The Economic Collapse Blog.com
There are very few things that the top politicians in both political parties agree on these days, but one of the things that that they do agree on is that free trade with China is a good thing. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have all fully supported our trade relationship with China. In this day and age, virtually anyone who even dares to question how fair our "free trade" is with China is immediately labeled as a "protectionist" and is dismissed as a loon. But when you sit down and really analyze it, there are a whole lot of very good reasons why both conservatives and liberals should be fundamentally against our unfair trade relationship with China. But you won't hear these reasons being talked about on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News. You won't hear many members of Congress get up and give speeches about how trade with China is bleeding our economy dry. Both major political parties have completely and totally bought into "the benefits" of globalism and free trade and there isn't even much of a national debate about our trade policies anymore.
But there should be a national debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives are just going to accept whatever their leaders tell them to believe. Conservatives have been convinced that to be against unfair trade is to be "anti-business" and no conservative ever wants to be anti-business.
Similarly, most liberals blindly follow whatever Obama, Pelosi and Reid tell them to believe. Millions of hard working Democrat voters have lost their jobs due to our nightmarish trade relationship with China, but they are still convinced that Obama is their savior and that they must not ever say anything that he does is wrong.
Well, I have a message to members of both political parties....
WAKE UP! YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO!
If you are truly a conservative, there is no way that you should ever support our trade relationship with China.
If you are truly a liberal, there is no way that you should ever support our trade relationship with China.
Globalism has allowed the big global corporations that dominate our economy to make huge amounts of money, but it has also forced American workers into one gigantic global labor pool.
Are you willing to work 12 hours a day for less than $2.00 an hour in sweatshop conditions?
Well, that is your new competition.
The top 1 percent of all Americans is using globalism to make huge profits, but the standard of living for the rest of us is slowly but surely being forced down toward the rest of the world.
Is that what you really want?
If after reading the reasons below you can still consider yourself a good "conservative" or a good "liberal" and still support our current trade relationship with China please leave a comment to this article. I would love to hear your reasoning.
10 Reasons Why Conservatives Should Be Against Unfair Trade With China
1 - Conservatives are supposed to be all about creating jobs. But millions upon millions of good paying middle class jobs have been shipped off to China and they are never coming back.
2 - Once upon a time, conservatives were opposed to communism. But our trade relationship with China has enabled the largest communist economy in the world to go from third world status to superpower status. China is now the second largest economy in the world, and that would have never happened without our cooperation.
3 - Conservatives are supposed to be concerned about national security. But thanks to the massive amount of money they have made from us, the Chinese have been able to dramatically upgrade and modernize their military. At the top levels of the Chinese government, most officials still believe in the ultimate worldwide triumph of communism, and now thanks to us they have a world class military with which to advance that agenda.
4 - China has a very strict one-child policy which should be absolutely abhorrent to any true conservative.
5 - China uses mobile abortion vans to help enforce the one-child policy. How any social conservative can justify trade with China after learning this is a total mystery.
6 - If Republicans actually started fighting to protect American jobs from going overseas they could win the "angry working class vote" and take both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012.
7 - Conservatives don't like when other countries try to take advantage of the American people. Yet China is taking advantage of the American people by keeping their currency artificially low and most conservatives are strangely quiet about this. This currency manipulation has put large numbers of U.S. small businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage and has forced many of them to shut down. Essentially, this currency manipulation has enabled China to get us down on the mat and continually beat the stuffing out of us. Meanwhile, our politicians stand by and do nothing.
8 - Our trade deficit with China has enabled them to accumulate about a trillion dollars of our debt. This gives them tremendous leverage over us and is a very serious threat to our economy and to our national security.
9 - Conservatives are traditionally very protective of national sovereignty and state sovereignty. But a global economy governed by the G20, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank is a giant step toward world government and a giant step away from national sovereignty and state sovereignty.
10 - The giant trade deficit that the United States runs is making us poorer as a nation each and every month. Each year, somewhere around half a trillion dollars of our national wealth gets transferred out of the United States. Much of that gets transferred to China. The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States. The transfer of wealth that this represents is absolutely mind blowing. China is literally bleeding us dry.
10 Reasons Why Liberals Should Be Against Unfair Trade With China
1 - Liberals are supposed to defend unions, yet our trade relationship with China has done more to hurt unions than anything else and most liberal politicians don't seem to care. Globalism has put the average American worker in direct competition with the cheapest labor in the world. Unemployment is going to continue to increase unless something is done to stop the offshoring and outsourcing of our jobs.
2 - Liberals are supposed to care about the environment. But our trade relationship with China means that thousands of factories and businesses leave our shores and end up in China where the environmental regulations are not nearly as strict. In fact, China has become a complete and total environmental nightmare at this point. If liberals truly cared about the environment they would want to keep factories and businesses here.
3 - Our trade relationship with China (and with the rest of the world) has caused the income inequality gap in America to explode. The top 1% of all Americans have done very well in this environment while the rest of us suffer. For much more on this phenomenon, please see my recent article entitled "Winners And Losers".
4 - Dangerous products from China are pouring into the United States. Liberals should be horrified that so many of our products are now made outside the United States far from the watchful eyes of our regulatory agencies. Over the past couple of years, there has been headline after headline about dangerous products made in China. The following is just one example of this: 10 Babies Die Mysteriously At Fort Bragg: Toxic Drywall From China Used In Base Homes The Culprit?
5 - In a global economy, every piece of legislation that Democrats intend to help American workers with ends up backfiring. For example, a rise in the minimum wage or a law increasing worker benefits causes American workers to become even more expensive and gives corporations even more incentive to move jobs overseas.
6 - "Free Trade" has been the most destructive in the inner cities where Democrats have traditionally gotten a tremendous amount of support. Shiny new factories are going up all over China while at the same time formerly great manufacturing cities such as Detroit have degenerated into rotting war zones. This is not good for liberals.
7 - Democrats won't get elected if there are no jobs. Each month, more jobs leave the United States for China and the growing number of long-term unemployed workers in the U.S. is not going to be inclined to keep the same politicians in office if this continues. If liberal politicians value their jobs they should start protecting the jobs of average Americans.
