with Alzheimer’s disease can become lost in their own neighborhood, forget where they are and how they got there, and not know how to get back home. What’s normal? Forgetting the day of the week or where you were going.
5. Poor or decreased judgment. Those with Alzheimer’s may dress inappropriately, wearing several layers on a warm day or little clothing in the cold. They may show poor judgment, like giving away large sums of money to telemarketers. What’s normal? Making a questionable or debatable decision from time to time.
6. Problems with abstract thinking. Someone with Alzheimer’s disease may have unusual difficulty performing complex mental tasks, like forgetting what numbers are for and how they should be used. What’s normal? Finding it challenging to balance a checkbook.
7. Misplacing things. A person with Alzheimer’s disease may put things in unusual places: an iron in the freezer or a wristwatch in the sugar bowl. What’s normal? Misplacing keys or a wallet temporarily.
8. Changes in mood or behavior. Someone with Alzheimer’s disease may show rapid mood swings – from calm to tears to anger – for no apparent reason. What’s normal? Occasionally feeling sad or moody.
9. Changes in personality. The personalities of people with dementia can change dramatically. They may become extremely confused, suspicious, fearful or dependent on a family member. What’s normal? People’s personalities do change somewhat with age.
10. Loss of initiative. A person with Alzheimer’s disease may become very passive, sitting in front of the TV for hours, sleeping more than usual or not wanting to do usual activities. What’s normal? Sometimes feeling weary of work or social obligations.
For a fully referenced version of this article:
For more health articles by this author:
(NaturalNews) What do rat poison and the HPV vaccine have in common? The answer is a hazardous chemical known as sodium borate. Savvy readers may wonder what a toxin that is commonly used to kill rats is doing in the ingredient list for the HPV vaccine that is currently being pushed on girls as young as nine and is even being considered for men and boys. Unfortunately, the answer isn't very comforting, especially for new U.S. residents for whom the HPV injection containing sodium borate is now mandated.
What is Sodium Borate?
Sodium borate, a boric acid salt also known as borax, has many common uses. In addition to its use as a rat poison, it is also used in laundry detergents, cosmetics, enamel glazes, flame retardants, and buffer solutions in chemistry. However, sodium borate also has antifungal properties, which means that its probable reason for being in the vaccine is to act as a preservative.
Sodium Borate Banned as Food Additive
Sodium borate is used as a food additive in some countries, but it is now outlawed in many places. For example, one Australian government recall site notes: "Product is Borax (sodium borate) which is a non permitted food additive and is harmful to health." So, if it's "harmful to health," why is it being added to the HPV vaccine?
No Longer Used in Medical Preparations
The U.S. National Library of Medicine states in an article that boric acid is "no longer commonly used in medical preparations." It's a good thing, too, considering that the U.S. National Library of Medicine also reports that this substance used to be used to disinfect and treat wounds and that individuals "who received such treatment over and over again got sick, and some died." In fact, the U.S. National Library of Medicine provides the number for Poison Control for people exposed to this chemical and notes that treatment for those exposed to it may include gastric lavage (stomach pumping), dialysis, and liquids by mouth or IV.
Sodium Borate Poisoning Symptoms Mimic Reactions to HPV Vaccine
Sadly, the information about sodium borate gets even scarier. Another government website article states that exposure to sodium borate can cause convulsions and other ill health effects. Interestingly enough, young girls who receive the HPV vaccine have reported similar symptoms to those that appear in cases of sodium borate poisoning. This particular government site provides the following warning regarding this chemical: "WARNING!
HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED, INHALED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT." Given this information, is sodium borate really something that should be injected into humans? This is something the reader should carefully consider, along with the previously reported information, before choosing to receive the controversial HPV vaccine.
“With the economy in bad shape and the possibility of a deep recession looming, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to levy new taxes—on cows and pigs,” American Farm Bureau Federation Director of Regulatory Relations Rick Krause told Wyoming Farm Bureau members at their annual meeting. Krause spoke in Sheridan on Nov. 7.
“This is no laughing matter,” Krause said. “The cow tax and the pig tax are parts of a larger scheme by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.”
“Under the proposal, if a state charged the “presumptive minimum rate” from the EPA, the cow tax would be $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head for beef cattle and a little more than $20 per pig,” Krause explained.
Krause explained that the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that a producer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would emit more than 100 tons of carbon and be subject to the permitting requirements. “These thresholds would impact 99 percent of dairy producers, over 90 percent of beef producers and 95 percent of hog producers in the United States,” Krause stated.
According to Krause, the EPA has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in preparation to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). “The regulation of automobile emissions automatically initiates other provisions of the CAA,” Krause explained. “One of those provisions requires permits from anyone who emits more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant per year and there are millions of sources that emit more than 100 tons of carbon.”
The Title V permits, that are essentially a cow and pig tax, are supposed to contain provisions designed to reduce or eliminate the emissions of the regulated pollutant. “Cows and pigs methane emissions come from natural and biological processes,” Krause stated.
“The economic costs to producers from the cow and pig tax would be great and could cause the cost of beef, pork and dairy prices to rise,” Krause continued. “The cow and pig tax would impose severe penalties on livestock producers in the United States without effectively reducing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.”
The comment deadline for the cow and pig tax is Nov. 28. Visit www.wyfb.org to find the link for information.
In other national issues, Krause addressed endangered species issues, including the wolf.
“I remember back in 1993 we were talking about how they will continue to change the numbers of wolves required,” Krause said. “Unfortunately, our assumption was accurate and even though there are five times more packs than needed for recovery, it has come down to a federal judge in Montana.”
“They are arguing there is no genetic exchange,” He said. “Well, the whole reason in the first place they were introduced is because they could not get here on their own. How are you going to have genetic interchange?”
“So what are we going to expect from the Endangered Species Act in the next four years?” Krause asked. “While only time will tell, we can expect no amendments to the ESA as those who are opposed to common sense management will work to keep it as is.”
The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation is the state’s largest general agriculture organization. Members work together from the grassroots to develop agricultural policy, programs and services to enhance the rural lifestyle of Wyoming.
Contact: Ken Hamilton, Executive Vice President, 307-721-7712, firstname.lastname@example.org
Monday, November 17, 2008
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Zombie America is exercising the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.