Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne

It’s not pretty, but Mark Steyn’s eulogy of US Senator Ted Kennedy is the most honest:

We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation — or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture — declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940–1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague.

As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.” That’s the way to do it! An “accident,” “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen — and only to him, nobody else.

Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.” Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than “betrayed” him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let’s face it, he doesn’t have Ted’s tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps it’s kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of tremendous moral collapse.” When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, it’s usually to add insult to fatal injury.

As Teddy’s biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy’s “achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.” You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile?

If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”

What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel? (more here)

Why Does HON Terrify Pharma-Sluts & Activists?

Last year, when I began my investigation into allegations that UC Professor Peter Duesberg PhD was guilty of genocide in Africa, I never imagined the delusionary zealotry exhibited by the pharmaceutical industry’s top marketers and gay activists.

Despite the vast number of credible reports like this and highly paid executives like John Virapen PhD who spend their careers bribing government officials into releasing deadly drugs like Prozac, Oraflex, Vioxx, Nevirapine, Benoxaprofen and nicotine to millions of unsuspecting people throughout the world, most people are completely unaware that companies like Eli Lilly and Bristol Myer Squibb willingly spend $1 billion dollars to buy the silence of people they’ve maimed and killed to make a $3 billion profit. Profits are so large that the pharmaceutically-caused illnesses, death and mayhem (called Adverse Drug Reactions or ADR's) has become nothing more than the cost of doing business. For supporters of Capitalism like me, it’s hard to ignore the fact that the US drug industry may now be Marxism’s most legitimate argument against it.

While Dr. Virapen is no longer paid to bribe researchers, officials and politicians, Cornell’s John P. Moore PhD still attacks people and sells his opinion to courts for “research grants”. Because Cornell and the NIH, CDC and FDA are infested with pharma-sluts like Moore, Americans can expect that these agencies will remain as effective as the SEC was in protecting Bernie Madoff’s investors. Admittedly, this is a crude comparison: While the SEC caused a little financial ruin and suicide, the pharmaceutical industry continues to knowingly, intelligently and deliberately injure, maim and kill millions around the world. The fact that most Americans are unaware or ambivalent only reinforces the adage that the death of one is a tragedy and the death of millions a statistic.

But like most criminals who’ve never been held accountable, the pharma-sluts are getting sloppy. Because they have signed each others' fake reports and regulated themselves for so long, their malignant narcissism gets them into occasional trouble.

Believing that filmmaker Brent Leung was another opportunity to sate their insatiable self-aggrandizement, they invited him into their Temples so that the High Priests of HIV and AIDS could evangelize among the ignorant masses.

Unfortunately for them, House of Numbers does not airbrush their hallucinogenic schizophrenia the way that the mainstream media does between the glossy pages and 60-second Viagra and Lunesta ads that keep America’s anxious reporters employed. (Thankfully, kids are catching on).

One visit to his Facebook page explains why Thomas DeLorenzo wrote this political attack against a documentary that he has no intention of ever seeing. Although DeLorenzo identifies himself as an HIV+ gay man, his hysteria has nothing to do with the scientific corruption that House of Numbers has unintentionally exposed. (I say unintentionally because, while the filmmaker set out to interview the world's top researcher and skeptics, he never imagined that academics like John Moore and Robert Gallo would indict themselves.)

As a political component of the scientific corruption that the documentary exposes, there is no reason for attackers like Thomas DeLorenzo or JP Moore to see it. Simply stated, the gay activists and pharma-sluts hate it because it exposes stained and bloodied bedsheets of their politically profitable relationship.

Because lifestyle appeared to be the reason that a small population of self-destructive gay men got sick in 1981, the stigmatized and still-closeted gay community wanted to blame something other than "their behavior" for their sickness and death. At the same time, infectious disease had become statistically insignificant by 1981 and Congress was planning to pink slip corrupt and unwanted researchers. To their mutual benefit, the pharmaceutical industry and the “gay movement” became political bedfellows that funded what became the Gay Movement and the profiteers of AIDS drugs.

For gay men whose lifestyle alienated them from families and religion, AZT became something akin to a sacrament. When AZT killed them, their mortality delivered to them the political innocence that American slavery and the Holocaust gave to the progeny of slaves and Jews; while HIV gave Burroughs-Wellcome and other drug companies a reason other than drug toxicity.

The same alibi is used in Africa today. Why should these 1600+ international mining companies admit billions of dollars in liability when they can blame it on AIDS and coerce Congress into sending another $48 billion to Africa's corrupt politicians and activists to keep the scam alive.

The pharmaceutical industry and the “gay movement” have been inextricably connected ever since. Gay activists like DeLorenzo need pharma-sluts to blame a “mysterious virus” for the behavioral toxicity of a statistically small group of promiscuous drug-abusing gay men, while pharma-sluts like Moore need activists like DeLorenzo to attack filmmakers and investigators as homophobic Denialists. And because the alleged AIDS epidemic remains statistically non-existent in the United States and South Africa, the AIDS activists and pharma-sluts are getting as nervous as the reporters who are paid to ignore the deadly fraud.

