As the daughter of Harvard Professor Henry “Bunifah Latifah” Gates, Elizabeth’s vapid blog about the “Beer Summit” devolved from pageant queen oratory into the swamp of revisionist history. Her final comments not only corroborate her father’s uninspired performance as an educator and parent, but also identifies herself among America's next generation of race-baiters:
I asked my father what the President had said during their chat and as he slipped off his shoes and reclined his chair, he said: “The president and the vice president are great men, Liza. They did the right thing to invite us there to talk, but it's up to us now to extend this conversation. We have plans to meet in private and discuss things. You know, Crowley’s not a bad guy. He’s not a Joe the Plumber who wants to represent the Right. He would be horrified to be considered a racist.”Unfortunately for America, Democrats have successfully used men like Gates to perpetuate the myth of American racism since the 1960s. As I wrote in 2006, race was largely considered a political problem since 1852, when anti-slavery Republicans pitted themselves against pro-slavery Democrats. Roughly 2.5 million white Republican men (including my great-grandfather and uncles) fought, bled or died to end the slavery that a million white Democrats fought to defend.
Discrimination is the single greatest wound in American history and could never be solved over a beer. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. There are more black men in prison than in college and literally thousands of black men are arrested across this country each day. And while I might agree with the president’s initial statement that the “Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly,” my father is not the first nor will he be the last black man to be arrested for no reason—in his own home or elsewhere—and Sergeant Crowley isn’t the first officer to fudge a police report. They are simply pawns in the rebirth of unfashionable intolerance in a world that likes to think our dashing brown-skinned 44th president has emerged to make nice with the past, present, and future. It’s an impossible task for the president and speaks more to our nation’s vulnerable value system than the unfortunately common situation my father and the Cambridge police found themselves embroiled in. As my father said on the plane yesterday morning on our way to the White House, “there are approximately 800,000 black men in prison and on July 16, 2009, I simply became one of them.”
When Republicans won the Civil War in 1865, it didn’t stop there. In spite of the 13th Amendment, Democrats continued to deny blacks their citizenship rights. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans voted for it.
100% of Democrats opposed it.
Despite passage of the 14th Amendment, Democrats continued to prevent blacks from voting. To overcome this, Congress passed the 15th Amendment, establishing the right to vote for all people regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
100% of Republicans voted for it.
100% of Democrats opposed it.
From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passed 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.
In 1866, Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. In 1872, Democrats admitted during Congressional hearings that the Klan was a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carried out this plan with a series of massacres.
In 1876, Democrats took control of the House and no more civil rights legislation was passed until 1964. In 1892, Democrats took control of the White House, the Senate, and the House. They immediately established Jim Crow laws and repealed all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. The laws or amendments they could not repeal were skirted by poll taxes and literacy tests.
Until 1935, all blacks elected to Congress were Republicans. In addition to those elected to federal office, hundreds of blacks (all Republican) were elected to state legislatures in the South. In the 1920s, Republicans proposed anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passed the house but was killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The legislation finally passed by a slim margin in 1939 despite the passionate opposition speech by Democrat Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson.
Two years after the passage of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Democrats expressed their opposition to the desegregation decision in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred members of Congress, all Democrats, signed the manifesto.
In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authored a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill was blocked by Senate Democrats.
In 1959, Republican President Eisenhower authored a Voting Rights Bill in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. Once again, passage of the bill was blocked by Senate Democrats.
In 1960, Democrat presidential candidate John F. Kennedy recognizing his need for the black vote and employed the talents of Senator Harris Wofford to pursue that aim. Among many initiatives, Wofford encouraged Kennedy to make a comforting phone call to Coretta Scott King when her husband was in jail. This had a profound effect on Martin Luther King Jr.'s father, who had previously been a Republican and supported Nixon. King Sr. threw his support to Kennedy and brought "a suitcase full of votes" with him.
In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the same law that was originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including Klansman Senator Robert Byrd employed a filibuster of the bill. Once overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans voted for passage than did Democrats.
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster was prevented and passage of this bill also enjoyed support from a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats. President Johnson supported the bill and Republican Barry Goldwater inexplicably opposed it. Since Goldwater used his own money twice to keep an Arizona chapter of the NAACP afloat, it cannot be argued that he opposed civil rights.
This occurred at a time when Democrats gained control of the media, Hollywood, academia, unions and public schools. This control gave Democrats the ability to spin Republican efforts like Nixon's Southern Strategy while Democrats like George Wallace stood in school doorways to prevent court-ordered integration.
This was also the period when Democrats turned American racism from a Democrat vs. Republican reality into a White vs. Black mythology, painting white and black Republicans as racists and Uncle Toms.
This is the political climate where men like Henry Gates and Barack Obama are regarded by men like Mr. Haley and Mr. Shelby as good, steady, sensible, pious fellows: Where such men are called intellectuals while Republicans and white policemen are assumed to be racists – especially when Bunifah throws a tantrum. Rather than holding Gates accountable for his stupid behavior or Obama for his prejudicial remarks, Americans are expected to avert their eyes and say nothing, like invited guests to the birthday party of an insolent child.
It’s one thing for Elizabeth to blame whitey for incarcerating the veterans of America’s disastrous Democrat-controlled welfare and public school experiments and another thing for Americans to buy it. Democrat-controlled cities like Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Orleans expose Elizabeth’s lie as self-evident. But as long as pious fellows like Bunifah are willing to blame whitey, America will continue to bear their insolence, mediocrity and tantrums.
This is the enlightened environment that Elizabeth Gates was born into, with all the privileges that come with being the daughter of an esteemed race-baiting Democrat Party revisionist. Sadly for Elizabeth and her father, there will be no teachable moments.
Friday, July 31, 2009
As the daughter of Harvard Professor Henry “Bunifah Latifah” Gates, Elizabeth’s vapid blog about the “Beer Summit” devolved from pageant queen oratory into the swamp of revisionist history. Her final comments not only corroborate her father’s uninspired performance as an educator and parent, but also identifies herself among America's next generation of race-baiters:
Bill and Hillary Clinton appear to have ruined Michelle Obama’s little victory garden when they fertilized the backyard with sewage sludge:
Sewage sludge tends to be laced with anything that people pour down the drain and often contains heavy metals. Not surprisingly, the National Park Service tested the dirt beneath Michelle's garden and found the plot has highly elevated levels of lead averaging 93 parts per million. That's below the 400 ppm that the Environmental Protection Agency says is a threat to human health. But I'd wager that Sasha, Malia and Barack won't be getting arugula or tomatoes from this garden any time soon.One wonders if Al Gore did their gardening…
Thursday, July 30, 2009
As I reported last year, it was not until James J. Murtagh MD and Kevin Kuritzky attacked Celia Farber and Peter Duesberg PhD that I heard about questions related to HIV, AIDS and the ugly side of the pharmaceutical industry. As the investigation continues into its second year, I find the revelations so disturbing that I would not believe them if I had not investigated them myself.
The fact that the pharmaceutical industry pays major universities, disgraced and unaccomplished MDs and PhDs and the media to misrepresent their predatory misconduct is telling. The fact that the NIH, CDC and the FDA watch the pharmaceutical industry as carefully as the SEC monitored Bernie Madoff is frightening.
