Stop Internet Censorship
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 – by Ron Paul
Although Congress was back in session for scarcely more than a day last week, private citizens across the country managed to cause an uproar felt across Capitol Hill. The uproar took the form of hundreds of thousands of phone calls to both Senators and Representatives, urging them to oppose two draconian new bills that threaten the free and unbridled flow of information on the internet.
On Wednesday last week, dozens of prominent websites like Wikipedia, Reddit and Craigslist were blacked out in protest of two bills known in DC jargon as SOPA and PIPA. SOPA is the House bill; PIPA is its Senate companion. These bills ostensibly will combat internet piracy, and of course we also are told they will help us wage the never ending "war on terror."
What these bills actually do is force website owners to police the internet; create entry barriers to the only relatively free and open medium of communication; and threaten to break the technological structure of the internet itself. They also violate our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and our 4th Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
SOPA and PIPA have been drafted not only without respect for the Constitution, but also without an understanding of the how the internet works. These bills attack the very system upon which the entire orderly organization of the web depends. Search engines, internet service providers, advertising sites, and sites with user-generated content such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter − all magnificent creations of the market − are directly threatened by these bills. They will be held responsible if even a single of their millions of users posts even one link to a website that a copyright holder claims is violating a copyright.
Note that under the bills as written, the Department of Justice or a copyright holder do not have to prove that their copyright was violated − they simply have to claim copyright infringement and an entire site is shut down. The burden of these regulations on the internet will be enormous, shifting resources away from productivity and innovation and into monitoring and censoring. It turns internet companies into involuntary tools for Big Brother government, further eroding our Constitutional rights.
As is typical of so many bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA were not crafted to make life better for the American people, but rather were written at the behest of big business trying to enlist the federal government as its strong-arm. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America spent more than $1.2 million so far lobbying for their passage.
But the internet community is fighting back effectively, not just with websites that went black but with millions of users who expressed their solidarity. Congressional sponsors of both bills have been jumping ship in response to the outrage. The House Judiciary Committee canceled the SOPA hearing they were planning to hold last Wednesday; the House leadership announced they have no intention of considering this bill; and at the end of the week Senator Reid announced he was postponing the vote until a "compromise" could be reached. The American people are speaking, and with their continued grassroots efforts the marketplace for free ideas and communication will prevail over government controls and censorship.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Yes, The War for the Internet Has Begun
Saturday, January 21, 2012 – by Anthony Wile
By now, people who use the Internet seriously, and even plenty who don't, are aware of the arrest of six-foot-seven, 300-pound Kim Dotcom, an outsize figure in the business of facilitating Internet downloads.
The problem with his company, Megauploads, according to the US Justice Department and the FBI that carried out the arrest, is that his brainchild allowed users to traffic in "stolen" – copyrighted – entertainment on which no royalties had been paid.
In this article, I'll comment on the arrest of Kim Dotcom and try to show how this one action is actually the beginning of an entirely new phase of what we may call the Internet Wars.
I'm not the first to notice this. As Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones, of Infowars fame, pointed out in an article posted today entitled "The Great Internet Wars Have Begun," we wake up to an entirely new Internet era this weekend.
Yes, a war has been joined and human history shall never be the same. For one thing, the outcome is NOT certain – and the power elite that seeks to control and constrain the Internet may yet end up taking a step back – at least in these early rounds, anyway.
For another, the directed history that the Anglosphere power elite has been so clever at inculcating over the past century is gradually fading away. That's perhaps an even more important point. The Dotcom arrest actually reinforces this observation, as I'll try to show in a moment.
There is no doubt, in my view, that the elites practiced directed history in the 20th century, setting up wars and economic catastrophes designed to consolidate world government. But in the 21st century, with so many understanding and evaluating the mechanisms of the elites, this is a considerably harder trick to pull off.
The elites actually have a limited playbook when it comes to influencing the larger society, though that is not intended to downplay its power. The elites use what we call dominant social themes – fear-based promotions – that are designed to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to specially prepared globalist institutions like the UN, IMF, etc.
The other "tools" in the toolkit include war and a pervasive societal matrix of sociopolitical, economic, religious and military elements. The matrix itself was seamless in the late 20th century – for most Western citizens anyway – and allowed the power elite to advance its fear-based promotions without fear of contradiction.
Say, for instance, the elites wanted to promote global warming – in order to create a kind of "carbon currency" that they could control and trade at will. In order to do this, the elites would have to proclaim the threat, back it up with scientific studies and then legislate a response to the supposed threat.
This is something that actually took place. The Anglosphere elites used their control of the scientific establishment to proclaim a phony hypothesis and then planted specially placed "scientists" at critical choke points to further control the dialogue.
