Hot on the heels of ´Climate Gate´ which has finally made the public aware that scientists can and do lie, comes an investigation by the European Union, starting in January 2010, into the sickening lies told by scientists regarding the H1N1 virus.
Many of us had been watching with growing concern the sudden changing of the definition of what constitutes a Pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), and were aware that if the WHO declared a pandemic then national governments would have to start pandemic planning, with as a final result possibly a state of ´medical martial law´, with forced immunizations and people who refused immunization being forced into quarantine situations.
Many of us have harboured suspicions as to the genesis of this virus from the moment that first news reports about events in Mexico started coming in, and since then many scientists and virologists have claimed that the virus is not a naturally occurring one and was either released or escaped from a medical/military research facility. The idea of the virus being released on purpose is such a can of worms I do not want to go into that in this article, so for now we shall assume it was an accidental escape.
By now, major alarm bells were ringing for most of us who were following events closely.
When I was a child in school, I was told that for centuries the Church had held back scientific research because of its vested interest in preserving the ideas of a geocentric universe and other myths that the Church did not want to be challenged. It seemed to me then that science was the Hero, scientists looked for truth and were above reproach and superstition.
Yes it was scientists who misinformed the WHO about the potency of the H1N1 virus (which is in fact significantly weaker than the ordinary seasonal flu virus) and on the basis of this the WHO changed its definition of what a pandemic is, with all the consequences outlined above.
But it is not all bad news. Big Pharma was rubbing its grubby hands, preparing to make a fortune out of totally unnecessary vaccines, that could not be tested in time, that have proven to have harmful side-effects and even have caused death in previously healthy people. Shareholders in Big Pharma (in particular Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Roche) could expect a massive increase in share prices as their favourite pharmaceutical companies prepared to make a killing (in some cases unfortunately literally) with their unnecessary dangerous vaccines.
We followed all this in absolute horror, wondering if we were seeing things that were not really there, telling all our friends and loved ones not to accept vaccination under any circumstances and if necessary to face jail rather than be vaccinated. Now luckily however, it seems we are no longer alone in our suspicions that some scientists have been ´bought´to falsify results of their research into H1N1, on the basis of which WHO has changed its definition of what constitutes a pandemic, as a consequence of which Big Pharma could start its gleeful preparation of vaccines.
The European Parliament will start an investigation in January 2010. The Parliamentary inquiry will look into the issue of the ´falsified pandemic´ that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines. They will investigate the influence of the pharma industry in creation of a worldwide campaign against the so-called H5N1 “Avian Flu” and H1N1 Swine Flu. The inquiry will be given “urgent” priority in the general assembly of the parliament.
The Chairman of the European Parliament Health Committee (Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a medical doctor, specialist in lung diseases and in environmental diseases) considers the current ´pandemic´swine flu campaign of the WHO to be one of the ´greatest medicine scandals of the century´.
The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things,´In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.
The "bird-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu"-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies´
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Friday, 25 December 2009
Liberty is Popular
I am a graduate of the now infamous University of East Anglia, in Norwich, England. It used to be known as a good University, with several departments earning high grades in the overview of University departments in England. One such department was the department of History, where I studied. Another department that got a very high ranking was the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - which recently has become world famous for the great scientific swindle which it has perpetrated. The decisions supposed to be reached at the Copenhagen Climate Conference were largely to be based on now discredited 'facts' churned out by the CRU and various other Universities around the world. Where these 'facts' did not fit the theory there were abandoned and other 'facts' were substituted. This of course has made a mockery of the whole issue of supposed Man-made Global Warming.
As a student of History, I am aware of the Holocene Maximum and the medieval Warm Period, both of which have been studied in depth, and show that global climate change is nothing new, and that sustained warming took place before man could have had an impact on the climate. I am not denying that there is pollution, and that we need to be addressing that issue. I am also not denying that we are overfishing, over-farming and extinguishing rare species of animals at an alarming rate and that all these issues should be addressed. But the Big Lie of Man-Made Climate Change needs to be addressed before we give away all our liberties and the liberties of the Developing Countries based on the sham facts produced by the CRU and other climate research facilities.
A good film to watch is here.
It is called The Global Warming Swindle and puts another perspective on this now Multi Million Dollar Industry in pursuit of an aim that we cannot reach. In fact the evidence shows that over the last several years there has been Global Cooling, so that instead of speaking of Global Warming, the powers that be now have quickly changed their tune from Global Warming to Man-Made Climate Change.
To read more interesting posts and find out how this whole sham of Climate Change fits into a much wider agenda, I recommend visiting Pyrabang and also keep up to date with The Corbett Report. Liberty is Popular and we need to inform ourselves of all angles on an issue so that we can see where and when our liberties are eroded and what purposes are served by the erosion of our liberty. I love the new Seal of Pyrabang - for those aware of the ideas of the New World Order and the symbolism of the Dollar Bill this will have immediate appeal, for those not aware, wake up and start to do some research.
Friday, 26 June 2009
It Is Worse Than I Had Thought
This post is dedicated to a new friend, who re-awakened my awareness of a piece of legislation that was very unpopular in The Netherlands, and about which most Americans seem to be ignorant.
Under the guise of protecting its Services Personnel from being tried for war crimes in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, it became law in 2002. At the time I had heard of it of course, but not paid it a lot of attention, apart from the fact that I felt that if someone did commit a war crime there should be some agency that ought to be able to deal with that matter. I have now had the time to do some research.
This law does not just protect American Service Personnel from being tried for war crimes in the ICC, when reading it completely it actually states:
The President is authorized all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US States and Allied Person who is being detained or imprisoned by, or on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
US does not recognize the ICC and that is of course its right. US wants to protect its own service personnel from being tried for war crimes, to some extent I can understand that, as long as the US gives a guarantee that if any of their personnel commit a war crime they will themselves deal with the matter in the same way they dealt with the war crimes committed during the Second World War in Nuremberg (somehow I doubt they will give that guarantee, looking at some of the sentences passed during the Abu Ghraib trial for war crimes which were rather light when compared to the executions of war criminals following the Nuremberg trials).
The really bad part of this act is the Allied person bit. This might mean for example that if the ICC wanted to try a foreign head of state for human rights abuse or war crimes, and the US did not want this person tried, in theory the US would have the right to invade any country holding that person at the request of the ICC or, if the person was already in The Hague, it would have the right to invade The Netherlands. Furthermore, this does not require the House of Representatives or the Senate to consent, that decision can be made by the President alone.
If this is how the US treats its Allies, is it any wonder that more and more people this side of The Pond, are getting just a bit worried about US policies, and wonder why not more Americans listen to Ron Paul, who advocates a policy of non-involvement in foreign affairs.
Under the guise of protecting its Services Personnel from being tried for war crimes in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, it became law in 2002. At the time I had heard of it of course, but not paid it a lot of attention, apart from the fact that I felt that if someone did commit a war crime there should be some agency that ought to be able to deal with that matter. I have now had the time to do some research.