8 - Free trade with China threatens to ruin our social safety net. It is a good thing to help those in need, but there comes a point where too many people jump on to the net and it breaks down. Already, one out of every six Americans is enrolled in at least one anti-poverty program. Over 40 million Americans are on food stamps. These are not good numbers for liberals.
9 - True liberals should be absolutely horrified by the exploitation of labor in China. In China, millions of people work in horrific conditions for what is essentially slave labor pay. The fact that big global corporations are getting rich from this should make the stomach of every liberal turn.
10 - The giant trade deficit that the United States runs is making us poorer as a nation each and every month. Each year, somewhere around half a trillion dollars of our national wealth gets transferred out of the United States. Much of that gets transferred to China. The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States. The transfer of wealth that this represents is absolutely mind blowing. China is literally bleeding us dry.
Liberals and conservatives should both be able to agree that it is not a good thing for millions of American jobs to leave the United States and go to China.
Liberals and conservatives should both be able to agree that it is not a good thing that billions of dollars in wealth gets transferred from the United States to China every single month.
But will our leaders wake up and start pursuing a more logical approach to China?
Don't count on it.
View Original Article
Saturday, September 4, 2010
No Safe Harbor on Gulf Coast; Human Blood Test Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Exposure
Jerry Cope
Huffington Post
Even as BP and US government officials continue to declare the oil spill over at Mississippi Canyon 252 and the cleanup operation an unqualified success, for the first time blood tests on sickened humans have shown signs of exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals related to crude oil and dispersants. Some of the individuals tested have not been on the beaches, were not involved in any cleanup operations or in the Gulf water -- they simply live along the Gulf Coast. Several of them are now leaving the area due to a combination of illness and economic hardship. As the media's attention has moved on and the public interest wanes, the suffering and hardship for people along the entire Gulf Coast of the United States from Louisiana to Florida continues to worsen. While BP and the government are scaling back cleanup operations and distancing themselves from legal liability for the environmental destruction, economic hardship, sickness and death resulting from the largest environmental disaster in our nation's history, the situation continues to deteriorate.
The use of the Corexit dispersant 9500 and the highly toxic 9527 by BP, with the approval and assistance of the US Coast Guard and EPA, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. Never before has such a huge quantity of the toxic compound been used anywhere on the planet. Most countries including NATO allies ban it's use and will only grant approval as a last resort after other methods have failed. Britain has banned its use altogether. The NOAA provided extensive information summarizing other nation's policies in regards to Corexit after Senator Barbara Mikulski demanded the information from EPA administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional hearings in July. While the dispersant serves to break down crude oil on the surface and thus makes the oil invisible from the air, it is highly toxic and bioaccumulates in the marine food chain. In humans it is a known carcinogen and its use was widely condemned after Exxon/Valdez and the horrifying health effects on the populations exposed to it there. As it evaporates and becomes airborne, the toxic compounds have moved on shore, creating health impacts that, although apparently large from the numbers of people affected, the full extent is unknown. BP and the US government have effectively been performing the largest chemical experiment in history on a civilian population without their knowledge or consent.
Within two days after arriving in the region in mid-July, everyone on our team began getting sick. After our first day out on the water with Captain Lori of Dolphin Queen Cruises touring the lagoons around Orange Beach, Alabama, we all had extreme headaches. During our boat tour, dispersant was visible covering the water everywhere. That evening I developed a gagging, coughing reflex that was so intense and persistent it was impossible to speak to my daughter on the phone. The symptoms typical for high levels of chemical exposure such as burning, itching eyes, constantly runny nose, chronic coughing, burning sore throat, chest congestion, and lethargy progressively intensified. Over the next several weeks these symptoms continued to worsen until I developed chemically-induced pneumonitis. Before leaving the area I had blood tests initiated to determine if the levels of exposure were high enough to be be detected. The musical activists Sassafrass and the tireless efforts of Michelle Nix allowed myself and several local residents to have blood drawn and tested by Metametrix for chemical exposure. Project Gulf Impact and the Coastal Heritage Society have also contributed greatly to air and water testing in the Gulf region affected by the spill. Project Gulf Impact has set up a dedicated medical help phone line at 504-814-0283. It has proven extremely difficult to find medical care providers who are willing to see patients who have been impacted by the oil spill due to the tremendous pressure exerted against hospitals, clinics, and physicians by BP. In numerous cases BP has provided financial payments to institutions and individuals in exchange for them agreeing not to allow their physicians or staff to see, advise, or treat anyone sickened as a result of the well blowout.
I spoke at length with Michael R. Harbut, MD, MPH, who is clinical professor of Internal Medicine and director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University's Karmanos Cancer Institute. Board Certified in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Harbut was Chair of the Occupational and Environmental Health Section of the American College of Chest Physicians, was Medical Coordinator of the Kibumbe Refugee Camp during the 1994 Civil War in Rwanda, where the death rate for patients under his care was 1/3 that of the remainder of the camp and was Chief US Medical Advisor to Poland's Solidarity during the Cold War. His research has been published or presented in venues ranging from the New England Journal of Medicine to the White House.
JC: I wanted to speak with you and see what you thought of the test results we got back. As you know, some of the locals actually came back even higher than mine.
MH: First you have to remember the setting -- this is New Orleans and the Gulf Coast; there is a history and a context in which things need to be placed. In my specialty, which is occupational and environmental medicine, there are not many of us who are board certified who actually take care of patients. The bulk of the physicians in our specialty are medical advisors or medical directors to large corporations, and many have never met a chemical they didn't like. Sort of like Will Rogers. Part of the context is there is a physician whose name is Victor Alexander who was a specialist in my field. He worked in New Orleans at the Oxnar clinic and was seeing a lot of patients who worked for the petroleum companies and was reportedly fired for all of the work he did for his patients as opposed to the petroleum companies -- what a doctor is supposed to do. So Victor Alexander then goes into private practice and the New Orleans police came and arrested him for robbing a bank.
JC: Seriously?
MH: Yea, it gets way crazier. This is a guy who was doing very well personally, economically -- it came out in trial that he had a half a million dollars in the bank and was making plenty of money. It is unlikely in terms of motive that he would rob a bank for 2,500 dollars. The video from the bank was analyzed by the retired chief of criminal identification for the FBI; he said there was no way it could have been Dr. Alexander robbing this bank. He went to trial twice, the judge threw out a lot of evidence that would have exonerated him and he was sent to prison for robbing a bank. The Louisiana State Medical Society refused to take away his license. Many physicians who do work or potentially could do work or have knowledge of the area in New Orleans know the story about Victor Alexander. The message is quite clear: Don't mess around with the petroleum industry.