It turns out that it doesn't take very many people to control a given conversation or promote a certain campaign. In this case, by generating a cadre of global warming sycophants and putting them in charge of one of only a few "global warming" scientific journals, the elites could virtually create a scientific consensus where none existed.
Once the elites had manufactured a phony global warming meme via "peer approved" articles in complaisant journals, the elite-controlled media was turned loose to trumpet the supposed findings. And once the articles were written, elite-controlled UN agencies created white papers from them that could be used as calls-for-action.
These white papers were in turn picked up by elite-funded NGOs that began to foment full-fledged socio-political campaigns to "crack down" on global warming "polluters." Vast UN conferences filled by elite-proxies (hand-picked politicians) were organized as well to agitate for worldwide legislation to "control" global warming.
Of course, all of this takes a phenomenal amount of money, but money is no object to the Anglosphere elite that controls more than 100 central banks around the world and funds their campaign for a New World Order by printing endless amounts of money-from-nothing.
The entire process I've just described amounts to a vast echo chamber in which each element of the Anglosphere's controlled promotional mechanism plays a given part. There is a scientific consensus that then creates "news" for the media, which in turn galvanizes "action" on the part of specially selected politicians.
And gradually a "consensus" is reached, laws are written and public education textbooks promote the necessity of this directed history to a new generation of tots who have no idea of how manipulated they are – or their world.
Every part of this painstakingly created matrix has been virtually shattered in the 21st century. Again, we can see the result by observing the global warming meme itself. Not only was it put in doubt by the Internet – the one avenue of communication that the elites do not control – but it was virtually blown up by email leaks.
These email leaks are among the most extraordinary in human history. And, no, that's not too strong a statement! They show quite clearly how a tiny group of rogue scientific operatives can virtually control an entire academic dialogue over time simply by the proper positioning.
The ramifications of these emails have yet to be felt because the mainstream media has refused to place them in their proper context. But they are among the most incendiary communications ever leaked, as a proper reading of them will confirm virtually everything I have just discussed above.
Again, it is the Internet – as we've been predicting here at the Daily Bell and other publications for about a decade now – that made the difference. The global warming promotion is in disarray as I write this article, and the reason is because REAL information was disseminated via untraditional channels.
The Internet is what the elites need to destroy – or at least control – as soon as possible. Without control of the Internet, tens of trillions of sunk costs in building this vast matrix of complaisant scientists, academics, media moguls and corporate, military and religious chiefs is rendered virtually useless.
And this is why Alex Jones and others write that the war has now been fully joined. And it has. Again, we turn to history for confirmation of this precedent. When one probes history, even rudimentarily, the parallels between what is going on today and what took place after the invention of the Gutenberg Press could not be clearer.
Just yesterday, in an article entitled "Internet Piracy – Who Are the Thieves?," we pointed out that copyright laws were developed by royalty hundreds of years ago to counteract the spread of information (in books) after the invention of the Gutenberg Press.
The same tactics that applied then are being applied now. War, authoritarian legislation and copyright infringement are all tools of this particular elite that we have been saddled with.
This is simply historical fact and those who wish to argue otherwise are going to have to shift a heavy load of evidence.
As pointed out above, the one-world conspiracy that seemingly has occupied the Anglosphere elite's attention over the past 100-300 years uses a limited toolkit. What was developed hundreds of years ago to counteract the first "real" information revolution is being rolled out once again.
It is not easy to control millions and billions of people. Only the bluntest of instruments will do. War is perhaps the most useful tool – and indeed, after the advent of the Gutenberg Press wars like the so-called Peasant War spread across the whole of Europe and Britain.
There were other tools employed as well, especially false-flag events that were designed to vitiate one elite power base or another. The Catholic Church was split apart by Martin Luther and then the Protestant Reformation was further advanced by John Calvin. Some have speculated that WikiLeaks and its leaders perform the same sorts of services for the elites today.
The copyright issue is an interesting one because much of what the elites tried to do to stop books from circulating was not a success. Gradually, the idea of copyright took hold but it was not accomplished overnight, and even today copyright is an unwieldy tool for the elites to manage. That doesn't mean they won't try.
Both patents and copyrights are questionable inventions. The idea of trying to codify and "own" intellectual property is inherently controversial. Libertarians have been arguing for a long time that intellectual property – being insubstantial – is inherently un-ownable.
More and more this seems to us a bit like counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. In fact, this argument need not be made to discover a satisfactory solution to the problem of intellectual property.
What's the solution? Why, to PRIVATIZE Western "justice." For almost all of human history, private justice was an observed and honored tradition. Duels, vendettas and other forms of private-justice interaction were developed not to USE but to forestall the need for such use.
