Chris Hedges -- The Maimed

Chris Hedges gave this talk Sunday night in New York City at a protest denouncing the 11th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. The event, at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, was led by Veterans for Peace.

Many of us who are here carry within us death. The smell of decayed and bloated corpses. The cries of the wounded. The shrieks of children. The sound of gunfire. The deafening blasts. The fear. The stench of cordite. The humiliation that comes when you surrender to terror and beg for life. The loss of comrades and friends. And then the aftermath. The long alienation. The numbness. The nightmares. The lack of sleep. The inability to connect to all living things, even to those we love the most. The regret. The repugnant lies mouthed around us about honor and heroism and glory. The absurdity. The waste. The futility.

It is only the maimed that finally know war. And we are the maimed. We are the broken and the lame. We ask for forgiveness. We seek redemption. We carry on our backs this awful cross of death, for the essence of war is death, and the weight of it digs into our shoulders and eats away at our souls. We drag it through life, up hills and down hills, along the roads, into the most intimate recesses of our lives. It never leaves us. Those who know us best know that there is something unspeakable and evil many of us harbor within us. This evil is intimate. It is personal. We do not speak its name. It is the evil of things done and things left undone. It is the evil of war.

We do not speak of war. War is captured only in the long, vacant stares, in the silences, in the trembling fingers, in the memories most of us keep buried deep within us, in the tears.

It is impossible to portray war. Narratives, even anti-war narratives, make the irrational rational. They make the incomprehensible comprehensible. They make the illogical logical. They make the despicable beautiful. All words and images, all discussions, all films, all evocations of war, good or bad, are an obscenity. There is nothing to say. There are only the scars and wounds. These we carry within us. These we cannot articulate. The horror. The horror.

War gives to its killers a God-like power to take life. And there are those here tonight that have felt and exercised that power. They turned other human beings into objects. And in that process of killing they became objects, machines, instruments of death, war’s victimizers and war’s victims. And they do not want to be machines again.

We wander through life with the deadness of war within us. There is no escape. There is no peace. We know an awful truth, an existential truth. War exposed the lies of patriotism and collective virtue of the nation that our churches, our schools, our press, our movies, our books, our government told us about ourselves, about who we were. And we see through these illusions. But those who speak this truth are cast out. Ghosts. Strangers in a strange land.

Who are our brothers and sisters? Who is our family? Whom have we become? We have become those whom we once despised and killed. We have become the enemy. Our mother is the mother grieving over her murdered child, and we murdered this child, in a mud-walled village of Afghanistan or a sand-filled cemetery in Fallujah. Our father is the father lying on a pallet in a hut, paralyzed by the blast from an iron fragmentation bomb. Our sister lives in poverty in a refugee camp outside Kabul, widowed, desperately poor, raising her children alone. Our brother, yes, our brother, is in the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency and al-Qaida. And he has an automatic rifle. And he kills. And he is becoming us. War is always the same plague. It imparts the same deadly virus. It teaches us to deny another’s humanity, worth, being, and to kill and be killed.

There are days we wish we were whole. We wish we could put down this cross. We envy those who, in their innocence, believe in the innate goodness of America and the righteousness of war and celebrate what we know is despicable. And sometimes it makes us wish for death, for the peace of it. But we know too the awful truth, as James Baldwin wrote, that “people who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.” And we would rather be maimed and broken and in pain than be a monster, and some of us, once, were monsters.

I cannot heal you. You will never be healed. I cannot take away your wounds, visible and invisible. I cannot promise that it will be better. I cannot impart to you the cheerful and childish optimism that is the curse of America. I can only tell you to stand up, to pick up your cross, to keep moving. I can only tell you that you must always defy the forces that eat away at you, at the nation—this plague of war.

