As the World Burns

In Copenhagen, the so-called leaders of the World (193 countries were represented) have shown once more the simple truth in an old song. I've been unable to find out who wrote this, but it has been performed by Van Morrison, Elvis Costello, Vaya Con Dios and others. The refrain in question is

Your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime

It's very fitting for the non-binding agreement two weeks of mouthing and mincing words have led to.

Image Source unknown

Fear Mongering: The H1N1 (Mexican Swine Flu) Debate

There are increasing vocal outrage and concerns from doctors speaking out about the dangers of the H1N1 vaccine. Important research highlights the fact that autism rates double in children as vaccines poison an entire generation and historical data shows that vaccines are not what saved us from previous pandemics.

The dangers of the over-hyped vaccine are becoming more and more widespread. In Washington a RedSkins cheerleader has been crippled for life after being vaccinated. In Sweden, one of the earliest countries to roll out a vaccination program, the further deaths linked to swine flu vaccine bring the total to 4. If those deaths aren't sufficient warning against vaccination, Swedish nurses are reporting side effects and sickness from the vaccine. Incompetent medical staff are further adding to the fears over safety by 'over' dosing children with the H1N1 vaccine.

In short, in the last 300 days more than twice as many people have died from encephalitis than have died form swine flu and more than three times as many have died from dengue fever than from swine flu. So why haven't we heard about the encephalitis or dengue fever pandemics??

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the billions of deaths predicted and propagandized by the media, the WHO and major Western governments are vastly over-exaggerated, yet the worldwide induced panic and fear mongering continues with a vengeance.
--- --- ---
Text and image from Connecting the Dots
--- --- ---
See also this interview with retired Chief Medical Officer of Finland and this news story from Poland. And then there's this recent film on YouTube.
The very best site to visit in order to keep up with all developments around the mild virus and the dangerous vaccines is The Flu Case !!

In Memoriam George Orwell :: 1984 = 2009

The Quandary of the 21st Century

The reading that made me write this is concerned with two things: Climate Change and the possible necessity to reduce the breeding of livestock, which means that most of us should turn into vegetarians - unless you already are one.

However, becoming a vegetarian is not what I refer to as quandary, nor do I use quandary in order to imply that climate change presents such a situation. A quandary is nothing more than a difficult and unpleasant predicament, whereas human-made climate change is outright dangerous and possibly disastrous.

Perhaps it is best to read the few lines of text that got me into this philosophical mood:

A 2006 United Nations (UN) report revealed that the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships in the world combined. The report attributed 18 per cent of annual worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions to cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and other farmed animals, but new research from the Worldwatch Institute indicates that the figure actually could be much higher. According to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of “Livestock and Climate Change”, raising animals for food produces 51 per cent of all greenhouse-gas emissions.
[quote from Eagle Eye, a blog that is part of the English newspaper The Independent]

Photograph © CCRCC

It all sounds straightforward, doesn't it? A UN report, authors who publish data based on research by the Worldwatch Institute.

Now what I perceive as the quandary, is the fact that these days, we can't anymore believe anyone. It's a general disease that came with the information-explosion and the media-society, with corporations often employing scientists as PR manufacturers.

These days, it is possible that the driving force behind such a report are the industries running on selling oil and making cars. Feeling that they look bad - in environmental terms - they would be interested in telling us that eating meat is worse than driving cars.

On the other hand, the people behind the cited reports could be extremist PETA vegetarians who want to turn meat-eaters into outcasts, similar to what is happening to tobacco-smokers.

Now how can we decide if the data are true or a full blown lie, whether or not spin-doctors have twisted it - and who paid the spin doctors? Each of us would need an army of scientists, desk-clerks and secretaries to find out what's true and what not ... and we can't afford that.

Then again, governments do have such armies of aides, and we actually pay for them, yet to no avail. Watching the carousel of wrong decisions that's known as government ... these Ladies and Gentlemen seem to suffer from the very same quandary as you and I: How to detect a True Lie?

The Situation in Afghanistan

There is a superb article by Chris Hedges at Truth Dig.
It's bad news, yes, but it's good that this type of news is being published. It tells that the figures in Afghan government are exact clones of the Taliban - it's just that they have a different name: Democratically Elected Leaders (aided by the Western Empire). However, their atrocities and disregard for others - especially women - equals the Taliban in many ways.

And then there's this disturbing article at Slate, in which Christopher Hitchens clearly demonstrates that the West - specifically the United Nations - is in fact complicit to more or less all that's happening there!