Underreporting by the media is understandable. After all, what’s the chance of selling $250K in Viagra advertising if the newsroom pushes repeated stories about drugs like Benoxaprofen, Neurontin, SSRIs and AIDS drugs that kill unwary patients who seek treatment? One clue to Congress’ incompetence comes from pharmaceutical giant GSK, whose after-hours voicemail system asks PAC fundraisers to Press #3. As this goes on, African children are smoking AIDS drugs like crack, while Risperdal helps 13-year-old boys grow breasts.
To the pharmaceutical industry, side effects are nothing more than something to hide. If a “blockbuster drug” like Neurontin generates $7 billion, a $430 million fine and settlements worth $2 billion (with carefully-worded non-disclosure agreements) are, like their lobbyists, nothing more than the cost of doing business. The industry offers a place where ex-doctors and ex-politicians can sell their diplomas and influence to push dangerous drugs onto unsuspecting patients. The scene is so chaotic that Americans have no one but lawyers for protection – a revelation that is hard for tort-reform-minded people like me to admit.
I digress. After one year, dozens of libelous emails, this lawsuit and being dumped by his fellow cutthroats, Atlanta doctor James Murtagh MD has devolved from attack dog to something almost pathetic. After listening to my interview by investigative journalist Gary Null PhD, Murtagh now demands a retraction of my comments not unlike the pharmaceutical goons who pressured WBAI to cancel Dr. Null’s show.
Here’s Dr. Murtagh’s email to producer Richard Gale:
-----Original Message-----Mr. Gale asked for more specifics about Murtagh’s complaint and Dr. Murtagh replied:
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:48 AM
To: Richard Gale
Subject: Please issue retraction
Dear Mr. Gale,
Thank you for discussing with me. The program Mr. Null regarding Ms. Farber and Mr. Baker made false accusations against me. I would like to ask for a retraction.I have made no allegation of any kind regarding Ms. Farber. Her suit is meritless. Since neither she nor her lawyer have never contacted me about her suit, I have no way of knowing if it exists.
So far, the suit if it exists, appears to be purely a media event. I am not a native of New York, and would not be subject to that jurisdiction.
Why would this suit be discussed in the media without even telling the defendant if the suit exists? I note with interest that you defined defamation accurately on your program. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support any of Mr. Baker's statements, it appears you have publicized his defamations.My understanding is that a fair journalist elicits both sides of a story before reporting on one side. Please check your facts. Your program has done me harm.
Thank you in advance for your careful consideration and prompt resolution of this matter.
Dr. James Murtagh
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:email@example.com]After discussing the matter with Dr. Null, Mr. Gale replied:
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:33 PM
To: Richard Gale
Subject: RE: Please issue retraction
Dear Mr. Gale,
The two shows in question feature Clark Baker. All comments made about me were false.
Clark and Gary made extensive false statements about me on at least two programs. I would appreciate a retraction of any and all statements mentioning me. As far as I know, there is no active defamation suit against me by Celia Farber. Her lawyer has never called me or my lawyer. Further, New York has no jurisdiction over me, so it is impossible that a valid case could have been filed.
Finally, I have never met Celia Farber, I have never made any allegations regarding Ms. Farber. My sole comment in a private email was that Kuritzky should be kind to her. Clark Baker altered that email.
My position is the Gary should not be discussing a case on the radio that probably does not exist, of which I have not been notified, and is based on false information. Gary falsely claims I defamed Celia Farber, which I did not do. Gary's statement is de
Gary was right: the US legal system does not allow people to lie to harm reputations Gary went into an extensive explanation of what is defamation. His statements about me fit his own definition.
Apparently, Farber's purported case is just an excuse for a media show. I don't know the woman, and I don't know why she would mention me at all. I will be glad to accept you apology, and your retraction.
From: Richard GaleDr. Murtagh repeated his earlier complaint as if Mr. Gale never received the first:
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:22 PM
To: 'Jim Murtagh'
Subject: Response: Please issue retraction
We have reviewed your grievances and find no merit to retract any content from the interviews aired with Clarke Baker on the June 30 and July 6 radio broadcasts.
It is clear to us in light of the New York Post article announcing the suit filed by Celia Farber against yourself and your cohorts that this is now a legal matter that you are surely aware of. In fact, in your email to me – which I am keeping on file – you tripped yourself in saying the suit is “meritless”. Ergo, there is no reason for us to believe your claim that the suit is unbeknownst to you.
Given Clarke Baker’s credentials and ethical convictions as a professional investigator with high moral standards towards uncovering the truths that challenge us all, there is no reason for us to question his integrity. In our estimation, Clarke’s work is an act of love and concern for the welfare of our fellow citizens rather than for monetary rewards coming from the pharmaceutical hegemony and the organizations they support and fund.
We have received the highly inflammatory and insulting emails you have sent concerning Celia Farber. They are beneath contempt. Gary will make no attack or negative comment about you. However, if you truly believe that any of the 2,700 plus scientists, researchers, physicians and journalists who are now challenging the HIV=AIDS=Death hypothesis are wrong, then you are welcome to be on our program to debate them.
We believe it is in your best interest to call Ms. Farber’s lawyers and muster up the courage to settle the matter directly with them rather than believing you can deny the lawsuit’s reality. In fact, your actions prove to us the fallibility of your stance on the AIDS issue, and those like yourself who try to ignore the serious scientific questions and necessary dialogue concerning the AIDS=HIV paradigm.
I would appreciate you never contacting us with similar requests in the future. In our estimation, the case is closed, now a legal matter, per any grievance you may hold against Dr. Null’s radio broadcasts.
-----Original Message-----Shortly after that, Mr. Gale replied that he would welcome the name and contact information of Murtagh’s lawyer. Murtagh replied in character:
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:32 PM
To: Richard Gale
Subject: Re: Response: Please issue retraction
Any purported lawsuit by Ms. Farber would be meritless because I have never met her and never made any allegations against her. I have not sent the emails you purport, as you would know if you had investigated any aspect of your story. The New York Post is also on notice for its defamation. You have reported based on the New York Posts' hearsay. Your report is double hearsay.
Further I engaged in none of the conduct alleged on your program. I emphatically did not misuse a government server. I have never been funded by any pharmaceutical group, and you know this.
Kindly rethink your position. As a fair-minded journalist, I am sure you will want to retract your story that has no foundation. You would have found all of these things out if you had simply called me to ask if there was any basis. A simple phone call would have saved us all this trouble. Other fair minded journalists would find it standard practice to call both sides of a story, not to rely on one biased source.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention and correction of this matter.
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:14 PM
To: Richard Gale
Response: Please issue retraction
Thank you, I will pass this on to my lawyer.
In the meantime, I'm pleased to let you know that other media outlets are issuing retractions. I'm not sure that you and Mr. Hull want to be lone holdouts against the truth.
-----Original Message-----Anyone who knows where Dr. Murtagh or co-respondent Kevin David Kuritzky are asked to contact me. Anyone who provides information that leads to Murtagh and Kuritzky being served may be eligible for a reward.
From: Jim Murtagh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:09 PM
To: Richard Gale
Subject: RE: Response: Please issue retraction
I await the name and contact number of your attorney. By the way, we don't need to stand behind attorneys. The truth is clear, and we need not expend money on attorneys. There is no valid suit by Farber. Just ask her attorneys. They know they have no jurisdiction, they have passed the statute of limitations, I did no wrong, I never met Farber.
