Steven Gaal Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 FROM THE "KOOK LOON" "TIN FOIL HAT" WASHINGTON POST --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How Philadelphia seizes millions in ‘pocket change’ from some of the city’s poorest residents = http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/10/how-philadelphia-seizes-millions-in-pocket-change-from-some-of-the-citys-poorest-reisdents/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 13, 2015 Author Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Colorful Dinosaur Eggs Challenge Deep Time by Brian Thomas, M.S. * == http://www.icr.org/article/8805/ ===Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Biological Clocks Indicate Recent Creation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- German scientists revealed that some Chinese dinosaur eggs probably looked similar to the dark blue-green hue of modern emu eggs. If the dinosaur’s original pigment molecules revealed the egg’s color, then a significant question emerges. Can pigments really stay colorful for 66 million years? The eggs came from three different upper Cretaceous sites, and their dark color contrasted with the sediment that encased them. Curious about the color, the German team from the University of Bonn conducted chemical separation techniques to isolate original dinosaur egg pigments—the first discovery of its kind.1 Though the eggs have likely lost some of their pattern detail, the presence of specific pigments named protoporphyrin and biliverdin within the ancient shells confirmed they were probably a dark blue-green color. These pigment molecules are somewhat complicated, though not as intricately organized as proteins or DNA. The dinosaur eggshell pigments contain five-sided chemical ring structures all bonded together. The pigments do not easily dissolve in water, which certainly helps account for them persisting for at least thousands of years, but their carbon and nitrogen-containing chemical rings include plenty of double-bonds. These bonds certainly can’t last forever. They hold stored chemical energy, fertile ground for the relentless chemical reactions that always break down these kinds of molecules. By their nature, complicated chemical rings and double bonds tend to break apart into smaller, simpler molecules. So how could they stay intact for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone a million or more? Back in 2013, ICR presented similar evidence from the journal Geology where an article showcased pigments from marine organisms supposedly 340 million years old.2 An expert critiqued our article, counter-asserting that pigments like these should last millions of years because fossilization somehow “locked” the pigments behind mineralized walls, preserving them indefinitely. This assertion ignored the most significant factor involved.3 How could these tiny mineral walls stay intact through millions of years of earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, climate changes, erosion, and asteroid impacts—catastrophes that evolutionists regularly describe occurring everywhere in the past? And if the pigments were locked behind mineral walls, why do they still appear visible? Even if the encasing minerals had the miraculous strength to resist cracking and exposing the pigments to outside chemicals—as unscientific an assertion as is possible—they still would not prevent complex biological molecules like pigments, with double bonds and complicated ring structures, from falling apart on their own. In other words, even if we imagine the impossible scenario of biomolecules remaining hermetically sealed from all possible influences like microbes, oxygen and water for millions of years, the molecule itself—without the help of some science-defying miracles—would have to obey the most universally applied law in all the universe: the second law of thermodynamics. Also known as the Law of Entropy, the second law describes how all highly organized systems spontaneously disorganize over time. Entropy is incessant, and it works even when things are buried or frozen. No known process violates this law, especially the process of chemical reactions that relieve tension from double-bonds, reducing complicated chemicals to simple ones. Scientists have not measured pigment decay rates, but they have measured how fast other biochemicals spontaneously degrade. Experimental results limit their age expectation to less than one million years. Until an experiment reveals that pigment decay rates magically buck this trend, the most scientific conclusion about dinosaur eggshell pigments must hold to the Law of Entropy, consistent with the burial of dinosaurs—and their eggs—in Noah’s Flood only thousands of years ago. =============================================== References1. Hecht, J. First evidence that dinosaurs laid colourful blue-green eggs. New Scientist. Posted on newscientist.com May 21, 2015, accessed June 1, 2015. Citing: Wiemann, J. et al. 2013. The blue-green eggs of dinosaurs: How fossil metabolites provide insights into the evolution of bird reproduction. Posted on academia.edu before print, accessed June 1, 2015.2. Thomas, B. Evidence Doesn’t Fade from Colorful Fossils. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 11, 2013, accessed June 1, 2015.3. Rana, F. Believe It or Not! Ancient Biomolecules Evidence for Old Earth. Reasons to Believe. Posted on reasons.org June 1, 2013, accessed June 1, 2015. Image credit: Steve Starer. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders. *Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on June 11, 2015. ######################################################################################################################### ######################################################################################################################### Frozen Penguin DNA Casts Doubt on DNA-Based Dates by Brian Thomas, M.S. * == http://www.icr.org/article/5110/ =Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Biological Clocks Indicate Recent Creation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For decades, scientists have assumed that mutation rates were consistent enough to be used as a natural clock to date biological specimens. By comparing the number of single changes in the genetic code between two different species, a researcher could supposedly estimate the amount of time that had elapsed since those species diverged from one another. In order for these “molecular clocks” to provide accurate times when studying the “evolution” of different basic body forms, researchers must assume that macroevolution is true and that all the observed genetic differences came about through mutation—not some other process like the insertion of mobile genetic elements or through other genetic adaptations programmed into the creature. New research published in the journal Trends in Genetics, however, shows “that traditional DNA dating techniques are fundamentally flawed” because they have been based on the wrong mutation rates.1 Scientists examined mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient Adelie penguin bones that were found frozen in Antarctica. After comparing them to their modern penguin counterparts, several conclusions became apparent, one of which is that different regions of DNA change at different rates. The most ancient penguin DNA at the site was “known” (according to standard interpretations) to have come from 44,000-year-old remains. But the comparison “produced results that were far different than conventional analysis would have suggested.”1 Different in what way, exactly? An Oregon State University press release indicated that the traditional molecular clock rates used to calculate age have resulted in ages that are between two and six times too young.1 In other words, the old rates used in DNA dating calculations were way too fast. The Adelie penguin DNA must not have changed much at all during the supposed