House of Numbers does not expose all of these issues, but gives people around the world a glimpse of what science and medicine have become in the 21st century. Instead of blaming anyone, House of Numbers gives the world’s top AIDS researchers an opportunity to indict themselves.

While it continues to receive awards at film festivals throughout the US, DeLorenzo’s attack, the filmmaker’s response and this unbiased review suggest that House of Numbers may be the most important film since The Insider.

Sonja Interviews the "Grass Roots"

Making Scientists Out of Monkeys

The Los Angeles Times is criticizing the US Chamber of Commerce’s request to put global warming on trial, suggesting that the organization wants to “make monkeys of the legions of scientists”:

Courts and judges are for resolving questions of law, not of science. Though the 1926 Scopes trial is often remembered as a contest between evolution and creationism, it actually concerned the legality of a Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory.

Environmentalists can be dismayingly smug about climate change, sometimes claiming that the science is “settled” and there's nothing left to argue about. Scientific theories are very seldom settled; they are continually tested and revised based on the latest findings. That's why regulatory decisions are best made by consulting the scientific literature, not judges or juries (or environmental activists). The weight of scientific evidence suggests very strongly that the globe is getting warmer, that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are the cause and that the health and welfare of future generations are under serious threat. That might make for a lousy show on Court TV, but it should be enough to prompt action by the EPA.

While Al Gore and the scientists he’s bought have cited a few pages of temperatures collected from hot parking lots throughout the US, geologist Ian Plimer has presented four billion years of conclusive geological evidence, including more than 2200 scientific references in his questions related to the Global Warming theocracy.

The geological record conclusively proves that during the past 4 billion years, the Earth has repeatedly heated and cooled because of super volcanoes, extraterrestrial events, wobbling orbits, solar flares, and comets long before man appeared 100,000 years ago. Since life thrived millions of years before the ice caps began to appear, it’s hard to imagine how a warmer planet threatens life or how man can possibly influence its warming. Based upon my examination of Dr. Plimer’s book, the US Chamber of Commerce has more than enough probable cause to ask questions that might prevent another disastrous AIDS-like theocracy from wasting another trillion research dollars.

While courts, juries and investigators are less likely to understand some aspects of science, they are more than qualified to understand corruption, how evidence is deliberately misinterpreted and falsified, and how to evaluate standards of proof. Indeed, most Americans learn about the “scientific process” in middle school. Americans aren't as stupid as Al Gore wants us to believe we are.

As a thirty-year criminal and civil investigator, I’m deeply concerned that there are no local, state, or federal agencies that are competent or willing to investigate scientific corruption. When I brought cases to law enforcement officials, they referred me back to the same agencies that are engaged in the corruption – often to the detriment of the complaining party. As a result, scientists and researchers are forced to acquiesce while the criminal enterprise continues unimpeded.

If taxpayers and business owners cannot hold corrupt scientists and activists accountable; and if Al Gore’s lobbyists pay legislators to blindly accept things that they are too stupid to understand, science becomes a theocracy. This is no different from the “astronomical consensus” that Pope Urban used to defend Rome’s theocratic view of their geocentric universe. Rather than look through the heretical telescope of a disruptive mathematician named Galileo, they threatened him with death until he admitted his heresy. If unbiased courts cannot examine the evidence, taxpayers have no ability to control the spending or to hold corrupt scientists accountable.

This can have deadly effects. When scientists claimed that HIV causes AIDS and that 20 percent of all Americans faced death from heterosexual transmission of AIDS, their research became a political theocracy that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of allegedly HIV+ victims. These victims died mostly from liver failure, brought on not by AIDS but by the toxins used to treat the unproven relationship between HIV and AIDS. Because the corrupt scientists police themselves, no one was ever held accountable.

For those who want to see scientists behaving like monkeys, look no further than Brent Leung’s documentary, “House of Numbers.” After twenty-five years as the ostensible experts of HIV and AIDS, none of these monkeys got their stories straight and routinely contradicted each other as they gave their opinions. One alleged discoverer of HIV admits at the end of the movie that anyone with a healthy immune system can fight HIV without drugs. Several scientists repeatedly contradicted themselves in the same interviews.

The documentary, which is winning awards and praise at film festivals throughout the US, illustrates what happens when self-described scientists spend two decades and billions of dollars supervising themselves while paying off the legislature and universities – all the while infesting agencies like the CDC, FDA, NIH with highly paid pharmaceutical marketers. Eli Lilly insider John Virapen PhD describes this arrangement in great detail.

Based upon my examination of the scientific community and universities, I’d say that the concerns of the US Chamber of Commerce are well founded.