This is purely a media event, and abuse of court process. Why should either of us expend money on attorneys? The answer is as plain as your nose on your face. My attorneys have better things to do, as you will soon see. I believe parties should resolve things without courts, whenever possible.
But I am very able to defend myself, my family, and my reputation in any forum. Good luck learning basic journalistic principles. I am going to use my own national organizations to investigate your sleezy, illegal false journalism.
When I was born in 1957, my mother was technically an “undocumented alien.” Nevertheless, I received this birth certificate.
When I joined the Marine Corps and LAPD, I was forced to show my certificate – even though “everyone accepted” that I was a US citizen. When Alan was born in 1963 at Hawaii’s Tripler General Hospital, his birth certificate looked much different from the certificate Obama allegedly received in 1961.
If a military recruit is required to produce his birth certificate for recruiters, why is his Commander-in-Chief not required to produce a verifiable birth certificate for those he is charged to lead?
It’s hard to tell say whether (like Henry Gates) Obama wants to provoke whitey, but his refusal to produce a birth certificate like Alan’s is as irresponsible as Gates’ channeling of Bunita Latifa Halifa Sharifa Jackson.
Obama may want to avoid another embarrassing correction of his Mittyesque life story but, if Obama doesn’t have verifiable proof of US birth, the US Constitution allows Congress to decide whether we want to retain a foreign-born American who lied to get into the US Senate and the White House.
If Obama has verifiable proof of US birth, his refusal to produce it suggests something akin to race-baiting. In this way, charges of racism or the firing of Lou Dobbs would be no different than punishing a black man who confronts a Klansman on his porch.
As America’s First Citizen, Barack Obama should start behaving like one.
(More here, here, and here)
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Forbes reports that Sweden's (itself walking billboard for a social welfare state) Finance Minister Anders Borg believes that the 1970s and 1980s were lost decades for Sweden:
Left-leaning politicians pushed government spending, excluding investment outlays, from 22% of gross domestic product in 1970 to 30% in 1980. Real growth fell from an average of 4.4% annually in the 1960s to 2.4% in the 1970s and remained low for the next two decades.
"Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions," say Borg.
These days President Obama is overseeing the largest increase in the U.S. government's share of the economy since it was conducting a world war almost seven decades ago. Economic stimulus, bailouts and expanded health care will all have to be paid for someday with either taxes or inflation. Borg is pushing Sweden in the opposite direction, encouraging the legislature to cut taxes, cap spending and privatize parts of health care.
"If you're working yourselves upwards in taxes and deficits, we're working ourselves downwards," says Borg.
If you think Borg has the right idea, put your money on it. Sell some U.S. stocks and buy some Swedish ones… These are the top holdings of the MSCI Sweden ETF:
In 2004, Pfizer settled an illegal Neurontin marketing case with the U.S. Justice Department for $430 million. The original whistleblower complaint was filed by David Franklin, a microbiologist who had worked for Warner-Lambert (the original manufacturer of Neurontin) under the False Claims Act. The settlement did not address harm to patients prescribed Neurontin.Although I was once a proponent of tort reform, the pharmaceutical industry's reckless disregard for human life calls for something more than lawsuit caps. Check out what Risperdal did to this 13-year-old boy:
There are currently 1,200 lawsuits awaiting trial that were filed by individuals who claim to have been harmed by Neurontin, a drug approved as an adjunctive treatment for epilepsy which was widely prescribed for unapproved, off-label uses. The first case to go to trial, Bulger v Pfizer, involves the suicide of Susan Bulger. The case is being tried in Federal District Court in Massachusetts.
Mr. Franklin testified:
"I was trained from day one to market the drug illegally... My job was to promote Neurontin and motivate doctors to experiment on patients. After being hired as a medical liaison, I was selling drugs.
The uses promoted were from the "snake-oil list" of 13 medical conditions."
Franklin testified that Warner-Lambert officials used a variety of tactics to persuade doctors to prescribe Neurontin for unapproved uses.
"They provided the company's sales force with a list of ailments that would benefit from Neurontin use, including restless leg syndrome, migraine headaches and withdrawal symptoms from drug and alcohol abuse." He noted that the FDA hadn't approved the drug for any of those illnesses at the time.
Mark Lanier, the lawyer representing the Bulger family, told jurors that Warner-Lambert executives began the off-label marketing campaign to transform Neurontin into a "blockbuster" medicine generating $1 billion in annual sales. The company estimated that selling it solely as an epilepsy drug would generate only about $50 million in sales.
"The company made a conscious decision to do something illegal -- marketing this drug off-label."
Indeed, illegal, off-label marketing has become "the norm and practice" of the pharmaceutical industry: Clinically insignificant, toxic drugs become blockbuster sellers.
That's because industry spends the most money aggressively marketing the worst drugs--drugs of dubious benefit which pose life-threatening risks.
Pfizer: Neurontin, Bextra, Zoloft, Chantix, Geodon
GlaxoSmithKline: Paxil, Avandia
Lilly: Oraflex, Prozac, Cymbalta, Zyprexa
Janssen (J&J): Prepulsid, Risperdal
Wyeth: Prempro, Redux (Fen-Phen)
Monday, July 27, 2009
Those who follow my pharmaceutical investigation should sign up for the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) newsletter. It’s loaded with reports on the mainstream media’s most affluent advertisers.
As much as the left whines about the evils of “Big Oil” and “corporate greed,” they seem oblivious to the makers of their daily dose of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and the guy who bribed officials to authorize its distribution, even though Eli Lilly always knew that SSRI's do nothing more than cause depression and suicidal ideation. No wonder those people are so unhappy.
AHRP reports that a U.S. federal judge has issued an order to unseal thousands of Wyeth Pharmaceutical documents that provide details about the company's "mammoth" ghostwriting campaign. The order affects 8,000 lawsuits:
Wyeth flooded medical journals with some 40 favorable ghostwritten articles penned by prominent physicians who sold their name for cash, in an all-out effort to offset the scientific evidence linking its female hormone replacement drug, Prempro, to breast cancer.AHRP also reports that the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) is, like AIDSTruth, nothing more than a pharmaceutical front group – this one hosted by Harvard University which just happens to receive millions of dollars in pharmaceutical marketing funding every year. As easy as it is to buy universities like Harvard and Cornell, it’s hard to imagine that a Saudi-funded group like al Qaeda won’t buy a chunk of it.
According to (this) New York Times report, Sen. Charles Grassley obtained these documents as part of a congressional investigation into drug industry influence on doctors.
Speaking of Harvard University, Barack Obama and Henry Gates now seek to turn Gates’ racial tantrum and Obama’s ignorant remarks into a teachable moment. What could two beneficiaries of affirmative action possibly teach a white man who excelled despite the anti-white bigotry he faced as a white male police applicant competing against racial quotas? Harvard grads know that you can’t tell a Harvard man anything, so unless those Harvard quota recipients can sit still for a lecture from Sergeant Crowley for a few hours, they will likely miss their teachable moment.
Speaking of our Beloved Leader, attorney Clarice Feldman lists evidence that suggests that Obama’s intellect may only be one more affirmative action media myth. As a Hollywood resident, I’ve found that many of my liberal neighbors often assume that well-behaved black men are intellectually superior to ordinary men of a lighter complexion. It's not their fault - most are Ivy League grads, union members and entertainment people so they have an excuse.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Lou Dobbs is now being attacked for asking the same question: Where’s the birth certificate?