Private justice, in the best sense, was dispensed either by face-to-face meetings resulting in settlements that might include compensation or via third-party judgments accepted by both sides. It had little impact on daily events, even within families, because it did not include incarceration.
In fact, the vast Gulags built throughout the world in the 20th century would have been thought insane by many societies of the past. But then, these societies did not have the advantage of central banking and the ability to print money-from-nothing, which has fueled most current Western absurdities and genocidal wars of late.
As central banking subsides, as it will, the modern police state will deflate as well. It seems inevitable to us. The current system, in addition to being inhuman, is unsustainable. Without fanfare (perhaps for good reason) the US's FBI alone operates in something like 100 jurisdictions around the world now. These days, almost every country has elaborate agreements in place guaranteeing that it will turn over other countries' citizens for arrest.
What this has done, in point of fact, is put Western law enforcement agencies into bed with some of the most loathsome dictators and regimes in the world. If, say, China wants the return of a "criminal" (a dissident), the host country is almost duty-bound to comply.
This just happened in Canada a few months ago, where Canadian authorities shipped a freedom activist back to China because the treaties called for the cooperation.
These treaties are no accident in my view. They've been worked out painstakingly over the past 50 years or so at the insistence, most probably, of the Anglosphere-driven West. It is apparently the Anglosphere that wants this seamless web of treaties in force so that it can pursue a one-world government without the inconvenience of activists who might offer alternative points of view.
This is one reason, I would think, why Kim Dotcom was arrested by 70 agents in New Zealand the other day over a copyright infringement and how Western law enforcement had the wherewithal to confiscate and otherwise destroy a world-spanning company in a single 24-hour period.
It's not right, of course. As we pointed out yesterday, the US Justice Department virtually destroyed a company based on a judicial theory that may prove untenable in court. The idea that a vendor – Megaupload – is responsible for its users is inherently questionable. Are car companies responsible for their drivers? Are lawnmower builders responsible for the state of their clients front yards?
Nonetheless, Kim Dotcom sits in prison (unless he has already been bailed out) and Western media has been gleefully listing the expensive cars that were confiscated from him and how he was removed – by force – from his "panic room" in his large, rented mansion.
This was the question we asked yesterday: Where is it written that Hollywood has the right to utilize the full force of the US Justice Dept. to destroy someone's corporation and personal life in ADVANCE of any sort of trial, or even a HEARING.
It seems almost like a kind of thuggery. And the motion picture industry's brand new, glittery spokesman Chris Dodd didn't do himself any favors with this quote (via Fox) regarding the larger copyright situation:
Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake ... I would caution people – don't make the assumption that because the quote 'Hollywood community' has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don't make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year... These issues before us – this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry.
Dodd couldn't have been more clear. Like an old-style Mafia don, he's warning politicians that if they want donations they have to do his bidding. This is not just a stupid statement; it probably expresses a number of potential illegalities. Nonetheless, he is quoted as having said it.
The FBI raid, the ludicrous celebratory articles in mainstream publications about Kim Dotcom's ruin, the general sense that the US Justice Department has dismantled an entire corporation based on a shaky judicial theory – all this is a declaration of a kind of war, if not on the Inernet itself then on certain people who want to use the Internet in certain ways.
But, of course, at root it is not HOLLYWOOD that has declared war but Hollywood's masters, the Anglosphere power elite that wants to create a New World Order and is determined to tame the Internet in order to do so.
Hollywood is merely a spinner of memes – a purveyor of the elite's dominant social themes. But it is the Internet that is blowing them up as fast as they can be produced. This is something that cannot be tolerated.
The trouble – and it IS a problem – is that history shows us that copyright and even patent law are clumsy instruments with which to combat the truth-telling of a particular information facility. People generally – in groups – tend to use a technology to its fullest extent.
A battle has been joined, much as it was joined after the advent of the Gutenberg Press. But it is one that the elites had trouble finishing, and they only fully regained control of the conversation in my view in the 20th century. And now they have to do it all over again.
By now, people who use the Internet seriously, and even plenty who don't, are aware of the arrest of six-foot-seven, 300-pound Kim Dotcom, an outsize figure in the business of facilitating Internet downloads.
The problem with his company, Megauploads, according to the US Justice Department and the FBI that carried out the arrest, is that his brainchild allowed users to traffic in "stolen" – copyrighted – entertainment on which no royalties had been paid.
In this article, I'll comment on the arrest of Kim Dotcom and try to show how this one action is actually the beginning of an entirely new phase of what we may call the Internet Wars.