The Marines Land at a Town Hall

Director Praises Documentary House of Numbers

In what is clearly the most detailed description and review of the award winning documentary House of Numbers, director and playwright Matthew Bzrebski has posted his review:

Director Brent Leung is a brave man. But what makes his explosive documentary, House of Numbers, so undeniably effective, is that he didn't set out to be. As he tells us in the film, he was born in 1980... part of the first AIDS generation, a group who came into their sexuality with the threat of HIV strapped to their genitals like a potentially lit bundle of dynamite. A few years ago, Leung came to learn there has always been a debate over the current HIV/AIDS scientific paradigm. Having never known a world without AIDS, this intrigued him, and so his investigative journey began. He was not trying to show courage through radical activism or by asserting some aggressive agenda. He had some questions, and he went around the world asking top HIV/AIDS scientists for the answers. Now... one would think that, at least on the basic facts, these pioneers of HIV/AIDS research and treatment might all agree. Think again. They not only don't agree, they contradict each other in ways that are truly terrifying. From these orthodox HIV experts, there is no agreement on what HIV looks like, how it kills human cells, how the virus is isolated, how one confirms an HIV test, how drugs should be used to treat it, whether co-factors are necessary, or if our own immune systems can beat it all on their own. And there is much scandal on how it came to be "discovered" in the first place.

There are moments in the film when I found myself laughing heartily at this clownish behavior from our world's top scientists; it almost plays like satire. But then I'd remember: this is about lives. And there is nothing at all funny about this. To his credit, Leung does not try to elicit laughs... he simply places the interviews side by side, juxtaposing so as to highlight the contradictions. It serves to rattle any trust one may have in our medical establishment. In an instant, these scientists lose credibility and reveal that on the issues of HIV/AIDS, it is confusion, not certainty that prevails… (more)

House of Numbers plays near UCLA at the Westwood Crest Theater through August 27 and moves to NYC in September. For more information on future showings, visit the House of Numbers website.

House of Numbers Comes to LA

As the documentary House of Numbers continues to pound shell-shocked pharma-sluts at film festivals throughout the US, LA residents are finally getting a chance to hear questions that the pharmaceutical industry never wanted you to ask.

When Brent Leung’s film opened this week at the Westwood Crest Theatre, LA Times film critic Gary Goldstein was there. In a surprising act of courage, Goldstein’s editors have actually dared to publish his critique:

… (House of Numbers) plays as if the producer-director decided -- and rightly so-- that it was time for a "state of HIV/AIDS" update, hopped the globe to interview researchers, physicians, journalists and other experts (as well as several of the disease's victims), and then figured out what his film would really be about.

No matter, Leung manages to present a barrage of intriguing theories debunking our generally accepted beliefs and misperceptions about how HIV/AIDS is acquired, tested, diagnosed, defined and treated. It's a vital yet thorny approach whose inconclusiveness is bound to sadden or infuriate anyone who's lost a loved one to AIDS…

Unlike the pharmaceutically-funded sluts who’ve sold their diplomas to market the HIV poltergeist (that can only be seen and explained by researchers who receive large amounts of pharmaceutical funding), Leung’s film allows the world’s biggest recipients of drug money to describe, in their own words, the chaotic misinformation and fraud that has characterized HIV/AIDS fundraising, research and treatment since 1981. As explosive as Leung’s questions are, the real indictment comes from the pharma-sluts themselves – who should have secured lawyers and their right against self-incrimination before responding.

If House of Numbers is hard to figure out, it is because the filmmaker has allowed the world’s top AIDS researchers explain, in their own words, the science behind what they call “scientific consensus,” leaving the audience with more questions about HIV and AIDS than they had before the movie began. For Americans who have spent nearly a trillion dollars to cure an alleged pandemic that most Americans and the American Medical Association hardly notice, the pharma-sluts only raise more questions.

Since it is now apparent that HIV keeps more than 1600 international mining companies in operation throughout the African Continent, the UN member nations that pay off Africa’s notoriously corrupt leaders, sack the continent’s mineral wealth and kill off their impoverished miners have good reason to fear those (like Leung, skeptical scientists, investigators and the Nobel laureates he interviews) who aren’t as corruptible as these outraged pharma-sluts.

Now that Eli Lilly executive John Virapen PhD has described how he made a career out of identifying, targeting and compromising researchers and scientists, the payoffs and threat of fines and imprisonment explain why detractors continue to attack and threaten Leung and his film.

House of Numbers was not made to saddened or infuriate, but to present questions that the media, NIH, CDC and pharmaceutical industry never wanted to be asked. The fact that they buried these questions like Jimmy Hoffa and hired a Barney Fife security guard to investigate raises many questions. For those who claim that the “consensus of the scientific community” has proven that HIV is the cause of AIDS, their schizophrenic explanations only raise more embarrassing questions.

But don’t take my word for it. The movie plays at the Westwood Crest Theatre through August 27th. (Matthew Bzrebski weighs in)

"House of Numbers." MPAA rating: Unrated. Running time: 1 hour, 30 minutes.

RSB Interviews Pharmaceutical Insider

As many of you know, I've posted information about pharmaceutical insider John Virapen PhD whose marketing duties required him to bribe officials into authorizing the distribution and sale of deadly or useless drugs to unsuspecting citizens. In what may be his worst example, his bribery of a Swedish professor resulted in the release and distribution of Prozac which was widely understood to cause suicidal ideation and depression.

Swedish prosecutors granted Virapen immunity for his cooperation.

Once released in Sweden, Virapen and other marketers (often called researchers) pressured government officials around the world to deliver Prozac and other "lifesaving" SSRI's to their populations. This resulted in multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of millions of people around the world who now suffer from the addiction, injury and death that those drugs caused.

You can hear Robert Scott Bell's interview of Dr. Virapen at this link.