WND reports that J. Richard Cohen, chief of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center wrote a letter to CNN suggesting, "Respectable news organizations should not employ reporters willing to peddle racist conspiracy theories and false propaganda. It's time for CNN to remove Mr. Dobbs from the airwaves."
Mr. Cohen sounds like Harvard Professor Henry Gates, who this week accused Cambridge Police of racism. Like Officer Crowley, Mr. Dobbs is only doing his job. Alleging racism only suggests that something is amiss in the Obama excuses.
As I explained here, it’s hard to imagine Obama’s reluctance to prove his birth. I had to present my birth certificate when I joined the Marine Corps and LAPD so why shouldn’t Obama be forced to prove his place of birth to serve as our Commander in Chief?
The report said Klein wrote that CNN researchers found Hawaiian records were discarded in 2001 when the state's records system went electronic. Therefore, the report said, Obama's original long-form birth certificate no longer exists, and a computer-generated abbreviated version that has been promoted on theThat still doesn’t explain why this Hawaiian certificate is so much different from Obama’s. Questions about Obama’s forged birth notice raise additional questions, as do his admitted travels to Indonesia and Pakistan without a US Passport.
Internet is the official record.
Like me, my children had dual citizenship, but when we traveled outside of the US as children we all had US Passports. Applications for those passports would corroborate birth information and might also explain how he could afford travel to those countries and why.
Why is it easier for Obama to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to block the release of his birth records what posting it is as easy as posting my own. These aren’t racist questions – these are American questions.
What is Obama afraid of? Where’s the birth certificate?
When I worked as an LAPD officer twenty years ago, I received a routine “domestic dispute” call to a San Fernando Valley apartment.
When I arrived, I was met at the door by a friendly woman who identified herself as the renter. She explained that she and her estranged husband shared a dental practice and were going through a “messy divorce.” She insisted that there was “no problem” at her apartment and that her husband had probably made a false report.
Despite her reassurances, my partner and I stepped into her apartment and found her restrained husband and father-in-law, along with two serious-looking tattooed men who I suspected had not visited dentists in many years. We also found guns, knives, duct tape, detailed instructions and a briefcase containing $20,000 cash.
As it turned out, the wife’s two thugs had kidnapped the father-in-law from his home to her apartment where they forced him at gunpoint to lure her husband to the apartment. Had I accepted the words of the respected and attractive university-trained doctor, we would not have saved the lives of the two men who would have otherwise been murdered. The woman later confessed to wanting her husband dead to control their dental practice.
As a “community organizer” I don’t expect Barack Obama to understand how real police officers conduct investigations. As a lawyer, I expect Obama to assume that racially-belligerent anti-white bigots have the right to interfere with police officers who are called to investigate possible felonies at private residences.
Unfortunately for America, Barack Obama is a sitting US President. Not only did he opine that the officers had acted stupidly during the arrest of Harvard University Professor Henry Gates (police report) , but President Obama made things worse by saying that he didn't think the arrest was necessary. In this respect, Obama was half right – he didn’t think.
Interfering with police during an investigation is a serious offense. Hundreds of people are unnecessarily injured or killed each year when they innocently or not-so-innocently interfere with investigating officers. Gang members and career criminals practice the art of interfering. Interfering is so dangerous that an argument with a flight attendant or a joke about hijacking or bombs can get you a minimum five year sentence in a federal prison.
The problem is not that Obama acted stupidly but that Obama’s complexion is still too intimidating for the media to challenge his willingness to characterize professional law enforcement as something more complicated than a “racial incident.” In this way, Obama only perpetuates the kind of stereotypes that he ostensibly wants to end. Until the US media starts treating Barack Obama as something more than a well-mannered articulate black man, this presidential mediocrity will only continue.
Unfortunately for Democrats, President Obama has another 42 months to prove that Presidents Reagan and Bush may not be the stupidest presidents in US history after all.
Friday, July 24, 2009
(More here)Lots of people are scared and misinformed by their politicians and the media or else they would understand the whitewash that is going on here and reject socialist "solutions" to a problem best solved for their families by freedom…
Actually the media is often just plain intellectually lazy, repeating tired leftist dogmas and looking down on anyone who believes in freedom as just a red state moron (trust me, they think that). How else do you explain free infomercials for Obama's socialized medicine without rebuttal?
Some politicians may indeed just be idealistic dupes who actually want to help people but don't realize they will harm them. I have sympathy for these people but they still should not win the day. Some just want to feel important. But let's leave Ms. Pelosi out of this for now. Let's talk about the smart ones who understand these issues. I do not think true confusion among the political and intellectual class is most of their problem. I do not think they believe for a second that socialized medicine will make people better off. How could they?
Lots of politicians understand that the simple free system leaves them out in the cold. No power for them. No committees to sit on to decide people's lives. No lies to tell their constituents how they (the government) brought them the health care they so desperately need. No fat checks from lobbyists as the crony capitalists pay dearly to make the only profits possible under this system, those bestowed by the government.
Libertarians are often accused wrongly of loving "big business," but we don't, particularly when corporate executives predictably turn themselves into crony capitalists who try to succeed by wheedling from the government. On the other hand the socialists love cronies of all sorts, ones who command large enterprises all the better. Liberals are far closer than libertarians to building and countenancing the all-powerful corporate state they claim to fear.
Odd I know!
That an array of crony capitalists are lining up from Wal-Mart to hospitals to medical insurers (bringing back Harry and Louise - this time for socialism) hoping to cut the best deals for themselves before the iron curtain falls is sad. That they are being lauded by the administration as a sign its health care position is right is simply propaganda. Yep, when someone agrees to pay Al Capone protection, it's a clear sign Al Capone was right to begin with....
We further see this predicted abuse of power as the health care proposals are already filled with freebies to the President's friends - including exempting unions from onerous features. Gee, the same unions in whose favor he has re-written the bankruptcy rules and wants to exempt from the most American of ideas, the secret ballot. It's good to be a friend of "the most ethical administration ever."
For another example how this is about government power and the suppression of private liberty, and not about helping people, look no further than the fact that their proposed massive tax increase on the "rich" (which by leftist definition are never paying their "fair share" if they have enough left over to remain rich) is on pre-deduction income.
That means if you give all your money to charity you still owe Caesar his 5+ percent on money you did not keep and do not have, but gave away to a good cause. This might raise some revenue, but it is largely about the destruction of private charity. Barack and Harry and Charlie and Nancy and the other gang of four (yes our gang of four is much bigger than four) are about the people having to crawl on their knees to government (them) instead of anyone else, including private charity, not about helping people.
BTW, Congressman Rangel, the House's chief tax writer and current tax cheat investigatee, said lawmakers targeted high earners because it "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people." So does, in the short-run, imprisoning the rich and harvesting their organs for better health care for everyone else. Charlie, any thoughts on where you stop? When is enough enough?
The rush to pass a huge expansion of government now, and limit debate and discussion, is indicative of a group that knows it is wrong, and if people have time to think they will refuse to go along, but is attempting an exercise of naked power, to impose dictatorship before the people wake up.
Paraphrasing Mark Twain, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. They are counting on this, and they don't want to give the truth time to be shod.
California surgeon Linda Halderman reports that Congress’ version of ObamaCare will feed the federal deficit and “cause small businesses to hemorrhage and carve a pound of flesh from patients forced to navigate the new bureaucracy it creates.”