Sometimes I feel like a motherless child?
A long ways from home
A long ways from home

Towering about us are banks and other financial institutions that profit from war. War, for some, is a business. And across this country lies a labyrinth of military industries that produce nothing but instruments of death. And some of us once served these forces. It is death we defy, not our own death, but the vast enterprise of death. The dark, primeval lusts for power and personal wealth, the hypermasculine language of war and patriotism, are used to justify the slaughter of the weak and the innocent and mock justice. ... And we will not use these words of war.

We cannot flee from evil. Some of us have tried through drink and drugs and self-destructiveness. Evil is always with us. It is because we know evil, our own evil, that we do not let go, do not surrender. It is because we know evil that we resist. It is because we know violence that we are nonviolent. And we know that it is not about us; war taught us that. It is about the other, lying by the side of the road. It is about reaching down in defiance of creeds and oaths, in defiance of religion and nationality, and lifting our enemy up. All acts of healing and love—and the defiance of war is an affirmation of love—allow us to shout out to the vast powers of the universe that, however broken we are, we are not yet helpless, however much we despair we are not yet without hope, however weak we may feel, we will always, always, always resist. And it is in this act of resistance that we find our salvation.

Read more.. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_maimed_20121007/

William Malaurie -- Yes, GMOs are poisonous!

*French researchers studied privately for two years, 200 rats fed GM corn. Tumors, serious diseases ... a massacre. And a bomb [for the] GMO industry. 

This is a real bomb that launches this September 19 to 15 hours, the very serious American journal "Food and Chemical Toxicology" - a benchmark for food toxicology - publishing the results of the experiment conducted by [the] team [of] French Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen. A cluster bomb [for] scientific, medical, and industrial policy. It sprays indeed an official truth: the safety of genetically modified maize. 

Heavily toxic and often fatal

Even at low doses, the GM study proves heavily toxic and often lethal to rats. So much so that, if it were a drug, it should be suspended forthwith pending further investigations. Because it is the same GMO found on our plates through the meat, eggs or milk.

In 2006, this is a true thriller that begins this research, the project manager, Gilles-Eric Seralini discloses itself conclusions in a book to be published next week ("All guinea pigs", Flammarion, in bookstores September 26).
Codenamed Vivo

Until 2011, the researchers worked under conditions of quasi-underground. They have their encrypted emails and the Pentagon, have banned all phone conversation and even launched a study decoy as they feared a coup de Jarnac multinational seed.

The story of the operation - codenamed Vivo - [involves] the difficult recovery of GM maize seeds NK 603, owned [and] patented [by] Monsanto, through an agricultural college in Canada. Then harvested and the repatriation of "big jute bags" [via]the port of Le Havre in late 2007, before making croquettes in total secrecy and the selection of two hundred lab rats called "Sprague Dawley". [The result?] Chilling: "After less than a year of genetically modified maize menus differentiated says Professor Séralini, it was a slaughter among our rats, [of] which I had not imagined the magnitude." 

Serious diseases, mammary tumors

All groups of rats, whether fed with GM maize treated or untreated with Roundup herbicide, Monsanto, or fed with water containing low doses of herbicide found in GM fields are hit by a multitude of serious diseases in the 13th month of the experiment. In females, this is manifested by explosions chain mammary tumors that reach up to 25% of their weight. Males, are purifiers organs, liver and kidneys, which are marked with abnormalities or severe. With a frequency of two to five times greater than for rodents fed non-GM corn.

Comparison implacable rats GMO therefore trigger two to three times more tumors than non-GMO rats whatever their sex. At the beginning of the 24th month, that is to say at the end of their lives, 50% and 80% of females are affected GMOs against only 30% among non-GMO.

Above all, tumors occur much faster in rats GM: twenty months earlier in males, three months earlier in females. For an animal that has two years of life expectancy, the difference is considerable. For comparison, one year for a rodent is roughly the equivalent of forty years for a man ... 

Demand accountability

It is these strong conclusions Corinne Lepage , in a book that seems to Friday, September 21 ("The truth about GMOs, is our business", Editions Charles Léopold Mayer), intends to demand accountability from political and experts, French and European health agencies and the Brussels Commission, which have so long opposed by all means and the principle of a long-term study on the physiological impact of GMOs.