elapsed time. And using a new slower rate―one which depends entirely on an assumed age of 44,000 years to be accurate2―“may force a widespread re-examination of determinations about when one species split off from another, if that determination was based largely on genetic evidence [instead of basing it on dates assigned to fossils].”1 This is by no means the only data that have led researchers to conclude that mutation rates are not reliable enough to use as molecular clocks, and that assigned ages must therefore rely on other sources. One study covered by ICR News last year examined a gross contradiction between molecular versus standard dates for Cambrian fossils.3 Though these fossils are interpreted as being about 500 million years old, calculations using the standard mutation rate show that they must have emerged an astounding 1,200 million years ago. And if this new penguin data is to be applied to that, then 1,200 million years is at least two times too young! If penguins, like many other animals, were designed to undergo specific kinds of DNA changes that would affect certain traits relevant to survival, then it would be inaccurate to assume that all DNA differences were the result of random mutations. This alone renders molecular clocks unreliable and provides yet another testable hypothesis for the creation model. Just like the carousel of changing evolutionary date assignments for rocks, minerals, and fossils, there is no solid scientific reason to trust dates based on faulty molecular clocks.4 However, reliable biblical history—which is based on eyewitness testimony and not on the set of assumptions required when using natural processes for dating—can be used as a viable framework to interpret these genetic differences. It leads to the conclusion that some of them were created by God, and others have occurred since creation, either due to random mutations or non-random DNA altering mechanisms. Which differences came from which cause remains to be determined. ==================================================================================================================== References1.Ancient Penguin DNA Raises Doubts about Accuracy of Genetic Dating. Oregon State University press release. November 10, 2009, reporting research published in Subramanian, S. et al. 2009. High mitogenomic evolutionary rates and time dependency. Trends in Genetics. 25 (11): 482-486.2.An alternative explanation for why ancient Adelai penguin mitochondrial DNA is so faithful to its modern counterparts is not that the mutation rate used to calculate age was wrong, but that the oldest Adelai remains are only a couple of thousand years old—not 44,000 years old, as is currently claimed.3.Thomas, B. Cambrian Clash: Fossils and Molecular Clocks Disagree. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 20, 2008, accessed November 18, 2009.4.For example, some of these changing dates were compiled in Woodmorappe, J. 1978. Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 16 (2): 102. * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Edited June 13, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 Friday, Jun 12, 2015 12:45 PM PDT The Koch brothers just took a huge step toward a GOP civil war The libertarian billionaires have exerted influence on the GOP for years. But now they're actively taking the reins Heather Digby Parton ================================== http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/the_koch_brothers_just_took_a_huge_step_toward_a_gop_civil_war/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 10 Years of Climate Data Shows No Sign of Global Warming Joshua Krause The Daily Sheeple June 16th, 2015 - http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-year-climate-data-shows-no-sign-of-global-warming_062015 See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-year-climate-data-shows-no-sign-of-global-warming_062015#sthash.Qt4yQdlX.dpuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Secret Death Squads Backed by Thatcher Gov’t Killed Hundreds in N. Ireland = by The Daily Coin · June 16, 2015 = http://thedailycoin.org/?p=33351 Following the broadcast of an Irish documentary, a number of human rights groups are calling on London to take responsibility for its role in colluding with paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. These actions allegedly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Catholics, all to support the Crown. In 1974, a coordinated attack was launched in the Irish cities of Dublin and Monaghan. On May 17, three car bombs were detonated during rush hour in the nation’s capital. Only 90 minutes later, a fourth explosion went off in Monaghan, just south of the border with Northern Ireland. Thirty-three people were killed. An estimated 300 were injured. The loyalist paramilitary group Ulster Volunteer Force claimed responsibility for the attack, and in a recent Irish documentary, “Collusion,” a member of the group claims that the bombings were conducted under direction from the British Army. The goal: to implement a civil war. This is only one of several claims levied against the Thatcher government for its role in the Troubles, and in the face of “overwhelming evidence of collusion,” human rights groups and Irish officials are calling for the British government to own up. “As a result of the RTE programme ‘Collusion’ showing the knowledge by British Prime Ministers of the murder of Catholics with British army assistance, it is time for the Irish Government to stop asking and start demanding,” said Senator Mark Daly, according to Irish Central. The allegations suggest that the British Army’s secret Force Research Unit (FRU) recruited and managed members of paramilitary organizations in its efforts in “destroying” the IRA. These gangs, acting under orders from the army, executed hundreds of innocent people. According to Anne Cadwallader, author of “Lethal Allies,” a single loyalist group may have been responsible for the deaths of 120 Catholics. Other evidence also points to British involvement in the assassination of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane. Famed lawyer of Bobby Sands, leader of the Republican hunger strike in Maze Prison, Finucane was gunned down by members of the Ulster Defence Association who were acting as paid informants for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. “Carry on – just don’t get caught,” British government officials told former Special Branch head, Raymond White, according to the documentary. Allegations also say Thatcher’s administration attempted to downplay investigations into murders involving collusion, and former Police Ombudsman Nuala O’Lown said that authorities in London were still involved in covering British involvement as late as 2003. “Soft diplomacy has got us nowhere it’s time to ask the EU, UN and the Hague war crimes tribunal to carry out investigations,” Daly said. “The British Prime Minister and State were no better than a third world dictatorship ordering a terror campaign by murder gangs who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered Catholic and Irish Citizens.” On Thursday, Taoiseach Enda Kenny will meet with Prime Minister David Cameron in London. While part of those discussions will involve economic matters between the two countries, Kenny is also expected to discuss “legacy issues,” seeking British documents which detail the collusion. But even if Kenny succeeds, it may be too late. “The initial British response at political level was denial. The second phase was usually cover-up and the last phase eventually was apology,” former secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs Sean Donlon said during the documentary. “But the apology, of course, never came in the lifetime of the administration which had been involved.” -------------------================---------------- See more at: http://thedailycoin.org/?p=33351#sthash.STChMG7V.dpuf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 Thousands of teenage girls enduring debilitating illnesses after routine school cancer vaccination = http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/thousands-of-teenage-girls-enduring-debilitating-illnesses-after-routine-school-cancer-vaccination-10286876.