Mark Gungor Explains Male & Female Brains

RSB Interviews Dr. Virapen NOW!

Retired pharmaceutical executive John Virapen PhD is being interviewed NOW on Robert Scott Bell’s radio show (KIXW radio).

Dr. Virapen made a career out of bribing government officials into authorizing dangerous drugs to unsuspecting citizens – the same man who put Prozac (SSRI’s) on the market despite the fact that research proves that it causes suicidal ideation and depression. Get Dr. Virapen’s book here.

Sheila Jackson Lee's Fake Doctor

Roxana Mayer, a Texas Obama delegate and member of Organizing for America, Barack Obama's political organization, attended a healthcare townhall with Democrat U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee...

A Very Short Horror Movie

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Healthcare

No one described the dangers of socialized medicine better than Ronald Reagan did in 1961:

But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project... Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Lucid Liberal Defends ObamaCare

A friend asked me to respond to some healthcare arguments that an acquaintance made to her this week. Because Obama, Pelosi and Reid have spread so much propaganda regarding bills they haven’t even read, I’ve posted this Q & A for those who hear similar questions.

Before you respond to statements like these, ask yourself if their arguments are fact-based or theological. If fact-based, you have a reasonable chance to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas. If theological, your arguments will be considered heretical.

Supporting ideas contained in bills not read requires faith in a government that cannot educate children or protect Americans from illegal aliens.

Because Hank’s arguments appear theological, there’s little point to argue except in a blog or forum, where his arguments can be evaluated by others.

You dont NEED a car. You NEED good health.

While society widely agrees, approximately 75 percent of all chronic diseases are related to lifestyle decisions. Let's ask some questions:

• If I smoke, drink heavily, and gain 500 pounds, do others have an obligation to pay for my chronic illnesses?
  
  
• At what point am I responsible for my own lifestyle decisions?
  
  
• At what point should Americans create government mechanisms and bureaucracies that will redistribute your assets to help me survive my bad decisions?

Among the alleged 45 million uninsured, a large percentage are illegal aliens and young adults who would rather buy a nice car than health insurance. At what point should the Federal Government take your money to help then buy a fancy car AND secure healthcare?

If health and healthcare are important to the vast majority of Americans, they will make intelligent personal decisions so that they will not become an unnecessary financial burden to others.

As for life insurance... we have social security and many other ways to cover life insurance. Also, the cost of Life insurance hasnt gone up an average of 12% per year for each of the last 10 years.

Life insurance premiums are based upon your lifestyle decisions. So, for example, an alcoholic 25-year-old hang glider enthusiast who smokes, rides a motorcycle and works with hazardous materials will have a higher premium than a vegan athlete who doesn’t smoke or drink. Nothing in any of the healthcare plans make such distinctions and, therefore, those who make good lifestyle decisions are eventually punished by being forced to pay for someone else’s bad decisions. If Hank has a good reason to pay for Sam’s idiotic decisions, I’d like to hear his argument.

If you look at the history of insurance you’ll see that rickety boats captained by idiots could not be insured. The larger community wasn’t responsible for insurance decisions.

If you want to go back to what the Founding Fathers thought this country looks like, then women can't vote and slavery is allowed.

Aside from the fact that not all of the Founding Fathers supported slavery the way Democrats did, there is a difference between gender and race, and someone’s unhealthy lifestyle decisions. While you have a right to jump from a 200 foot cliff with a three hundred foot bungee cord, Barack Obama should not compel the rest of us to pay for your stupidity.

We have come a decent way in 230 years but clearly theres further to go. And, in 1776 the healthcare program was Pay For It Or Die.

One wonders if Hank smoked ALL of his college tuition.

I am so glad they dont ask for a credit card before connecting me to the Police or Fire department. Oh wait, that's kinda socialistic, ain't it?

It’s one thing to protect US citizens from anarchy and quite another to make responsible citizens pay for someone else’s irresponsibility.

I am so sorry I get clean water when I turn on the tap and that the food I buy is regulated.... oh wait... THATS kinda socialistic, aint it?

Not at all. In 1961, Ronald Reagan explained how liberals would use healthcare to turn the US into a socialist nation.

The top Health Insurance execs make $100,000 an HOUR.

Most executives don’t earn an hourly wage.

When, ... during the 80's (Mr. Reagan) the limits were lifted, the healthcare system became less about giving care, and more about $$$ for the insurance companies.

I explained the problems with US healthcare in this report. Canadian MD Lee Kurisko explained the problems with Canada’s single payer system – a socialist system that Barack Obama supports.

Government Brain Surgery in Canada

One year after Barack Obama promoted Canada's single payer healthcare system, look how it benefits Canadians...

Where's the Dearborn PD?

The problem is not that Muslim goons assault real Americans, but that no one appeared concerned that security guards were assaulting them.

Oxford Researchers: Tamiflu Poses More Risks Than Benefits

In a story that illustrates what happens when a giant pharmaceutical company doesn’t spend enough on research facilities, Oxford University researchers are warning parents to not give Tamiflu to their children:

Today's study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), warned that Tamiflu can cause vomiting in some children, which can lead to dehydration and the need for hospital treatment. The researchers said children should not be given the drug if they have a mild form of the illness although they urged parents and GPs to remain vigilant for signs of complications.