This battle, the former Minister of Ecology and First Vice-President of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in Strasbourg, the leading fifteen years in the Criigen (Committee for Independent Research and Information on genetic engineering) with Joel Spiroux and Gilles-Eric Seralini. A simple association 1901 which has yet been able to meet end to end funding of this research (3.2 million euros) that neither INRA, CNRS neither, nor any public agency had judged advisable to undertake.
A study funded by Auchan and Carrefour

How? Another surprise by asking the Swiss Foundation Charles Léopold Mayer. But the owners of the supermarkets (Carrefour, Auchan ..), who gathered for the occasion together. Since the mad cow disease, in fact they want to protect themselves from any new food scandal. So much so that it is Gérard Mulliez, founder of the Auchan Group, which provided the initial funding. 

The study by Professor Séralini portend a new murderous war between pro and anti-GMO. Health agencies they require urgently similar studies to verify the findings of French scientists? It would be the least. Monsanto, the largest seed firm global transgenic leave she do? Unlikely: its survival would be at stake for a single plant GMOs, there are hundreds of varieties. Implying at least a dozen studies from 100 to 150 million euros each!
The time of truth

Except that in this new confrontation, the debate can no longer be bogged down by the past. September 26 dice, everyone can see the film in the cinema shock Jean-Paul Jaud, "All guinea pigs?", Adapted from the book by Gilles-Eric Seralini, and the terrible images of rats stuffy in their tumors. Images that will go around the world and the Internet, as it will be broadcast on Canal + (the "Grand Journal" September 19) and France 5 (October 16 in a documentary). For GM, the era of doubt ends. The time of truth begins.

Read more.. http://bit.ly/UngEH0

Gary Null, Ph.D. and Jeremy Stillman - Shilling for Big Agra: Challenging the Stamford Report’s Conclusions

Mainstream news outlets have widely covered the results of a recent meta-analysis by researchers at Stanford University which claims to offer proof that organic produce is not any healthier than conventional foods. Most Americans, if they believe the media, would no longer be interested in spending a little more money at a local farmers market or health food store and buying organic produce. They would believe, based upon the review by Stanford scientists, that there is no difference between organic and conventional produce. However, there is a backstory that recasts this entire discussion.

New evidence has emerged that Big Agra, including those that support or benefit from genetically modified (GMO) foods, were behind this review and this is nothing more than a PR effort; especially since, there is a November election in California to decide whether to label GMO foods or not. The pro-organic food and GMO labeling movements have little funds and no PR campaign, only concerned citizens using common sense. On the other hand, the pro-GMO camp has tens of millions of dollars and is waging an aggressive campaign to disseminate their propaganda. They know that if consumers vote yes to labeling GMO foods in California, it will spread throughout the country. Therefore, they are trying their hardest to keep our politicians and health safety organizations from speaking out on the side of public health and real, independent science, which shows that GMOs are dangerous and unproven in safety.

Click to read more ...

FEMA VIDEO

Here is the video Gary mentioned on his radio show.  

Gary's Dance Video from 1984

Gary Null Dance Party at Red Parrot in 1984 from Gary Null on Vimeo.

Jason Mark -- Whoa, Is Organic Food No Healthier Than Non-Organic? Controversy Erupts Over Study

I had barely drank my first cup of coffee when I heard the news yesterday morning on NPR [3] – organic food, it turns out, may not be that much healthier for you than industrial food.

The NPR story was based on a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine [4] which concluded, based on a review of existing studies, that there is no “strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” The study, written by researchers at the Stanford School of Medicine, also found that eating organic foods “may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

The interwebs were soon full of headlines talking down the benefits of organic foods. “Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce,” the NY Times [5] announced, as reporter Kenneth Chang pointed out that pesticide residues on industrially grown fruits and vegetables are “almost always under the allowed safety limits.”CBS news [6], running the AP story on the Stanford study, informed readers: “Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests.”

