On Melmac, saying "have a nice day" is punishable by death.

REAL news

Bogpaper

Interesting blog I found called Bogpaper.com….

The Bank of England printing press.

Why Now?

Have you ever wondered where all the money comes from?

The £22 million, say, it cost to evict an encampment of Irish travellers from their illegal site at Dale Farm in Essex?

Or the £600 million the Ministry of Defence forks out annually for compensation claims ranging from £81,000 to four soldiers who’ve been given badly fitting boots to the £3 million paid out to the family of an Iraqi who died after being beaten by British troops in Iraq?

Or the £18.3 billion the government is committed to spending every year “decarbonising” the economy under the 2008 Climate Change Act.

Or how about the £850 billion or more spent by the government on the 2009 bank bail-out?

I’m not after value judgements here: just answers to a basic question I don’t think any of us ask nearly often enough. Who pays for all this stuff?

If you’re anything like me you’d probably rather not know. At least that’s how I used to be till quite recently. The way I’d rationalise the smaller figures would be something like: “Well the population is about 60 million, the working population must be around 30 million and 30 million times lots of tax pounds is enough to take care of that kind of thing.”

And the way I’d rationalise the larger sums, like that £850 billion – or, worse, the £5 trillion or so which constitutes Britain’s national debt – would be to bury my head under my pillow and hope that all this horrid nightmare stuff would eventually be magicked away by someone, somewhere who knew what he was doing.

But then came the event which opened my eyes to the terrifying truth. It was a small meeting in a Committee Room in the House Of Commons, attended by no more than five MPs, a few economists and a handful of bloggers. Blink and you’d have missed it. What I heard there was so appalling – but made so much sense – that it spurred me into immediate, drastic action. First, I put our much-loved family home on the market; second, I resolved to devote my energies over the next months and years to warning as many of you as I can of the disaster which lies ahead of us.

What kind of disaster? Not even our greatest economists know the precise answer to that one but then, did they ever? All we can say with certainty is that’s going to be ugly.

Best case scenario is that we experience years of stagnation, rising unemployment and falling wages. Worst could be anything from Weimar-style hyperinflation to riots, shortages and civil war leading to the emergence of the kind of totalitarian regimes which seized Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. Currently, we’re in a kind of limbo, muddling along as best we can, hoping someone will find a solution, somehow and that it will all get back to normal. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Before things start getting better they’re going to have to get a whole lot worse.

Why? Because, for four decades, we in the West have been inflating the mother of all credit bubbles. We’ve been maxing out on cheap credit, spending money we don’t have, borrowing far more than we can ever afford to repay – and now we’re about to get the shocking bill.

Sure we can keep trying to put off the evil day using all sorts of devious cheats – money printing and artificially low interest rates appear to be the current favoured options – but in the end it’s not going to save us. What our governments are doing now is the equivalent of forcing us all to drink more booze to stave off our hangover: the longer we put off facing the inevitable, the more painful it’s going to be.

So far so very obvious. It’s not as though you can’t read similarly dire predictions every day on the internet. All that was different about this meeting was that it explained, in a way that had never been really clear to me before, exactly why we’re in the mess we’re in.

The meeting was organised by the Cobden Centre and the main speaker was Detlev Schlichter, author of Paper Money Collapse. Schlichter is a follower of the great Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises, who foresaw not only the first Great Depression but also the new one fast approaching now.

Von Mises wrote:

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

One of von Mises’s great bugbears was “fiat currency” – the kind of money that governments are able to create at their whim. (As opposed to money whose supply is limited by being linked to a scarce commodity, as happened in the era of the “gold standard”). And von Mises had a point: every paper money system in history from China’s Southern Song Dynasty onwards has ended in failure. If it wasn’t brought voluntarily to an end, then the currency inevitably collapsed, invariably accompanied by social unrest and economic hardship.

Perhaps you’ll have worked out by now why we called this site Bogpaper. One of the reasons, anyway. Another is that it’s salacious and snappy. Another is that for such a cool name we got it surprisingly cheap. Another is that we can help promote it with amusing taglines like “Bogpaper: we’re here to save your arse!” and “Bogpaper: getting you out of the shit since 2012.” To which we might add, Bogpaper: not just about Austrian economics and fiat currency.