I'm not the first to notice this. As Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones, of Infowars fame, pointed out in an article posted today entitled "The Great Internet Wars Have Begun," we wake up to an entirely new Internet era this weekend.
Yes, a war has been joined and human history shall never be the same. For one thing, the outcome is NOT certain – and the power elite that seeks to control and constrain the Internet may yet end up taking a step back – at least in these early rounds, anyway.
For another, the directed history that the Anglosphere power elite has been so clever at inculcating over the past century is gradually fading away. That's perhaps an even more important point. The Dotcom arrest actually reinforces this observation, as I'll try to show in a moment.
There is no doubt, in my view, that the elites practiced directed history in the 20th century, setting up wars and economic catastrophes designed to consolidate world government. But in the 21st century, with so many understanding and evaluating the mechanisms of the elites, this is a considerably harder trick to pull off.
The elites actually have a limited playbook when it comes to influencing the larger society, though that is not intended to downplay its power. The elites use what we call dominant social themes – fear-based promotions – that are designed to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to specially prepared globalist institutions like the UN, IMF, etc.
The other "tools" in the toolkit include war and a pervasive societal matrix of sociopolitical, economic, religious and military elements. The matrix itself was seamless in the late 20th century – for most Western citizens anyway – and allowed the power elite to advance its fear-based promotions without fear of contradiction.
Say, for instance, the elites wanted to promote global warming – in order to create a kind of "carbon currency" that they could control and trade at will. In order to do this, the elites would have to proclaim the threat, back it up with scientific studies and then legislate a response to the supposed threat.
This is something that actually took place. The Anglosphere elites used their control of the scientific establishment to proclaim a phony hypothesis and then planted specially placed "scientists" at critical choke points to further control the dialogue.
It turns out that it doesn't take very many people to control a given conversation or promote a certain campaign. In this case, by generating a cadre of global warming sycophants and putting them in charge of one of only a few "global warming" scientific journals, the elites could virtually create a scientific consensus where none existed.
Once the elites had manufactured a phony global warming meme via "peer approved" articles in complaisant journals, the elite-controlled media was turned loose to trumpet the supposed findings. And once the articles were written, elite-controlled UN agencies created white papers from them that could be used as calls-for-action.
These white papers were in turn picked up by elite-funded NGOs that began to foment full-fledged socio-political campaigns to "crack down" on global warming "polluters." Vast UN conferences filled by elite-proxies (hand-picked politicians) were organized as well to agitate for worldwide legislation to "control" global warming.
Of course, all of this takes a phenomenal amount of money, but money is no object to the Anglosphere elite that controls more than 100 central banks around the world and funds their campaign for a New World Order by printing endless amounts of money-from-nothing.
The entire process I've just described amounts to a vast echo chamber in which each element of the Anglosphere's controlled promotional mechanism plays a given part. There is a scientific consensus that then creates "news" for the media, which in turn galvanizes "action" on the part of specially selected politicians.
And gradually a "consensus" is reached, laws are written and public education textbooks promote the necessity of this directed history to a new generation of tots who have no idea of how manipulated they are – or their world.
Every part of this painstakingly created matrix has been virtually shattered in the 21st century. Again, we can see the result by observing the global warming meme itself. Not only was it put in doubt by the Internet – the one avenue of communication that the elites do not control – but it was virtually blown up by email leaks.
These email leaks are among the most extraordinary in human history. And, no, that's not too strong a statement! They show quite clearly how a tiny group of rogue scientific operatives can virtually control an entire academic dialogue over time simply by the proper positioning.
The ramifications of these emails have yet to be felt because the mainstream media has refused to place them in their proper context. But they are among the most incendiary communications ever leaked, as a proper reading of them will confirm virtually everything I have just discussed above.
Again, it is the Internet – as we've been predicting here at the Daily Bell and other publications for about a decade now – that made the difference. The global warming promotion is in disarray as I write this article, and the reason is because REAL information was disseminated via untraditional channels.
The Internet is what the elites need to destroy – or at least control – as soon as possible. Without control of the Internet, tens of trillions of sunk costs in building this vast matrix of complaisant scientists, academics, media moguls and corporate, military and religious chiefs is rendered virtually useless.
And this is why Alex Jones and others write that the war has now been fully joined. And it has. Again, we turn to history for confirmation of this precedent. When one probes history, even rudimentarily, the parallels between what is going on today and what took place after the invention of the Gutenberg Press could not be clearer.
Just yesterday, in an article entitled "Internet Piracy – Who Are the Thieves?," we pointed out that copyright laws were developed by royalty hundreds of years ago to counteract the spread of information (in books) after the invention of the Gutenberg Press.