Organic agriculture advocates were quick with their rebuttals. The Environmental Working Group [7] put out a press release playing up the researchers’ findings that organic produce has less pesticide residue. Charles Benbrook, a professor of agriculture at Washington State University and former chief scientist at The Organic Center [8], wrote a detailed critique you can find here [9]. Benbrook noted that the Stanford study didn’t include data from the USDA and US EPA about pesticide residue levels. He also pointed out that the researchers’ definition of “significantly more nutritious” was a little squishy.

Is this the last word on the nutritional benefits of organic foods? Hardly. As Benbrook said, in the coming years improved measurement methods will hopefully allow for better comparisons of food nutritional quality. (You can find an Earth Island Journal cover story on this very issue here [10].)

I’ll leave it to the PhDs and MDs to fight this out among themselves. As they do, I’ll keep buying (and growing [11]) organic foods. Why? Because even if organic foods are not demonstrably better for my health than industrial foods, I know that organics are better for the health of other people – the people who grow our nation’s food.

To his credit, NPR’s new ag reporter, Dan Charles, was careful to note that organic agriculture “can bring environmental benefit[s].” One of the most important environmental benefits organic agriculture delivers is a boost to public health and safety.

Let’s say you’re not worried about the relatively small amounts of pesticides that end up on the industrial foods at the supermarket. (Though you should read this [12] Tom Philpott dissection of the Stanford report when considering your risk of eating pesticide residue.) Well, you should still be concerned about the huge amounts of pesticides that end up in the air and water of farming communities – chemicals that can lead to birth defects, endocrine disruption, and neurological and respiratory problems.

When pesticides are sprayed onto farm fields, they don’t just stay in that one place. They seep into the water and waft through the air and accumulate on the shoes and clothes of farm workers. In recent years in California (the country’s top ag producer) an average of 37 pesticide drift incidents [13] a year have made people sick. Pesticides also find their way into the homes of farm workers. A study by researchers at the University of Washington found that the children of farm workers have higher exposure to pesticides [14] than other children in the same community. When researchers in Mexico looked into pesticide exposure of farm workers there, they found that 20 percent of field hands “showed acute poisoning. [15]”

The health impacts on those workers were serious and included “diverse alterations of the digestive, neurological, respiratory, circulatory, dermatological, renal, and reproductive system.” The researchers concluded: “there exist health hazards for those farm workers exposed to pesticides, at organic and cellular levels.”

There are shelves’ worth of studies [16] documenting the health dangers of pesticide exposure. A study published last year found that prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides [17] – which are often sprayed on crops and in urban areas to control insects – can lower children’s IQ. A follow-up investigation into prenatal pesticide exposure concluded that boys’ developing brains appear to be more vulnerable [18] than girls’ brains. A study by Colorado State University epidemiologist Lori Cragin found that women who drink water containing low levels of the herbicide atrazine are more likely to have low estrogen levels [19] and irregular menstrual cycles; about three-quarters of all US corn fields are treated with atrazine annually. British scientists who examined the health effects of fungicides sprayed on fruits and vegetable crops discovered that 30 out of 37 chemicals studied altered males’ hormone production [20].

Read more.. http://www.alternet.org/food/whoa-organic-food-no-healthier-non-organic-controversy-erupts-over-study

Frances Moore Lappé -- Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics

I first heard about a new Stanford "study" downplaying the value of organics when this blog headline cried out from my inbox: "Expensive organic food isn't healthier and no safer than produce grown with pesticides, finds biggest study of its kind."

What?

Does the actual study say this?

No, but authors of the study -- "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review" -- surely are responsible for its misinterpretation and more. Their study actually reports that ¨Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

The authors' tentative wording -- "may reduce" -- belies their own data: The report's opening statement says the tested organic produce carried a 30 percent lower risk of exposure to pesticide residues. And, the report itself also says that "detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples...and 38% of conventional produce samples." Isn't that's a greater than 80% exposure reduction?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food. They have health concerns, too!