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 22, 2015 Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 Obama Wants Regime Change In Ecuador http://www.rense.com/general96/obwantsreg.html By Stephen Lendman6-21-15 Obama is no man of the people. He never was throughout his political career. He serves powerful monied interests exclusively. As an Illinois state senator, he represented Chicago real estate interests at the expense of Black communities they wanted gentrified. He disgraces the office he holds. He remains a front man for wealth, power and privilege. Earlier, Partnership for Civil Justice Fund executive director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the "defining feature of (his presidency) the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs. He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals." His agenda mocks democratic values, rule of law principles and social justice. It includes endless wars, corporate favoritism, anti-populism, harsh crackdowns on nonbelievers and replacing all sovereign independent governments with ones Washington controls. Ecuador is one of many targeted countries. Previous articles discussed ongoing street protests on the phony pretext of inheritance and capital tax increases solely affecting the nation's wealthy - about 2% of the population. If not this issue, another would have been invented. What's happening on Ecuadorean streets is a US-orchestrated right-wing rebellion by the nation's privileged few against everyone else in the country. Whenever instability erupts almost anywhere, especially in the Americas, the Middle East or related to Russia and China, chances are America's dirty hands are involved. Ecuador is the latest example - and not for the first time. It's easy understanding why President Raphael Correa is targeted for regime change. He partly opposes Western-style neoliberal harshness but not entirely. Diverging even somewhat from Washington orthodoxy makes him a marked man. Like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, he represents the threat of a good example. He's a University of Illinois educated economist - receiving his doctorate in 2001. He taught economics at the University of San Francisco in Quito, served as an Ecuadorean economic advisor to state and international agencies, then economy and finance minister in 2005. In 2006, he was elected president. His tenure began in January 2007. He's been reelected twice. Like Hugo Chavez, he calls himself an advocate of "socialism of the 21st century." James Petras explains he "combine(s) ‘nationalist populist’ and neo-liberal policies more than" the socialism he proclaims. In February 2013, a Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) paper prepared by Mark Weisbrot, Jake Johnston and Stephan Lefebvre examined financial and regulatory reforms during his first five years in office. They called them "perhaps the most comprehensive of any country in the 21st century" - including controlling the nations central bank, regulating capital outflows, taxing financial interests, encouraging domestic investment and cooperatives, as well as instituting consumer protections. CEPR analysts called it "Ecuador's New Deal," saying it played a major role in stimulating economic growth, increasing government revenue, substantially reducing poverty and unemployment, as well as achieving other economic and social indicator improvements. Weisbrot said "Ecuador has gone against the conventional wisdom and shown that there are alternatives." "By pursuing policies that have prioritized economic development, employment, and poverty reduction over financial and foreign interests, Ecuador has surmounted some of the problems that had previously held it back, and that have hampered progress in other countries. (Correa's) tenacity and courage served (Ecuador) well." Large spending increases in housing, healthcare and other social areas were instituted. Education funding as a percent of GDP more than doubled. An important redistributive cash-transfer program increased by one-fourth. A democratically elected Constituent Assembly new constitution was adopted by national referendum. Measures introduced included citizen-initiated referendums, increased access to healthcare and education, improved worker rights, more equitable distribution of income, fair as opposed to so-called "free" trade, and environmental protections. Things are far from perfect in Ecuador. Business interests retain considerable power. Revolutionary change has a long way to go for greater equity. Yet overall conditions improved greatly under Correa. How much further he may shift from destructive neoliberal policies remains to be seen. CEPR analysts concluded the following: "What is most remarkable is that many of (Correa's) reforms were unorthodox or against the prevailing wisdom of what governments are supposed to do in order to promote economic progress." "Taking executive control over the central bank, defaulting on one-third of the foreign debt, increasing regulation and taxation of the financial sector, increasing restrictions on international capital flows, greatly expanding the size and role of government - these are measures that are supposed to lead to economic ruin." "The conventional wisdom is also that it is most important to please investors, including foreign creditors, which this government clearly did not do.""While not all of Ecuador’s reforms went against orthodox policy advice, many of them did - and they succeeded. It should be no surprise that Correa" remains hugely popular. He showed "that a government committed to reform of the financial system, can - with popular support - confront an alliance of powerful, entrenched financial, political, and media interests and win." "The government also took on powerful international interests as well, in its foreign debt default, its renegotiation of oil contracts, and its refusal to renew the concession for one of the United States' few remaining military bases in South America." It shows doing the right thing works. It bears repeating. It's why Washington wants Correa ousted. It tolerates no government diverging from so-called free market economics - prioritizing gross inequality, everything for elite interests, crumbs for all others. US-orchestrated destabilizing anti-Correa protests continue - a revolt of wealth and privilege against populism. A week ago, opposition caravans tried blocking his return from a European CELAC-EU summit. He temporarily suspended his announced capital gains and inheritance tax increases, called for national dialogue, and said he'll call for rescinding them if popular sentiment disapproves. Opposition elements refused his outreach. They want him replaced. Protests continue. Planning and Development Secretary Pabel Munoz said "(w)e are opening a national debate about what type of country we want to have." "There are two models that are being disputed that we need to see. A model where people agree that a few families should accumulate a lot of wealth, but maybe also we will see a lot of Ecuadoreans who want want to work towards a more just society." Pro-government supporters along with Ecuadorean social movements welcomed a national debate. Forums and door-to-door community campaigns are planned. Secretary General of Ecuador's Communist Party Paul Almeida Pozo said "(w)e have decided to join this national dialogue, but we believe that (it) should not just be focused on these two laws, but we believe that the Citizen's Revolution has to assume a new historic moment." "We need to make this dialogue into an evaluation of what the Citizen's Revolution is, and the advances it has had." Ecuador's business community