The same tactics that applied then are being applied now. War, authoritarian legislation and copyright infringement are all tools of this particular elite that we have been saddled with.
This is simply historical fact and those who wish to argue otherwise are going to have to shift a heavy load of evidence.
As pointed out above, the one-world conspiracy that seemingly has occupied the Anglosphere elite's attention over the past 100-300 years uses a limited toolkit. What was developed hundreds of years ago to counteract the first "real" information revolution is being rolled out once again.
It is not easy to control millions and billions of people. Only the bluntest of instruments will do. War is perhaps the most useful tool – and indeed, after the advent of the Gutenberg Press wars like the so-called Peasant War spread across the whole of Europe and Britain.
There were other tools employed as well, especially false-flag events that were designed to vitiate one elite power base or another. The Catholic Church was split apart by Martin Luther and then the Protestant Reformation was further advanced by John Calvin. Some have speculated that WikiLeaks and its leaders perform the same sorts of services for the elites today.
The copyright issue is an interesting one because much of what the elites tried to do to stop books from circulating was not a success. Gradually, the idea of copyright took hold but it was not accomplished overnight, and even today copyright is an unwieldy tool for the elites to manage. That doesn't mean they won't try.
Both patents and copyrights are questionable inventions. The idea of trying to codify and "own" intellectual property is inherently controversial. Libertarians have been arguing for a long time that intellectual property – being insubstantial – is inherently un-ownable.
More and more this seems to us a bit like counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. In fact, this argument need not be made to discover a satisfactory solution to the problem of intellectual property.
What's the solution? Why, to PRIVATIZE Western "justice." For almost all of human history, private justice was an observed and honored tradition. Duels, vendettas and other forms of private-justice interaction were developed not to USE but to forestall the need for such use.
Private justice, in the best sense, was dispensed either by face-to-face meetings resulting in settlements that might include compensation or via third-party judgments accepted by both sides. It had little impact on daily events, even within families, because it did not include incarceration.
In fact, the vast Gulags built throughout the world in the 20th century would have been thought insane by many societies of the past. But then, these societies did not have the advantage of central banking and the ability to print money-from-nothing, which has fueled most current Western absurdities and genocidal wars of late.
As central banking subsides, as it will, the modern police state will deflate as well. It seems inevitable to us. The current system, in addition to being inhuman, is unsustainable. Without fanfare (perhaps for good reason) the US's FBI alone operates in something like 100 jurisdictions around the world now. These days, almost every country has elaborate agreements in place guaranteeing that it will turn over other countries' citizens for arrest.
What this has done, in point of fact, is put Western law enforcement agencies into bed with some of the most loathsome dictators and regimes in the world. If, say, China wants the return of a "criminal" (a dissident), the host country is almost duty-bound to comply.
This just happened in Canada a few months ago, where Canadian authorities shipped a freedom activist back to China because the treaties called for the cooperation.
These treaties are no accident in my view. They've been worked out painstakingly over the past 50 years or so at the insistence, most probably, of the Anglosphere-driven West. It is apparently the Anglosphere that wants this seamless web of treaties in force so that it can pursue a one-world government without the inconvenience of activists who might offer alternative points of view.
This is one reason, I would think, why Kim Dotcom was arrested by 70 agents in New Zealand the other day over a copyright infringement and how Western law enforcement had the wherewithal to confiscate and otherwise destroy a world-spanning company in a single 24-hour period.
It's not right, of course. As we pointed out yesterday, the US Justice Department virtually destroyed a company based on a judicial theory that may prove untenable in court. The idea that a vendor – Megaupload – is responsible for its users is inherently questionable. Are car companies responsible for their drivers? Are lawnmower builders responsible for the state of their clients front yards?
Nonetheless, Kim Dotcom sits in prison (unless he has already been bailed out) and Western media has been gleefully listing the expensive cars that were confiscated from him and how he was removed – by force – from his "panic room" in his large, rented mansion.
This was the question we asked yesterday: Where is it written that Hollywood has the right to utilize the full force of the US Justice Dept. to destroy someone's corporation and personal life in ADVANCE of any sort of trial, or even a HEARING.
It seems almost like a kind of thuggery. And the motion picture industry's brand new, glittery spokesman Chris Dodd didn't do himself any favors with this quote (via Fox) regarding the larger copyright situation:
Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake ... I would caution people – don't make the assumption that because the quote 'Hollywood community' has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don't make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year... These issues before us – this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry.
Dodd couldn't have been more clear. Like an old-style Mafia don, he's warning politicians that if they want donations they have to do his bidding. This is not just a stupid statement; it probably expresses a number of potential illegalities. Nonetheless, he is quoted as having said it.