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Finally, are organic foods more nutritious?

In their report, Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, and co-authors say only that "published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods." Yet, the most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing organic and non-organic, led by scientist Kirsten
Brandt, a Scientist at the Human Nutrition Research Center at the UK's Newcastle University found organic fruits and vegetables, to have on "average 12% higher nutrient levels."

Bottom line for me? What we do know is that the rates of critical illnesses, many food-related --from allergies to Crohn's Disease -- are spiking and no one knows why. What we do know is that pesticide poisoning is real and lethal -- and not just for humans. In such a world is it not the height of irresponsibility to downplay the risks of exposure to known toxins?

Rachel Carson would be crying. Or, I hope, shouting until -- finally -- we all listen. "Simple precaution! Is that not commonsense?"

Read more.. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/06-12

Dr. Gary Null PHD & Jeremy Stillman -- Does Heart Rate Affect Longevity?

          Having spent my entire adult career working with tens of thousands of individuals as a scientist, clinician, and therapist in anti-aging research, it has been my observation that the higher one’s resting heart rate, the more susceptible one is to heart disease and premature death. Considering that we have added nearly ten years to the average lifespan over the last forty years, what can we point to that accounts for this change? A look at the evidence shows that it is multifactorial. 

When I was growing up, my parents, aunts and uncles, all smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day. They drank a lot of alcohol- not to get drunk but to socialize- and they had high concentrations of animal protein, saturated fats and refined carbohydrates. They rarely exercised and more often than not, they internalized their distress. This lifestyle was typical among that generation of Americans.

Today, the last two generations have caused a renaissance in health awareness. Thanks to them, we now know the importance consuming a healthy vegan diet high in raw foods and fresh juices, using supplements, and abstaining from alcohol and smoking. We are aware of how indispensible exercise and more and more people are reaping the benefits of de-stress practices such as yoga and meditation.  The combination of all these factors has produced a quantitative change our life expectancy.

As a competitive athlete, having won more than 500 races and competed in more than 600, I have interacted with hundreds of professional athletes. Most of the athletes I have come to know have heart rates between 50 and 65. Most non-athletes, but those who still have a proper diet, have resting pulses between 70 and 80.  Those who are overweight, obese, or have diabetes, tend to have pulses between 75 and 85 and often suffer from heart disease and other serious medical conditions that inevitably shorten the lifespan. It is my experience that once they begin to exercise and bring their pulse down by more than 10 points or into the 60 to 70 range, that it increases their lifespan by approximately ten years. I’ve counseled many individuals who were given a very problematic prognosis (i.e., a shortened lifespan). By following the therapies listed above, many of them were able to significantly lower their blood pressure and heart rate. These people went on to live many years longer than what would have been expected and most of them survive today.  These experiences helped me arrive at my hypothesis that the lower the heart rate, the healthier the heart, and the longer the lifespan. A review of the scientific research on this subject shows that this hypothesis is well-founded. 

Examining the Evidence

In studies on both humans and animals, a clear relationship exists between high resting heart rate and shorter lifespan. In 2010, cardiologist Dr. Eva Lonn of McMaster University presented the results of a study that examined this connection in over 30,000 patients over the course of 4 years to the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress. Speaking before her colleagues, Lonn stated that "the higher the heart rate, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular and all causes, even after adjusting for all risk factors that could confound our results," [1] The study found that individuals with heart rates above 78 beats per minute were 77% more likely to die from heart disease, and 65% more likely to die from all causes, than their counterparts who had a resting heart rate of 58 or below.  