This law does not just protect American Service Personnel from being tried for war crimes in the ICC, when reading it completely it actually states:
The President is authorized all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US States and Allied Person who is being detained or imprisoned by, or on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
US does not recognize the ICC and that is of course its right. US wants to protect its own service personnel from being tried for war crimes, to some extent I can understand that, as long as the US gives a guarantee that if any of their personnel commit a war crime they will themselves deal with the matter in the same way they dealt with the war crimes committed during the Second World War in Nuremberg (somehow I doubt they will give that guarantee, looking at some of the sentences passed during the Abu Ghraib trial for war crimes which were rather light when compared to the executions of war criminals following the Nuremberg trials).
The really bad part of this act is the Allied person bit. This might mean for example that if the ICC wanted to try a foreign head of state for human rights abuse or war crimes, and the US did not want this person tried, in theory the US would have the right to invade any country holding that person at the request of the ICC or, if the person was already in The Hague, it would have the right to invade The Netherlands. Furthermore, this does not require the House of Representatives or the Senate to consent, that decision can be made by the President alone.
If this is how the US treats its Allies, is it any wonder that more and more people this side of The Pond, are getting just a bit worried about US policies, and wonder why not more Americans listen to Ron Paul, who advocates a policy of non-involvement in foreign affairs.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
The Federal Reserve Scandal
The Federal Reserve does not belong to the people of America and it is not Federal at all. It belongs to a group of very rich families and privately owned Banks. Odd that the only five Presidents of the USA who wanted to take the control of the money supply away from the Federal Reserve, all had assassination attempts on their lives - they were Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F Kennedy. Only Andrew Jackson survived. They all wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve and take control of the printing and supply of money back into the hands of the Government.
These are the Banks that own the Federal Reserve :-
1) Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; 2) Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; 3) Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; 4) Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; 5) Lehman Brothers of New York; 6) Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York (Now Shearson American Express);7) Goldman, Sachs of New York.
The Federal Reserve has never been audited, and Congressman Ron Paul has been lobbying for this for a long time now. One week ago he finally reached the magical figure of 218 supporters in Congress to attempt to get a bill passed so that the Federal Reserve will finally be subjected to the scrutiny of auditors and the American Taxpayer. So there may be a possiblity now that the American Taxpayer will see why it is they are paying their taxes to support a failing Banking system and how much money has been lost by the Federal Reserve, money which the taxpayer now has to pay back into the pockets of the few wealthy families that own the Fed Reserve.
It is surprising then, in view of the mounting criticism from all sides of the policies of the Federal Reserve, that Team Obama has now decided to give the Fed Reserve even bigger powers. Apparently the Fed are now given more power to oversee any financial institution deemed too big to fail.
These are the Banks that own the Federal Reserve :-
1) Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; 2) Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; 3) Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; 4) Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; 5) Lehman Brothers of New York; 6) Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York (Now Shearson American Express);7) Goldman, Sachs of New York.
The Federal Reserve has never been audited, and Congressman Ron Paul has been lobbying for this for a long time now. One week ago he finally reached the magical figure of 218 supporters in Congress to attempt to get a bill passed so that the Federal Reserve will finally be subjected to the scrutiny of auditors and the American Taxpayer. So there may be a possiblity now that the American Taxpayer will see why it is they are paying their taxes to support a failing Banking system and how much money has been lost by the Federal Reserve, money which the taxpayer now has to pay back into the pockets of the few wealthy families that own the Fed Reserve.
It is surprising then, in view of the mounting criticism from all sides of the policies of the Federal Reserve, that Team Obama has now decided to give the Fed Reserve even bigger powers. Apparently the Fed are now given more power to oversee any financial institution deemed too big to fail.
Team Obama seems to have decided that the Fed should emerge as the premier financial regulator, even though it has just as much egg on its face as the much-maligned Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to blow the whistle on Wall Street's excesses. The same process appears to be happening in London, where the Bank of England has been given greater powers and in Germany.
This then is a trend. The 'central' banks are given bigger powers, are outside the area of audit and will now control all other financial institutions. Whilst the inhabitants of the countries where these banks operate will have to work harder and pay more taxes to finance the rich families that own these banks. Sounds like slavery to me.
President Lincoln warned the people of America :-
The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed.
President Jackson said:-
You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.
President Obama has just given this den of vipers even greater power. Draw your own conclusions.
This then is a trend. The 'central' banks are given bigger powers, are outside the area of audit and will now control all other financial institutions. Whilst the inhabitants of the countries where these banks operate will have to work harder and pay more taxes to finance the rich families that own these banks. Sounds like slavery to me.
President Lincoln warned the people of America :-
The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed.
President Jackson said:-
You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.
President Obama has just given this den of vipers even greater power. Draw your own conclusions.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Corruption Of The Innocent
I have always been told by my elders and betters that the worst sin one can commit is the corruption of the innocent. Once one has destroyed the innocence of a child or innocent older person, there is no way of going back, because that person is no longer the person they once were.
It is therefore particularly chilling to read the 2,600 page document produced by the Commission of Ireland into Child Abuse. This abuse was systematically carried on by Roman Catholic religious orders over a period spanning nearly 50 years, and affected at least 30,000 children who had been placed into the 'care' of religious schools. Sexual abuse by monks and priests of male children and mainly physical and emotional abuse of girls by nuns. These children were made to feel worthless, dirty and less than human. If they complained and they were lucky the abusers were moved elsewhere, normally they were just punished even more and branded as liars.
The report produced a list of recommendations but no criminal prosecutions will take place, mainy because the Christian Brothers (the order most commonly involved in the sexual abuse of boys in its care) have managed to get a court order in 2004 that prohibits the report from naming names of either the perpetrators of the abuse (dead or alive) or the victims. God knows how they managed to get that sort of judgement in their favour, there must be something seriously wrong with a judicial system that grants immunity to perpetrators of child abuse.
A further worrrying trend is that it seems the Irish tax payer will be the one paying the bill for the compensation of some of the victims (as though monetary compensation will in any way alleviate the suffering of these people). The Irish tax payer has already paid the compensation claims of approximately 12,000 abuse victims, who only qualify for compensation if they sign a declaration stating that they will not subsequently sue the State or the Church. Luckily, thousands of abused Irish adults (then children) have not signed the declaration and are not accepting those conditions, and are determined to take the Church to Court.
I wish them luck. The Catholic Church is the single richest institution in the world. They are led by a man whose knowledge of science is extremely limited (see earlier post on Pope and Health Education) and who pontificates about things about which he knows nothing. They appear to have the Irish Court System in their pocket (easy when you have so much money I guess) and they preach about celibacy as being a holy thing whilst their monks, nuns and priests abuse children. And when it comes to time to pay the bill for their vile behaviour they hide behind a court order that more or less gives them immunity. Pass me a sick bag someone.
