* 165
deaths of cancer - The Cellular Antennas are Killing Us
- 165 cancer cases were found in one neighbourhood in Osafia
- Zoran and Porat became famous for their cancer cases multitude
that were linked to the radiation from radio antennas -
It's time to fight the cellular companies - In the last
4 years 165 people died of cancer - All of them lived in
neighbourhood where there are cellular antennas - We decided
to unite and stop the monster - The cellular companies representatives
come as thieves in the night to erect the antennas - Mother
of three children who had a brain damage - I don't want
others to go through what I went through - Every day a new
cancer case if found - The Nature and Gardens Authority
forbade erecting antennas in the National Park because of
concerns for the animals' lives - And what about us? There
is no concern about our lives? - Parliament member informed
he would initiate a law of 3 years in prison for manager
of any cellular company that will erect antennas in a pirate
way - Foregone conclusions - Public is being regularly deceived
by drug trials funded by pharmaceutical companies, loaded
to generate the results they need - Application to other
contentious issues, such as cellphone research is tempting
- They prefer not to get results from trials that are unfavourable
to their drug - Not once did a company fund a trial that
proved unfavourable to it - Trials funded by companies were
four times more likely to have results favourable to them
than those funded by others - Drug company trials are tightly
regulated - Being good and being poor are causally related:
being good doesn't pay - Harlot plc promises to give drug
companies and others the results they want - Harlot can
produce positive results from a trial - Sackett and Oxman
describe 13 methods for getting the results you want - A
company gets huge benefit from showing that its drug is
better than a competitor's - The most common method to avoid
unfavourable results is to make sure that a trial is not
big enough to show that a competitor product is either better
or worse - 70% of trials in major medical journals are funded
by the drug industry - Virtually all research on drugs is
funded by the industry - Governments have taken the view
that public money can be better spent elsewhere - Information
on drugs is distorted - The public is being regularly deceived
and exploited - Bushwhacking Mother Nature - US Environmental
Destruction Abroad - US has consistently valued military
power more than environment - There is no US military base
in the world that doesn't have some soil or ground water
contamination - Poisoned by insecticides, industrial waste
and toxic metals - People living at or near the bases suffered
from disproportionately high rates of illness - US claimed
to be exempt from any clean-up liabilities - Toxic weaponry
dumped on countries - Urine samples were found with abnormally
high levels of non-depleted uranium - US-led forces helped
irradiate the local environment, with unspeakable civilian
health implications - DU-weaponry burns upon contact, emitting
radioactive dust which can then spread across a large region
- DU remains destructive for 4.5 billion years - War on
Drugs has dealt Mother Nature a separate death blow - Domestic
drug treatment programs are 20 times more effective than
eradicating drug supply at the source - An herbicide commonly
used in US-sponsored Colombian eradication programs is Roundup
Ultra, a broad-spectrum Monsanto product which destroys
food crops, water supplies and Amazonian bio-diversity -
America's War = War on the environment : trumped up justification
to rape and pillage Mother Nature in the name of increased
personal security - This approach backfires into a spiral
of destruction and resentment - The White House has to learn
that it's impossible to secure a sustainably safe environment
through the destruction of nature and endangerment of people
abroad - Syngenta’s Spanish GM Trojan Horse - Scientists
Join Farmers to Call for Enquiry into (20/01/04)
165 deaths of cancer
---------------------
"The Cellular Antennas are Killing
Us"
165 cancer cases were found in one neighbourhood in Osafia.
The Health Ministry started researching the connection between
the
cancer cases and the antennas that are erected in the area,
and
considers extending the research to Yavne, Modeen, Reut and
Tamra.
By Alex Doron
Maariv 20.1.2004
After the villages Zoran and Porat which became famous for their
cancer
cases multitude that were linked to the radiation from radio
antennas,
it's time for the Druze village Osafia to fight the cellular
companies.
To the meeting of the parliament committee came the representatives
of
Osafia's "The Women Committee for Fighting the Antennas", who
told that
in the last 4 years 165 people died of cancer, all of them lived
in one
neighbourhood where there are cellular antennas. "We decided
to unite
and stop the monster" said the committe member Mira Abu Zalef.
"The
cellular companies representatives come as thieves in the night
to erect
the antennas". Abu Zalef presented herself as a mother of three
children
who had a brain damage, and added: "I don't want others to go
through
what I went through. Every day a new cancer case if found".
Another
committe member, Zahia Naser, was furious: "The Nature and Gardens
Authority forbade erecting antennas in the National Park
because of
concerns for the animals' lives. And what about us? There is
no concern
about our lives?"