These findings are corroborated by numerous other studies that connect an above-average resting heart rate with a significantly increased risk of death, especially from cardiovascular illness.[2] [3][4][5][6][7]   A study of more than 129,000 women published in the British Medical Journal found that women who had a heart rate of more than 76 ran a significantly higher risk of cardiac arrest and heart disease than those women whose pulse rate was lower than 62.[8] A recent paper out of France noted that “an increase in heart rate by 10 beats per minute was associated with an increase in the risk of cardiac death by at least 20%.”[9]

The connection between heart rate and longevity goes well beyond deaths related to cardiovascular illness. Using data collected during the 25-year-long Paris Prospective Study, which surveyed over 5,000 men aged 42-53, researchers at University Paris Descartes determined “resting and exercise heart rate had consistent, graded and highly significant associations with subsequent cancer mortality in men.”[10] Compared to the men with a resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute, those individuals with a heart rate of more than 73 beats per minute were 2.4 times more likely to die from cancer. The results are consistent with previous analyses showing a direct relationship between heart rate with cancer mortality.[11] A study out of Italy known as the MATISS Project investigated the possible association of pulse rate and mortality among Italian middle-aged males. The authors concluded that heart rate was a reliable independent predictor of total mortality.[12]  

Not only does a higher heart rate predict a shorter lifespan, but a body of evidence indicates that carrying out heart rate lowering activities such as exercise and meditation may help boost longevity.[13] In a paper from 2003, researchers at the European Society of Cardiology proposed the following explanation of why resting heart rate may be related to lifespan:

In mammals, the calculated number of heart beats in a lifetime is remarkably constant, despite a 40-fold difference in life expectancy. According to this view, a reduction in heart rate would increase life expectancy also in humans. The heart produces and utilizes approximately 30 kg adenosine triphosphate each day, and slowing its rate by 10 beats/min would result in a saving of about 5 kg in a day. Considering that heart rate is a major determinant of oxygen consumption and metabolic demand, heart rate reduction would be expected to diminish cardiac workload. Clinical studies with beta-blockers have already shown a reduction in mortality and improvement in outcome as a result of reduction in heart rate.[14]

The authors go on to recommend research into therapies designed to lower heart rate and in turn, potentially increase lifespan.  This suggestion is supported by a 2008 report in the Harvard Heart Letter which concluded that engaging in activities aimed at reducing heart rate such as exercise and de-stressing techniques may extend longevity.[15]

---

[1] Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (2010, October 26). High resting heart linked to shorter life expectancy in stable heart disease patients, study suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2010/10/101026161239.htm

[2] J. Nauman, I. Janszky, L. J. Vatten, U. Wisloff. Temporal Changes in Resting Heart Rate and Deaths From Ischemic Heart Disease. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2011; 306 (23): 2579 

[3] Zhang, G., and W. Zhang. "Heart Rate, Lifespan, and Mortality Risk." Ageing Research Rev P. M. Okin, S. E. Kjeldsen, S. Julius, D. A. Hille, B. Dahlof, J. M. Edelman, R. B. Devereux. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in relation to changing heart rate during treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.

[4] Palatini, Paolo. "Elevated Heart Rate: A “New” Cardiovascular Risk Factor?" Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 1-5. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615486>.

[5] Benetos, Athanase, Et Al. "Influence of Heart Rate on Mortality in a French Population."Hypertension 33 (1999): 44-52. Ahajournals.org. 1999. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/33/1/44.short>.

[6] Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

[7] European Heart Journal, 2010; DOI:iews 8.1 (2009): 52-60. Print.

[8] BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Resting Heart Rate Can Predict Heart Attacks In Women."ScienceDaily, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 4 Sep. 2012.

[9] Perret-Guillaume, Christine, Laure Joly, and Athanase Benetos. "Heart Rate as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease." Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 52.1 (2009): 6-10. Pubmed.gov. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19615487>.

[10] Jouven, Xavier, Sylvie Escolano, David Celermajer, Jean-Philippe Empana, Annie Bingham, Olivier Hermine, Michel Desnos, Marie-Cécile Perier, Eloi Marijon, and Pierre Ducimetière. "Heart Rate and Risk of Cancer Death in Healthy Men." Ed. Julian Little.PLoS ONE 6.8 (2011): E21310. Print.