It is therefore particularly chilling to read the 2,600 page document produced by the Commission of Ireland into Child Abuse. This abuse was systematically carried on by Roman Catholic religious orders over a period spanning nearly 50 years, and affected at least 30,000 children who had been placed into the 'care' of religious schools. Sexual abuse by monks and priests of male children and mainly physical and emotional abuse of girls by nuns. These children were made to feel worthless, dirty and less than human. If they complained and they were lucky the abusers were moved elsewhere, normally they were just punished even more and branded as liars.
The report produced a list of recommendations but no criminal prosecutions will take place, mainy because the Christian Brothers (the order most commonly involved in the sexual abuse of boys in its care) have managed to get a court order in 2004 that prohibits the report from naming names of either the perpetrators of the abuse (dead or alive) or the victims. God knows how they managed to get that sort of judgement in their favour, there must be something seriously wrong with a judicial system that grants immunity to perpetrators of child abuse.
A further worrrying trend is that it seems the Irish tax payer will be the one paying the bill for the compensation of some of the victims (as though monetary compensation will in any way alleviate the suffering of these people). The Irish tax payer has already paid the compensation claims of approximately 12,000 abuse victims, who only qualify for compensation if they sign a declaration stating that they will not subsequently sue the State or the Church. Luckily, thousands of abused Irish adults (then children) have not signed the declaration and are not accepting those conditions, and are determined to take the Church to Court.
I wish them luck. The Catholic Church is the single richest institution in the world. They are led by a man whose knowledge of science is extremely limited (see earlier post on Pope and Health Education) and who pontificates about things about which he knows nothing. They appear to have the Irish Court System in their pocket (easy when you have so much money I guess) and they preach about celibacy as being a holy thing whilst their monks, nuns and priests abuse children. And when it comes to time to pay the bill for their vile behaviour they hide behind a court order that more or less gives them immunity. Pass me a sick bag someone.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Basic Facts About Flu, Vaccines And Anti-Virals
This post is just to clear up some ideas I have heard people voice about flu, vaccines against flu and anti-viral medication.
Flu, (influenza) is a viral infection. The only way a virus will be killed is when the immune system develops antibodies to neutralize the virus. This means that it is pointless to take antibiotics, since they only kill bacteria, not viruses. Bacteria tend not to invade cells, they live in between the cells. Viruses are much smaller than bacteria and are able to cross into the cell and take over the reproduction of the cell. In order to kill a virus, either the immune system has to develop antibodies to that virus or you need a drug that halts the reproduction of the virus (which means it has to be able to get inside the cell to deal with the virus). Each virus has a different 'template' which means that only an antibody that contains the 'reverse' of that template can neutralize the virus.
People believe that antibiotics will kill flu virus - they will not. Viruses are not killed by antibiotics. There is a case for giving antibiotics to flu sufferers who are also at risk of a 'secondary' (opportunist) bacterial infection. These are generally people whose immune system is not working properly (HIV/Aids) or people without spleens, people with diabetes, asthma, COPD or other chronic diseases. Apart from these people, antibiotics play no role in the prevention or treatment of flu.
People believe that flu vaccines will stop them getting flu. This is not true. The WHO meet every year to decide which four viruses are most likely to be present in the flu season that particular winter. Some years they get it spectacularly wrong and none of the four types of viruses they thought might cause flu that year are actually present. Meaning that drug companies have produced a vaccine on the basis of an erroneous forecast and people will contract flu despite having had their flu shots that year. In fact there may be some evidence (though not thoroughly tested) that flu vaccines actually impair the ability of the body to deal with flu and can cause the onset of some auto-immune diseases. Flu vaccines can be accidentally contaminated with other substances (see my previous post re Baxter's) and my personal opinion is that I will never ever have another flu vaccine again, nor would I advise anyone I love or any of my patients to ever have a flu vaccine either.
Anti-viral medication. Apparently there are some drugs available that are able to help when you have contracted flu. Please note, these drugs are not preventive measures, they are to be taken at the onset of flu type symptoms. Since flu type symptoms in their early stages resemble the onset of a common cold (though tend to be faster in onset than a normal cold) I am not sure when I would advise anyone to start taking 'anti-viral flu medication'. These drugs are supposed to stop the virus from reproducing, but they will not prevent you from catching the virus in the first place, and they are therefore not a preventative measure.
The best way to prevent flu is to not be in contact with a person who has been infected. Since the incubation period (the time between being infected with a virus and the onset of symptoms) can be as long as 10 days, this is almost impossible to achieve. The most common way a flu virus spreads is by 'droplet' infection. The person affected sneezes and the virus is sneezed into the air. Unfortunately because of the way we have been brought up, we normally bring our hand to our nose when we sneeze, which means that the MOST common way to contract the virus is by hand to hand or hand to object contact. An infected person sneezes (and the virus ends up on their hands). Any contact with an object handled by that person, or contact with the hand of that person, can result in the person who has that contact, also picking up the virus.
The best way to prevent flu is :-
1. Avoid people with symptoms of colds and flu type symptoms
2. If you have to have contact with them, make sure you scrupulously wash your hands every time you have touched an object touched by the affected person.
3. Make sure they do not sneeze over you or any other objects which you then touch.
4. Keep your hands away from your face.
5. Masks used to cover mouth/nose only last about 15 mins. Once they are 'wet' by breath/saliva touching them, they are useless.
At the moment we do not know exactly how long the virus will survive on 'objects' since this varies with factors such as the fabric of the object and the ambient temperature.
A proper vaccine against the current outbreak of 'swine fever' will take at least three months to develop, and the production of any significant number of these vaccines will take longer.
I hope this post clears up some misconceptions people have about the nature of viruses, flu, bacteria and what we can do about them, and if it even prevents one person from contracting the flu, it will have done its job.
Flu, (influenza) is a viral infection. The only way a virus will be killed is when the immune system develops antibodies to neutralize the virus. This means that it is pointless to take antibiotics, since they only kill bacteria, not viruses. Bacteria tend not to invade cells, they live in between the cells. Viruses are much smaller than bacteria and are able to cross into the cell and take over the reproduction of the cell. In order to kill a virus, either the immune system has to develop antibodies to that virus or you need a drug that halts the reproduction of the virus (which means it has to be able to get inside the cell to deal with the virus). Each virus has a different 'template' which means that only an antibody that contains the 'reverse' of that template can neutralize the virus.
People believe that antibiotics will kill flu virus - they will not. Viruses are not killed by antibiotics. There is a case for giving antibiotics to flu sufferers who are also at risk of a 'secondary' (opportunist) bacterial infection. These are generally people whose immune system is not working properly (HIV/Aids) or people without spleens, people with diabetes, asthma, COPD or other chronic diseases. Apart from these people, antibiotics play no role in the prevention or treatment of flu.