I'm so glad to have been in that country when it still was quiet and beautiful - in 1974 - way before the Russians even. The majestic Buddha statues were still standing then, no Taliban was in sight, there were no mines to tread on. I rent a horse and went into the mountains, found surreal landscapes with a terrace of 7 lakes, and friendly people who told me that eating a piece of opium would help my stomach problems.
Photograph Copyright © CCRCC

The Color of Language:A Scientist ‘Claims’, a Politician Knows Better

Please read the three following headlines with attention to detail:

Professor David Nutt, the Government's chief drug adviser, was sacked today after claiming ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol . . .

The Independent, Oct. 30, 2009

Professor asked to resign after he renews criticism of decision to toughen law on cannabis . . .

The Guardian, Oct. 30, 2009

The UK's chief drug adviser Professor David Nutt is sacked after criticising government policies on cannabis.

BBC, Oct. 30, 2009

That’s the Color of Language ... and that’s exactly the stuff I like – it’s so much better than cross-word puzzles, and it even has some sort of connection with reality. Naturally, you only notice it if and when you read all of them in short succession, or if you’re an especially attentive reader, or if you’re a wordsmith yourself.

I have no beef with any of these news-outlets . . . . I’m not exactly sure who is left or right or in the dreadful middle - I just read them, watch them. I’m not English, but I prefer (slightly) European news to CNN or the Huffington Post; just as I prefer Harpers to The Daily Beast and U2 to You2b.

If you really read the three articles (links below), you’ll find the words “claims” or “claiming” in all of them at some point, but it should be clear the truly independent Independent comes across as the least independent of all.

Anyway, after digesting the story (as far as I can know it), I like the BBC version best, although the Guardian sounds better … and it’s also is more essentially English. In the Netherlands (where I lived most of my life), a Dutch paper would perhaps have written “Prominent Scientist Sacked for Critical View of Government Policies”, and a German tabloid could have screamed “Government Finally Sacks Nutty Pro-Drug Professor.”

That’s what I mean with the Color of Language – and that’s how media and politicians usually try to manipulate the minds of their readers, viewers, and constituents. Unfortunately, they often succeed, distorting reality by manipulating language - the oldest trick in the world.

In fact, “He Who Sacked” should be obliged to bow (Japanese style) do to “Him Who Was Sacked.” He, Home Secretary Alan Johnson, should bend at his waist and beg Professor David Nutt for forgiveness. Because, as everyone knows – even without being a scientist – nicotine (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, snuff) is far more difficult to give up than dope (Cannabis, Marihuana, Skunk, THC). Apart form that, most Baby-Boomers will know that a single helping of LSD may have you encounter the Goddess of Love, whereas the equivalent litre of Gin Tonic or Vodka-Cola will have you wake up with the feeling “WHAT TE FU*K.”

Going back to science, this subjective feeling of the experienced user is fully vindicated by Professor Nutt. He may have his name work against him, but his research only confirms what many of us know from first-hand experience.

According to the scientist, gathering what can be gleaned from the three articles linked below, the Harm-Index of popular drugs looks like this:

1. Cocaine

2. Heroin

3. Barbiturates

4. Methadone

5. Alcohol

6-8 not mentioned (probably morphine, opium)

9. Nicotine

10. THC (Cannabis, Marihuana)

11. LSD

12. XTC (Ecstasy)

At present, however, the classification of drugs does not at all reflect the harm they represent, and is as follows (in the UK), though marijuana has recently moved from C to B … which is part of why this row between politicians and scientific advisors is unfolding.

Class A (most harmful)

Heroin, morphine, methadone, cocaine, opium, XTC, LSD

Class B (harmful though less potent than A)

codeine, amphetamines and barbiturates

Class C (low risk)

marijuana (now upgraded to B), tranquilizers, less potent stimulants and mild analgesics

Numbers 5 and 9, you will notice, are not at all classed as drugs. By not speaking of alcohol as a drug, the use of language can again be seen as misleading.. It isn’t hard to guess that there’s a fiscal reason to keeping the sale of alcohol and tobacco legally going – since the tax revenue coming from these addictions is badly needed – not even to mention the profits by the companies selling these substances. When someone speaks about “drug policy”, these two are never even discussed.

And if the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says that smoking cannabis creates only a relatively small risk of psychotic illness, and that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse, he knows what he’s talking about. After all, it’s not as if he’s an Afghan drug-lord or the brother of Keith Richards … he’s the previously respected and carefully chosen chairman of the council.

Last not least, it comes as no surprise when Prof. Nutt states in his BBC interview, that the ‘row’ between scientists and politicians began the moment that England got saddled with the great man who knows all and everything: Gordon Brown.

Sources:
The Independent
The Guardian
BBC

TV interview with Prof. Nutt is here:

Video Interview