Parents of children with a compromised immune system or a condition like cystic fibrosis should discuss the harms and benefits with their GP, they said.

But overall, the researchers said, children who were otherwise healthy could suffer more harm than benefit from taking Tamiflu or another anti-viral, Relenza.

They found the drugs had little or no effect on asthma flare-ups, ear infections or the likelihood of a youngster needing antibiotics. The researchers also found that using anti-virals preventatively had little effect - reducing transmission of flu by 8 per cent.

This means 13 children would have to be treated to prevent one additional case of the flu. However, anti-virals could reduce symptoms by between half a day and one day.

Dr Carl Heneghan, a GP and clinical lecturer at Oxford University, said the current policy of giving Tamiflu for mild illness was an "inappropriate strategy".

He added: "The downside of the harms outweigh the one-day reduction in symptomatic benefits."

He and Dr Matthew Thompson, a GP and senior clinical scientist at Oxford University, analysed four studies involving children aged one to 12. The children were being treated for normal seasonal flu but Dr Thompson said the findings would extend to the current swine flu pandemic.

"I don't think we have got any reason to think our results would be any different," he said. "The current swine flu is generally a mild flu illness... it does not seem that different from current seasonal flu. "We would be happy to say our results apply to the current swine flu strain."

He said children with mild symptoms should be treated in the same way as if they had any other mild flu - with drinks to cool high temperatures and rest. Dr Heneghan said the only benefit found in the study was that children were back to normal half a day to one day earlier if taking Tamiflu or Relenza.

He said his advice to GPs was "not to rely on Tamiflu as a treatment to reduce complications" or to think of it as a "magic bullet". And he warned that widespread use of Tamiflu could result in the flu becoming resistant to the drug.

"What is a problem going forward - like with antibiotics - is you run into a resistance issue. "Going forward we have a treatment which is ineffective because we've given it to everybody."

Both researchers called on the Department of Health to review its current policy.

Dr Thompson said: "It's possible a more conservative strategy (such as) reserving these anti-viral drugs for people, for children who are more likely to have complications of the illness might be a more sensible strategy."

Dr Heneghan added: "I think the Government should be looking at this urgently, this week."

The experts said the studies had been publicly available to the Government before it formulated its current strategy with regard to Tamiflu. And they said the Government should have demanded more data from the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the drugs - Roche, which makes Tamiflu, and GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Relenza.

Today's research was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and follows two recent studies which found that more than half of children taking Tamiflu suffered side-effects such as nausea, insomnia and nightmares.

Experts from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) found a high proportion of British schoolchildren reporting problems after taking the anti-viral preventatively. The experts behind one of the studies said that although children may have attributed symptoms which were due to other illnesses to the use of Tamiflu, that was "unlikely to account for all the symptoms experienced".

That study was carried out in April and May - before the Government decided to stop using Tamiflu preventatively.

Only those with suspected or confirmed swine flu are now getting the drug and are being urged to get access to Tamiflu through the Pandemic Flu Service, which is accessed online or via a telephone helpline.

Children are known to be at high risk of catching the flu, with more than 40% of pre-school children getting the virus and 30% of school-age children doing so, the researchers said.

A Department of Health spokesman dismissed the researchers' claims that their findings would also apply to swine flu.

"The BMJ review is based on seasonal flu and not swine flu," he said. "As the authors note, the extent to which the findings can be applied to the current pandemic is questionable - after all, we already know that swine flu behaves differently to seasonal flu, and past pandemics have hit younger people hardest.

"Whilst there is doubt about how swine flu affects children, we believe a safety-first approach of offering anti-virals to everyone remains a sensible and responsible way forward."

He said the policy would be kept under review and people with mild symptoms "may find bed rest and over-the-counter flu remedies work for them.

"But for those who experience severe symptoms, the best scientific advice tells us that Tamiflu should still be taken as soon as possible - and to suggest otherwise is potentially dangerous.

"If people are in any doubt about whether to take Tamiflu, they should contact their GP."

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "This analysis needs to be taken extremely seriously and demands an immediate response from the Government.

"An urgent review must be carried out into whether the benefits of prescribing certain anti-viral drugs are worth the risks when it comes to our children's health."

A total of 36 people in England have died after getting swine flu.

In a related story, thousands “fake swine flu symptoms” to stock up on Tamiflu. More information posted here, here and here.

Bypass Burgers at the Heart Attack Grill

Strangely enough, the Attorney General and Arizona Board of Nursing has threatened Dr. John and his bevy of highly qualified nurses with criminal action. Since no one has charged Nurse Jackie or the researchers, scientists and doctors at the NIH, FDA and CDC with pretending to be doctors, it's hard to imagine why anyone would get upset with Dr. John's honesty:

An Aerial View of Nothing

This week in the journal Nature, Hashim M. Al-Hashimi, PhD reports that he has created an aerial view of what Chapel Hill researcher Joseph M. Watts calls the HIV-1 RNA genome:

Bridging these disparate RNA structure–function scales as well as moving towards movies of the genome in functional motion will be challenges for the future. But for now, it seems that the quest for a high-resolution structure of the entire HIV-1 RNA genome has begun in earnest.