JC: I have been working mainly in the Orange Beach/Gulf Shores area of Alabama, and that's where I got sick.
MH: Have you had a CAT scan?
JC: Not yet, although they want to do one at the National Jewish Respiratory Center in Denver.
MH: You have to do that. I was chairman of the Occupational and Environmental medicine section of the American College of Chest Physicians so I have a lot of experience in this. You really need to be seen by a physician who understands this is serious.
JC: It's on the schedule when I get back to Colorado. What do you see when you look at the test results from myself and the other people down here? What do they tell you?
MH: Let me tell you one more thing before I forget. I think that the only way to come close to getting the ultimate answer down there is to -- there has to be a federal task force if you will. A federal effort where there would be half a dozen or a dozen specialists in this field who would have the protection of the government either temporary commissions from the U. S. public health service or something like that. Who would be responsible for organizing all the science and all the medicine and trying to get people to deliver care down there. I just don't think you are going to get many volunteers unless they know they have the protection of the government. The annals of environmental diseases are strewn with stories about physicians who have had their lives ruined.
JC: The impacts of what is happening down here is are so big it's very hard to wrap your head around it.
MH: I will give you one other example while we are talking about it. In the early 1990s I had called a bunch of cases, I saw patients who were sick from their environment who worked for Dow and DOW Chemical and a couple of the steel mills. In an eighteen month period I had one Blue Cross Blue Shield audit, two Medicare audits, a Michigan Employment Security Commission audit, a USAID Inspector General's audit, and I was the target of a federal grand jury investigation. After two years and tens of thousands of dollars Medicare thanked me for teaching them how to catch a crook, apologized for bothering me -- I told them how they could catch crooks and they thanked me. The US government, the local FBI office actually called my attorney and said they really weren't able to find anything and my attorney who is a former US Attorney said that the government never calls when they have investigated somebody they just leave them dangling for the rest of their lives. The degree of harassment towards physicians is enormous, which I think is part of the reason -- because of the conflicting forces at work in the Gulf, because of the probably less than half truths that are floating around that there needs to be a federal task force of independent physicians and scientists who have the protection and full faith of the United States. The way the system works, I think it would mean temporary commissions in the public health service. I don't think even the oil companies that work down there would try and bump off a guy who works with the public health service.
JC: A number of people I have spoken to in Washington share that same opinion. Does it help to have test results in hand that show high levels of exposure from this event?
MH: I remember you had no Benzene but a lot of Hexane and a couple of Hexane metabolites. I am not sure what that means because where you see Hexane, Hexane causes what is called a dying back neuropathy, meaning the nerve cells in the arms and legs die back from the distal tips to the proximal end. You can end up with numbness, pain, all sorts of things. Hexane is a direct petroleum product so where you see Hexane you would expect to see Benzene. Now, that having been said I personally don't even do actual solvent levels anymore because they are fraught with error. Rubbing alcohol is the prototypical solvent, and if you put a cap of rubbing alcohol on a flat surface like marble or something it's usually gone before you would have a chance to get a paper towel it evaporates so quickly. So what happens with the organic solvents in general is that unless there is absolutely perfect control when they are drawn, there is a fair amount that will evaporate, if in fact not all of it. One of the dangers of people going to this lab (Metametrix), which I think is a good lab, is if they get the test drawn at a facility that lets it sit out for a little bit you are going to get a false negative result. In a case like yours, if you believe the sample is valid and it shows that you have Hexane and Hexane metabolites and also Octane in your blood, then it's a pretty good clinical indication of how to go about treating you, which is usually just drinking a lot of water and then treating the end organ damage. End organ damage meaning we know if you inhale this stuff, if you have it in your system, it will damage your nerves. so we take a look at the nerves. The nerves will not show up abnormal on a test until there has been 30% damage. So what I do here and what I teach my residents is that for most people who come in to see the doctor in this field with a problem you will get more yield in terms of finding pathology and being able to help them if you look for end organ damage rather than the presence of a solvent because the solvent could have evaporated after it has already whacked the brain or whacked the liver.
JC: I spoke to the founder of Metametrix and he said that the tests were designed to pick up these compounds in the body after part of it, particularly Benzene, has been flushed. He indicated that the Benzene would not show up for very long once you were exposed but that the other compounds, the Ethylbenzene, m. p.-Xylene, the Hexane, which was way high, the Methylpentanes and the Isooctane, all of those things indicated to him that we were exposed to significant amounts of Benzene.
MH: That's what I would think, too.
JC: When you look at these results is there reason to believe we might have sustained serious damage to our organs?
MH: In order to be scientific about this you have to have baseline data on a large population. What the oil company doctors, the professional experts that will ultimately be hired in these cases will argue is that you don't know what background is in the area. I have seen them do this. They will go out and check 90 people and they will find people with results less than yours or more than yours and they will say this is background so with this particular patient you can not rely on the validity of the testing. On a scientific basis that's true, I would prefer background. What happened to you right now is you have an indication that you breathed in harmful agents -- you have a marker. They are called bio-markers. A bio-marker is the Hexane, N-Hexane and the Octane. You have evidence that you inhaled it because it's in your blood. Nobody has correlated how much N-Hexane in your blood by PPM or PPB correlates with actual nerve damage. You need to have pulmonary tests, high resolution cat scans of your chest, liver function and cardiac function tests. What should happen with people with these exposures is at an absolute minimum, and I do not believe this is adequate, but at an absolute minimum the NIOSH recommended health monitoring tests should be done. Be certain to ask the doctor examining you if they have ever been paid or retained by a petroleum company or a chemical manufacturing company.
JC: I can do that.