People believe that flu vaccines will stop them getting flu. This is not true. The WHO meet every year to decide which four viruses are most likely to be present in the flu season that particular winter. Some years they get it spectacularly wrong and none of the four types of viruses they thought might cause flu that year are actually present. Meaning that drug companies have produced a vaccine on the basis of an erroneous forecast and people will contract flu despite having had their flu shots that year. In fact there may be some evidence (though not thoroughly tested) that flu vaccines actually impair the ability of the body to deal with flu and can cause the onset of some auto-immune diseases. Flu vaccines can be accidentally contaminated with other substances (see my previous post re Baxter's) and my personal opinion is that I will never ever have another flu vaccine again, nor would I advise anyone I love or any of my patients to ever have a flu vaccine either.
Anti-viral medication. Apparently there are some drugs available that are able to help when you have contracted flu. Please note, these drugs are not preventive measures, they are to be taken at the onset of flu type symptoms. Since flu type symptoms in their early stages resemble the onset of a common cold (though tend to be faster in onset than a normal cold) I am not sure when I would advise anyone to start taking 'anti-viral flu medication'. These drugs are supposed to stop the virus from reproducing, but they will not prevent you from catching the virus in the first place, and they are therefore not a preventative measure.
The best way to prevent flu is to not be in contact with a person who has been infected. Since the incubation period (the time between being infected with a virus and the onset of symptoms) can be as long as 10 days, this is almost impossible to achieve. The most common way a flu virus spreads is by 'droplet' infection. The person affected sneezes and the virus is sneezed into the air. Unfortunately because of the way we have been brought up, we normally bring our hand to our nose when we sneeze, which means that the MOST common way to contract the virus is by hand to hand or hand to object contact. An infected person sneezes (and the virus ends up on their hands). Any contact with an object handled by that person, or contact with the hand of that person, can result in the person who has that contact, also picking up the virus.
The best way to prevent flu is :-
1. Avoid people with symptoms of colds and flu type symptoms
2. If you have to have contact with them, make sure you scrupulously wash your hands every time you have touched an object touched by the affected person.
3. Make sure they do not sneeze over you or any other objects which you then touch.
4. Keep your hands away from your face.
5. Masks used to cover mouth/nose only last about 15 mins. Once they are 'wet' by breath/saliva touching them, they are useless.
At the moment we do not know exactly how long the virus will survive on 'objects' since this varies with factors such as the fabric of the object and the ambient temperature.
A proper vaccine against the current outbreak of 'swine fever' will take at least three months to develop, and the production of any significant number of these vaccines will take longer.
I hope this post clears up some misconceptions people have about the nature of viruses, flu, bacteria and what we can do about them, and if it even prevents one person from contracting the flu, it will have done its job.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Viral Synchronicity?
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which are causally unrelated occurring together in a supposedly meaningful manner. In order to count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.
December -29-2008
Scientists state that they have isolated the genes that made the 1918 flu lethal.
The flu pandemic of 1918 - 1919 caused between 20-100 million deaths and infected one billion people, approximately half of the population of the world at that time.
It was caused by an unusually virulent and deadly Influenza A Virus strain of subtype H1N1. This was thought to have caused an overreaction of the body's immune system which explains its unusually severe nature and the concentrated age profile of its victims. The strong immune systems of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults meant that in these age groups there were far fewer deaths.
Scientists working on tissue samples of those who died during the 1918 pandemic and found that :
"For the most part, substituting single genes from the 1918 virus onto the template of a much more benign contemporary virus yielded agents that could only replicate in the upper respiratory tract. One exception, however, included a complex of three genes that, acting in concert with another key gene, allowed the virus to efficiently colonize lung cells and make RNA polymerase, a protein necessary for the virus to reproduce."
They went on to state:
"The 1918 virus replicates in the upper respiratory tract, but also in the lungs, causing primary pneumonia among its victims."
A full ninety years later there is an outbreak of another deadly Type A, subtype N1H1 virus that causes pneumonia without necessarily affecting the upper respiratory tract and that seems to mainly affect people with strong immune systems, and that only four months after we learnt how the original virus did this.
"This is an interesting virus. It's a brand new virus, not only to humans but to the world," said Dr Frank Plummer, scientific director of the Winnipeg lab, where samples from the current outbreak are being analyzed. He went on to state that it appears to have four different elements that have never been combined before and states "It's recombined [re-assorted ?] to create something totally new. How it did that, where it did it, when it did it, I don't think we know yet.
Luckily CDC officials have said the swine flu A/H1N1 virus is susceptible to the newer antivirals oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza), but not the older ones, amantadine and rimantadine. Shame that, because the older ones are off patent and not nearly as expensive as the newer ones.
What is really worrying is that there have been escaped viruses or accidentally contaminated vaccines in the not too distant past.
Escaped virus - Some scientists say the 1977 Russian flu, the most recent global outbreak, began when a virus escaped from a laboratory.
Contaminated materials - Feb. 2009, Baxter International Inc. in Austria unintentionally contaminated materials with the bird flu virus, which were then used in laboratories in three neighboring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease.
The incident was reported to the Austrian Ministry of Health, Sigrid Rosenberger, a ministry spokeswoman said "This was infected with a bird flu virus. There were some people from the company who handled it"
The material was intended for use in laboratories, and none of the lab workers have fallen ill. The incident is raising concern over the safety of research using the H5N1 bird flu strain which haskilled more than three-fifths of the people known to have caught the virus worldwide.
The virus material was supposed to contain a seasonal flu virus and was contaminated after “human error,” said Christopher Bona, a spokesman for Baxter, in a telephone interview.
Baxter “moved very quickly to sanitize and protect employees,” Bona said. “Labs have been sanitized, potentially contaminated materials have been destroyed and employees were tested and considered not to be at risk.”
Baxter, the world’s largest maker of blood-disease treatments, is one of the companies working on a vaccine to be used in case of a flu pandemic so that should all reassure us when it comes to time to be vaccinated.
December -29-2008
Scientists state that they have isolated the genes that made the 1918 flu lethal.
The flu pandemic of 1918 - 1919 caused between 20-100 million deaths and infected one billion people, approximately half of the population of the world at that time.
It was caused by an unusually virulent and deadly Influenza A Virus strain of subtype H1N1. This was thought to have caused an overreaction of the body's immune system which explains its unusually severe nature and the concentrated age profile of its victims. The strong immune systems of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults meant that in these age groups there were far fewer deaths.
Scientists working on tissue samples of those who died during the 1918 pandemic and found that :
"For the most part, substituting single genes from the 1918 virus onto the template of a much more benign contemporary virus yielded agents that could only replicate in the upper respiratory tract. One exception, however, included a complex of three genes that, acting in concert with another key gene, allowed the virus to efficiently colonize lung cells and make RNA polymerase, a protein necessary for the virus to reproduce."
They went on to state:
"The 1918 virus replicates in the upper respiratory tract, but also in the lungs, causing primary pneumonia among its victims."