[11] Persky, V, Et Al. "Heart Rate: A Risk Factor for Cancer?" American Journal of Epidemiology 114.4 (1981): 477-87. Pubmed.gov. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7304578>.

[12] Fulvia Seccareccia et al., “Heart Rate as a Predictor of Mortality: The MATISS Project,” Am J Public Health 91, no. 8 (August 1, 2001): 1258-1263.

[13] Hjalmarson A. Significance of reduction of heart rate in

cadiovascular disease. Clin Cardiol 1998;21:II3—7.

[14] Ferrari, R. "Prognostic Benefits of Heart Rate Reduction in Cardiovascular Disease."European Heart Journal Supplements 5 (2003): G10-14. Print.

[15] "Harvard Heart Letter." Harvard Reviews of Health News. Harvard University, Dec. 2008. Web. 04 Sept. 2012. <http://www.harvardhealthcontent.com/newsletters/HeartLetter.pg>.

Chris Hedges -- The War in the Shadows

A Swedish documentary filmmaker released a film last year called “Last Chapter—Goodbye Nicaragua.” In it he admitted that he unknowingly facilitated a bombing, almost certainly orchestrated by the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which took the lives of three reporters I worked with in Central America. One of them, Linda Frazier, was the mother of a 10-year-old son. Her legs were torn apart by the blast, at La Penca, Nicaragua, along the border with Costa Rica, in May of 1984. She bled to death as she was being taken to the nearest hospital, in Ciudad Quesada, Costa Rica.

The admission by Peter Torbiornsson that he unwittingly took the bomber with him to the press conference was a window into the sordid world of espionage, terrorism and assassination that was an intimate part of every conflict I covered. It exposed the cynicism of undercover operatives on all sides, men and women who lie and deceive for a living, who betray relationships, including between each other, who steal and who carry out murder. One knows them immediately. Their ideological allegiances do not matter. They have the faraway eyes of the disconnected, along with nebulous histories and suspicious and vague associations. They tell incongruous personal stories and practice small deceits that are part of a pathological inability to tell the truth. They can be personable, even charming, but they are also invariably vain, dishonest and sinister. They cannot be trusted. It does not matter what side they are on. They were all the same. Gangsters.

All states and armed groups recruit and use members of this underclass. These personalities gravitate to intelligence agencies, terrorist cells, homeland security, police departments, the special forces and revolutionary groups where they can live a life freed from moral and legal constraints. Right and wrong are banished from their vocabulary. They disdain the constraints of democracy. They live in this nebulous underworld to satisfy their lusts for power and violence. They have no interest in diplomacy and less in peace. Peace would put them out of business; for them it is simply the temporary absence of war, which they are sure is inevitable. Their job is to use violence to purge the world of evil. And in the United States they have taken as hostages our diplomatic service and our foreign policy establishment. The CIA has become a huge private army, as Chalmers Johnson pointed out in his book “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic,” that is “unaccountable to the Congress, the press or the public because everything it does is secret.” C. Wright Mills called the condition “military metaphysics”—“the cast of mind that defines international reality as basically military.”

Since the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)—which includes the Green Berets, the Army Rangers and the Navy SEALs—has seen its budget quadrupled. There are now some 60,000 USSOCOM operatives, whom the president can dispatch to kill without seeking congressional approval or informing the public. Add to this the growth of intelligence operatives. As Dana Priest and William M. Arkinreported in The Washington Post, “Twenty-four [new intelligence] organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips, and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008, and 2009. In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11.”