View Article and Test Results
Huffington Post
Even as BP and US government officials continue to declare the oil spill over at Mississippi Canyon 252 and the cleanup operation an unqualified success, for the first time blood tests on sickened humans have shown signs of exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals related to crude oil and dispersants. Some of the individuals tested have not been on the beaches, were not involved in any cleanup operations or in the Gulf water -- they simply live along the Gulf Coast. Several of them are now leaving the area due to a combination of illness and economic hardship. As the media's attention has moved on and the public interest wanes, the suffering and hardship for people along the entire Gulf Coast of the United States from Louisiana to Florida continues to worsen. While BP and the government are scaling back cleanup operations and distancing themselves from legal liability for the environmental destruction, economic hardship, sickness and death resulting from the largest environmental disaster in our nation's history, the situation continues to deteriorate.
The use of the Corexit dispersant 9500 and the highly toxic 9527 by BP, with the approval and assistance of the US Coast Guard and EPA, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. Never before has such a huge quantity of the toxic compound been used anywhere on the planet. Most countries including NATO allies ban it's use and will only grant approval as a last resort after other methods have failed. Britain has banned its use altogether. The NOAA provided extensive information summarizing other nation's policies in regards to Corexit after Senator Barbara Mikulski demanded the information from EPA administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional hearings in July. While the dispersant serves to break down crude oil on the surface and thus makes the oil invisible from the air, it is highly toxic and bioaccumulates in the marine food chain. In humans it is a known carcinogen and its use was widely condemned after Exxon/Valdez and the horrifying health effects on the populations exposed to it there. As it evaporates and becomes airborne, the toxic compounds have moved on shore, creating health impacts that, although apparently large from the numbers of people affected, the full extent is unknown. BP and the US government have effectively been performing the largest chemical experiment in history on a civilian population without their knowledge or consent.
Within two days after arriving in the region in mid-July, everyone on our team began getting sick. After our first day out on the water with Captain Lori of Dolphin Queen Cruises touring the lagoons around Orange Beach, Alabama, we all had extreme headaches. During our boat tour, dispersant was visible covering the water everywhere. That evening I developed a gagging, coughing reflex that was so intense and persistent it was impossible to speak to my daughter on the phone. The symptoms typical for high levels of chemical exposure such as burning, itching eyes, constantly runny nose, chronic coughing, burning sore throat, chest congestion, and lethargy progressively intensified. Over the next several weeks these symptoms continued to worsen until I developed chemically-induced pneumonitis. Before leaving the area I had blood tests initiated to determine if the levels of exposure were high enough to be be detected. The musical activists Sassafrass and the tireless efforts of Michelle Nix allowed myself and several local residents to have blood drawn and tested by Metametrix for chemical exposure. Project Gulf Impact and the Coastal Heritage Society have also contributed greatly to air and water testing in the Gulf region affected by the spill. Project Gulf Impact has set up a dedicated medical help phone line at 504-814-0283. It has proven extremely difficult to find medical care providers who are willing to see patients who have been impacted by the oil spill due to the tremendous pressure exerted against hospitals, clinics, and physicians by BP. In numerous cases BP has provided financial payments to institutions and individuals in exchange for them agreeing not to allow their physicians or staff to see, advise, or treat anyone sickened as a result of the well blowout.
I spoke at length with Michael R. Harbut, MD, MPH, who is clinical professor of Internal Medicine and director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University's Karmanos Cancer Institute. Board Certified in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Harbut was Chair of the Occupational and Environmental Health Section of the American College of Chest Physicians, was Medical Coordinator of the Kibumbe Refugee Camp during the 1994 Civil War in Rwanda, where the death rate for patients under his care was 1/3 that of the remainder of the camp and was Chief US Medical Advisor to Poland's Solidarity during the Cold War. His research has been published or presented in venues ranging from the New England Journal of Medicine to the White House.
JC: I wanted to speak with you and see what you thought of the test results we got back. As you know, some of the locals actually came back even higher than mine.
MH: First you have to remember the setting -- this is New Orleans and the Gulf Coast; there is a history and a context in which things need to be placed. In my specialty, which is occupational and environmental medicine, there are not many of us who are board certified who actually take care of patients. The bulk of the physicians in our specialty are medical advisors or medical directors to large corporations, and many have never met a chemical they didn't like. Sort of like Will Rogers. Part of the context is there is a physician whose name is Victor Alexander who was a specialist in my field. He worked in New Orleans at the Oxnar clinic and was seeing a lot of patients who worked for the petroleum companies and was reportedly fired for all of the work he did for his patients as opposed to the petroleum companies -- what a doctor is supposed to do. So Victor Alexander then goes into private practice and the New Orleans police came and arrested him for robbing a bank.
JC: Seriously?
MH: Yea, it gets way crazier. This is a guy who was doing very well personally, economically -- it came out in trial that he had a half a million dollars in the bank and was making plenty of money. It is unlikely in terms of motive that he would rob a bank for 2,500 dollars. The video from the bank was analyzed by the retired chief of criminal identification for the FBI; he said there was no way it could have been Dr. Alexander robbing this bank. He went to trial twice, the judge threw out a lot of evidence that would have exonerated him and he was sent to prison for robbing a bank. The Louisiana State Medical Society refused to take away his license. Many physicians who do work or potentially could do work or have knowledge of the area in New Orleans know the story about Victor Alexander. The message is quite clear: Don't mess around with the petroleum industry.
JC: I have been working mainly in the Orange Beach/Gulf Shores area of Alabama, and that's where I got sick.
MH: Have you had a CAT scan?
JC: Not yet, although they want to do one at the National Jewish Respiratory Center in Denver.
MH: You have to do that. I was chairman of the Occupational and Environmental medicine section of the American College of Chest Physicians so I have a lot of experience in this. You really need to be seen by a physician who understands this is serious.
JC: It's on the schedule when I get back to Colorado. What do you see when you look at the test results from myself and the other people down here? What do they tell you?
MH: Let me tell you one more thing before I forget. I think that the only way to come close to getting the ultimate answer down there is to -- there has to be a federal task force if you will. A federal effort where there would be half a dozen or a dozen specialists in this field who would have the protection of the government either temporary commissions from the U. S. public health service or something like that. Who would be responsible for organizing all the science and all the medicine and trying to get people to deliver care down there. I just don't think you are going to get many volunteers unless they know they have the protection of the government. The annals of environmental diseases are strewn with stories about physicians who have had their lives ruined.
JC: The impacts of what is happening down here is are so big it's very hard to wrap your head around it.