Because it’s not. Sure, you’ll like Bogpaper if you’re interested in those things.

But you’ll also like it if:

You believe – as we all do here – in free markets, free speech, liberty, personal responsibility and limited government.

You probably don’t believe in: bank bail-outs; the European Union; the Federal Reserve; crony capitalism; corporate rent-seeking; political correctness; HS2; wind farms; PFI; Man-Made Global Warming.

You’ve looked at the GOP shortlist and realised: America, at least as much as Europe, is toast.

You’ve accepted we’re all toast but you’d prefer to be lightly browned rather than charred.

You’re worried government spending has got completely out of control and that we’re entering an Atlas-Shrugged-style disaster zone where the productive few are bankrolling the feckless many.

You’ve sensed for some time that everything’s about to go tits up but you’d like it if someone could explain to you why.

You want to find out how best to protect yourself, your friends, and your family from the worst effects of the coming economic armaggedon.

You think people like us should stick together and build a community where we can exchange goods, services, ideas.

You want it all to be over soon so you can pick up the pieces and get on with your life and build a better future for the kids.

You – now you think about it – don’t merely want to survive this economic armaggedon but  actually to come out of it much wealthier and more successful. (Yes it’s possible: we can point you in the right direction).

You like Alex Jones, Zero Hedge and Telegraph blogs.

You have a remote shack in the hills, next to a clean water source, surrounded by razor wire and claymores, with a year’s supply of dried food, plus plenty of ammo for your M4 and your shotgun. Or at least you do in your fantasies.

You’re a goldbug. (Duh!)

You believe that revolution is too important to be left to the left.

You’re a confused member of Occupy in need of enlightenment.

You’re middle class and well educated and frankly pissed off because you can’t earn enough to give yourself an even half-way decent standard of living any more.

You’ve got stuff to say, pithily and entertainingly, on any of these subjects and you’d like to blog on it for us.

You want to know the answer to the question I asked at the beginning.

Yeah. Where does all that money come from?


Ben Gilroy, Ireland

Ben Gilroy.  For more, see the people for economic justice web site.

 


AGW Climategate 2 – James Delingpole

From the  James Delingpole blog at the Telegraph…its interesting to note the amount of people commenting on his articles.  It will be interesting to see where this story runs….

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

By Politics Last updated: November 22nd, 2011

1931 Comments Comment on this article

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.


Follow up on Jamie Bartlett of DEMOS and previous blog entry

Following on from my earlier blog piece about a news item on the BBC

Alex Jones of Infowars Nightly News contacted DEMOS and asked Jamie Bartlett to come onto the show for a debate.  Quite interesting viewing.  Ironically, he could well become a good example with regard to his own plea to evaluate carefully everything you see on the internet.  In particular his use of straw man, ad hominem…oh and well all else fails saying – well er, I’m not qualified to comment.  It is good to see a discussion where the two opposing viewpoints are able to spend some time about their relative points of view, and not let things get down into the most base personal attacks.  As an old friend from music days once said to me (referring to a judge’s comments)….opinions are like arseholes…..everybody’s got one!


The magnificent deception…

Just as I’ve written out another cheque to the council, I am becoming very interested in people all up and down the land opting to enter into lawful rebellion and querying payment of their council tax.  Freeman videos abound on the net, but I found this one of the most interesting.  More videos will follow with a more UK-based slant soon….


Vaccine Propaganda Exposed & Analysed

Published by NHF UK admin on October 16th, 2011

by Danielle Bryant BSYA (N.Th.)


To Immunise or Not To Immunise – THAT is the Question! It certainly is a question that only YOU can answer whether it immunising your baby or having the flu vaccine.I am hoping that this analysis of and insight into the propaganda surrounding the vaccine and immunisation drives by local health authorities will help you to see how your logical thoughts are manipulated to make you afraid NOT TO vaccinate. This is done mainly by fallacies which are tricks that can stop you thinking logically, and can therefore alter your decisions and even beliefs!