A full ninety years later there is an outbreak of another deadly Type A, subtype N1H1 virus that causes pneumonia without necessarily affecting the upper respiratory tract and that seems to mainly affect people with strong immune systems, and that only four months after we learnt how the original virus did this.
"This is an interesting virus. It's a brand new virus, not only to humans but to the world," said Dr Frank Plummer, scientific director of the Winnipeg lab, where samples from the current outbreak are being analyzed. He went on to state that it appears to have four different elements that have never been combined before and states "It's recombined [re-assorted ?] to create something totally new. How it did that, where it did it, when it did it, I don't think we know yet.
Luckily CDC officials have said the swine flu A/H1N1 virus is susceptible to the newer antivirals oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza), but not the older ones, amantadine and rimantadine. Shame that, because the older ones are off patent and not nearly as expensive as the newer ones.
What is really worrying is that there have been escaped viruses or accidentally contaminated vaccines in the not too distant past.
Escaped virus - Some scientists say the 1977 Russian flu, the most recent global outbreak, began when a virus escaped from a laboratory.
Contaminated materials - Feb. 2009, Baxter International Inc. in Austria unintentionally contaminated materials with the bird flu virus, which were then used in laboratories in three neighboring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease.
The incident was reported to the Austrian Ministry of Health, Sigrid Rosenberger, a ministry spokeswoman said "This was infected with a bird flu virus. There were some people from the company who handled it"
The material was intended for use in laboratories, and none of the lab workers have fallen ill. The incident is raising concern over the safety of research using the H5N1 bird flu strain which haskilled more than three-fifths of the people known to have caught the virus worldwide.
The virus material was supposed to contain a seasonal flu virus and was contaminated after “human error,” said Christopher Bona, a spokesman for Baxter, in a telephone interview.
Baxter “moved very quickly to sanitize and protect employees,” Bona said. “Labs have been sanitized, potentially contaminated materials have been destroyed and employees were tested and considered not to be at risk.”
Baxter, the world’s largest maker of blood-disease treatments, is one of the companies working on a vaccine to be used in case of a flu pandemic so that should all reassure us when it comes to time to be vaccinated.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
WHO Fears Pandemic Of Swine Fever
The World Health Organization is on High Alert, following an outbreak of Swine Flu in Mexico and two soutern States of the United States of America. It is feared the disease may reach pandemic proportions.
For a disease to qualify as being of 'pandemic proportions' three conditions have to be met. The disease must be new to a population, the disease must be able to infect humans and cause serious disease and the agent must be able to spread easily and sustainably amongst humans. Furthermore, the disease must be widespread, affecting a whole continent or several continents.
Originally swine flu only affected pigs, and though it was economically disastrous for those involved in the rearing and breeding of pigs, essentially when the herd could be isolated and slaughtered and the infection was under control there were no repercusions for the world at large. People did die from the disease, but needed to have direct contact with a diseased pig.
Swine fever as such is nothing new, and there have been repeated outbreaks of it worldwide over the last two centuries. What makes this particular outbreak worrying are two new features of the disease.
The first feature is that it appears to be healthy young adults who are the main victims of this disease, whereas most flu epidemics cause more deaths amongst the very old and the very young. The second, and very worrying trait is that the eight people who have so far been diagnosed as having this strain in the US, have had no contact with pigs at all - i.e. the transmission can have only been from person to person, thereby fulfilling the third condition that must be met for a disease to be of potentially pandemic proportions.
The main problem facing the WHO and the world at large is that as people now travel easily, the virus will be able to spread rapidly to other parts of the world. Mexico is a very popular tourist destination and in the Netherlands they are already asking for all returning travellers from Mexico to report themselves and attend for medical checks.
Authorities in the capital Mexico City have responded with a sweeping shutdown of public places and events, urging people to stay home if they feel sick and to avoid shaking hands or kissing people on the cheeks. Football fixtures have also been affected, matches will be played without spectators to limit the risk of transmission of the virus.
Not all pandemics are lethal, and it is far from clear whether the current swine flu infecting people could be the beginnings of a global outbreak. However, the World Health Organization is worried enough that it has alerted an expert panel that can recommend whether to raise the alert level for a global pandemic.
Apparently we are 'overdue' for a flu pandemic and several times warnings have been sounded that there is about to be a new pandemic. No-one at this stage knows whether this will indeed become a pandemic, but if it does, there is a grave problem with the preparation of the US for dealing with the situation.
Much of North America's pandemic planning is premised on the assumption a killer virus would emerge in Asia, where all previous pandemic flu viruses have surfaced, and wouldn't arrive there for at least three months. That would allow time to begin preparing a vaccine and detailed plans to inoculate doctors, nurses, police officers, air-traffic controllers, other essential personnel and high-risk groups.
But if Mexico proves to be ground-zero, that hoped-for head-start could be lost.
It is an ill wind that blows no good however, and shares in leading Pharmaceutical Companies have soared as a consequence of the news.
Friday, 17 April 2009
1,500 Indian Farmers Commit Mass Suicide
Thus the headline in the UK newspaper The Independent. The farmers commited suicide because they were deeply in debt owing to crop failure. Apparently the water level in the state of Chattisgarh has dropped from 40 feet a few years ago, to 250 feet in some locations. Allegedly this has been caused by bad planning decisions relating to dams.
Bharatendu Prakash,from the Organic Farming Association of India told the Press Association: "Farmers' suicides are increasing due to a vicious circle created by money lenders. They lure farmers to take money but when the crops fail, they are left with no option other than death."
I originally read this with shock and horror but got to thinking about that later. The big question here is 'Why are these farmers so deeply in debt?' Even when crops fail there is usually seed for next year and though times are hard, how would farmers run up such 'huge' debts £400.00 (to me that does not seem much, but I do not live in India and is probably more than an entire one year salary in India)
I did some further reading and it appears that the farmers committing suicide had been promised record harvests if they used genetically modified seeds of cotton, that had a built in pesticide. The farmers have borrowed money to buy seeds from Monsanto, so that they too could have 'record crops'.
The UK Daily Mail reports about a farmer called Shankara.
Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.
Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. (these seeds can cost as much as £1,000 for a one year supply) but when the harvests failed, he was left with spiraling debts -- and no income.
So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take his own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
A farmer can usually survive one bad crop, because he can save seeds from the year before or maybe swap seeds with his neighbours, to plant for the next year, when hopefully the water situation improves or a well will have been drilled. However, those farmers that planted GM seeds have now found out that the 'intellectual property' of the seeds remains with Monsanto, and they have to pay for another year's licence in order to sew the seeds again the following year. And this has started a spiral of debt for each subsequent year.
So an 1,500 estimated (probably more) Indian farmers have committed suicide in the great genetically modified experiment that is now taking place in India. I dare say the Monsanto crowds are sleeping comfortably in their beds tonight.
Bharatendu Prakash,from the Organic Farming Association of India told the Press Association: "Farmers' suicides are increasing due to a vicious circle created by money lenders. They lure farmers to take money but when the crops fail, they are left with no option other than death."