MH: I will give you one other example while we are talking about it. In the early 1990s I had called a bunch of cases, I saw patients who were sick from their environment who worked for Dow and DOW Chemical and a couple of the steel mills. In an eighteen month period I had one Blue Cross Blue Shield audit, two Medicare audits, a Michigan Employment Security Commission audit, a USAID Inspector General's audit, and I was the target of a federal grand jury investigation. After two years and tens of thousands of dollars Medicare thanked me for teaching them how to catch a crook, apologized for bothering me -- I told them how they could catch crooks and they thanked me. The US government, the local FBI office actually called my attorney and said they really weren't able to find anything and my attorney who is a former US Attorney said that the government never calls when they have investigated somebody they just leave them dangling for the rest of their lives. The degree of harassment towards physicians is enormous, which I think is part of the reason -- because of the conflicting forces at work in the Gulf, because of the probably less than half truths that are floating around that there needs to be a federal task force of independent physicians and scientists who have the protection and full faith of the United States. The way the system works, I think it would mean temporary commissions in the public health service. I don't think even the oil companies that work down there would try and bump off a guy who works with the public health service.
JC: A number of people I have spoken to in Washington share that same opinion. Does it help to have test results in hand that show high levels of exposure from this event?
MH: I remember you had no Benzene but a lot of Hexane and a couple of Hexane metabolites. I am not sure what that means because where you see Hexane, Hexane causes what is called a dying back neuropathy, meaning the nerve cells in the arms and legs die back from the distal tips to the proximal end. You can end up with numbness, pain, all sorts of things. Hexane is a direct petroleum product so where you see Hexane you would expect to see Benzene. Now, that having been said I personally don't even do actual solvent levels anymore because they are fraught with error. Rubbing alcohol is the prototypical solvent, and if you put a cap of rubbing alcohol on a flat surface like marble or something it's usually gone before you would have a chance to get a paper towel it evaporates so quickly. So what happens with the organic solvents in general is that unless there is absolutely perfect control when they are drawn, there is a fair amount that will evaporate, if in fact not all of it. One of the dangers of people going to this lab (Metametrix), which I think is a good lab, is if they get the test drawn at a facility that lets it sit out for a little bit you are going to get a false negative result. In a case like yours, if you believe the sample is valid and it shows that you have Hexane and Hexane metabolites and also Octane in your blood, then it's a pretty good clinical indication of how to go about treating you, which is usually just drinking a lot of water and then treating the end organ damage. End organ damage meaning we know if you inhale this stuff, if you have it in your system, it will damage your nerves. so we take a look at the nerves. The nerves will not show up abnormal on a test until there has been 30% damage. So what I do here and what I teach my residents is that for most people who come in to see the doctor in this field with a problem you will get more yield in terms of finding pathology and being able to help them if you look for end organ damage rather than the presence of a solvent because the solvent could have evaporated after it has already whacked the brain or whacked the liver.
JC: I spoke to the founder of Metametrix and he said that the tests were designed to pick up these compounds in the body after part of it, particularly Benzene, has been flushed. He indicated that the Benzene would not show up for very long once you were exposed but that the other compounds, the Ethylbenzene, m. p.-Xylene, the Hexane, which was way high, the Methylpentanes and the Isooctane, all of those things indicated to him that we were exposed to significant amounts of Benzene.
MH: That's what I would think, too.
JC: When you look at these results is there reason to believe we might have sustained serious damage to our organs?
MH: In order to be scientific about this you have to have baseline data on a large population. What the oil company doctors, the professional experts that will ultimately be hired in these cases will argue is that you don't know what background is in the area. I have seen them do this. They will go out and check 90 people and they will find people with results less than yours or more than yours and they will say this is background so with this particular patient you can not rely on the validity of the testing. On a scientific basis that's true, I would prefer background. What happened to you right now is you have an indication that you breathed in harmful agents -- you have a marker. They are called bio-markers. A bio-marker is the Hexane, N-Hexane and the Octane. You have evidence that you inhaled it because it's in your blood. Nobody has correlated how much N-Hexane in your blood by PPM or PPB correlates with actual nerve damage. You need to have pulmonary tests, high resolution cat scans of your chest, liver function and cardiac function tests. What should happen with people with these exposures is at an absolute minimum, and I do not believe this is adequate, but at an absolute minimum the NIOSH recommended health monitoring tests should be done. Be certain to ask the doctor examining you if they have ever been paid or retained by a petroleum company or a chemical manufacturing company.
JC: I can do that.
View Article and Test Results
10 Babies Die Mysteriously At Fort Bragg:Toxic Drywall From China Used In Base Homes The Culprit? Army Investigates.
By Veronica P Roberts
ALLVOICES.com
10 babies have died under sudden and mysterious conditions at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and the U.S. army is investigating the cause.
According to the Associate Press, all the babies were under 8 months old and the deaths go way back to 2007. Two of the deaths had been officially labeled "infant crib death" but the remaining 8 have never been adequately explained.
Parents have been talking and some believe their children are dying because of the toxic drywall used in the base housing. The drywall was imported from China and used not only in homes in Fort Bragg, but in many other homes across the United States.
One, Spc. Nathanael Duke and his wife, Krystyna, told AOL News that after they lost their 6-week-old son, Gabriel, in March, investigators removed chunks of drywall and carpeting and sent them to a lab. They were later told," the sample over Gabriel's bed tested positive for Chinese drywall...get out of the house, seek medical attention, do not wait," the couple reportedly said in a local tv interview.
The AP stated, that in one case, 2 babies died at the same home in 2009. A third baby who had spent time at the same house, also died later at another address.
Brig. Gen. Michael Garrett, chief of staff of the 18th Airborne Corps is reported as saying,''We're going to figure this out--we cannot explain two deaths of children at one address, and that's really the problem we're trying to solve."
In a press conference held on Tuesday, August 31, Army personnel, said they did not attribute the deaths to foul play and were "conducting tests on the air, building materials and other elements at the on-base housing where the deaths occurred."
Toxic drywalls imported from China at a cheaper rate and used in numerous homes in this country, have become a silent killer. The drywall emits fumes that are deadly. I've seen many reports of families devastated after, unknowingly purchasing a new home, only to find out after, that the deadly drywall was used.