Dr. Micha Bar Hana, manager of the national cancer registry
of the
Health Ministry reported that he had started a research on Osafia
in
order to find out the connection between the exposure to electromagnetic
radiation and the cancer rate in Osafia, "but we have difficulties
in
gathering data". Parliament members suggested that the research
will be
extended also to Yavne, Modeen, Reut and Tamra, which complained
about
many cancer cases near antennas.
The cellular companies representative, Asaf Aisen, said that
the
companies check the base stations and give all the data to the
Environment's Quality Ministry. He emphasized that the radiation
levels
"are very low".
Parliament member Ofir Pines informed that he would initiate
a law of 3
years in prison for manager of any cellular company that will
erect
antennas in a pirate way.
Informant: Iris Atzmon
--------
Foregone conclusions
--------------------------
To All
Here is a stunning comment made by Richard Smith, editor of
the British
Medical Journal:
"The public is being regularly deceived by the drug trials funded
by
pharmaceutical companies, loaded to generate the results they
need."
Though Richard Smith's below article is about scientific
spin as
practiced by the drug companies, it's application to other contentious
issues, such as cellphone research is tempting.
Don Maisch
Foregone conclusions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1122721,00.html
"The public is being regularly deceived by the drug trials funded
by
pharmaceutical companies, loaded to generate the results they
need."
Richard Smith
Wednesday January 14, 2004
The Guardian
Drug companies spend hundreds of millions of pounds to bring
a new drug
to market, and tens of millions of pounds to do the clinical
trials that
are necessary for both registration and marketing. Understandably,
they
would prefer not to get results from these trials that are unfavourable
to their drug. And, despite the ubiquitous uncertainties of
science and
medicine, they rarely do. How do they manage it?
In 1994, Canadian researchers looked at 69 trials of anti-arthritis
drugs funded by drug companies and published in prominent medical
journals. In every case the drug made by the company was as
good as the
comparative treatment, and in a quarter of the trials it was
better. Not
once did a company fund a trial that proved unfavourable to
it.
Yet the whole scientific point of doing such trials is to answer
so far
unanswered questions. Supposedly, researchers conduct trials
when they
are in a charmed state called "equipoise", which means they
are
genuinely uncertain which is the best treatment. If they think
one
treatment is better than another, then they shouldn't be conducting
the
trial.
A review published in 2003 found 30 studies that had compared
the
results of trials funded by drug companies with those funded
from other
sources. Trials funded by companies were four times more likely
to have
results favourable to them than those funded by others.
Yet the technical quality of the trials funded by drug companies
was
always as good and often better than the quality of those funded
by
other sources. This is not surprising, as drug company trials
are
tightly regulated. There are explicit high standards, and companies
can
afford to hire the best to conduct the trials.
How then do companies usually manage to fund research that is
favourable
to them? An answer is supplied in a recent issue of the BMJ
by Dave
Sackett and Andy Oxman, two tireless campaigners for the better
use of
scientific evidence in medicine. They have founded a spoof company
called Harlot - which stands for How to Achieve positive Results
without
actually Lying to Overcome the Truth. They created the company
after it
finally dawned on them that "being good and being poor are causally
related: being good doesn't pay".
Harlot plc promises to give drug companies and others the results
they
want. Your drug may be wholly ineffective, Sackett and Oxman
promise,
but as long as it isn't a lot worse than a sip of triple distilled
water, then Harlot can produce positive results from a trial.
Importantly, these results are not usually achieved by doing
poor
quality trials. The trick is in the question asked and the design
of the
trial. Sackett and Oxman, both experts on the design and analysis
of
trials, describe 13 methods for getting the results you want.
One of the commonest methods is to test a new drug not against
an
effective treatment but against a placebo. Ironically, regulators
often
require companies to do this. But what matters to patients is
not
whether a company's drug is better than nothing, but whether
it is
better than established treatments. Companies are nervous about
these
"head-to-head" trials, particularly if many drugs are being
tested -
because there may be only one winner and many losers. A huge
publicly
funded head-to-head trial of treatments for high blood pressure
was
published recently and threw companies into a tizz because it
showed
that long-established drugs that are off patent were better
than newer,
much more expensive drugs.
A company gets huge benefit from showing that its drug is better
than a
competitor's. But the company needs to control the trial, and
Harlot
suggests that a company compares its product with an inadequate
dose of
a competitor's product. This may have been the reason why previous
trials on drugs for high blood pressure suggested that newer
drugs were
better.