H.R. 3200 rewards middlemen paid to deny medical care recommended by a patient's physician. These political appointees, charged with "Comparative Effectiveness" determinations, would make treatment recommendations far from the exam room without ever having examined the patient whose treatment is denied…
Patient choice is another casualty of H.R. 3200. The effect of the bill's new bureaucracy, a public (government-controlled) health plan, is described by The Lewin Group. Over 88 million workers would be shifted to the public plan from private coverage. Yearly premiums for individuals with private coverage would increase as the result of cost shifting from the government-sanctioned plan…
To the needs of older Americans, the bill mandates an "Advanced Care Planning Consultation" in which senior citizens must meet at least every five years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss "dying with dignity." (more here)
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Thomas Sowell writes:
The confusion of "health care" with medical care is the crucial confusion. Years ago, a study showed that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. Are doctors who treat Mormons so much better than the doctors who treat the rest of us? Or do Mormons avoid doing a lot of things that shorten people's lives?
The point is that health care is largely in your hands. Medical care is in the hands of doctors. Things that depend on what doctors do - cancer survival rates, for example-- are already better here than in countries with government-run medical systems...
Former Green Beret Michael Yon reports in Breitbart that the Marines haven’t changed much (except for the better) since I served as a marine grunt in Echo 2/9 (top center):
The U.S. Marines are flooding in, and you might think that every Marine helicopter in our arsenal is here. I’ll not give numbers and types other than to say the line of aircraft is long and formidable.
The U.S. Marines are a spectacle for the U.S. Army and also the British Army. The Marines will come in and live like pure animals, and build a base around themselves, whereas the British and American Armies will tend to build at least part of the base
before coming in. One Marine commander told me that during the early part of this war, his men didn’t even shower for three months. We talked for a couple of hours and he was proud that his Marines didn’t need a shower for three months, and that his Marines killed a lot of Taliban and managed to lose only one good man. That’s the Marines. They’ll show up in force with no warning, and their reputation with U.S. Army and Brits who have fought alongside them is stellar. A NPR photographer who just spent more than three weeks with the Marines could not praise them enough, saying he’d been with them in Iraq, too, and that when Marines take casualties, their reaction is to continue to attack. They try to stay in contact until they finish the enemy, no matter how long it takes. Truly they are animals when it comes to the fight. Other than that, great guys.
Tonight at dinner, a young Marine Lance Corporal sat in front of me at the crowded dining facility.
“Good evening, Sir,” he said. I asked, “Are you living like animals out there?”
“Livin’ the dream, Sir!”
They are fantastic.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thirty years ago (1979), 6o Minutes produced this report about the hysteria, propaganda, lies and injuries sustained from the alleged 1976 swine flue epidemic. The vaccine for that international non-event generated millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry - just as today's tale will.
Roberto Giraldo MD has also written about the swine flu hysteria:
Health authorities and journalists are using the words “exposed,” “infected,” and “ill” as if they all had the same meaning. However, exposure to an infectious agent only means that the person has been in contact with it.Those who read pharmaceutical insider John Virapen’s book will know how the industry routinely bribes government officials into doing what it wants.
Infection means that the infectious agents are growing in the exposed person and that very probably the immunological responses will neutralize it. On the other hand, a person with an infectious disease, in this case with the Swine Flu, would only be those very few who are debilitated, in whom their immunological systems did not control the infection, and who develop the clinical symptoms and signs of the Swine Flu. In any epidemic of infectious disease, those who actually get sick are the small minority, only the very few!
Even if it were real, the supposed epidemic of Swine Flu, as declared by the authorities, would mean that many individuals, exposed to the pig virus, would be infected, but only a few of them would get sick with Swine Flu, and, among that small group, only the most debilitated ones — the immunosuppressed — would die.
Hysteria related to swine flu, SARS and AIDS generates billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry while injuring and killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world.
Virapen's book is a MUST-READ!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Another telling quote from John Virapen's book:
A blockbuster is a pill for which the illness, whether it be healed or the symptoms merely alleviated, is completely secondary. For a blockbuster, both of these aspects belong together. Then although it is true that there are many illnesses… illness is the exception and not the rule. Consequently, sick people represent a relatively small market.It is much easier to cure a sick man than a well man.
Imagine if you could talk those who aren’t ill into taking pills. Then you would reach a new dimension of marketing. That is the new quality of a blockbuster…
Shortly after I posted this report and videos about Eli Lilly whistleblower Dr. John Virapen, I purchased his E-book. One of the first things he explains is why major publishers won't publish it:
A year ago, I had a telephone conversation with the editor of a famous German scientific publisher. This editor was very interested in my story, thus, interested in this book. “The lid must be lifted”; he said fervently, “the public must finally be informed about what is going on.” He was all for it.This is no different among the publishers of the leading gay publications and magazines like Poz – asking questions related to HIV, AIDS, testing and drugs would dry up pharmaceutical advertizing and financial support faster than love-struck Republican senators. As concerned as they might be about the false positives of an unreliable AIDS test or the millions of people around the world who are told to accept the deadly or addictive properties of AIDS drugs, these publishers must also be practical.
I said: “Good, then publish the book.”
He laughed heartily and said that it was impossible for them because publishers usually thrive from the ads of the pharmaceutical industry. This publisher publishes standard medical reference works. However, he urgently requested a copy of this book to be sent to his private address, should it ever be published. He didn’t want to miss the satisfaction of being among the first to read it.
Dr. Virapen explains how individuals like Jeanne Bergman and other truthers operate:
… I had handed out small incentives to the physicians in the form of leather folders, fountain pens and pre-typed prescription pads, I now had completely different means at my disposal. I no longer needed to see to it that the rural physicians prescribed our products. At the next level, it was all about getting scientific physicians to write positive reports, in medical journals, for example.If you want to understand how the makers of HIV testing and drugs appoint corrupt goons to market their unreliable tests or their deadly and highly addictive drugs, you need to read the memoirs of this pharmaceutical marketing chief.
("Hocus-pocus physician") researchers were so-called opinion maker/leaders whom we had carefully selected and gotten competently on our side. Not by convincing them of the superior quality of our products. No, we’d paid them for it.
One of these opinion maker/leaders, for example, a specialist in pain therapy who worked for the health board in Sweden, got a set wage from us for supposedly advising us, looking through our brochures and training reps. His niche, an institution, had already been set up years ago, when I became the boss in Sweden.
But I never saw him, he had no office and his name was never in the minutes of the meetings. He was only activated if there was bad press about us and our products.
Unexpected side effects, impure substances, ailing patients, that was bad press. He promptly wrote positive articles about us in medical journals – the medical fraternity was pacified and could continue to receive our reps unreservedly, as they had always done. He did just that for Distalgesic® (active ingredient: dextropoxyphene), a pain killer, an opioid that was used massively, at that time.
There were reports in the media about suicide in connection with the drug. That was a nuisance for me, as general manager. It was time to activate my specialist for pain therapy. In one of the weekly medical journals he wrote something that appeared to help - “It’s not that bad,” etc. The daily press copied the article from the medical press and the world was on course again. Sure enough, the commotion died down. I was pleased that daily business could continue.