I saw a family from Florida, who has to sit outside their home everyday, because the deadly fumes inside was unbearable to breathe or smell. As bad as that is, they are lucky they live in a hot climate, where the heat makes the drywall fumes emitted, give off an odor. Experts say, in the colder climate of other parts of the U.S., the fumes might be odorless. This is even more deadly for the toxic drywall now becomes a silent killer.
How many people are oblivious to this deadly material lurking silently in their homes? More importantly, what is the government doing about it? We have new homes being built cheaply and speedily all across this country, especially in New Orleans. Are we continuing to put people in toxic homes?
View Original Article
ALLVOICES.com
10 babies have died under sudden and mysterious conditions at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and the U.S. army is investigating the cause.
According to the Associate Press, all the babies were under 8 months old and the deaths go way back to 2007. Two of the deaths had been officially labeled "infant crib death" but the remaining 8 have never been adequately explained.
Parents have been talking and some believe their children are dying because of the toxic drywall used in the base housing. The drywall was imported from China and used not only in homes in Fort Bragg, but in many other homes across the United States.
One, Spc. Nathanael Duke and his wife, Krystyna, told AOL News that after they lost their 6-week-old son, Gabriel, in March, investigators removed chunks of drywall and carpeting and sent them to a lab. They were later told," the sample over Gabriel's bed tested positive for Chinese drywall...get out of the house, seek medical attention, do not wait," the couple reportedly said in a local tv interview.
The AP stated, that in one case, 2 babies died at the same home in 2009. A third baby who had spent time at the same house, also died later at another address.
Brig. Gen. Michael Garrett, chief of staff of the 18th Airborne Corps is reported as saying,''We're going to figure this out--we cannot explain two deaths of children at one address, and that's really the problem we're trying to solve."
In a press conference held on Tuesday, August 31, Army personnel, said they did not attribute the deaths to foul play and were "conducting tests on the air, building materials and other elements at the on-base housing where the deaths occurred."
Toxic drywalls imported from China at a cheaper rate and used in numerous homes in this country, have become a silent killer. The drywall emits fumes that are deadly. I've seen many reports of families devastated after, unknowingly purchasing a new home, only to find out after, that the deadly drywall was used.
I saw a family from Florida, who has to sit outside their home everyday, because the deadly fumes inside was unbearable to breathe or smell. As bad as that is, they are lucky they live in a hot climate, where the heat makes the drywall fumes emitted, give off an odor. Experts say, in the colder climate of other parts of the U.S., the fumes might be odorless. This is even more deadly for the toxic drywall now becomes a silent killer.
How many people are oblivious to this deadly material lurking silently in their homes? More importantly, what is the government doing about it? We have new homes being built cheaply and speedily all across this country, especially in New Orleans. Are we continuing to put people in toxic homes?
View Original Article
Eugenics Alert: World Bank Population-Reduction Lending Schemes Already Underway
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
Following up on yesterday’s articleWorld Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation, recent reports by the World Bank suggest the “drastic steps” considered necessary are now being implemented.
World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food.
According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, new guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund.
Already tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these new guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.
In the World Bank’s Reproductive Health Action Plan 2010-2015, published in April of this year, the Bank structurally speaks of Millennium Development Goals number 5 (or MDG5), which stands for “Reproductive Health” (or RH).
As we know, this is eugenics-new-speak for population control. As pro-death globalist professor John Cleland argued at a 2006 gathering in the company of like-minded individuals from the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:
“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”
The 2010 report put out by the World Bank however, chooses to use this deceptive phrase continually. And, from its dark point of view, it is right to do so- for the resistance against this 21st century eugenics grows steadily. The Bank, just like the UN, has no choice but to cloak itself in deceptive language so as not to raise too much suspicion as they move forward:
“(…) a renewed global consensus on the need to make progress on MDG5, together with greater attention to gender issues within and outside the Bank is refocusing attention on RH and offering an unprecedented opportunity to redress the neglect of the previous decade. Notable among these developments is that in 2007 the UN fully incorporated RH within the MDG framework.”
Apart from all the available evidence of a global push for population reduction, The term Global Consensus alone proves it:
“The Global Consensus”, says the report, “recognizes that MDGs 4 & 5 will not be reached without country leadership and the prioritization of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health at country level. The Global Consensus proposes a five point plan that includes: (i) political, operational, and community leadership and engagement; (ii) a package of evidence-based interventions through effective health systems along a continuum of good quality care, with a priority on quality care at birth; (iii) services for women and children free at the point of use if countries choose to provide them; (iv) skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time, with supporting infrastructure, drugs, and equipment; and (v) accountability for results with robust monitoring and evaluation.”
In order to translate this “Global Consensus” to the nation-states under its control, the World Bank boasts:
“The World Bank is uniquely positioned at the country level to take on advocacy for reproductive health, particularly in reaching Ministers of Finance. This will require utilizing the World Bank‟s economic analysis and technical resources to marshal arguments for investment in reproductive health. Bank’s country directors have key role to play in process of making RH a country priority through their policy dialogue with governments.”
There it is again. The World Bank- as lender- has the dependent nations in a stranglehold. If nations don’t comply with its directions, the Bank can cut the financial lifeline, no problem at all.
A World Bank discussion-paper from 2007 called Population Issues in the 21st century: The Role of the World Bank, explains how this process works in more detail:
“The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.
“Its involvement in many sectors in countries”, the authors continue, “can produce synergies that will allow faster progress than a more narrow focus on family planning services. The Bank will need its partners – United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), key bilaterals – to provide technical expertise and administrative knowledge in areas such as procurement of contraceptives, service delivery, and demand creation.”
The document makes clear that this global and coordinated push for total control is not some vague dream. It is already being test-cased in several developing nations. The document states two cases that are currently underway. In the first example, Niger, the World Bank already has in place so-called “benchmarks” that the nation in question has to live up to in order to enjoy the continued support of the World Bank. In the case of Niger, considered by the IMF as a “Highly Indebted Poor Country”- and therefore easy to subdue- the document states:
“Population growth is documented and a population ESW (Economic and Sector Work) planned. A national Population and Reproductive Health Strategy is not only a CAS (Country Assistance Strategy) benchmark, but also a lending trigger, while reproductive health is included in one of the CAS pillars.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth were not only acknowledged as major problems, but fertility was also used as one of the CAS performance benchmarks. Moreover, a population ESW was planned and subsequently delivered. That ESW has been most instrumental in enhancing the in-country policy dialogue on population issues, and has led to a free-standing International Development Association (IDA) population operation, currently in preparation, which is the first population-specific operation in many years in the World Bank Africa Region. The preparation of a National Population and Reproductive Health Strategy was also a CAS benchmark as well as a lending trigger, while reproductive health was included in one of the CAS pillars. Other Bank partners such as the EU have joined the effort. Finally, population issues have also been given a high priority in the new Rural and Social Policy Reform (Development Policy Lending) Credit.”