The FBI raid, the ludicrous celebratory articles in mainstream publications about Kim Dotcom's ruin, the general sense that the US Justice Department has dismantled an entire corporation based on a shaky judicial theory – all this is a declaration of a kind of war, if not on the Inernet itself then on certain people who want to use the Internet in certain ways.
But, of course, at root it is not HOLLYWOOD that has declared war but Hollywood's masters, the Anglosphere power elite that wants to create a New World Order and is determined to tame the Internet in order to do so.
Hollywood is merely a spinner of memes – a purveyor of the elite's dominant social themes. But it is the Internet that is blowing them up as fast as they can be produced. This is something that cannot be tolerated.
The trouble – and it IS a problem – is that history shows us that copyright and even patent law are clumsy instruments with which to combat the truth-telling of a particular information facility. People generally – in groups – tend to use a technology to its fullest extent.
A battle has been joined, much as it was joined after the advent of the Gutenberg Press. But it is one that the elites had trouble finishing, and they only fully regained control of the conversation in my view in the 20th century. And now they have to do it all over again.
Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot
By Christina England | January 14th, 2012 | Category: Christina England, Recent Articles,
A family in Vermont is mourning the loss of their child.
It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.
Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”
State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.
A report on Seven Days, Vermont’s Independent News, (1) stated Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen made it clear that in his opinion it was extremely unlikely that Kaylynne’s death was related to the vaccine and he is worried that scaremongering will deter parents from vaccinating their children.
Chen said deaths after a vaccine are very rare and that a death after the flu shot has never before been reported in Vermont.
News reporter Ken Picard wrote:
Chen and other state health officials are more worried about the effects of news reports prematurely linking the Barton girl’s death to the flu shot: specifically, that more parents will opt out of immunizing their children, or themselves, against seasonal influenza.
A 7yr child dies just days before Christmas after receiving a ‘so called safe vaccine’ and all state officials are worried about are the effects her death will have on vaccination statistics! His behavior in my opinion was disgusting and highlights the inhumane way officials treat grieving parents to further their own ends.
So are deaths after flu vaccines as rare as Chen has stated and are the vaccines as safe as we are led to believe?
From the research that I have found neither the flu vaccine nor the Swine flu vaccine has been found to be particularly safe. In November last year an article highlighted two deaths occurring just hours after the Swine flu or H1N1 vaccine in China. (A point to remember here is that the H1N1 vaccine is included in this years flu shot.) (2)
The Ministry of Health in China reported that two people had died after receiving swine flu shots. They were clear to point out however, that death after immunization does not necessarily mean that the death was caused by the vaccine. (3)
Nurses Boycott Flu Vaccine
UK Nurses are also saying that the flu shots are unsafe and have been reluctant to have the vaccines. A report on the website Nursing Times.net (4) states that unvaccinated nurses taking part in a survey said that they did not have the flu vaccine because of safety concerns. The report states:
When asked why they had not had the vaccine, the majority of unvaccinated respondents highlighted concerns about vaccine side effects.
The Nursing Times stated that researchers had found that concerns about side effects and efficacy were the two most frequent reasons for nurses refusing the flu vaccine.
If nurses are not having the vaccine through fears that they are unsafe, then surely this must indicate that these vaccines are unsafe? Could the reason for this be, that they are seeing a higher than average number of adverse reactions coming into the hospitals?
Senior Flu Shots Are Proving To Be Exceptionally Dangerous
If you still feel that the vaccines are safe then I suggest you take a look at an article written by Dr Mercola which was highlighted this week. Dr Mercola (5) stated that the new flu vaccine being give to seniors is proving exceptionally dangerous. He says that according to the CDC there are more frequent reports of side effects after the High Dose Fluzone vaccine.This is the vaccine which is being given to seniors. Mercola wrote:
“The safety profile of Fluzone High-Dose vaccine is similar to that of regular flu vaccines, although adverse events (which are also reported after regular flu vaccines) were reported more frequently after vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.
The most common adverse events experienced during clinical studies were mild and temporary and included pain, redness and swelling at the injection site and headache, muscle aches, fever and malaise.”