But the payment for this assignment was particularly strenuous. Eli Lilly sent me to Seattle to a scientific conference about combating pain, to see to this. I flew there with an envelope in my jacket pocket. During the conference recess, I went to the bar in the lobby of this exquisite hotel. I was expecting my specialist for pain therapy who was to come and meet me at the bar. He arrived, and I greeted him. I told him that I had an envelope for him. He blushed a little, but maybe it was just because it was warm now at the crowded bar, I laughed, he laughed and then generously asked me if I wanted something to drink. I agreed and while we were waiting for our drinks, I passed him the envelope with the check.
“That’s for you”, I said.
“Thanks”, he replied calmly, as if I had passed him a small bowl of peanuts. But we weren’t dealing with just “peanuts” here.
Why, of all things, did I have to go to Seattle to give him this envelope? Because of the tax. Of course this money was accounted for at Eli Lilly. I assume under “research funds”. In some way or the other, this was correct. After all, the man was a scientist, and, in the United States, resources for my pain therapy specialist helped us pay less tax.
The companies I worked for are not isolated cases. I was not an isolated case. The recipients of generous donations were not isolated cases. The word bribery suggests an exceptional circumstance, yet the practice, I described above, is part of daily routine in the pharmaceutical industry. Completely normal marketing? As long as it doesn’t concern drugs and the health and the lives of human beings.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
In this video, former pharmaceutical rep Gwen Olsen discusses how the drug industry creates and markets drugs that create the same symptoms used by clinicians to diagnose the illnesses the drugs are ostensibly designed to prevent:
It appears that Sustiva is not the only drug that produces symptoms it is supposed to suppress.I sold psychiatric drugs in the mental institutions, the MHMR clinics, psychiatric emergency rooms of hospitals... While I was selling psychiatric drugs I really got an education about the fact that many of the manifestations that I had seen in terms of behavioral things such as pill rolling and the shuffling gait and the jaw-lip smacking that you would often see patients in mental institutions exhibiting, that these were not manifestations of their psychiatric illnesses – these were actually manifestations of their psychiatric drugs.
And then I started to realize that there was something called the revolving door syndrome – this is what I was educated on by McNeal Pharmaceutical actually when I sold Haldol, that there is something called the revolving door syndrome... What that means is that patients who are hospitalized continue to come back repeatedly and every time they come back they have lost more function than the previous time that they were admitted.
So I started to put one and one together and started to look at the side effects that people were exhibiting from these drugs and realized that these were actually brain-damaging therapeudics and that we weren’t talking about this aspect of the drug with the doctor – we weren’t talking about this aspect of these drugs with the general population.
Who was discussing these things were the doctors in the mortality and morbidity conferences. When I was supposed to be the fly on the wall standing in there with the food that I was delivering for the doctors I was also listening to the cases that they were talking about and I started to realize that these were seriously brain-damaging therapeudics that doctors would comment about it. The doctors… and their staffs were also often very concerned about patients who exhibited reactions to these drugs because they could in fact become violent and pose a threat to both the other patients and the staff.
And so knowing that these things were not being disclosed to people in the general public, I started to wonder what the motivation was behind keeping this information from people. Why would they not let people know the full disclosure about the drugs? Because I knew that if someone was actually crazy and they got relief from a drug it only made common sense that they would want to take the drug and that they would want to feel normal again and that they would be stabilized... The reason people didn’t want to take their drugs was because they were in fact not getting relief they were getting more severe symptoms and having more exacerbation of mental illness when they were on the drugs than when they were off the drugs.
After working more than 30 years in the international pharmaceutical industry, John Virapen PhD has come clean about his employers and long career.
Beginning in Sweden as the Managing Director for Eli Lilly Sweden AB, he rose to executive level positions for Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Virapen now lives in Germany.
Although blogger Contra Pfizer reported this more than a year ago, there appears to be a significant blackout on information regarding Virapen's revelations.
After his fictional novel (written in German) about pharmaceutical corruption was released last year, he was urged to tell the true story and has written of the criminal activities he was involved in during his active years.
Although his motive appears to be related to this failed discrimination lawsuit, his damning disclosures, if true, corroborate ongoing conduct of companies that promote SSRIs and HIV drugs. This short video excerpt is a good place to start. The man standing next to him in this heavily-edited video is a translator.
Part II, Part III, Part IV. Although the Q & A is rabidly anti-Republican and anti-George Bush, viewers should understand that both political parties are equally involved.
More information is posted here.
Friday, July 17, 2009
When Galileo Galilei challenged 300 years of astronomical consensus in 1624, there was no shortage of “professional astronomers” who dismissed the mathematical hack as a purveyor of Copernican nonsense – the tired theory that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Refuted by generations of the Pope’s most learned astronomers, Galileo was an astronomical denialist whose heresy threatened the foundation of Roman Catholicism. Because their confused explanation was no match for Galileo’s elegant proof, Pope Urban forced Galileo to recant or die. He recanted.
As much as Western Civilization celebrates its alleged enlightenment, little has changed since Galileo’s passing. Today, Pope Urban’s church has been replaced by Tony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as America's top universities that accept millions of dollars in annual NIH funding to perpetuate the mythology. If any PhD candidates or grad students disagree, ask your university professors for proof that HIV exists, attacks cells and causes AIDS.
Once the lifeblood of US medical funding, infectious disease was no longer a credible threat when Congress threatened to withdraw research funding in 1981. As scientists like Robert Gallo faced the prospect of a new career in truck driving, a tiny group of promiscuous drug-addicted, nitrite-huffing gay men succumbed to their dangerous lifestyle. Because holding diseased gay men accountable for their own diseases and death was politically untenable, the NIH found it easier to threaten the world with a benign retrovirus (that still awaits proof) than blame a few gay men for their suicidal behavior.
After nearly a trillion dollars in funding and profits, the NIH and pharmaceutical industry now promotes HIV mythology to protect US mining interests in Africa. After inhaling clouds of asbestos and silica for ~$100/mo, Africa’s mostly illiterate migrant laborers are sent home without pay if they complain of sickness. When they register liability claims, most are dismissed when the miners, whose lungs are filled with asbestosis, silicosis, pneumoconiosis and TB, are denied because they have insufficient proof of having worked for mining companies that routinely misplace personnel records.
Of asbestos mine conditions, Laurie Flynn reported (1992):
One day I descended on an unscheduled mine in the eastern Transvaal. It was Penge. In the morning as we came down the valley there was a mist over the small mine town, a little morning mist. I didn’t know until lunchtime that it was asbestos dust, but that is what it was. It was trapped in the area and had nowhere to go because of the lack of movement in the air currents at that time of the day. It was like that most days and it meant that there was asbestos dust absolutely everywhere in the mornings. For example we were eating some toast one morning and I remarked to one of my colleagues, “Goodness me, this is gritty marmalade”. And then the penny dropped – it was asbestos dust we had been chewing.Flynn described the work of one 12-year-old child:
It was his job to get inside the bag and trample down the fluffy asbestos. He was cheaper than machinery or safe sacks. He was covered from top to toe in asbestos dust so I grabbed him and took him off to the X-ray machine. The X-ray showed he was already suffering from asbestosis. I was told that Cape employed a lot more children and I gave instructions to my technician that he was to round up all the children in the village with the little Cape Asbestos copper identification bands riveted round their wrist – identification tags, just like slaves, so they couldn’t run off. A number of the other children had asbestosis too. The conditions were unbelievable.Barry Castleman (1996) reported several case studies that included:
One woman, diagnosed with asbestosis in the second degree, was interviewed in the tuberculosis ward of H.C. Boshoff Hospital on 26 January 2000. She described this as “the tenth year of my illness”. Her last work had been on a tea farm which she had left when she was physically unable to continue working. Although only diagnosed in 1996 she had been ill with respiratory disease since 1990. She had been admitted to the hospital in 1996, twice in 1998 and twice in 1999. Admittance in December 1999 recorded her weight as 32 kilograms. She was re-admitted on 23 January 2000 weighing 30 kilograms.Without HIV mythology, potential mine industry liability could be measured by the tens of billions of dollars and would surely threaten the closure and bankruptcy of 1600+ mining companies that now operate in Africa. This is why mining company “AIDS clinicians” diagnose the illnesses as “irresponsible sex” (HIV) and not lung disease. This is why the world’s top researchers of mine-related lung diseases in Cape Town and Johannesburg have been replaced by highly paid “AIDS researchers” and advocates like TAC, TAG, and AIDSTruth. This explains why the NIH pays corruptable mediocre academics like Seth Kalichman to attack skeptics as denialists.