I originally read this with shock and horror but got to thinking about that later. The big question here is 'Why are these farmers so deeply in debt?' Even when crops fail there is usually seed for next year and though times are hard, how would farmers run up such 'huge' debts £400.00 (to me that does not seem much, but I do not live in India and is probably more than an entire one year salary in India)
I did some further reading and it appears that the farmers committing suicide had been promised record harvests if they used genetically modified seeds of cotton, that had a built in pesticide. The farmers have borrowed money to buy seeds from Monsanto, so that they too could have 'record crops'.
The UK Daily Mail reports about a farmer called Shankara.
Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.
Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. (these seeds can cost as much as £1,000 for a one year supply) but when the harvests failed, he was left with spiraling debts -- and no income.
So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take his own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
A farmer can usually survive one bad crop, because he can save seeds from the year before or maybe swap seeds with his neighbours, to plant for the next year, when hopefully the water situation improves or a well will have been drilled. However, those farmers that planted GM seeds have now found out that the 'intellectual property' of the seeds remains with Monsanto, and they have to pay for another year's licence in order to sew the seeds again the following year. And this has started a spiral of debt for each subsequent year.
So an 1,500 estimated (probably more) Indian farmers have committed suicide in the great genetically modified experiment that is now taking place in India. I dare say the Monsanto crowds are sleeping comfortably in their beds tonight.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Bye Bye Health Food Shops
We who controls food, controls mankind.
The Earth Summit Statistics meeting in 1992 revealed that farmland in the U.S. is over 85% micronutrient depleted - the situation with farmland in other continents was no better. This means that although that land can produce good-looking vegetables and fruits (aided by the use of large doses of pesticides) those vegetables/fruits contain no micronutients essential for human health. Small wonder then that vast numbers of people worldwide are taking vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal preparations.
This may soon come to an end. If by 31st December 2009 there has been no legal challenge to a little known UN Trade Commission known as the 'Codex Alimentarius' health food shops and pharmacies and other outlets will have to stop selling vitamins, minerals and any herbal preparations that claim to improve health. This is of course all done under the guise of consumer protection. In fact the 'top guy' for the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, a Dr. Rolf Grossklaus has stated that 'nutrition is not relevant to health'. Dr. Grossklaus managed to get nutrients to be declared toxins in 1992.
The Vitamins and Mineral Guideline (VMG) is designed to permit only ultra-low doses of vitamins and minerals and to make clinically effective nutrients illegal. This will mean that those of us who buy vitamins and minerals at the moment will either have to buy multiple containers to reach the current doses we are taking, or the Health Food Shop we are buying our supplies from will go out of business. Guess who will still be producing the 'harmful' vitamins and minerals we are no longer allowed to buy without a prescription?
If you are concerned about your health, the health of your family and your children and grandchildren, I urge you to at least visit this website, and if you live in the USA, click the link that says Take Action - Sign the Citizens Petition. This is the last chance the USA has to get out of the supposedly 'binding' regulations made by Codex Alimentarius, for Europe and other parts of the world it seems it may already be too late.
The Earth Summit Statistics meeting in 1992 revealed that farmland in the U.S. is over 85% micronutrient depleted - the situation with farmland in other continents was no better. This means that although that land can produce good-looking vegetables and fruits (aided by the use of large doses of pesticides) those vegetables/fruits contain no micronutients essential for human health. Small wonder then that vast numbers of people worldwide are taking vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal preparations.
This may soon come to an end. If by 31st December 2009 there has been no legal challenge to a little known UN Trade Commission known as the 'Codex Alimentarius' health food shops and pharmacies and other outlets will have to stop selling vitamins, minerals and any herbal preparations that claim to improve health. This is of course all done under the guise of consumer protection. In fact the 'top guy' for the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, a Dr. Rolf Grossklaus has stated that 'nutrition is not relevant to health'. Dr. Grossklaus managed to get nutrients to be declared toxins in 1992.
The Vitamins and Mineral Guideline (VMG) is designed to permit only ultra-low doses of vitamins and minerals and to make clinically effective nutrients illegal. This will mean that those of us who buy vitamins and minerals at the moment will either have to buy multiple containers to reach the current doses we are taking, or the Health Food Shop we are buying our supplies from will go out of business. Guess who will still be producing the 'harmful' vitamins and minerals we are no longer allowed to buy without a prescription?
If you are concerned about your health, the health of your family and your children and grandchildren, I urge you to at least visit this website, and if you live in the USA, click the link that says Take Action - Sign the Citizens Petition. This is the last chance the USA has to get out of the supposedly 'binding' regulations made by Codex Alimentarius, for Europe and other parts of the world it seems it may already be too late.
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Do Not Carry Cash or Else...
I heard this little telephone tape on the internet, and thought it might be interesting.
A man was detained at an airport because he was carrying a lot of money. He had no weapons, no bomb making materials, no harmful substances, just a lot of money. He was questioned about where the money came from and what he was going to do with it. Luckily, he had one of those smart phones that with one press of a button starts recording, without anyone else knowing you have switched it on. You can see/hear the video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0SXuclz47Y
What really interested me is that the man is a supporter of the Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who has become persona non grata with the Republican Party for several reasons, such as requesting an audit of the Federal Reserve and a return of US policy to a policy of Isolation instead of policing the rest of the world. The man was carrying Ron Paul bumper stickers and leaflets for the Campaign for Liberty, but the police who questioned him did not actually know that. That was lucky for the detainee, as I believe the harassment would have been even worse if they had known.
Apparently some Police Departments have actually issued instructions to their staff that if a car sports a Ron Paul sticker it is likely that the owner of the car has 'terrorist leanings' -see more about that here. How scary that a man who was legitimately elected, and who is questioning some of the policies of his own government, can be so side-lined that his supporters may be harassed legitimately just for being his supporters.
It does not matter whether one agrees with Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty, any more than it matters if you agree with Barack Obama or not, surely the issue here is one of free speech, freedom of association and the right to carry any amount of money you like without the fear of being harassed. At the moment you have the right to carry a weapon, but not money?
A man was detained at an airport because he was carrying a lot of money. He had no weapons, no bomb making materials, no harmful substances, just a lot of money. He was questioned about where the money came from and what he was going to do with it. Luckily, he had one of those smart phones that with one press of a button starts recording, without anyone else knowing you have switched it on. You can see/hear the video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0SXuclz47Y
What really interested me is that the man is a supporter of the Republican Congressman Ron Paul, who has become persona non grata with the Republican Party for several reasons, such as requesting an audit of the Federal Reserve and a return of US policy to a policy of Isolation instead of policing the rest of the world. The man was carrying Ron Paul bumper stickers and leaflets for the Campaign for Liberty, but the police who questioned him did not actually know that. That was lucky for the detainee, as I believe the harassment would have been even worse if they had known.