A variant on this technique is to compare the drug with an excessive
dose of the competitor's product: it is then possible to show
that the
company's drug has far fewer side-effects (because side-effects
are more
common with higher doses of a drug). This may have been the
method for
showing that new and expensive drugs for schizophrenia have
fewer
side-effects than older drugs.
Perhaps the most common method to avoid unfavourable results
is to make
sure that a trial is not big enough to show that a competitor
product is
either better or worse. Such trials are very common, and Silvio
Garattini, a leading Italian researcher and critic of the drug
industry,
has proposed a consent form for them: "I understand that this
trial is
worthless for science and medicine, but will be of great use
to the
marketing department of Shangri-la Pharmaceuticals."
All this matters greatly because 70% of trials in major medical
journals
are funded by the drug industry. Often companies will buy reprints
of
these articles to use in promoting their drug. Sometimes they
may spend
up to £750,000.
Virtually all research on drugs is funded by the industry, because
governments have taken the view that public money can be better
spent
elsewhere. The end result is that information on drugs (on which
Britain
spends £7bn a year) is distorted.
The Harlot article was written to amuse, but is as deadly serious
as
anything else published in the BMJ in the past 10 years. The
public is
being regularly deceived and exploited.
· Richard Smith is the editor of the British Medical Journal
email: rsmith@bmj.com
--------
Bushwhacking Mother Nature: US Environmental
Destruction Abroad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT Sueddeutsche Zeitung
While some German politicians are worried about the closing
of US
military bases in their regions, others fear nasty surprises
will
surface after the Americans depart. The United States has consistently
valued military power more than the environment - but
at what price?
Some in the White House argue that US national interests transcend
greenie niceties, and this certainly was the case with Bush's
3-day stay
at Buckingham Palace last year. US security forces trashed the
Royal
Gardens, historic statues and even the palace itself in an effort
to
provide the best environment for the president. The Queen's
ensuing
outrage didn't seem to bother Washington: if US self-protection
mandates
despoiling a patch of land far away, then so be it.
The issue of US military bases overseas arouses similar conflicts.
According to Gary Vest, an assistant deputy undersecretary of
defense
for environmental security, "There is not a [US] military base
in the
world that doesn't have some soil or ground water contamination.
That is
just a given."
A classic case involves the Clark and Subic bases in the Philippines,
which after closing in 1992, were discovered to be veritable
death
traps: wells had been poisoned by insecticides, industrial waste
and
toxic metals had been buried in random landfills, and petroleum
had
leaked from underground tanks. As a result, ground water and
nearby
agricultural lands were contaminated, and Filipinos living at
or near
the bases suffered from disproportionately high rates of illness.
It gets worse: while the cost of decontaminating Clark and Subic
was
estimated to be $1 billion, the US claimed to be exempt from
any
clean-up liabilities, and even refused to provide technical
assistance
and pertinent documents.
Germany's tough environmental laws and strategic importance
have ensured
more favorable treatment thus far, but significant problems
remain. In
1999, a US Department of Defense inspector general said base
cleanup
costs in Germany could total at least $1 billion.
Yet another black mark in the US environmental record abroad
concerns
toxic weaponry dumped on countries such as Afghanistan. Via
independent
monitoring of weapon types and delivery systems, the Uranium
Medical
Research Center (UMRC) indicated that "radioactive, toxic uranium
alloys
and hard-target uranium warheads were being used" by US-led
coalition
forces during 2001's Operation Enduring Freedom. UMRC's follow-up
assessments of uranium contamination in Afghan civilians' urine
samples
found "abnormally high levels of non-depleted uranium," 400%
to 2000%
higher than normal population baselines.
Put bluntly, in addition to littering the Afghan countryside
with
cluster bombs and a seismic shock warheads, it appears US-led
forces
helped irradiate the local environment, with unspeakable civilian
health
implications.
Same story in Iraq. In the 1991 Gulf War, depleted uranium (DU)
bullets
and shells were widely used by US forces because of DU's ability
to cut
through conventional armor plating on tanks. DU-weaponry burns
upon
contact, emitting radioactive dust which can then spread across
a large
region.
Experts at the Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that
while 375
tons of DU were used in Iraq during the Gulf War, up to 2,200
tons of DU
were dumped on the country by US-led coalition forces during
the 2003
invasion. DU remains destructive for 4.5 billion years.