Like all other HIV/AIDS research reports, these reports provide no evidence that HIV actually attacks cells or causes AIDS.

It’s hard to imagine that a report (and citations) showing an alleged graphical representation of an HIV retrovirus would not include exactly what the alleged sample is or how it was isolated and obtained, which is sort of like praising the clarity of a mug shot but failing to identify exactly how the suspect is connected to an actual crime. In this way, Dr. Watts provides no “continuity of evidence” while Al-Hashimi explains how he might graphically depict HIV if and when the retrovirus is ever proven to 1) attack cells and 2) cause AIDS.

When I asked the the same question of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) last June, they referred me to this South African advocacy group, which helps more than 1600 international mining companies avoid billions of dollars in liability by blaming the hundreds of thousands of mine-related lung disease injuries and death on irresponsible sex (e.g. HIV/AIDS). And when those low-income miners eventually succumb to the combination of their work-related diseases and toxic AIDS drugs, the mining and pharmaceutical companies use their mortality as evidence that "HIV is ravaging Africa" - thereby coercing US taxpayers and Congress to spend billions of additional dollars for toxic AIDS medications to poison and addict the dying miners and their impoverished families.

Ever since Peter Duesberg mapped the retrovirus genome and reported that HIV does not cause AIDS, researchers who receive millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical makers of HIV tests and drugs have used the pretext of "scientific research" to market AIDS mythology. Coincidentally, Duesberg and other skeptical researchers do not receive research funding from that industry.

This former Eli Lilly executive explains why.

More telling is that, while Dr. Duesberg’s papers have been published in the National Academy of Sciences, Watts and Al-Hashimi get their papers published in Nature – the same publication where its former Deputy Editor and Washington Bureau Chief praised this security guard and part-time filter salesman for exonerating the alleged co-discoverer of the HIV virus. If paid pharmaceutical consultants like Nature's former Washington bureau chief are impressed by security guards, Watts and al-Hashimi must be absolutely dazzling.

I sent this email to Dr. Al-Hashimi:

From: Clark Baker
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:28 PM
To: 'hashimi@umich.edu'
Subject: Aerial view of the HIV genome

Dr. Hashimi:

In your recently reported discovery in the journal Nature, you conclude:

Bridging these disparate RNA structure–function scales as well as moving towards movies of the genome in functional motion will be challenges for the future. But for now, it seems that the quest for a high-resolution structure of the entire HIV-1 RNA genome has begun in earnest.

While I celebrate your achievement, your report provides no conclusive evidence that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS. Since it is not included in your report or in your citations, can you provide evidence that shows exactly who, when, how and where this was accomplished? OMSJ asked the same thing at NIAID last June, but they referred us to a pharmaceutically-funded South African marketing group.

If you cannot provide OMSJ with evidence that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS, can you provide your rationale for investigating what otherwise appears to be a harmless retrovirus?

Sincerely,

Clark Baker
Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc.
3940 Laurel Canyon Blvd #428
Studio City, California 91604
http://www.omsj.org/ (under construction)

I’ll let you know if he writes back.

Tea Party Commercial

Although Pelosi and Obama might call them mobsters, Nazis or insurance industry operatives, this video is the result of an Alabama mother's request for her teenaged son to create a commercial for a tea party she was organizing.

Accidental Deaths: Doctors vs Gun Owners

There are approximately 700,000 physicians in the US who cause approximately 100,000 adverse drug reaction (ADR) deaths and 200,000 deaths annually. Some reports estimate more than 800,000 preventable deaths annually. But if we accept a conservative estimate of 120,000 preventable deaths annually, the accidental death rate per physician would be 0.171.

Conversely, there are 80 million gun owners in the US who cause approximately 1,500 accidental deaths annually. This means that the rate of accidental death per gun owner is .000188.

This means that, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more likely to accidentally kill someone than gun owners.

While not everyone owns a gun, almost everyone has at least one doctor.

Remember, “Guns don't kill people, doctors do.”

More Reasons NOT to get Flu Shots

AHRP reports that history is about to repeat itself:

In the 1976 swine flu vaccine program, 40 million people were vaccinated with an inadequately tested vaccine. The government gave the vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability, but created an alternative compensation program. Five thousand people sought benefits for vaccine injuries.

Today, as in 1976, official concern has focused on flu vaccine availability without regard for the safety of an H1N1 vaccine. Many national regulatory agencies have set-up fast-track approval processes for the H1N1 vaccine, which means that a vaccine might be licensed without the usual safety and efficacy data requirements. Vaccine safety will therefore have to be monitored through post-marketing surveillance.

But there is reason for concern that we will repeat the debacle of the 1976 H1N1 outbreak in the USA, where mass vaccination was associated with complications, which stopped the campaign and led to the withdrawal of the vaccine.

What's more, today, the government has NOT established an ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM - as it had in 1976. The existing vaccine compensation program covers only designated vaccines and does NOT cover most adult vaccines.