 

Vaccine season is certainly now upon us. We have seen many distasteful “advert” banners outside doctor’s surgeries stating “ROLL UP ROLL UP FOR YOUR FLU JAB” – like it’s some sort of circus! What a clever way to try to make the vaccine seem that it is not a serious issue – no big deal! But then maybe this should also tell us that we shouldn’t be taking the advertising and scare mongering seriously!
Sadly, though it really IS a serious issue, especially to those who have been harmed by the vaccine, or the family members of those who have died soon after having the vaccine.
The chant “Roll Up Roll Up” also puts me in mind of a snake oil salesman – is this REALLY what our doctors are becoming? If I were a doctor I would be insulted by this approach to advertising one of my services and I think it is appalling that the government feel they can treat our health so trivially and non-seriously! They think it’s a circus? And what are we? The monkeys? Yes – that would be test monkeys held in our cages of fear.
Flu Roll Up Roll Up Banner

The vaccination campaigns are almost all based upon a fallacy that appeals to our emotions and the emotion they use is fear. When we are afraid, especially for our health and the health of our children, we will do anything to help ourselves, but in truth this is just making us more vulnerable to misinformation.
They also encourage us to make an assumption. The assumption that if something is believed to do something good then it isn’t bad (or at least can’t be THAT bad).

You can see by the NHS poster opposite how much they use fear to promote the jabs. Fear is induced not only by the exaggerated and inaccurate imagery, but also stating that we do not know all the facts about flu, making us think there is a lot more to it and scaring us into the jab. But what they don’t do is state the fact that we do not know all the facts about the jab EITHER!It also states the the flu virus is clever as it “continually evolves and mutates”. This makes us think of something alien or disgusting, further adding to fear. But if you read between the lines, what this ALSO states is that the vaccines cannot possibly help! The vaccine you have in your arm was developed (at least) months previously – so this means that the virus the vaccine protects against has now surely mutated and evolved into a different strain!

They also state “if you suffer from certain chronic illness or are 65 or over you are especially at risk” – yet this is also true of the jab (but they hide this information from you).

This advert is clearly trying to belittle the HPV vaccine, trying to demonstrate that it is a matter-of-fact everyday thing. Also in this way putting the message across that it is not serious.But the truth is that it IS serious and the decision to have a vaccine that contains an ingredient that made EVERY rat tested on STERILE should not be taken lightly at all!

List of fallacies that I have found in this very short advert (after only a short while, I could maybe write a lot more if I had a lot more time!)
Fallacy 1: Appeal to Common Practice – if everyone does it then it is OK for me to do. This is shown by all the pupils going about their day and having the vaccine.
Fallacy 2: Appeal to Popularity – most people approve of this so it must be OK.
Fallacy 3: Bandwagon – everyone else does it so I will too or otherwise I may not be accepted. This is shown by linking arms with her friend, both getting the vaccine together.
Fallacy 4: Questionable cause – HPV and cervical cancer sometimes occur together so HPV must cause cervical cancer (this has been proved NOT to be the case by the FDA without the presence of an infection). In the words of the FDA: “Based on new scientific information published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer. Most acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. …Repeated sequential transient HPV infections, even when caused by ‘high-risk’ HPVs, are characteristically not associated with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer.”
“A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of HPV on repeated testing is highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk.(ref:redpillreich.blogspot.com)
Fallacy 5: Appeal to Authority – the NHS are passing on information given to them by pharmaceutical salesmen, but making us think they are the experts in this, and so we trust them.
Fallacy 6 (double): Appeal to Emotion (fear) & Slippery Slope – HPV MAY occur and if it does Cervical Cancer WILL be inevitable (this is how it makes us think – not the truth!!) and this invokes our fear to be scared into having the vaccine.
And finally…calling the vaccine the “Cervical Cancer Vaccine” is extremely misleading as it does NOT protect from cancer at all. There are still many strains of HPV not covered by the vaccine and as we have just read from the FDA’s own words, it is the infection NOT the virus that can lead to cancer. But calling it this lures people into a false sense of security and gives them false information just from the name.