But military bases and the War on Terror and aren't the only
justifications given by the US for its assault on the global
environment; its War on Drugs has dealt Mother Nature a separate
death blow.
The White House has mandated a sharp increase in funding for
aerial
spraying of coca and opium poppy crops abroad, despite evidence
that
domestic drug treatment programs are 20 times more effective
than
eradicating drug supply at the source.
Aerial eradication, a process by which toxic herbicides are
indiscriminately dumped from airplanes onto the land and water
below,
flies in the face of logic. A United Nations' study, for example,
found
that coca cultivation in Colombia tripled between 1996 and 2001,
despite
nearly one million acres of Colombian land having been sprayed
during
that time.
More alarmingly, an herbicide commonly used in US-sponsored
Colombian
eradication programs is Roundup Ultra, a broad-spectrum Monsanto
product
which destroys food crops, water supplies and Amazonian bio-diversity
along with the intended coca and poppy plants. According to
its warning
label, Roundup Ultra should not directly come into contact with
bodies
of water, people, grazing animals, and desired crops; regardless,
the US
is funding Colombia to spray such herbicides over hundreds of
thousands
of hectares each year.
The theme is clear: too often America's War on Fill-in-the-Blank
becomes
a war on the environment, a trumped up justification to rape
and pillage
Mother Nature in the name of increased personal security.
And too often this approach backfires into a spiral of destruction
and
resentment.
It's safe to say George W. Bush will not be invited back to
Buckingham
Palace anytime soon - consider that door slammed. Given the
ongoing
attacks on American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would
appear US
interests are not welcome there either. And it's doubtful that
aerial
drug eradication in Latin America will lead to much else than
hungry
locals enraged at Yankee destruction of their habitat.
The White House has to learn that it's impossible to secure
a
sustainably safe environment through the destruction of nature
and
endangerment of people abroad.
Informant: Heather Wokusch
--------
FW: Please see if you can help
--------------------------------------
Hi Klaus: This plea for help has come my way. Could you
post it please?
Someone on the list might have just the right medical leads.
Best,
Imelda, Cork.
From: Meenu.Seth@Utibank.co.in <mailto:Meenu.Seth@Utibank.co.in ,To:
undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: Please see, if you can help,
Date:
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:59:21 +0530
Dear Sir,
I am attaching a message from a very distraught person, in case
you
could help by providing any information, may be one life (family)
would
be saved.
Thanks and regards,
Meenu Seth, NRI Services, UTI Bank Ltd., Barakhamba Road branch,
New
Delhi - 110 001.
Tel : 011-23311 047 / 051 / 067, Fax : 011-23311 054
Help Needed.... Please Don't Delete.
From Divya Singh(Siemens)
Dear Friends Please help, if possible. This is important to
me....so I
am asking you to please forward it. Please send this to all
your contacts.
If anyone you know who has survived NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER,
please
inform me at the address given below. My husband has it and
I would like
to know what treatment was used. Please forward this to everyone
on your
contact list.
From the bottom of my heart I thank you.
Thank you,
Divya Singh
Inform here: SIEMENS, Siemens Information System Limited, #84,
Keonics
Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 561 229. INDIA
Please keep forwarding this, even if you are unable to help.
Somebody
else might be able to.... MAY GOD BE WITH U AND BLESS U ALWAYS
--------
Syngenta’s Spanish GM Trojan Horse
---------------------------------------
http://www.ogm-debats.com/presse/documents/communiques/doc_alcalde.pdf
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
Scientists Join Farmers to Call for Enquiry into
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/
--------
O.T. themes:
What now?
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9764
The dry hole in the Oval Office
http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman01152004.html
America's Empire of Bases
http://ganges.tides.org:8080/emailnow-en2004/go?j=29703&u=306
The case for impeachment
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/lang011904.shtml
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
--------
O’Neill’s Claims Against Bush Supported By 1998 "War" Letters
to Clinton
Signed By Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Leopold0115.htm
A War in Search of a Reason
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Eland0115.htm
Watching the HORROR of the Patriot Act
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Sherry0115.htm
A False U.S. Recovery
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Sandronsky0117.htm
Damning Evidence
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Lobe0117.htm
Memo for the President:Your State-of-the-Union Address
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/VIPS0117.htm
MLK Day More Than A Dream
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ates0117.htm
--------
Blair Faces New "War Crimes" Accusation
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=482331
Is Bush Doomed by the Neocons?
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/16/222106.shtml
The Neocon Case for Imprisoning and Executing Congressional
War Opponents
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo57.html
From Information Clearing House
|
|
|