Read more.. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_war_in_the_shadows_20120820/

BAD TO THE BONE - Fraud IS the Business Plan

by Gary Null, Ph.D. and Nancy Ashley, VMD

Part I – GlaxoSmithKline

You would have thought the way the stock price rose on Monday, July 2, 2012, that good news had been reported about British company GlaxoSmithKline instead of the announcement that the company had agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and pay a $3 billion criminal settlement to settle the largest case of healthcare fraud in U.S. history. In fact, the settlement was previously disclosed by GSK to its shareholders and was at least $150 million lower than expected. Not only is this a relatively paltry sum for a company which brings in $45 billion a year in revenue, but it essentially allows Glaxo to be absolved of its many crimes, and the injuries and deaths resulting from its dangerous pharmaceuticals over the past decade. It used to be that in most cases, a fraud settlement of more than a billion dollars would destroy a company. But as we have repeatedly seen over the years, this is just a regular cost of doing business for the pharmaceutical industry. Ultimately, this $3 billion fine is just a line item on GSK’s balance sheet.

The settlement, which breaks the previous record of $2.3 billion set by Pfizer in 2009, is nothing new for GlaxoSmithKline. According to a 2010 report by Public Citizen, since 1991 – around the same time as the infamous Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) allowed drug companies to buy approval from the FDA — GSK has had to pay more in fines and settlements to the federal and state governments than any other pharmaceutical company: a total of $4.5 billion not counting this week’s $3 billion.

So what misdemeanors did Glaxo agree to plead guilty to?

Avandia – Failing to disclose safety data: fine $243 million

Glaxo brought Avandia (rostiglitazone) to market in May 1999 amid great fanfare, and it quickly became the best-selling diabetes drug in the world. There were signs early on that Avandia caused a significant increase in heart attacks, however, which were ignored and denied by the company and the FDA. In the settlement, Glaxo was charged with failing to disclose the results of studies between 2001-2007 showing the increased risk of heart attack and death from Avandia. Additionally, Avandia has been linked to stroke, hepatotoxicity, bone fractures, and blindness. Nevertheless, because of aggressive marketing to medical professionals and clients alike, and despite the fact that reports of injury and death were hitting the mainstream media by 2007, sales of Avandia still topped $1.2 billion as late as 2009. The drug was completely taken off the market in Europe in 2010. Senators Grassley and Baucus tried to get the drug taken off the US market starting in 2008, but they were unsuccessful, despite the fact that the report they issued revealed that Avandia caused 500 unnecessary heart attacks a month in the US! The FDA held firm in their support of Avandia and GlaxoSmithKline even in the face of conflict of interest charges in the panel members who voted in favor of it. Currently the use of Avandia in the US is restricted to those already using the drug, and it remains available to them despite the risks and despite the fact that there are dozens of similar drugs available.

Paxil and Wellbutrin – Introducing Misbranded Drugs into Interstate Commerce (Marketing antidepressants for unapproved uses): Fine $757 million

Paxil, (paroxetine) a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) made by Glaxo’s predecessor, SmithKline Beecham (SKB), was approved for adult depression in 1992. Shortly thereafter, SKB started a multi-site study of Paxil for use in adolescent major depression. Study 392, which ended in 1997, showed that there was no significant difference between Paxil and placebo on ANY of the eight pre-specified outcome measures.⁷ It showed further that Paxil caused increased risk of suicide, self-harming behavior, and harm to others in the adolescents who took it, even as much as one single dose in certain susceptible individuals. The company, instead of taking any steps to protect consumers, decided to manage the negative results by ignoring unfavorable data and presenting fabricated positive results instead through a ghostwritten article published in 2001 in the prestigious Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. SmithKlineBeecham decided that this was the best strategy to minimize any potential negative commercial impact, according to an internal document. On the strength of selectively reporting the evidence of study 329 in the JAACAP article, doctors began prescribing Paxil widely for adolescents, even though the FDA had never approved the drug for this purpose. It wasn’t long, however, before the drastic increase in suicides among adolescents taking Paxil became obvious. On June 10, 2003, the British medical authorities took decisive action and banned the use of Paxil in adolescents.¹³ Our own FDA, however, was less concerned, and added a black box warning advising of the risk of suicide in adolescents taking Paxil without banning the drug.¹⁴

Click to read more ...