A doctor’s report noted ‘extensive pleural disease due to asbestos exposure’, and a danger of ‘cardiac failure secondary to lung disease’. (H.C. Boshoff Hospital records) She turned 49 on the 15 February 2000, and died at her home in Diphale village in Driekop exactly two months later, on 15 April 2000.
Her work comprised the off-loading of asbestos bags at Marico Minerals Station, a goods shed extension of Penge where asbestos was stored for transport by train. She had also lived at Penge mine as a girl, and described playing on the dumps and swimming in the river, adding that they ‘were only girls and didn’t know the dumps were dangerous. The adults didn’t know the dumps were dangerous’. Her mother, grandmother and grandfather all worked at Penge. She commented, ‘I think my mother, my grandmother and my grandfather died because of asbestos. They were working there for a long time and they had the same sickness’.
As a career criminal investigator, I’ve known more than a few Seth Kalichmans. Like security guard Nick Kontaratos, Kalichman’s sloppy investigative libel betrays his ostensible credentials – the only difference being that Kalichman uses his PhD to suggest credibility. Real investigators don’t ignore both sides of the investigation, nor are they funded by one side to arrive at a specific conclusion. Cops, prosecutors and courts easily identify such men as junk scientists.
This week, Bryan Birtles of the pro-Gay pro-AIDS Vue Weekly parroted the pro-pharmaceutical theme of Kalichman’s “anti-denialist” book. Unsurprisingly, Vue has sponsored events as early as 2001 with Merck, Gulf, Dupont Pharma, Agouron Pharmaceutical, Glaxo Wellcome-Biochem, Hoffman La Roche, and Husky Oil. Big surprise.
Birtles betrays the story by pitting two groups against each other: the first being “two socially marginalized groups of intravenous drug users and homosexual men” (the good guys) against “a small group of people who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS…” (the evil guys).
Like Kalichman and Pope Urban’s astronomers, Birtle attacks as “non-believing” heretics who are doing nothing more than seeking proof that 1) HIV exists, 2) attacks cells and 3) causes AIDS.
It was this power and influence over life-and-death policy decisions that attracted Seth Kalichman to the topic of AIDS denialism. A professor of psychology at the University of Connecticut and a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded AIDS researcher into the behavioural factors of AIDS, Kalichman has recently written a book about the denialist movement, entitled Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, which outlines the history of denialism as well as its consequences. Chief among these consequences is the scores of deaths in South Africa, he says, but the effect of misinformation available to anyone with an Internet connection can be felt much closer to home.Birtles and Kalichman completely ignore the findings of the Leon Commission Report (1995), which describes African mining industry history since ~1900 and the hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of deaths of Africa’s poorest and most vulnerable inhabitants to Africa's notoriously dangerous mining industry - a mining industry that pays laborers ~$100/mo to sack Africa's mineral wealth and vital US operations that withdraw strategic metals like platinum, gold, and uranium. All of these metals (not to mention diamonds) subject unprotected miners to notoriously deadly lung diseases.
"Once you start looking at what was happening in South Africa you see then also what's been happening in Canada, in Australia, in the UK, in the US, in Mexico, really on every continent," he says. "It's the promotion of false information that is confusing people that there is actually a debate about AIDS, that is telling people that they don't have to worry about their HIV test results because just as many scientists say HIV doesn't exist. It's that promotion of false information that's the problem."False information is Kalichman’s paid objective. As I stated in my still unanswered note to Kalichman, the American Medical Association has never even suggested that HIV or AIDS has EVER been a leading cause of death.
Making a clear distinction between denial and denialism, Kalichman explains that it is natural for anyone facing the spectre of a life threatening disease to experience denial, to say, "This can't be happening to me." The problem is that when vulnerable individuals facing such a diagnosis go looking for information, they're faced with well-organized and slickly packaged websites purporting to offer medical information, but which ultimately deny that AIDS exists or that HIV causes AIDS.As a 30-year investigator whose wife almost died from post-operative infections in 1999 and 2007 – and who has been close to the dead and dying many times, Kalichman’s theoretical drivel does not square with reality.
For drug addicts, denial is considered the first of twelve steps to recovery. In the case of HIV, what Kalichman characterizes as denial is actually a healthy skepticism of intellectually curious individuals from all walks of life - journalists, scientists, MDs, MPHs, investigators and stay-at-home moms. If one side manifests the characteristics of a mindless cult, it is those who blindly follow the unproven assumptions parroted by paid marketers like Seth Kalichman who attack because HIV theology is incapable of defending itself on its own merits.
By attacking skeptics as denialists rather than producing the evidence that shows exactly who, when, where and how HIV was isolated and proven to attack cells and cause AIDS, Kalichman’s paid behavior only raises more questions about HIV and causation. If he would spend as much time exploring what is now happening to hundreds of thousands of lung-diseased African miners since 1980 he’d have a little more credibility – although his NIH funding would dry up faster than his own credibility.
How ironic that such men are given tenure at universities like U. Conn (no pun intended).
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
by Larry Greefield (reposted with permission)
The 3 a.m. wake-up calls Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned about as a candidate have been ringing the Obama White House red phone off the hook. The international tests predicted by new Vice President Joe Biden have also come fast and furious.
North Korea launches missiles and tests nukes. The Swat Valley in Pakistan falls to the Taliban. Iranian mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard steal an election and shoot at demonstrators. Honduran officials arrest and deport President (and dictator to be) Zelaya.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama is dropping the calls, failing the tests and blowing his chance to promote American interests, or even, on his own terms, to "re-assert America's moral standing" and rebuild alliances he claimed had been frayed during the Bush administration.
We all know about the shameful apology tours on foreign soil, from Mexico to the Middle East, the mugging with dictators, the bow to the Saudi king, the silly (and mistaken) early reset button with Russia, among other low moments of the Obama World Tour '09.
All of this pandering has not yielded much, by the way, in terms of foreign troop commitments to Afghanistan, global warming consideration from China, or Russian acquiescence to increased economic sanctions on Iran.
Mr. Obama gave early offense to the British (sending out of the Oval Office the bust of Churchill, a gift of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British people after 9/11, giving improvised DVD presents to current Prime Minister Gordon Brown that did not work, and Michelle Obama's manhandling of the queen).
Obama also offended the Canadians and upset relations terribly with Colombia, ignoring their reasonable requests for friendship and trade, and their superb efforts to combat narco-trafficking and enhance the quality of life of their citizens.
