Is our food safe?
Doug. | 28.10.2005 04:54 | Health
They told us there was no risk of BSE from beef and now they are telling us there is no risk of Avian Flu from chicken and eggs. Can you really trust these people?
They are at it again, Various authorities, the media and tame scientists are telling us it is safe to eat poultry and eggs, which is contrary to common sense in the light of the Avian Flue risk. Quote: "Birds excrete the virus in their faeces, which dry and become pulverised, and are then inhaled". So what if a dead chicken or an egg has specs of dried faeces on them which you then take home and inhale?
Remember BSE? They told us there was no scientific evidence of risk while ignoring the precautionary principle and the fact that no evidence of risk is not evidence of no risk. Of course, as usual, this is all about profit before people. Better to risk the health of millions of consumers than impede the food industry in any way.
Remember BSE? They told us there was no scientific evidence of risk while ignoring the precautionary principle and the fact that no evidence of risk is not evidence of no risk. Of course, as usual, this is all about profit before people. Better to risk the health of millions of consumers than impede the food industry in any way.
Doug.
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
force multiplier
28.10.2005 12:14
cooking it will kill all nasty things supposedly
but we do have conflicting messages coming from all directions
observe the stockpiles of tamiflu being prepared
some people are bulk buying it
lots of cash into Roche AG and other pockets
[Gilead the inventor of Tamiflu - has Rumsfeld on its board]
why prepare & stockpile an anti-viral remedy for a virus
that hasn't even mutated to Human to Human form yet?
it will be rendered useless to kill any new strain...
these anti-virals might not be
for the treatment of 'avian' flu at all
but for the propogation of a cash cow
ask your doctor about the dangers of
self prescribing anti viral medication
your body builds up a resistance to it
and the virus does too...thus it mutates
my hunch is that the mass marketing & selling of
Tamiflu by use of viral marketing and threataganda
will help the mutation of the virus
into yet another money spinner
it is a beast that feeds itself
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bird flu vaccine developed
11-April 2003
"A team of researchers - led by Dr Richard Webby, who graduated from Otago in 1999, and a colleague, both based at St Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, America - has rapidly developed a vaccine for a deadly Hong Kong bird virus and human killer."
"Using samples of the influenza from Hong Kong, they mixed two genes from the virus with six genes from another virus inside a cell. This modified the virus genes to "abolish its ability to cause disease and therefore made it safer to use as a vaccine", the statement said. The virus has been sent to Atlanta and London for testing in preparation for human trials."
Otago graduates help create flu vaccine- Joanna Norris
Otago Daily Times
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaccine helps to mutate Bird flu?
11 February 04
..."In 2003, scientists who developed an improved flu vaccine for poultry, including Robert Webster of St Jude's, concluded that such vaccination "may be a serious problem for human pandemic preparedness" (Virology, vol 314, p 580).
Such vaccines, they wrote, might mask disease signs while allowing the birds to continue to shed virus. In such a case, "persistence of virus infection in the presence of a flock immunity may contribute to increased virus evolution".
Genetic analysis probes bird flu's history - New scientist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cw
the cartel
28.10.2005 12:50
Influenza viruses continually mutate or change, which enables the virus to evade
the immune system.
People are susceptible to influenza infection throughout their lives.
The process works as follows:
A person infected with influenza virus develops antibody against that virus.
The virus mutates or changes.
The "older" antibody no longer recognizes the "newer" virus.
Reinfection occurs.
The older antibody can, however, provide partial protection against reinfection.
Currently, three different influenza strains circulate worldwide:
two type A viruses and one type B. Type A viruses are divided into subtypes based
on differences in two viral proteins called hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N).
The current subtypes of influenza A are designated A(H1N1), A(H3N2),
and B(Hong Kong/330/2001-like virus strain).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes
may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Rebuilding Americas defenses - The Project for the New American Century
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'politically useful'
means
'enables the continued control of'
consider the notion of the
'management of disease'
as being similar to the idea of the
terminator seed
control of resources
we need food, right?
this mean that we will have to pay the owner of
the patent for continued survival
its the same with disease management
they are actually going to patent & prescribe
drug / additive / resources
which 'enable us'
basically grants us permission
to continue our life
to make us feel 'normal' & 'free'
how do you gain access to this?
obedience
our very lives are a 'normality addiction'
index linked to the fear of a 'disease / terror'
propagated by the very same cartel
right now many people die from Murder incs lust
for bio/pharma-control as a 'politically useful'
managed economic force-multipler
cw
Rumsfeld / Gilead / Tamiflu links
31.10.2005 17:07
Defense Secretary, ex-chairman of flu treatment rights holder, sees portfolio value growing.
October 31, 2005: 10:55 AM EST
By Nelson D. Schwartz, Fortune senior writer
NEW YORK (Fortune) - The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it's proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that's now the most-sought after drug in the world.
Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)'s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld.
The forms don't reveal the exact number of shares Rumsfeld owns, but in the past six months fears of a pandemic and the ensuing scramble for Tamiflu have sent Gilead's stock from $35 to $47. That's made the Pentagon chief, already one of the wealthiest members of the Bush cabinet, at least $1 million richer.
Rumsfeld isn't the only political heavyweight benefiting from demand for Tamiflu, which is manufactured and marketed by Swiss pharma giant Roche. (Gilead receives a royalty from Roche equaling about 10% of sales.) Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on Gilead's board, has sold more than $7 million worth of Gilead since the beginning of 2005.
Another board member is the wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson.
"I don't know of any biotech company that's so politically well-connected," says analyst Andrew McDonald of Think Equity Partners in San Francisco.
What's more, the federal government is emerging as one of the world's biggest customers for Tamiflu. In July, the Pentagon ordered $58 million worth of the treatment for U.S. troops around the world, and Congress is considering a multi-billion dollar purchase. Roche expects 2005 sales for Tamiflu to be about $1 billion, compared with $258 million in 2004.
Rumsfeld recused himself from any decisions involving Gilead when he left Gilead and became Secretary of Defense in early 2001. And late last month, notes a senior Pentagon official, Rumsfeld went even further and had the Pentagon's general counsel issue additional instructions outlining what he could and could not be involved in if there were an avian flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond.
As the flu issue heated up early this year, according to the Pentagon official, Rumsfeld considered unloading his entire Gilead stake and sought the advice of the Department of Justice, the SEC and the federal Office of Government Ethics.
Those agencies didn't offer an opinion so Rumsfeld consulted a private securities lawyer, who advised him that it was safer to hold on to the stock and be quite public about his recusal rather than sell and run the risk of being accused of trading on insider information, something Rumsfeld doesn't believe he possesses. So he's keeping his shares for the time being.
cw
compare to Blunkett
31.10.2005 17:17
but its helpful to see who benefits from a state of fear...& control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grayling writes to Blair about Blunkett involvement with DNA Bioscience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadow Leader of the Commons Chris Grayling has written to Tony Blair about David Blunkett's involvement with DNA Bioscience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Grayling said:
"Mr Blunkett does appear to be in clear breach of the Ministerial Code over his failure to consult the Advisory Committee when he took he took up his directorship. But the real question must be about his judgement in taking the appointment, buying a stake in the company and continuing to meet members of the family that own the company after his return to office.
"If the company is successful, Mr Blunkett's family stands to make a large amount of money. My challenge to the Prime Minister is does he feel that this is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Ministerial Code?"
ENDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the letter is below:
I am writing to you concerning the involvement of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with DNA Bioscience. I know that you have always been adamant that Ministers must conform absolutely with the Ministerial Code. As you put it in the Daily Mirror on December 24th 1998,
"I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their government. We are all here to serve and we must all serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust. I will expect all ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the code."
In addition, you are, of course, the ultimate arbiter of the Ministerial Code.
As you will be aware, Mr Blunkett yesterday admitted that he had not fully consulted the Advisory Committee on Ministerial Appointments on taking up his position with DNA Bioscience. This appears to be a clear breach of the code, and I have sought confirmation of this from Sir Gus O'Donnell. Did Mr Blunkett make you aware of this breach before it became public in the press this weekend. If not, why not?
However I regard the other issues relating to Mr Blunkett's relationship with DNA Bioscience as even more serious. Put simply, the situation is this. Mr Blunkett became a director of the company for two weeks, during the General Election campaign, even though journalists tell me that he had indicated to them before that that he had high hopes of returning to the Government after election day. During that time he acquired, on behalf of his family, a significant shareholding in the company. Surely normal practice would have been to wait a fortnight before deciding whether or not it was possible for him to join the board?
Although he resigned from the board of the company after his return to office, he has not denied reports that he continued to meet members of the family who control the company after he became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
It has also since emerged that the company is seeking business from a number of Government departments, and other public bodies – including Mr Blunkett's own Department. In the case of its contract with the Law Centres, it has been reported that it used Mr Blunkett's name in pursuing the business.
The significant of this is that the Company is believed also to be seeking a stock market listing. Its success in doing so, and the price of sale, will depend on its success in winning public sector contracts. If it does succeed, Mr Blunkett's family stands to gain substantially from this.
Is this really all consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Ministerial Code?
Did Mr Blunkett clear this involvement with you in advance?
Were you fully aware of the position before details of his ties with the company emerged in the press?
If you were not fully informed, have you sought to establish why not?
Do you think it is appropriate for Mr Blunkett's family to retain the shareholding, or will you advise him to dispose of it immediately?
I would be grateful for your clarification of these important points, and look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDS
cw