Apparently some Police Departments have actually issued instructions to their staff that if a car sports a Ron Paul sticker it is likely that the owner of the car has 'terrorist leanings' -see more about that here. How scary that a man who was legitimately elected, and who is questioning some of the policies of his own government, can be so side-lined that his supporters may be harassed legitimately just for being his supporters.
It does not matter whether one agrees with Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty, any more than it matters if you agree with Barack Obama or not, surely the issue here is one of free speech, freedom of association and the right to carry any amount of money you like without the fear of being harassed. At the moment you have the right to carry a weapon, but not money?
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Rat Leaves Sinking Ship
Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, sent a letter on Tuesday to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G. The letter was published on 25th March in the New York Times . The fact that the letter was published in the New York Times appears strange, since most letters of resignation are not publicised. Maybe he was doing a Pontius Pilate, and washing his hands in public.
Mr. DeSantis, who has worked for the company for 11 years, explained that he felt unable to continue working for the company which he called dysfunctional, and that he and his staff in the financial products unit had been betrayed by A.I.G and unfairly persecuted by elected officials. He goes on to state that his unit was not responsible for the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung AIG. He will not be returning his bonus, as requested, but after the tax has been taken off he is going to give it to charity, to 'those most affected by the economic downturn'. His intent is not to keep a single cent of the money for himself and his family.
He also states that he feels that Mr. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G., was not responsible for the mismanagement at A.I.G either.
Which begs the question, what are these high paid executives actually being paid for? Mr. DeSantis has worked the last year for a $1.00 fee, on the understanding that he would receive a bonus payment in March of this year. In view of the fact that the company was being dismantled where exactly did he think the profits were that would pay his bonus? Surely bonus payments are being paid at the end of a financial year based on the performance of the company paying the bonus. Of course, he thought the bonus payment would come from the American Taxpayer, his bonus actually being paid out of the BailOut Fund which is American Taxpayers' money.
So for 10 years Mr. DeSantis worked for a dysfunctional company that was creating an artificial finance bubble, but he failed to see that and he was in no way shape or form responsible for that. So what did he see? He must either be very gullible, in which case one wonders how he ever made it to vice executive, or he is a hypocrite, who now that the A.I.G. ship is sinking fast does what most rats do.
Needless to say, the readers 'comments in the New York Times were many, and the discussion is now closed, so no further comments can be added to it.
Perhaps the most succinct statement of all is from Rolf, New York
' Hint : If your company accepts tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers, consider your bonus renegotiated'
Well said Rolf, I am sure most taxpayers will agree with you on that.
Mr. DeSantis, who has worked for the company for 11 years, explained that he felt unable to continue working for the company which he called dysfunctional, and that he and his staff in the financial products unit had been betrayed by A.I.G and unfairly persecuted by elected officials. He goes on to state that his unit was not responsible for the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung AIG. He will not be returning his bonus, as requested, but after the tax has been taken off he is going to give it to charity, to 'those most affected by the economic downturn'. His intent is not to keep a single cent of the money for himself and his family.
He also states that he feels that Mr. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G., was not responsible for the mismanagement at A.I.G either.
Which begs the question, what are these high paid executives actually being paid for? Mr. DeSantis has worked the last year for a $1.00 fee, on the understanding that he would receive a bonus payment in March of this year. In view of the fact that the company was being dismantled where exactly did he think the profits were that would pay his bonus? Surely bonus payments are being paid at the end of a financial year based on the performance of the company paying the bonus. Of course, he thought the bonus payment would come from the American Taxpayer, his bonus actually being paid out of the BailOut Fund which is American Taxpayers' money.
So for 10 years Mr. DeSantis worked for a dysfunctional company that was creating an artificial finance bubble, but he failed to see that and he was in no way shape or form responsible for that. So what did he see? He must either be very gullible, in which case one wonders how he ever made it to vice executive, or he is a hypocrite, who now that the A.I.G. ship is sinking fast does what most rats do.
Needless to say, the readers 'comments in the New York Times were many, and the discussion is now closed, so no further comments can be added to it.
Perhaps the most succinct statement of all is from Rolf, New York
' Hint : If your company accepts tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers, consider your bonus renegotiated'
Well said Rolf, I am sure most taxpayers will agree with you on that.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Pope Hampers Health Promotion
Pope Benedict XVI is currently visiting Africa. Whilst on the plane flying to Africa he pronounced that the use of condoms remains against the doctrine of the Catholic Church (as set out in the Encyclical 'Humanae Vitae' , 1968).
He is quoted as saying that 'Aids cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problem'. This latter statement is completely wrong as the majority of scientists agree that the consistent and correct use of condoms substantially reduces the spread of Aids. It would be interesting to know what research the Pope is quoting when he made that statement.
The UN programme against Aids says that condoms are an essential part of combination prevention. Several Aids activists as well as the French and Belgian government have expressed grave concern at the Pope's statements, in exactly that continent where Hiv and Aids are of pandemic proportions, which unfortunately is also the continent where the Pope remains quite popular.
The Pope of course has the right (vested in him by the Catholic Church) to make statements on Church Doctrine, but unless he can show evidence of research that shows that condoms aggravate the problem, he really does need to retract that statement.
The situation is that condoms are expressely forbidden because they are a form of birth control, (within what the Church considers it rightful area of expertise) but that condoms are an essential part of the combination prevention for HIV.
If people as a consequence of the Pope's statement stop using condoms, this means that more babies will be born that are HIV positive. This is obviously something that the Pope feels he can live with, although he did say that he is suffering with the poor of Africa. That should make them feel a lot better, hopefully it means that he will be distributing the estimated $10 - $15 billion Vatican wealth very soon amongst the poor and needy.
Or maybe he will buy a drug company that enables the people suffering from Aids that he is so concerned about, to have free drug treatment. At the moment 70% of people who are HIV positive on the African subcontinent, die as a consequence of the disease. The cost of drug treatment is prohibitive for most African countries.
As a very lapsed Catholic I have no problem with the Pope making his doctrinal statements, but I feel he has to keep out of the issue of Health Promotion, particularly as he is not offering any evidence of his statement. Come on Pope, you talk about religion and God, and let everyone else make pronouncements on their areas of expertise.
Friday, 13 March 2009
Do as I say, not as I Do - or maybe not
The UK Labour Government has once again shown itself to be incapable of passing a law and then applying it. For nearly two years now smoking in public places in England has been illegal. This means that the person enjoying a pint of beer and wanting to smoke whilst doing so, has to stand outside and smoke. Some places however are exempt.
Prisons are exempt, they have special smoking rooms. However, Old People's Homes are not allowed to have smoking rooms and any Nursing Home owner who provides a place for his elderly residents to have a smoke, can be fined. This therefore means that elderly and infirm people who want to have a smoke need to be outside (possibly in the cold) to enjoy a cigarette, but prisoners can smoke in warm smoking rooms.