opposes national dialogue. Its members won't participate. They want wealth redistribution measures rescinded. They want beneficial social and economic change entirely abandoned - with full support from Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Knight Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 10 Years of Climate Data Shows No Sign of Global Warming Joshua Krause The Daily Sheeple June 16th, 2015 - http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-year-climate-data-shows-no-sign-of-global-warming_062015 See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-year-climate-data-shows-no-sign-of-global-warming_062015#sthash.Qt4yQdlX.dpuf meanwhile, 150+ years of data says there is no pause at all, and temperatures are increasing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 22, 2015 Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) 10 Years of Climate Data Shows No Sign of Global Warming Joshua Krause The Daily Sheeple June 16th, 2015 - http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-year-climate-data-shows-no-sign-of-global-warming_062015 See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/10-year-climate-data-shows-no-sign-of-global-warming_062015#sthash.Qt4yQdlX.dpuf meanwhile, 150+ years of data says there is no pause at all, and temperatures are increasing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/ STEVE KNIGHT >>> > PLEASE NOTE YOUR SOURCE A DISCREDITED MAN EVEN COLBY WOULDNT QUOTE. THEN BELOW AN ESSAY ABOUT INCORRECT SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGERS gaal (Steve KNIGHT and Hillary Clinton sitting in a tree K I S S I N G !!) ################################################################## Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents - Forbes www.forbes.com/sites/.../peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-... Loading... Feb 21, 2012 - In a written statement, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, and vocal ... the climate debate in more depth, without once using the words “scam” or ...• Fakegate Illustrates Global Warming Alarmists ... - Forbes www.forbes.com/sites/.../fakegate-illustrates-global-warming-alar... Loading... Feb 22, 2012 - Alarmist scientist Peter Gleick has admitted that the latter two were one and the same ... a fake “2012 Climate Strategy,” that he claims he did not write. ... climate realism message is largely funded by Big Oil, Big Coal or Big Whatever. .... and fundraising documents” on their Web site, your DeSperate dolts ... • The Climate Wars' Damage to Science | Watts Up With That? wattsupwiththat.com/.../the-climate-wars-damage-to... Watts Up With That? Loading... 3 days ago - Nina Teicholz's book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how .... There was the occasion in 2012 when the climate scientist Peter Gleick stole the identity ... landing therefore [climate] science is a hoax”, from which readers might have ..... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2011/12/21/m-i-t-game- • Study: Skeptics reject charity appeals which blame disasters ... wattsupwiththat.com/.../study-skeptics-reject-charity... •Cached Watts Up With That? Loading... 5 days ago - http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/25/washington-is-encouraging-the-..... That is simply why, even if big-name Climate Scientists stood up today and said ..... They tried to add Peter “The Thief and Fraud” Gleick in 2012, but saw the ... ################################################################################################# ################################################################################################# The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science June 19, 2015 They are behaving like sixteenth-century priests who do not think the Bible should be translated into English. essay by Matt Ridley (Note: due to the length of this essay, I am only including paragraph excerpts here. See the link at the end for the full essay. – Anthony) The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested — or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff. Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science. Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas. This should have been obvious to me. Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly. What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest. What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press. Cheerleaders for alarm This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. In the 1970s, when global temperatures were cooling, some scientists could not resist the lure of press attention by arguing that a new ice age was imminent. Others called this nonsense and the World Meteorological Organisation rightly refused to endorse the alarm. That’s science working as it should. In the 1980s, as temperatures began to rise again, some of the same scientists dusted off the greenhouse effect and began to argue that runaway warming was now likely. At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate. Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked. These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous. Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral. Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report. Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover. Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem? Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous? Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely. I find that very few people even know of this. Most ordinary people who do not follow climate debates assume that either it’s not happening or it’s dangerous. This suits those with vested interests in renewable energy, since it implies that the only way you would be against their boondoggles is if you “didn’t believe” in climate change. Scandal after scandal The Cook paper is one of many scandals and blunders in climate science. There was the occasion in 2012 when the climate scientist Peter Gleick stole the identity of a member of the (sceptical) Heartland Institute’s board of directors, leaked confidential documents, and included also a “strategy memo” purporting to describe Heartland’s plans, which was a straight forgery. Gleick apologised but continues to be a respected climate scientist. There was Stephan Lewandowsky, then at the University of Western Australia, who published a paper titled “NASA faked the moon landing therefore [climate] science is a hoax”, from which readers might have deduced, in the words of a Guardian headline, that “new research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked”. Yet in fact in the survey for the paper, only ten respondents out of 1145 thought that the moon landing was a hoax, and seven of those did not think climate change was a hoax. A particular irony here is that two of the men who have actually been to the moon are vocal climate sceptics: Harrison Schmitt and Buzz Aldrin. It took years of persistence before physicist Jonathan Jones and political scientist Ruth Dixon even managed to get into print (in March this year) a detailed and devastating critique of the Lewandowsky article’s methodological flaws and bizarre reasoning, with one journal allowing Lewandowsky himself to oppose the publication of their riposte. Lewandowsky published a later paper claiming that the reactions to his previous paper proved he was right, but it was so flawed it had to be retracted. If these examples of odd scientific practice sound too obscure, try Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC for thirteen years and often described as the “world’s top climate scientist”. He once dismissed as “voodoo science” an official report by India’s leading glaciologist, Vijay Raina, because it had challenged a bizarre claim in an IPCC report (citing a WWF report which cited an article in New Scientist), that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The claim originated with Syed Hasnain, who