The U.S. government has adopted (what critics regard) a reckless policy encouraging (if not mandating) the use of untested controversial vaccines with novel adjuvants likely to be used to strengthen vaccines and stretch the supply--they are named MF59 (Novartis) and ASO3 (Glaxo Smith-Kline). Only 3 vaccines using these adjuvants have been licensed in Europe, and none have been given a license in the US.

It is likely that these adjuvants will cause far more damage and autoimmune illness than the swine vaccine used in 1976.

Indeed, manufacturers have been given immunity from liability, as have the government program planners. But no compensation mechanism has been created for citizens who are likely to suffer harm. This is but a tacit acknowledgement that the vaccines are likely to produce harm.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Faked Reports - Harmed Thousands

The New York Times reports that pharmaceutical company ghostwriters played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers that backed the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than previously known.

The articles, published in medical journals between 1998 and 2005, emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks of taking hormones to protect against maladies like aging skin, heart disease and dementia. That supposed medical consensus benefited Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that paid a medical communications firm to draft the papers, as sales of its hormone drugs, called Premarin and Prempro, soared to nearly $2 billion in 2001.

But the seeming consensus fell apart in 2002 when a huge federal study on hormone therapy was stopped after researchers found that menopausal women who took certain hormones had an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. A later study found that hormones increased the risk of dementia in older patients.

The ghostwritten papers were typically review articles, in which an author weighs a large body of medical research and offers a bottom-line judgment about how to treat a particular ailment. The articles appeared in 18 medical journals, including The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and The International Journal of Cardiology.

The articles did not disclose Wyeth’s role in initiating and paying for the work. Elsevier, the publisher of some of the journals, said it was disturbed by the allegations of ghostwriting and would investigate.

The documents on ghostwriting were uncovered by lawyers suing Wyeth and were made public after a request in court from PLoS Medicine, a medical journal from the Public Library of Science, and The New York Times.

A spokesman for Wyeth said that the articles were scientifically accurate and that pharmaceutical companies routinely hired medical writing companies to assist authors in drafting manuscripts. (Story here)

Although the reporting of this story by the NYT is new, the practice is not. According to former Eli Lilly marketing executive John Virapen, fake stories and reports are part of the overall marketing strategy throughout the pharmaceutical industry. Because the industry funds the FDA, CDC and NIH officials, no one investigates the corruption because they profit from them.

As a result, thousands of people are unnecessarily killed or injured from adverse drug reactions. In the case of Prozac or hormone replacement therapy, the eventual lawsuits are merely part of the cost of doing business. If a drug like Prozac generates $10 billion in profits over 20 years and generates $4 billion in lawsuits (with confidentiality agreements), the $6 billion net profit makes it worthwhile.

The problem is not that the pharmaceutical industry harms and kills patients millions of patients for profit, but that there are no competent investigative agencies or politicians who aren't paid to ignore the mayhem.

In this related story, pharmaceutical lobbyists have successfully pressured White House officials to stand by their behind-the-scenes deal to block Congressional efforts to extract more than their agreed-upon $80 billion.

Nancy Pelosi's Protest Fashion Tips

Since Barack Obama wants you to report your neighbors and Nancy Pelosi is attacking Americans for dressing improperly at protests, Michelle Malkin now offers these helpful fashion tips.

Evan Sayet in Hollywood Aug 11

If you’re in town and want to see a great show, conservative comedian Evan Sayet performs at the Laugh Factory next week on Tuesday, August 11th at 8 PM.

Evan will bring back some of “the best of the best” acts that have been part of the show since 2004 including Tom Dreesen, Victoria Jackson, Sonja Schmidt, Jack Simmons and Bob Golub (Goodfellas).

Where: The Laugh Factor, 8001 Sunset Blvd, Hollywood 90046 (323) 656-1336 ext. 1

When: Tuesday, August 11 at 8 PM. Terrific show - See you there!!!

Are Democrats Getting Tired of Hope & Change?

They might ignore the question, but how do they ignore the audience's response?

Father of Sick Girl Convicted of Murder

Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed.

Assistant District Attorney LaMont Jacobson told jurors in closing arguments Friday that Neumann was "overwhelmed by pride" in his interpretation of the Bible and selfishly let Madeline die as a test of faith.

Neumann knew he should have taken his daughter to a doctor and minimized her illness when speaking with investigators, Jacobson said, calling Neumann no different than a drunken driver who remarks he only had a couple of beers.

Doctors testified that Madeline would have had a good chance of survival if she had received medical care, including insulin and fluids, before she stopped breathing.
Kronenwetter told the jury that Neumann sincerely believed praying would heal his daughter and he did nothing criminally wrong.

"Dale Neumann was doing what he thought would work for his daughter," Kronenwetter said. "He was administering faith healing. He thought it was working."

Although I would not have let my daughter die, it’s hard to imagine why America would convict a man of killing his daughter when prosecutors would not have batted an eye if George Tiller had killed her on her birthday.

Obama Joker Poster Pops Up In Los Angeles

As reported by Tammy Bruce & NewsBusters... Angelenos would post the bumber stickers on their cars if they knew that ACORN and other open-minded liberal Obama supporters would not torch them or spike their tires.