The devil is in the details. The extend to which the World Bank and UN is willing to blackmail “Highly Indebted Poor Country’s” in implementing globally coordinated population control policies also becomes obvious in the second test-case example: Yemen:
“In the lending portfolio, restructuring of the Health Sector Reform Project (which includes family planning) is proposed and is expected to lead to a Population II Project to specifically address high fertility and family planning issues. Pillars two and three address population and reproductive health. Contraception is addressed effectively, and CPR is included as a CAS indicator. Furthermore, earlier in 2006, the Bank produced a study on “Promoting the Demand for FP in Yemen.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth”, the document reads, “were not only acknowledged as major impediments to economic growth and poverty reduction, but was included as one of the specific goals that was subsequently translated into policies, programs, and an indicator (reduce population growth rate by 3 percent per annum). Moreover, budget was allocated specifically for each of the four population policies that were outlined.”
The dimensions of this “Global Consensus” are extensive. These diabolical dimensions are being described in the 2007 “Discussion Paper” with the help of the catch-phrase: “Multisectoral approach”:
“A more systematic approach to mainstream population within the core agenda (…) would greatly enhance the adoption of a truly multisectoral approach. (….) The Bank’s comparative advantages in strengthening health systems are mainly in the areas of health financing, system governance, accountability for health service delivery, and demand-side interventions, all of which are important to further the population agenda.”
The authors continue:
“By supporting large-scale implementation of an integrated health sector plan that includes family planning, the Bank can play an important role in keeping family planning as a priority in high fertility and high-population-momentum countries. Even though historically some successful family planning programs were based on a vertical approach, such an approach is now considered less attractive, both from a sustainability standpoint as well as from a comprehensive reproductive health approach.”
However deceptive and “rational” the language, the document is nevertheless strangely upfront about their full-spectrum dominance, to make use of a military phrase:
“Unless population issues are approached in a multipronged fashion, it is unlikely to accelerate a demographic transition in these countries.”
“The Bank is well positioned to systematically include population and reproductive health dimensions in key strategic documents (…). The Bank is particularly well placed to provide the fiscal and economic analysis to ensure that funding of population issues is placed within the overall development financing agenda of the country.”
“This strategy can be best achieved by a coordinated strategy implemented by a visible, strong, and high-level in-country unit with the mandate to design, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The Bank can help strengthen such institutional mechanisms, and foster collaboration with external national or international partners.”
There it is. World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food. Above all this, the Bank uses the tools confided to them by the scientific dictatorship:
“The role of political economy in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs and policies is critical. The Bank, by providing the necessary analytical basis for policy discussion, can play a constructive role in prompting policy makers to take action now for future changes in population structure and size.”
Speaking of the scientific dictatorship, the World Bank works in concert with all the other arms of the octopus:
“As was noted in the section on the global policy context, it is impossible for the Bank to work on reproductive health issues without the support and collaboration of the broader international community. The UNFPA is the lead technical agency in the population field, with a large network of field offices. The Bank already uses UNFPA’s contraceptive procurement know-how and has intensified its collaboration in other areas (e.g., training and country program management). The WHO, as the normative agency, is a critical partner at both the global and country levels. As population issues are linked to reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and child survival, the Bank works also with WHO, UNAIDS, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), respectively.”
Returning to the essence, the intention and the strategy leave little for the imagination: a global consensus is in place between all the major transnational institutions and banks: the earth’s population must be brought down, with all means necessary. The World Bank uses financial tools to bring nations on their knees, demanding they cull their numbers; the UN guarantees the political legitimizing for these depopulation policies (Agenda 21); the Foundations develop the anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food, the World Health Organization takes care of the “health-standards” and distribution. In this global construct, carefully coordinated from the top-down, the scientific dictatorship has circled the wagons around all of free humanity.
Read Original Article With Links
Infowars.com
Following up on yesterday’s articleWorld Bank Threatens “Drastic Steps Necessary” if Nations Refuse Population Reduction Implementation, recent reports by the World Bank suggest the “drastic steps” considered necessary are now being implemented.
World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food.
According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, new guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund.
Already tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these new guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.
In the World Bank’s Reproductive Health Action Plan 2010-2015, published in April of this year, the Bank structurally speaks of Millennium Development Goals number 5 (or MDG5), which stands for “Reproductive Health” (or RH).
As we know, this is eugenics-new-speak for population control. As pro-death globalist professor John Cleland argued at a 2006 gathering in the company of like-minded individuals from the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:
“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”
The 2010 report put out by the World Bank however, chooses to use this deceptive phrase continually. And, from its dark point of view, it is right to do so- for the resistance against this 21st century eugenics grows steadily. The Bank, just like the UN, has no choice but to cloak itself in deceptive language so as not to raise too much suspicion as they move forward:
“(…) a renewed global consensus on the need to make progress on MDG5, together with greater attention to gender issues within and outside the Bank is refocusing attention on RH and offering an unprecedented opportunity to redress the neglect of the previous decade. Notable among these developments is that in 2007 the UN fully incorporated RH within the MDG framework.”
Apart from all the available evidence of a global push for population reduction, The term Global Consensus alone proves it:
“The Global Consensus”, says the report, “recognizes that MDGs 4 & 5 will not be reached without country leadership and the prioritization of reproductive, maternal, and newborn health at country level. The Global Consensus proposes a five point plan that includes: (i) political, operational, and community leadership and engagement; (ii) a package of evidence-based interventions through effective health systems along a continuum of good quality care, with a priority on quality care at birth; (iii) services for women and children free at the point of use if countries choose to provide them; (iv) skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time, with supporting infrastructure, drugs, and equipment; and (v) accountability for results with robust monitoring and evaluation.”