What makes things worse about obtaining information about vaccines is that we trust what our GPs tell us, and they generally tell us there is nothing to worry about and the vaccines ‘save lives’, but the fact is they are given increasingly large bonuses for the number of patients they vaccinate. As many surgeries/doctors come to rely on these bonuses their advice inevitably may become more profit-related than health-related.

While we are preparing further UK specific article and campaign about vaccines, please visit the extensive vaccine information section on thenhf.com website:-
http://www.thenhf.com/page.php?id=129

see also the NHF website at http://thenhf.co.uk/

Here is an excellent article entitled “Seasonal Flu Vaccines, Are They Safe or Necessary?”

Another article by the Sovereign Independent entitled “Conclusive link now admitted: Swine Flu Vaccine causes Chronic Nervous System Disorders”


The dangers of airport body scanners

The Dangers of Airport Scanners

Published by NHF UK admin on October 16th, 2011

By Danielle Bryant BSYA (N.Th)

I recently received an email from a friend of mine regarding the controversial full body airport scanners. They are now in place at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow airports and on test at Dublin.These pose a huge violation to our privacy in the name of ‘terrorism’ – but this is just one part of the controversy. Scientific facts are emerging regarding how they can actually be extremely detrimental to our health.

Below is a copy of a memo and email sent from a group of professors in the University of California to the President for Science and Technology.

April 6, 2010

Dr. John P. Holdren
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

Dear Dr. Holdren:

We, a number of University of California, San Francisco faculty, are writing — see the attached memo — to call your attention to our concerns about the potential serious health
risks of the recently adopted whole body back scatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.
By way of introduction one of us (John Sedat) met you recently when he and his wife Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a 2009 Nobel Laureate, talked with President Obama last December. Dr. Sedat is Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging.
He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other co-signer includes Dr. Marc Shuman, an internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs. David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members.

Sincerely yours,

John Sedat, Ph.D

David Agard, Ph.D

Marc Shuman, M.D.

Robert Stroud, Ph.D.


LETTER OF CONCERN

We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.

Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.

An important consideration is that a large fraction of the population will be subject to the new X-ray scanners and be at potential risk, as discussed below. This raises a number of ‘red flags’. Can we have an urgent second independent evaluation?

The Red Flags

The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).

Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their
energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol. possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.

In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.

In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential concerns over radiation damage.

Our colleagues at UCSF, dermatologists and cancer experts, raise specific important concerns:

A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.

B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

D) The population of immuno-compromised individual — HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.

E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.

F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.

G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to the skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.

H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

Moreover, there are a number of ‘red flags’ related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems? The TSA is already complaining
about resolution limitations; who will keep the manufacturers and/or TSA from just raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher
total dose?

After review of the available data we have already obtained, we suggest that additional critical information be obtained, with the goal to minimize the potential health risks of total body scanning. One can study the relevant X-ray dose effects with modern molecular tools. Once a small team of appropriate experts is assembled, an experimental plan can be designed and implemented with the objective of obtaining information relevant to our
concerns expressed above, with attention paid to completing the information gathering and formulating recommendations in a timely fashion. We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical
errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level. Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are
not recognized. Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few.

Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

In summary we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to re-evaluate the potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.


For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

I know how this guy feels. Well said.

Interesting times ahead.  I recall seeing a young guy on the BBC news recently – he was from DEMOS – talking about the need for schools to teach young people ‘critical thinking’ while browsing on the internet.  All good so far.  I suppose it really depends on how this training is delivered.  How I wish there was a move to teach the same wariness over what the BBC and ITV jackanory shows put out.  Again I have to tick this post ‘funny’ because if you have a look at the classroom when the Demos visitor is there, tbey can barely string a sentence together. 

Maybe Jamie is worried about the children going to sites like Global Research

The reaction comments to the DEMOS piece are followed in their own (quite revealing) site and are an entertaining read

============================================

And while we have all that to enjoy, christmas approaches 🙂

I remember how this made me feel when I was young.  A bit of escapism is sometimes just the job…


Flu shot questions….

Some people close to me tend to get quite spooked by my wariness of flu shots, in fact, all shots….so I include little snippets like these…and as always, please get in touch on the comments bar if you think any of the information is inaccurate, as it is only intended to inform and protect….