Czech Police Stop Motorist on Crack

Earl Ofari Hutchinson Plays the "Race Card"

When Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, she never imagined that her words would compel 2.5 million white male Republican men to risk their lives to force Democrats to free their slaves (1861-1865). By the time the Civil War ended, 360,222 white male Republicans had died to end the slavery that 258,000 Democrats died to protect.

Partially because the epithet “Uncle Tom” was such an ugly moniker, the progeny of black slaves refused to support their former masters (except when threatened or visited by the Klan): And the sons and daughters of ex-slaves did not run on the Democrat ticket until Chicago Democrats helped Arthur Wergs Mitchell gain his Congressional seat in 1935. The Democrat-controlled Chicago machine supported him until 1937 when he reversed his politically-expedient anti-NAACP platform. (This was before the "radical Republican" organization was bought by the Democrat Party.)

While the NAACP is now comprised of sell-outs who are no longer afraid to use the epithet against free black Republicans (who don't need a DNC chumps to beg for handouts or speak for them), the epithet is so ugly that Republicans are ironically loathe to use it against race-baiting sell-outs like Bunifah Latifah Jackson, Henry Gates and Earl Ofari Hutchison.

Now that Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate has been allegedly discovered, the man who the fictitious Mr. Haley and Mr. Shelby would have admired as a good, steady, sensible, pious fellow is at it again.

Hutchison writes:

The clamor for Obama to produce his original birth document gained a noisy following long before the final presidential vote tally was in last November. It started the instant that he declared his presidential candidacy in February 2007. Take your pick: He was too black. He was not patriotic enough. He was too liberal, too effete, too untested. He was a Muslim, terrorist fellow traveler, and a closet black radical.

The shock of an Obama in the White House was simply too much for many to bear. Obama defied the stereotypical textbook look and definition of what an American president was supposed to look like, and be like; namely a wooden image middle-aged, or older, white male.

After spending the balance of my professional life voluntarily protecting and serving the black community as a police officer I, like Cambridge Police Sergeant Jim Crowley, am tired of sell-outs like Ofari who, like Bunifah, use every opportunity to defend the Democrat Party’s bad behavior by blaming their accusers of racism.

I replied with this email to Mr. Hutchinson:

From: Clark Baker
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 11:21 AM
To: 'hutchinsonreport@aol.com'
Subject: RE: The GOP's birther Con Game

Mr. Hutchinson:

I know you’re a racially and ideologically biased individual who Mr. Haley and Mr. Shelby would describe as a good, steady, sensible, pious fellow, but this 30-year investigator wants to know your answer for this Kenyan birth certificate.

Did the “right wing” fake that document? If so, how did they do it? Why doesn’t Obama produce a birth certificate the way I produced mine when I served as a marine, LAPD officer and for you now?

Where was your outrage when Dan Rather and Mary Mapes faked this report?

If you’re ideologically biased, you have no credibility. As a defender of the Democrat Party, Harriet Beecher Stowe already described what and who you are for me.

Having worked many years in South LA as an LAPD officer, I’ve often recognized you as a sell-out for your community. While I served your community (and my great-grandfather and uncles risked their lives to free slaves), you continue to apologize and defend the progeny of your masters. How do you sleep with yourself, Earl?

Like Obama, I can only pray that you have enough respect for yourself and your groupies that you will never toss an Oreo cookie or call any black man an Uncle Tom.

I’ll let you know if Bunifah or Mr. Hutchison respond.

Photo is Worth a Thousand Words

Barack Obama’s behavior speaks for itself:

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking. (More HERE)

Obama was Clear & No One Listened

Is This Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate?

Story HERE. I just donated to her effort and urge readers to do the same.

Surgeon Disses Obamacare

Orthopedic surgeon Dave Janda MD is a world-recognized expert on the prevention of sports injuries, particularly in children.

He has one word for Obamacare - FASCIST.

Unemployed Grad Disillusioned by False Promises

Monroe College graduate Trina Thompson is suing her school for the $70,000 she wasted on tuition:

The information-technology student blames Monroe's Office of Career Advancement for not providing her with the leads and career advice it promised.

"They have not tried hard enough to help me," the frustrated Bronx resident wrote about the school in her lawsuit.

"She's angry," said Thompson's mother, Carol. "She's very angry at her situation. She put all her faith in them, and so did I. They're not making an effort.

"She's finally finished [with school], and I'm so proud of her. She just wants a job."

The mother and daughter live together, but are struggling to get by. Carol, a substitute teacher, has been the only breadwinner.

"This is not the way we want to live our life," the mom said. "This is not what we planned."

As if being unemployed weren't enough, Trina's student loans are coming due, saddling the family with more debt, the mom said.

"We're going to be homeless, and we'll still have a student loan to pay," Carol said.

She's probably learned more about college, $70,000 and life after college than the four years she spent in it. I wonder what she thinks about Obama's promise to make college affordable for everyone. If Obama succeeds and she finds a job, she'll be paying for other kids to waste their time.

NYPD Detective Admits Engaging in Racial Profiling

NYPD Detective Jake McNicholas now admits in the NY Daily News that he openly engaged in racial profiling. I admitted the same in 2006.

His comments provide another “teachable moment” for Harvard Professor Henry Bunifah Gates. (More here)