subsequently took a job at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general, and there his glacier claim enabled TERI to win a share of a three-million-euro grant from the European Union. No wonder Dr Pachauri might well not have wanted the 2035 claim challenged. Yet Raina was right, it proved to be the IPCC’s most high-profile blunder, and Dr Pachauri had to withdraw both it and his “voodoo” remark. The scandal led to a highly critical report into the IPCC by several of the world’s top science academics, which recommended among other things that the IPCC chair stand down after one term. Dr Pachauri ignored this, kept his job, toured the world while urging others not to, and published a novel, with steamy scenes of seduction of an older man by young women. (He resigned this year following criminal allegations of sexual misconduct with a twenty-nine-year-old female employee, which he denies, and which are subject to police investigation.) Yet the climate bloggers who constantly smear sceptics managed to avoid even reporting most of this. If you want to follow Dr Pachauri’s career you have to rely on a tireless but self-funded investigative journalist: the Canadian Donna Laframboise. In her chapter in The Facts, Laframboise details how Dr Pachauri has managed to get the world to describe him as a Nobel laureate, even though this is simply not true. Notice, by the way, how many of these fearless free-thinkers prepared to tell emperors they are naked are women. Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist, has steadfastly exposed the myth-making that goes into polar bear alarmism, to the obvious discomfort of the doyens of that field. Jennifer Marohasy of Central Queensland University, by persistently asking why cooling trends recorded at Australian weather stations with no recorded moves were being altered to warming trends, has embarrassed the Bureau of Meteorology into a review of their procedures. Her chapter in The Facts underlines the failure of computer models to predict rainfall. But male sceptics have scored successes too. There was the case of the paper the IPCC relied upon to show that urban heat islands (the fact that cities are generally warmer than the surrounding countryside, so urbanisation causes local, but not global, warming) had not exaggerated recent warming. This paper turned out—as the sceptic Doug Keenan proved—to be based partly on non-existent data on forty-nine weather stations in China. When corrected, it emerged that the urban heat island effect actually accounted for 40 per cent of the warming in China. There was the Scandinavian lake sediment core that was cited as evidence of sudden recent warming, when it was actually being used “upside down”—the opposite way the authors of the study thought it should be used: so if anything it showed cooling. There was the graph showing unprecedented recent warming that turned out to depend on just one larch tree in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. There was the southern hemisphere hockey-stick that had been created by the omission of inconvenient data series. There was the infamous “hide the decline” incident when a tree-ring-derived graph had been truncated to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling. And of course there was the mother of all scandals, the “hockey stick” itself: a graph that purported to show the warming of the last three decades of the twentieth century as unprecedented in a millennium, a graph that the IPCC was so thrilled with that it published it six times in its third assessment report and displayed it behind the IPCC chairman at his press conference. It was a graph that persuaded me to abandon my scepticism (until I found out about its flaws), because I thought Nature magazine would never have published it without checking. And it is a graph that was systematically shown by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to be wholly misleading, as McKitrick recounts in glorious detail in his chapter in The Facts. Its hockey-stick shape depended heavily on one set of data from bristlecone pine trees in the American south-west, enhanced by a statistical approach to over-emphasise some 200 times any hockey-stick shaped graph. Yet bristlecone tree-rings do not, according to those who collected the data, reflect temperature at all. What is more, the scientist behind the original paper, Michael Mann, had known all along that his data depended heavily on these inappropriate trees and a few other series, because when finally prevailed upon to release his data he accidentally included a file called “censored” that proved as much: he had tested the effect of removing the bristlecone pine series and one other, and found that the hockey-stick shape disappeared. In March this year Dr Mann published a paper claiming the Gulf Stream was slowing down. This garnered headlines all across the world. Astonishingly, his evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down came not from the Gulf Stream, but from “proxies” which included—yes—bristlecone pine trees in Arizona, upside-down lake sediments in Scandinavia and larch trees in Siberia. The democratisation of science Any one of these scandals in, say, medicine might result in suspensions, inquiries or retractions. Yet the climate scientific establishment repeatedly reacts as if nothing is wrong. It calls out any errors on the lukewarming end, but ignores those on the exaggeration end. That complacency has shocked me, and done more than anything else to weaken my long-standing support for science as an institution. I repeat that I am not a full sceptic of climate change, let alone a “denier”. I think carbon-dioxide-induced warming during this century is likely, though I think it is unlikely to prove rapid and dangerous. So I don’t agree with those who say the warming is all natural, or all driven by the sun, or only an artefact of bad measurement, but nor do I think anything excuses bad scientific practice in support of the carbon dioxide theory, and every time one of these scandals erupts and the scientific establishment asks us to ignore it, I wonder if the extreme sceptics are not on to something. I feel genuinely betrayed by the profession that I have spent so much of my career championing. There is, however, one good thing that has happened to science as a result of the climate debate: the democratisation of science by sceptic bloggers. It is no accident that sceptic sites keep winning the “Bloggies” awards. There is nothing quite like them for massive traffic, rich debate and genuinely open peer review. Following Steven McIntyre on tree rings, Anthony Watts or Paul Homewood on temperature records, Judith Curry on uncertainty, Willis Eschenbach on clouds or ice cores, or Andrew Montford on media coverage has been one of the delights of recent years for those interested in science. Papers that had passed formal peer review and been published in journals have nonetheless been torn apart in minutes on the blogs. There was the time Steven McIntyre found that an Antarctic temperature trend arose “entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together”. Or when Willis Eschenbach showed a published chart had “cut the modern end of the ice core carbon dioxide record short, right at the time when carbon dioxide started to rise again” about 8000 years ago, thus omitting the startling but inconvenient fact that carbon dioxide levels rose while temperatures fell over the following millennia. Scientists don’t like this lèse majesté, of course. But it’s the citizen science that the internet has long promised. This is what eavesdropping on science should be like—following the twists and turns of each story, the ripostes and counter-ripostes, making up your own mind based on the evidence. And that is precisely what the non-sceptical side just does not get. Its bloggers are almost universally wearily condescending. They are behaving like sixteenth-century priests who do not think the Bible should be translated into English. Renegade heretics in science itself are especially targeted. The BBC was subjected to torrents of abuse for even interviewing Bob Carter, a distinguished geologist and climate science expert who does not toe the alarmed line and who is one of the editors of Climate Change Reconsidered, a serious and comprehensive survey of the state of climate science organised by the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change and ignored by the mainstream media. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech moved from alarm to mild scepticism and has endured vitriolic criticism for it. She recently wrote: There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. The closing of minds on the climate change issue is a tragedy for both science and society. The distinguished Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson was so frightened for his own family and his health after he announced last year that he was joining the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation that he withdrew, saying, “It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.” The astrophysicist Willie Soon was falsely accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal, an accusation widely repeated by mainstream media. … The harm to science I dread to think what harm this episode will have done to the reputation of science in general when the dust has settled. Science will need a reformation. Garth Paltridge is a distinguished Australian climate scientist, who, in The Facts, pens a wise paragraph that I fear will be the epitaph of climate science: We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society’s respect for scientific endeavour. And it’s not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced. The most recent polling data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change is down slightly on thirty years ago, while the number who worry “not at all” has doubled from 12 per cent to 24 per cent—and now exceeds the number who worry “only a little” or “a fair amount”. All that fear-mongering has achieved less than nothing: if anything it has hardened scepticism. None of this would matter if it was just scientific inquiry, though that rarely comes cheap in itself. The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don’t, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people’s livelihoods. They want us to spend a fortune getting emissions down as soon as possible. And they want us to do that even if it hurts poor people today, because, they say, their grandchildren (who, as Nigel Lawson points out, in The Facts, and their models assume, are going to be very wealthy) matter more. Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern. That seems wrong to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Ridley is an English science journalist whose books include The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. A member of the House of Lords, he has a website at == http://www.mattridley.co.uk. He declares an interest in coal through the leasing of land for mining. == Read the full essay here: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/ Edited June 23, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Garth Paltridge is a distinguished Australian climate scientist, who, in The Facts, pens a wise paragraph that I fear will be the epitaph of climate science: We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society’s respect for scientific endeavour. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Background A biographical note states that Paltridge "is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in Tasmania as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. He retired in 2002 and continues to live in Hobart. He is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Tasmania and a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University. His research ranged from the optimum design of plants to the economics of climate forecasting. He is best known internationally for work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Whistleblowers could have citizenship revoked under proposed laws ========================================================= http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/25/whistleblowers-could-have-citizenship-revoked-under-proposed-laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) WakingTimes June 30, 2015 0 Comments Read More → Journal Verifies That the Vaccinated Are Transmitting Disease Dave Mihalovic, Prevent DiseaseWaking Times Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say the best way to prevent pertussis is to get vaccinated. However, more data continues to present itself suggesting that may be completely false. A new study published in BMC Medicine by Santa Fe Institute Omidyar Fellows Ben Althouse and Sam Scarpino points to a different, but related, source of the outbreak — vaccinated people who are infectious but who do not display the symptoms of whooping cough, suggesting that the number of people transmitting without symptoms may be many times greater than those transmitting with symptoms. In 2012, whooping cough, or pertussis, is spread across the entire US at rates at least twice as high as those recorded in 2011 and epidemiologists and health officials were even admitting that the vaccines may be the cause. The dangerous new strains of whooping cough bacteria were reported in March 2012. The vaccine, researchers said, was responsible. The reason for this is because, while whooping cough is primarily attributed toBordetella pertussis infection, it is also caused by another closely related pathogen called B. parapertussis, which the vaccine does NOT protect against. Two years earlier, scientists at Penn State had already reported that the pertussis vaccine significantly enhanced the colonization of B. parapertussis, thereby promoting vaccine-resistant whooping cough outbreaks. Even the CDC admits that caccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infan Modern Whooping Cough Vaccines Accelerated Disease In the 1990s adverse side effects of previous whopping cough vaccines led to the development and introduction of acellular pertussis vaccines, which use just a handful of the bacteria’s proteins. The standard DTP or DPT (diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus) vaccine is acknowledged to be the deadliest of all vaccines, causing more disability, illness and the highest risks, even exceeding MMR (measles, mumps and rubella). In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine’s effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal24 percent among those aged 8-12 According to the authors: “… [V]accination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice. Though the mechanism behind this increased colonization was not specifically elucidated, it is speculated to involve specific immune responses skewed or dampened by the acellular vaccine, including cytokine and antibody production during infection. Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection.” Pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DTP or Tdap vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DTP vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950’s until the late 1990’s were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years. The problem is, the newer vaccines do not block transmission. A January 2014 study in PNAS by another research team demonstrated that giving baboons acellular pertussis vaccines prevented them from developing symptoms of whooping cough but failed to stop transmission. Building on that result, Althouse and Scarpino used whopping cough case counts from the CDC, genomic data on the pertussis bacteria, and a detailed epidemiological model of whooping cough transmission to conclude that acellular vaccines may well have contributed to — even exacerbated — the recent pertussis outbreak by allowing infected individuals without symptoms to unknowingly spread pertussis multiple times in their lifetimes. No Protection ‘There could be millions of people out there with just a minor cough or no cough spreading this potentially fatal disease without knowing it,’ said Althouse. ‘The public health community should act now to better assess the true burden of pertussis infection.’ What’s worse, their model shows that if the disease can be spread through vaccinated, asymptomatic individuals essentially undetected, the level of vaccination needed to protect those that are unvaccinated (so-called ‘herd immunity’) is over 99 percent, an impossible feat at a time when more informed and educated parents are turning away from vaccination. Their results also suggest that a practice called cocooning, where mothers, fathers, and siblings are vaccinated to protect newborns, isn’t effective. ‘It just doesn’t work, because even if you get the acellular vaccine you can still become infected and can still transmit. So that baby is not protected,’ Althouse says. When It Comes To Vaccines, It’s One Of The Worst Offenders In Damaging Health The fact that many vaccines are ineffective is becoming increasingly apparent. Merck has recently been slapped with two separate class action lawsuits contending they lied about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in their combination MMR shot, and fabricated efficacy studies to maintain the illusion for the past two decades that the vaccine is highly protective. In 1993, The National Childhood Encephalopathy study: a 10-year follow-up reported on the medical, social, behavioural and educational outcomes after serious, acute, neurological illness in early childhood. The analysis found a four-fold increase in the estimated risk of encephalitis from the pertussis vaccine. The analysis showed the risk of encephalitis with the vaccine have been grossly underestimated. Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis vaccine (DTP) and pediatric diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DT) are not recommended for individuals 7 years of age or older due to increased adverse reactions. Yet in 1994, a study in the Family Practice Research Journal found that children 7 years of age or older are inadvertently receiving DTP or DT and were unnecessarily experiencing adverse reactions. In another study in the The Journal of the American Medical Association, children vaccinated with pertussis vaccine were six times more likely to develop asthma. In 2004, a study in the British Medical Journal found that the prevalence of asthma and wheezing in non-vaccinated individuals was approximately 50% less at age 69-81 months than children who had 3 or more doses of with the Diptheria and tetanus vaccine. Researchers reported in the OSMA Journal that the pertussis vaccine may cause lasting and permanent brain damage. Physicians are required to warn all responsible parties of vaccine recipients that pertussis vaccine may cause “lasting brain damage”, but rarely if ever to Physicians inform parents of this fact. In the Journal of Pediatrics researchers found an association observed between the DTP vaccination of preterm infants and a transient increase or recurrence of apnea where they would stop breathing.New England Medical Journal reported in 2001 that the DTP vaccine increases the risk of febrile seizures fivefold on the day of vaccination and that there are significantly elevated risks. Several other research citations linking the DTP vaccines to disease causing complications in neurological systems, the central nervous system, sudden death, cervical lymphadenitis and convulsions. Edited July 1, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Now if we look at the articles linked above - and limit ourselves to websites that are not antivax and simply medicine or science reporting - what do we find? "The dangerous new strains of whooping cough bacteria were reported in March 2012. " "The vaccine is still the best way to reduce transmission of the disease and reduce cases, but it appears to be less effective against the new strain and immunity wanes more rapidly. We need to look at changes to the vaccine itself or increase the number of boosters,” said Dr Lan, whose analysis of cultured bacteria from 194 whooping cough patients was published last week in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. " Two years earlier, scientists at Penn State had already reported that the pertussis vaccine significantly enhanced the colonization of B. parapertussis, thereby promoting vaccine-resistant whooping cough outbreaks." Despite widespread vaccination, whooping cough incidence is on the rise worldwide, making it the only vaccine-preventable disease associated with increasing deaths in the United States. Although this disease is most often attributed to Bordetella pertussis infection, it is also caused by the closely related pathogen, B. parapertussis. However, B. pertussis has remained the center of attention, whereas B. parapertussis has been greatly overlooked in the development of whooping cough vaccines.....Highlighting the extreme consideration that should be exercised in future vaccine development, this work supports the use of vaccines that also target B. parapertussisas a potentially more efficient way to battle whooping cough. "In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine’s effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12" Conclusions Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from age 8 through 12, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine. Stable rates of testing ruled out selection bias. The possibility of earlier or more numerous booster doses of acellular pertussis vaccine either as part of routine immunization or for outbreak control should be entertained. "In 1993, The National Childhood Encephalopathy study: a 10-year follow-up reported on the medical..." Hmmm - that's a dead link! I found a summary at http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/medicine/medicine-general-interest/national-childhood-encephalopathy-study-10-year-follow but there is simply a summary and nothing to actually see what they thought about the use of vaccines. The next couple of links also lead to the one above or other pay-to-view sites. Hint: if you want to make a claim using a big name journal study but no it doesn't really say what you want, link to a report where people have to pay to read the details. 9 out of 10 won't pay and just assume that you are not totally distorting what the report said. "In 2004, a study in the British Medical Journal found that the prevalence of asthma and wheezing in non-vaccinated individuals was approximately 50% less at age 69-81 months than children who had 3 or more doses of with the Diptheria and tetanus vaccine." Some studies have shown a link between vaccination of infants with whole cell inactivated pertussis vaccine and the later development of asthma and atopy. 