On the issue of human rights, in China, Darfur and Iran, Obama has chosen not to promote liberty or universal freedom and has been criticized across the political spectrum for his weakness in defense of those struggling under oppressive regimes.
In Turkey and Cairo, Obama gave loud speeches that let down dissidents and reformers and showed himself to be comfortable with authoritarianism and state power over the individual. He even seemed to side with those who put the burka over the faces of women in the Arab world. Think American women approve of life behind the veil?
But it gets worse: In Poland, Israel and Honduras, Mr. Obama is actually siding with the enemies of our allies, pressuring our friends and ignoring American national security interests.
Poland and the Czech Republic received requests from the United States for third site missile defense interceptors and radar installations. They then negotiated and worked through political issues at home and in complex discussions with a Europe that has shown little backbone and fortitude as it fears the Russian Bear.
So what has Mr. Obama done? He has worked overtime to assure Russia that he would prefer a grand bargain with Putin and may sacrifice missile defense to get it. Poland is betrayed and nervous. Anybody remember the Russians rolling into Georgia last summer?
Russian authorities crush freedom of the press and are running a czarist autocracy. Yet Obama is engaging with Russia, giving it prestige and power, and quickly offending our pro-American friends in New Europe.
While Obama seeks to talk softly, softly with the tyrannies of the Muslim world, who are building nuclear weapons, maintaining power through force and aligning against the United States repeatedly at the United Nations, he has certainly come down like a ton of bricks on our only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.
Pressure on Israel over settlements (no building of second-story apartments?) has defined Obama's idea of even-handed balance between our ally and its enemies. The nomination of Israel-basher Charles Freeman, the appointments of harsh Israel critics like Susan Rice at the U.N., Samantha Power at NSC and others, and joining in the anti-Israel Durban II planning process, all have made Mr. Obama deeply detested in Israel and among Israel's strongest Christian supporters in the U.S.
Obama's Cairo address was particularly obnoxious. He ignored 3,000 years of Jewish history and declared the raison d'etre of the Jewish state was the Holocaust. He then compared the annihilation of European Jewry to Palestinian suffering, ignoring the Arab world's irredentism and rejectionism, suicidal lack of support for Palestinian compromise or democratic development, and the Arab Nazism that has defined pro-Palestinian terror and policy from Haj Amin al-Husseini through Arafat to today's Hamas.
The recent Honduran episode continues this pattern. Sixteen U.S. senators have
joined Sen. Jim DeMint in sending a letter to Secretary of State Clinton asking her and President Obama to reassess their stance on the situation in Honduras and urging them to meet with democratically elected members of the Honduran Congress currently visiting the United States.
The arrest and deportation of the president was not a coup; it was the constitutional removal of a would-be Hugo Chavez-style dictator, and Obama has once again sided against American interests and against people standing for freedom and democracy.
The Obama foreign policy agenda was built on lies. Mr. Obama protested that the United States had lost its alliances. But nation after nation had elected center-right governments that were friendly to the United States, (Australia, Japan, India, New Europe, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, etc). The world did not hate the United States. Obama's leftist friends did.
Mr. Obama talked about rule of law, but he unilaterally decided to smear the Guantanamo Bay Military Facility as a human rights blight, and announced its closure without any idea where to put the detainees. Gitmo is a highly professional, appropriate and even (too) compassionate facility for the worst of the worst battlefield detainees.
Finally, Obama has criminalized policy differences with the prior administration and advertised to our most dedicated and vicious enemies how to prepare for interrogation. By castigating the waterboarding of three enemies of America as torture (these techniques were practiced repeatedly on our own military trainees, and they were lawyer-approved, doctor-monitored, congressionally informed and used not to coerce guilt or as punishment but to reveal ticking-time-bomb plots), Mr. Obama has virtually guaranteed that huge numbers of American casualties in the future will blame him for diminishing the efficacy, meaning and power of our intelligence gathering.
Almost all of the Obama national security and foreign policy campaign rhetoric has collapsed. He promised swift cooperation from allies on thorny issues like Iranian proliferation and climate change. Not so much.
As advertised, especially by his own Democrat party opponents during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama is weak, inexperienced and surrounded by foreign policy ideologues who side against our friends, and instead fancy the United Nations, international law, adoring crowds of socialists in Europe and engagement with dictators.
Welcome back, Carter.
Larry Greenfield is fellow in American Studies at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship & Political Philosophy. Reprinted with permission.
If you read reports about the arrest of 26 “AIDS activists” in Washington DC last week, you might have imagined two dozen desperately ill but neglected casualties of the “AIDS epidemic” writhing on the White House lawn. The fact is, however, that this latest kabuki show was nothing more than another carefully choreographed pharmaceutical marketing stunt.
Like the South African marketing campaigns by “research centers” like this one that use the pretext of AIDS to help international companies avoid billions of dollars in mine-related liability, the AIDS advocacy group DC Fights Back is one of dozens (if not hundreds) of well-funded pharmaceutical fronts that rely on assorted dropouts, stoners and junkies to hysterically promote the non-existent AIDS epidemic in America.
Since AIDS has never been a leading cause of death in the US or Africa, Americans are beginning to wonder how the NIH spends $207,000 per patient on AIDS research, compared to real killers like diabetes ($13K pp) or cardio-vascular disease ($2500 pp):
Of last week’s DC arrests, the LA Times reported that:
… 11 men and 15 women each face a charge of unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct and loud and boisterous behavior… the group entered the rotunda and linked themselves together with a white chain…As I explained in 2007, IV drug users commit billions of dollars in property crime annually. Giving them clean needles to shoot adulterated street drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth is like giving clean straws to catfish. For Americans who don’t support a junkie’s right to steal, burglarize and rob, their untimely death is not something that many lose sleep over.
The area is usually crowded with tourists, but police restricted the traffic while they made arrests… The activists carried signs in support of funding for needle exchange, HIV/AIDS housing and programs aimed at fighting AIDS.
They chanted "Fight global AIDS now" and "Clean needles save lives." They marched in a circle before lying down on the floor.
Police bound the activists' hands together and dragged some of the demonstrators to their feet as they arrested them.
In this case, the arrestees were members of DC Fights Back (DCFB), which identifies itself as an:
… all-volunteer network of people living with HIV/AIDS and their allies working to engage ourselves and our communities in every aspect of HIV advocacy for District residents and to end stigma to ensure the best possible treatment and care for those living with HIV/AIDS and implement the best possible science-based HIV prevention for everybody.All of this assumes that HIV tests detect HIV, which has never been proven to exist. On the other hand, most people accept that a poor diet, IV drugs, an unhealthy lifestyle and some highly addictive AIDS drugs can cause individuals to acquire an immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
DCFB is lead by co-founder Alex Lawson, who created left-wing sites like GetOffLikeaCEO, DCHealthPolicy, High5Consulting, and DCSchoolReform. He is a member of the Global Health Council, which receives $6~$12 million/year from the usual suspects for AIDS promotion. Lawson is also affiliated with the Whitman Walker Clinic ($24 million in 2005) and serves as a subcommittee chair for noted crack addict and stalker Marion Berry.
Like Zackie Achmat, Lawson knows there’s no shortage of moonbats who seek meaning in their lives for a tee-shirt, a sandwich and a free syringe.