Mercola continued:
A total of 6.1 percent of seniors injected with the regular Fluzone vaccine experienced a serious adverse event, compared to 7.4 percent of those receiving the newer high-dose version. According to the package insert the SAE’s reported during the post-approval use of the vaccine include:
• Thrombocytopenia (abnormally low platelet count, which can result in abnormal bleeding)
• Guillain-Barre syndrome
• Myelitis (spinal cord inflammation)
• Optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve)
• Lymphadenopathy (enlarged lymph nodes)
• Facial palsy (Bell’s palsy)
• Paresthesia (numbness/tingling of the skin)
• Itchy skin
• Anaphylaxis (life-threatening whole-body allergic reaction)
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome
• Vasculitis (inflammatory destruction of blood vessels)
• Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath
• Chest pain
• Brachial neuritis (excruciating unilateral shoulder pain, followed by paralysis of shoulder)
• Pharyngitis and rhinitis (inflammation of the throat or pharynx, and the nose, respectively)
• Convulsions, fainting, dizziness
I feel that if doctors and nurses are avoiding these vaccinations they are doing so for a reason and if the vaccine manufacturers are writing lists this long on their information leaflet, then they are writing it to cover themselves should anyone have an adverse reaction. Let’s fact it how many pensioners would actually ask to read this leaflet before they have the vaccine?
I have decided that given the evidence stating that flu vaccines are proving unsafe. I will take my chances and not have either of the flu vaccines; one thing is for sure if I do get the flu I have a better chance of recovery than I would from the side effects mentioned in the list above.
References
1. Seven Days – Vermont’s Independent News http://www.7dvt.com/2012flu-shot-or-not-state-health-officials-warn-against-alarmist-reaction-young-girls-death
2. Flu Vaccine NHS website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Flu-jab/Pages/Introduction.aspx
3. Two People Died After Getting Swine Flu shots – Hometesting blog http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=5005
4. Nursing Times – Vaccine side effects top of nurses’ concerns about flu jab http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/immunology/vaccine-side-effects-top-of-nurses-concerns-about-flu-jab/5039337.article
5. Mercola http://www.care2.com/greenliving/dangerous-new-flu-vaccine-for-seniors.html
A family in Vermont is mourning the loss of their child.
It has been reported a fit and healthy 7-year-old girl died unexpectedly before Christmas after a flu vaccine. Kaylynne died in her mother’s arms four days after she was given a flu vaccine by her doctor at her annual check up.
Officials are now investigating Kaylynne’s death and an autopsy report is due in a couple of week’s time. Kaylynne’s mother is positive the vaccine killed her daughter and told reporters, “We’re just waiting for an answer,” “but we believe in our hearts that it was the flu shot.”
State officials however, are not convinced that the flu vaccine was the cause of the girl’s death.
A report on Seven Days, Vermont’s Independent News, (1) stated Vermont Health Commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen made it clear that in his opinion it was extremely unlikely that Kaylynne’s death was related to the vaccine and he is worried that scaremongering will deter parents from vaccinating their children.
Chen said deaths after a vaccine are very rare and that a death after the flu shot has never before been reported in Vermont.
News reporter Ken Picard wrote:
Chen and other state health officials are more worried about the effects of news reports prematurely linking the Barton girl’s death to the flu shot: specifically, that more parents will opt out of immunizing their children, or themselves, against seasonal influenza.
A 7yr child dies just days before Christmas after receiving a ‘so called safe vaccine’ and all state officials are worried about are the effects her death will have on vaccination statistics! His behavior in my opinion was disgusting and highlights the inhumane way officials treat grieving parents to further their own ends.
So are deaths after flu vaccines as rare as Chen has stated and are the vaccines as safe as we are led to believe?
From the research that I have found neither the flu vaccine nor the Swine flu vaccine has been found to be particularly safe. In November last year an article highlighted two deaths occurring just hours after the Swine flu or H1N1 vaccine in China. (A point to remember here is that the H1N1 vaccine is included in this years flu shot.) (2)
The Ministry of Health in China reported that two people had died after receiving swine flu shots. They were clear to point out however, that death after immunization does not necessarily mean that the death was caused by the vaccine. (3)
Nurses Boycott Flu Vaccine
UK Nurses are also saying that the flu shots are unsafe and have been reluctant to have the vaccines. A report on the website Nursing Times.net (4) states that unvaccinated nurses taking part in a survey said that they did not have the flu vaccine because of safety concerns. The report states:
When asked why they had not had the vaccine, the majority of unvaccinated respondents highlighted concerns about vaccine side effects.
The Nursing Times stated that researchers had found that concerns about side effects and efficacy were the two most frequent reasons for nurses refusing the flu vaccine.
If nurses are not having the vaccine through fears that they are unsafe, then surely this must indicate that these vaccines are unsafe? Could the reason for this be, that they are seeing a higher than average number of adverse reactions coming into the hospitals?