The Flu Vaccine – a discussion of facts on the label. – Coalition For Informed Choice

I ACTUALLY WALKED INTO A DOCTOR’S OFFICE

Coalition For Informed Choice

Tedd Koren, DC

The other day I walked into a doctor’s office that was advertising flu
shots and asked for a product insert for the 2011-2012 flu vaccine
(Flulaval from GlaxoSmithKline.)

She handed me a CDC one page sheet urging all people to get the flu
shot.  I said, “Thanks, but can I get the actual paper that comes with
the vaccines.”  She gave me an odd look (“Why would anyone want to
read that?”) but went into the back and got me one.

Before I left I said to the MD, “Did you know that there is mercury in
the shots?”  “No, I didn’t know that,” she said.  (Why should she know
that, she only gives the shots.)

“You know if you vaccinate a pregnant woman the mercury can go through
the placenta into the fetus,” I said to her.

She said nothing.  I might have been speaking Klingon. Then again if
we were Klingons the interaction may have involved high explosives and
lots of bad language.  (Please forgive me, the other day I watched a
Star Trek movie).

OK, back to the flu.  After I left her office I began to engage in an
unnatural act, I actually read the product insert. The print was very
small but I slogged through it.  These are quotes directly from the
product insert.  Read them and be amazed (doesn’t anyone actually read
these?)

Does the flu shot protect someone from getting the flu?

“There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a
decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FluLaval®.”

It’s given to nursing mothers

“It is not known whether FluLaval® is excreted in human milk … safety
and effectiveness of FluLaval® in pediatric patients have not been
established.”

What’s in the shot?

“The virus is inactivated with ultraviolet light … followed by
formaldehyde … disrupted with sodium deoxycholate … 45 mcg.
Hemagglutinin (HA) … each dose contains 25 mcg mercury … the vial
stopper does not contain latex.” (Nice to know for those who are
concerned about latex reactions).

Can it cause cancer or affect the reproductive system (what about the baby?)

“FluLaval® has not been evaluated for carginogenic or mutagenic
potential, or for impairment of fertility.”

Adverse events associated with influenza vaccines:  Anaphylaxis … “the
1976 swine flu influenza vaccine was associated with an increased risk
of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Evidence of a causal relation of GBS
with subsequent [influenza] vaccines is unclear.”

How long were the test subjects observed after vaccination to see if
the flu shot caused long-term damage?

“Individuals were observed for three days after the flu shot was
administered in see if there were adverse reactions.

Postmarketing surveillance From the insert:

“Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of
uncertain size it is not always possible to reliably estimate their
incidence rate or to establish a causal relationship to the vaccine.”

“Lymphodenopasthy, eye pain, photophobia, dysphagia, vomiting …
influenza-like symptoms … rhinitis, cellulitis, muscle weakness,
arthritis, tremor, syncope, Guillain-Barre syndrome, convulsions,
seizures, cranial or facial nerve paralysis (Bell’s palsy),
encephalopathy, limb paralysis …”

Cost

Fluarix® (single dose) for ages 3 years and older. Multidose has Hg,
single dose does not. Fluarix: $101.20 for ten single vial doses
(approximately $10/shot cost to MD).

No mercury in single vials.

FluLaval ® – Multidose: $70.80 for one vial of ten doses ($7.08 cost
of one shot).  (Nice markup.  I bet CVS, Walgreens and the other big
purchasers get even better prices).

Gary Krasner, Director
Coalition For Informed Choice
188-34 87th Drive, Suite 4B
Holliswood, NY 11423
718-479-2939
(note:  there may be silence after you dial.  But remain on the line.
I can hear it ringing)
www.cfic.us
cfic@nyct.net

DO NOT use my other email address:
garykrasner@gmx.com
UNLESS your message is over 3 MB is size.

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled” . . . Richard P. Feynman

DISCLAIMER:
I’m neither a lawyer nor medical physician.  It should not be
construed from any materials I distribute that I’m dispensing legal or
medical advice.


A timely reduction of the ridiculous ‘dinosaur media’ version of 911

From James Corbett of the Corbett Report.

911 spoonfed