Palaces are also exempt. Because the Houses of Parliament in England is officially the Palace of Westminster, this means that the same ministers who passed the smoking in the workplace ban, are the only people who are not affected by that ban themselves.
The Guardian now reports that for the G20 meeting which is to take place in the UK at the beginning of April, the smoking ban will be lifted and special rooms will be set aside for G20 members who want to enjoy a smoke. Now, this may not be true. Apparently the rumour was first circulated in that much respected newspaper The Sun (more known for its bare-breasted beauties on page 3 than for reporting on the news), taken up by another newspaper and circulated as fact, and now the Guardian, a broadsheet newspaper no less, has taken up the story. The MailOnline reports the story and quotes Anne Widdecombe, MP (Cons) as saying 'It is one law for one, and one for the other, and I think that sums up this Government'. This makes me think that there possibly is some truth in the rumour that is circulating about this temporary lifting of the smoking ban.
I doubt whether we will ever be told whether or not the G20 meeting venue provided rooms for those who wished to indulge, but I think it may be quite likely. How do you tell the Finance Minister of another country that he has to step outside to have a smoke? Apparently, it is easier to stop an old person from smoking and facing the fact that they have to go outside to do so, than it is to stop a Minister or a prisoner from smoking in comfort. Double standards anyone?
Prisons are exempt, they have special smoking rooms. However, Old People's Homes are not allowed to have smoking rooms and any Nursing Home owner who provides a place for his elderly residents to have a smoke, can be fined. This therefore means that elderly and infirm people who want to have a smoke need to be outside (possibly in the cold) to enjoy a cigarette, but prisoners can smoke in warm smoking rooms.
Palaces are also exempt. Because the Houses of Parliament in England is officially the Palace of Westminster, this means that the same ministers who passed the smoking in the workplace ban, are the only people who are not affected by that ban themselves.
The Guardian now reports that for the G20 meeting which is to take place in the UK at the beginning of April, the smoking ban will be lifted and special rooms will be set aside for G20 members who want to enjoy a smoke. Now, this may not be true. Apparently the rumour was first circulated in that much respected newspaper The Sun (more known for its bare-breasted beauties on page 3 than for reporting on the news), taken up by another newspaper and circulated as fact, and now the Guardian, a broadsheet newspaper no less, has taken up the story. The MailOnline reports the story and quotes Anne Widdecombe, MP (Cons) as saying 'It is one law for one, and one for the other, and I think that sums up this Government'. This makes me think that there possibly is some truth in the rumour that is circulating about this temporary lifting of the smoking ban.
I doubt whether we will ever be told whether or not the G20 meeting venue provided rooms for those who wished to indulge, but I think it may be quite likely. How do you tell the Finance Minister of another country that he has to step outside to have a smoke? Apparently, it is easier to stop an old person from smoking and facing the fact that they have to go outside to do so, than it is to stop a Minister or a prisoner from smoking in comfort. Double standards anyone?
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Wake up World - Obama is a Sham
Barack Obama, new President of the USA comes across as a charistmatic, caring man, who made multiple promises before his election on the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the repeal of the Patriot Act, the pursuing of legal action against telephone companies that had illegally wire-tapped American Citizens under the provisions of the Patriot Act, and the repeal of the free trade agreements - in order to protect the workers in the US.
To put it very succinctly, this man is a consumate charismatic liar, who has been carefully groomed for power over the last 30 years, and been chosen by the real powers in the world, i.e. The Bilderberg Group (130 of the richest and most influential people in the world, started by the Nazi Prince of the Netherlands Bernhard); The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. These three institutions run the world, or more precisely own the world.
You can view a very powerful film on this here
If you were a member of Pyrabang, of course, you might already know all this :)
If you found this interesting, why not join us at Pyrabang, and get some more in-depth information from the other side of the news. Joining Pyrabang takes 10 seconds and you can do it here
See you at the Other Side of the News
To put it very succinctly, this man is a consumate charismatic liar, who has been carefully groomed for power over the last 30 years, and been chosen by the real powers in the world, i.e. The Bilderberg Group (130 of the richest and most influential people in the world, started by the Nazi Prince of the Netherlands Bernhard); The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. These three institutions run the world, or more precisely own the world.
You can view a very powerful film on this here
If you were a member of Pyrabang, of course, you might already know all this :)
If you found this interesting, why not join us at Pyrabang, and get some more in-depth information from the other side of the news. Joining Pyrabang takes 10 seconds and you can do it here
See you at the Other Side of the News
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
The truth is out there, but only if you know where to find it
There is increasing evidence that most of the major world media are in the hands of a few families. I do not want to bore you with an elaborate explanation of why this is so, suffice it to say that what you read in the papers or see on the television has been censored before you are allowed access to it.
Unfortunately this means that few of us ever have access to all sides of a story. The internet seemed to provide a means where independent journalists from round the world could voice their story, without editorial disapproval. Even the internet however is censored, and people like Jeff Rense and various other commentators are having to keep moving Hosting Companies in order to get their point of view across.
Now, you may or may not agree with what Rense has to say, it does not really matter. The fact is, that we are allowed to express our opinions freely and people have the right to read those opinions and agree or disagree with them.
It is therefore refreshing to find a site like Pyrabang, where in addition to people posting advertisements for their business opportunity, a little search of the archives will find many articles and films relating to the Other Side of the News. I have spent many hours reading posts and watching videos, and although obviously you have to use your own discretion on what you believe and what you discard, at least it wil give us a choice about what we read and view, rather than just watching what the mainstream media label news.
I recommend you have a look next time you see the ad for Pyrabang popping up somewhere. Yes, you can earn money on Pyrabang as well, but even if that is not your main intent, just joining to get access to the wealth of information that is there is worth doing.
My link for Pyrabang is http://pyrabang.com/go/sekhmetgb
May see you there :)
Unfortunately this means that few of us ever have access to all sides of a story. The internet seemed to provide a means where independent journalists from round the world could voice their story, without editorial disapproval. Even the internet however is censored, and people like Jeff Rense and various other commentators are having to keep moving Hosting Companies in order to get their point of view across.
Now, you may or may not agree with what Rense has to say, it does not really matter. The fact is, that we are allowed to express our opinions freely and people have the right to read those opinions and agree or disagree with them.
It is therefore refreshing to find a site like Pyrabang, where in addition to people posting advertisements for their business opportunity, a little search of the archives will find many articles and films relating to the Other Side of the News. I have spent many hours reading posts and watching videos, and although obviously you have to use your own discretion on what you believe and what you discard, at least it wil give us a choice about what we read and view, rather than just watching what the mainstream media label news.
I recommend you have a look next time you see the ad for Pyrabang popping up somewhere. Yes, you can earn money on Pyrabang as well, but even if that is not your main intent, just joining to get access to the wealth of information that is there is worth doing.
My link for Pyrabang is http://pyrabang.com/go/sekhmetgb
May see you there :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