Senior Flu Shots Are Proving To Be Exceptionally Dangerous
If you still feel that the vaccines are safe then I suggest you take a look at an article written by Dr Mercola which was highlighted this week. Dr Mercola (5) stated that the new flu vaccine being give to seniors is proving exceptionally dangerous. He says that according to the CDC there are more frequent reports of side effects after the High Dose Fluzone vaccine.This is the vaccine which is being given to seniors. Mercola wrote:
“The safety profile of Fluzone High-Dose vaccine is similar to that of regular flu vaccines, although adverse events (which are also reported after regular flu vaccines) were reported more frequently after vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.
The most common adverse events experienced during clinical studies were mild and temporary and included pain, redness and swelling at the injection site and headache, muscle aches, fever and malaise.”
Mercola continued:
A total of 6.1 percent of seniors injected with the regular Fluzone vaccine experienced a serious adverse event, compared to 7.4 percent of those receiving the newer high-dose version. According to the package insert the SAE’s reported during the post-approval use of the vaccine include:
• Thrombocytopenia (abnormally low platelet count, which can result in abnormal bleeding)
• Guillain-Barre syndrome
• Myelitis (spinal cord inflammation)
• Optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve)
• Lymphadenopathy (enlarged lymph nodes)
• Facial palsy (Bell’s palsy)
• Paresthesia (numbness/tingling of the skin)
• Itchy skin
• Anaphylaxis (life-threatening whole-body allergic reaction)
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome
• Vasculitis (inflammatory destruction of blood vessels)
• Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath
• Chest pain
• Brachial neuritis (excruciating unilateral shoulder pain, followed by paralysis of shoulder)
• Pharyngitis and rhinitis (inflammation of the throat or pharynx, and the nose, respectively)
• Convulsions, fainting, dizziness
I feel that if doctors and nurses are avoiding these vaccinations they are doing so for a reason and if the vaccine manufacturers are writing lists this long on their information leaflet, then they are writing it to cover themselves should anyone have an adverse reaction. Let’s fact it how many pensioners would actually ask to read this leaflet before they have the vaccine?
I have decided that given the evidence stating that flu vaccines are proving unsafe. I will take my chances and not have either of the flu vaccines; one thing is for sure if I do get the flu I have a better chance of recovery than I would from the side effects mentioned in the list above.
References
1. Seven Days – Vermont’s Independent News http://www.7dvt.com/2012flu-shot-or-not-state-health-officials-warn-against-alarmist-reaction-young-girls-death
2. Flu Vaccine NHS website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Flu-jab/Pages/Introduction.aspx
3. Two People Died After Getting Swine Flu shots – Hometesting blog http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=5005
4. Nursing Times – Vaccine side effects top of nurses’ concerns about flu jab http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-specialisms/immunology/vaccine-side-effects-top-of-nurses-concerns-about-flu-jab/5039337.article
5. Mercola http://www.care2.com/greenliving/dangerous-new-flu-vaccine-for-seniors.html
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
New Holland touts hydrogen-powered tractor
Agriculture.com Staff Agriculture.com Staff 12/08/2011 @ 11:33am
New Holland Agriculture recently announced its sponsorship of a reception that is part of a United Nations climate change conference being held this week in Durban, South Africa. The company's sponsorship included an opportunity to showcase its new hydrogen-powered tractor.
"New Holland Agriculture will be represented at the Reception by senior management and representatives of its importer, New Holland South Africa," the company said in a statement.
"New Holland’s sponsorship of this prestigious event is testament to its commitment to developing solutions that make farming more efficient while respecting the environment," the statement continued. "This is the basis for New Holland’s Clean Energy Leader position, which includes its pioneering work with biofuels, Tier 4 low-emission technologies, biomass, the NH2 hydrogen tractor (photo) and the Energy Independent Farm concept as well as initiatives related to the Carbon footprint reduction."
New Holland placed two tractors on display at the venue, a T8.360 and the NH2,, which the company says are "representative of New Holland’s approach to achieving a sustainable development of agriculture."
original source
New Holland Agriculture recently announced its sponsorship of a reception that is part of a United Nations climate change conference being held this week in Durban, South Africa. The company's sponsorship included an opportunity to showcase its new hydrogen-powered tractor.
"New Holland Agriculture will be represented at the Reception by senior management and representatives of its importer, New Holland South Africa," the company said in a statement.
"New Holland’s sponsorship of this prestigious event is testament to its commitment to developing solutions that make farming more efficient while respecting the environment," the statement continued. "This is the basis for New Holland’s Clean Energy Leader position, which includes its pioneering work with biofuels, Tier 4 low-emission technologies, biomass, the NH2 hydrogen tractor (photo) and the Energy Independent Farm concept as well as initiatives related to the Carbon footprint reduction."
New Holland placed two tractors on display at the venue, a T8.360 and the NH2,, which the company says are "representative of New Holland’s approach to achieving a sustainable development of agriculture."
original source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)