In order to translate this “Global Consensus” to the nation-states under its control, the World Bank boasts:
“The World Bank is uniquely positioned at the country level to take on advocacy for reproductive health, particularly in reaching Ministers of Finance. This will require utilizing the World Bank‟s economic analysis and technical resources to marshal arguments for investment in reproductive health. Bank’s country directors have key role to play in process of making RH a country priority through their policy dialogue with governments.”
There it is again. The World Bank- as lender- has the dependent nations in a stranglehold. If nations don’t comply with its directions, the Bank can cut the financial lifeline, no problem at all.
A World Bank discussion-paper from 2007 called Population Issues in the 21st century: The Role of the World Bank, explains how this process works in more detail:
“The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.
“Its involvement in many sectors in countries”, the authors continue, “can produce synergies that will allow faster progress than a more narrow focus on family planning services. The Bank will need its partners – United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), key bilaterals – to provide technical expertise and administrative knowledge in areas such as procurement of contraceptives, service delivery, and demand creation.”
The document makes clear that this global and coordinated push for total control is not some vague dream. It is already being test-cased in several developing nations. The document states two cases that are currently underway. In the first example, Niger, the World Bank already has in place so-called “benchmarks” that the nation in question has to live up to in order to enjoy the continued support of the World Bank. In the case of Niger, considered by the IMF as a “Highly Indebted Poor Country”- and therefore easy to subdue- the document states:
“Population growth is documented and a population ESW (Economic and Sector Work) planned. A national Population and Reproductive Health Strategy is not only a CAS (Country Assistance Strategy) benchmark, but also a lending trigger, while reproductive health is included in one of the CAS pillars.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth were not only acknowledged as major problems, but fertility was also used as one of the CAS performance benchmarks. Moreover, a population ESW was planned and subsequently delivered. That ESW has been most instrumental in enhancing the in-country policy dialogue on population issues, and has led to a free-standing International Development Association (IDA) population operation, currently in preparation, which is the first population-specific operation in many years in the World Bank Africa Region. The preparation of a National Population and Reproductive Health Strategy was also a CAS benchmark as well as a lending trigger, while reproductive health was included in one of the CAS pillars. Other Bank partners such as the EU have joined the effort. Finally, population issues have also been given a high priority in the new Rural and Social Policy Reform (Development Policy Lending) Credit.”
The devil is in the details. The extend to which the World Bank and UN is willing to blackmail “Highly Indebted Poor Country’s” in implementing globally coordinated population control policies also becomes obvious in the second test-case example: Yemen:
“In the lending portfolio, restructuring of the Health Sector Reform Project (which includes family planning) is proposed and is expected to lead to a Population II Project to specifically address high fertility and family planning issues. Pillars two and three address population and reproductive health. Contraception is addressed effectively, and CPR is included as a CAS indicator. Furthermore, earlier in 2006, the Bank produced a study on “Promoting the Demand for FP in Yemen.”
“High fertility and rapid population growth”, the document reads, “were not only acknowledged as major impediments to economic growth and poverty reduction, but was included as one of the specific goals that was subsequently translated into policies, programs, and an indicator (reduce population growth rate by 3 percent per annum). Moreover, budget was allocated specifically for each of the four population policies that were outlined.”
The dimensions of this “Global Consensus” are extensive. These diabolical dimensions are being described in the 2007 “Discussion Paper” with the help of the catch-phrase: “Multisectoral approach”:
“A more systematic approach to mainstream population within the core agenda (…) would greatly enhance the adoption of a truly multisectoral approach. (….) The Bank’s comparative advantages in strengthening health systems are mainly in the areas of health financing, system governance, accountability for health service delivery, and demand-side interventions, all of which are important to further the population agenda.”
The authors continue:
“By supporting large-scale implementation of an integrated health sector plan that includes family planning, the Bank can play an important role in keeping family planning as a priority in high fertility and high-population-momentum countries. Even though historically some successful family planning programs were based on a vertical approach, such an approach is now considered less attractive, both from a sustainability standpoint as well as from a comprehensive reproductive health approach.”
However deceptive and “rational” the language, the document is nevertheless strangely upfront about their full-spectrum dominance, to make use of a military phrase:
“Unless population issues are approached in a multipronged fashion, it is unlikely to accelerate a demographic transition in these countries.”
“The Bank is well positioned to systematically include population and reproductive health dimensions in key strategic documents (…). The Bank is particularly well placed to provide the fiscal and economic analysis to ensure that funding of population issues is placed within the overall development financing agenda of the country.”
“This strategy can be best achieved by a coordinated strategy implemented by a visible, strong, and high-level in-country unit with the mandate to design, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The Bank can help strengthen such institutional mechanisms, and foster collaboration with external national or international partners.”
There it is. World Bank “in-country units” will “strengthen” the institutions that distribute the Rockefeller-funded anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food. Above all this, the Bank uses the tools confided to them by the scientific dictatorship:
“The role of political economy in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs and policies is critical. The Bank, by providing the necessary analytical basis for policy discussion, can play a constructive role in prompting policy makers to take action now for future changes in population structure and size.”
Speaking of the scientific dictatorship, the World Bank works in concert with all the other arms of the octopus:
“As was noted in the section on the global policy context, it is impossible for the Bank to work on reproductive health issues without the support and collaboration of the broader international community. The UNFPA is the lead technical agency in the population field, with a large network of field offices. The Bank already uses UNFPA’s contraceptive procurement know-how and has intensified its collaboration in other areas (e.g., training and country program management). The WHO, as the normative agency, is a critical partner at both the global and country levels. As population issues are linked to reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and child survival, the Bank works also with WHO, UNAIDS, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), respectively.”
Returning to the essence, the intention and the strategy leave little for the imagination: a global consensus is in place between all the major transnational institutions and banks: the earth’s population must be brought down, with all means necessary. The World Bank uses financial tools to bring nations on their knees, demanding they cull their numbers; the UN guarantees the political legitimizing for these depopulation policies (Agenda 21); the Foundations develop the anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food, the World Health Organization takes care of the “health-standards” and distribution. In this global construct, carefully coordinated from the top-down, the scientific dictatorship has circled the wagons around all of free humanity.
Read Original Article With Links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)