1,2 A randomised trial disagreed with these findings, but follow up was done until only 30 months of age.3 Our previous report of the lack of an association between pertussis vaccination and wheezing disorders was based on outcomes in early childhood.4 In this study we have examined the association between pertussis vaccination in infancy and asthma or atopy by age 7.5 years in a large, population based birth cohort.....These findings confirm and extend our previous observations of the lack of an independent association between pertussis vaccination in infancy with inactivated, whole cell vaccine and the subsequent development of asthma or atopy during later childhood. "Researchers reported in the OSMA Journal that the pertussis vaccine may cause lasting and permanent brain damage. Physicians are required to warn all responsible parties of vaccine recipients that pertussis vaccine may cause “lasting brain damage”, but rarely if ever to Physicians inform parents of this fact." Pertussis vaccine has not been shown to cause permanent neurologic damage in children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and others. However, the federal government continues to maintain that, on rare occasions, permanent brain damage does occur. The report of a single case-control study in support of this position prompted the establishment of a special committee under the sponsorship of the United States Public Health Service, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council to determine the validity of the report. The special committee concurred that pertussis vaccine does produce permanent brain damage in rare instances. Physicians are required to warn all responsible parties of vaccine recipients that pertussis vaccine may cause "lasting brain damage." This requirement has been authorized by Congress and the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986. etc etc etc As always, the antivax movement continue to distort and twist the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) http://vaxtruth.org/2015/01/pertussis/ set u free Edited July 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 4, 2015 Author Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) FROM THE kook loon Newsweek ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows By Douglas Main 6/29/15 at 2:57 PM Tech & Science There is little recent or high-quality evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay, according to a review. Shannon Stapleton / REUTERS Filed Under: Tech & Science, Water Fluoridation, Public Health If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought. Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid. Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.” Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week You might think, then, that fluoridated water's efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact. The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month. The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either. The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded). “From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.) “Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed." “There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 study covered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable. Nacho Doce / Reuters Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants. “The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University. The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water. “The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Till and Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University. Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says. It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there's no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says. Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits. Another study that year which tracked the fluoride consumption of more than 600 schoolchildren in Iowa showed there was no significant link between fluoride ingestion and tooth decay. Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children's permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to 26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available. The review also found fluoridation was associated with a 14 percent increase in the number of children without any cavities. But more than two-thirds percent of the studies showing this took place more than 40 years ago, and are not of high quality. Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the cavity-reducing studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general (like how much sugar they consumed) or ethnicity. When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn't seem to be well-known. “I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says. The data suggest that toothpaste, besides other preventative measures like dental sealants, flossing and avoiding sugar, are the real drivers in the decline of tooth decay in the past few decades, Thiessen says. Indeed, cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. KK Cheng et al / BMJ ADVERTISEMENT Meanwhile, dental health leaves much to be desired in widely fluoridated America: About 60 percent of American teenagers have had cavities, and 15 percent have untreated tooth decay. One thing the review definitively concluded: Fluoridation causes fluorosis. This condition occurs when fluoride interferes with the cells that produce enamel, creating white flecks on the teeth. On average, about 12 percent of people in fluoridated areas have fluorosis bad enough that it qualifies as an “aesthetic concern,” according to the review. According to Sheldon, that’s a “huge number.” A total of 40 percent of people in fluoridated areas have some level of fluorosis, though the majority of these cases are likely unnoticeable to the average person. In a smaller percentage of cases, fluorosis can be severe enough to cause structural damage, brown stains and mottling to the tooth. Sheldon says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today, “nobody would even think about it” due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis. There is also a definite issue of inequality when it comes to fluorosis. Blacks and Mexican-Americans have higher rates of both moderate and severe forms of the condition. Blacks also have higher levels. As of 2004, 58 percent of African-Americans had fluorosis, compared to 36 percent of whites, and the condition is becoming more common. The Cochrane review concerned itself only with oral health. It didn’t address other health problems associated with fluoride, which Grandjean says need to be researched. Many of the Cochrane study’s conclusions conflict with statements by the CDC, the American Dental Association and others that maintain fluoridation is safe and effective. The ADA, for example, maintains on its website that “thousands of studies” support fluoridation’s effectiveness—which is directly contradicted by the Cochrane findings. The ADA didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The CDC remains undeterred. “Nothing in the Cochrane review” reduces the government’s “confidence in water fluoridation as a valuable tool to prevent tooth decay in children as well as adults,” says Barbara Gooch, a dental researcher with CDC’s Division of Oral Health. The CDC and others “are somehow suspending disbelief,” Sheldon says. They are “all in the mindset that this is a really good thing, and just not accepting that they might be wrong.” Sheldon and others suggest pro-fluoridation beliefs are entrenched and will not easily change, despite the poor data quality and lack of evidence from the past 40 years. Derek Richards, the editor of the journal Evidence-Based Dentistry (published by the prestigious Nature group) concedes that “we haven’t got any current evidence” that fluoridation reduces cavities, “so we don’t know how much it’s reducing tooth decay at the moment,” he says. “But I have no qualms about that.” Richards reasons that because fluoridation may help reduce cavities in those who don’t use toothpaste or take other preventative measures, including many in lower socioeconomic groups, it’s likely still useful. He also argues that there’s no conclusive evidence of harm from fluoridation (other than fluorosis), so he doesn’t see a large downside. But most scientists interviewed for this article don’t necessarily think fluoridation’s uncertain benefits justify its continuation without more stringent evidence, and argue for more research into the matter. “When you have a public health intervention that’s applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose,” Sheldon says. Everybody drinks water, after all, mostly from the tap. “Public health bodies need to have the courage to look at this review,” says Sheldon, “and be honest enough to say that this needs to be reconsidered.” Edited July 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts