Category Archives: Health

Afroman Remakes “Because I Got High” to Support Legalization

Posted on by
Reply

Afroman

By Sabrina Fendrick

Source: Norml

Nearly fifteen years after the release of “Because I Got High”- a song well known for poking fun at overzealous reefer madness rhetoric – Afroman is ready to jump headfirst back into the marijuana limelight.  Only this time, as an advocate for legalization.

The grammy nominated artist recently teamed up with NORML and Weedmaps to launch a remake of his hit song, turning the hip hop classic into a positive legalization anthem for the 2014 elections. The remix is a new and entertaining way to drive the narrative surrounding the benefits of cannabis law reform, as well as the medical benefits of the plant itself. With election day right around the corner, his latest project is geared towards keeping up the momentum for all the marijuana law reform efforts taking place across the country, and especially upcoming ballot initiatives.

On November 4th, two states and the District of Columbia will be voting to legalize marijuana, and Florida will be voting on a medical marijuana amendment. The timing couldn’t have been better to take, and remake the canna-cult classic. The 2014 version of “Because I Got High” not only challenges old stereotypes, it also seeks to build support and enthusiasm for the three measures proposing to create a regulated pot market for adults, age 21 and over.

How a Minimal Ebola Outbreak Will Devastate the U.S. Economy

Posted on by
Reply

By Dave Hodges

Source: Investment Watch

A World Bank analysis of the economic impact of Ebola on national economies suggests that only a minimal outbreak of the virus could very well devastate the United States and its economic interests.

Economic Consequences of the Perceived Threat of Ebola

There are two dominant theories related to the present Ebola crisis. One theory states that the media and certain government sponsored agencies such as the CDC, NIH and the FDA are hyping the Ebola crisis to promote the roll-out of mandatory vaccines. This notion promotes the belief that Ebola will not impact that many people but the fear being promoted will drive people to help people like Bill Gates make a fortune from the inevitable vaccines that  will follow this crisis. The theory certainly has merit.

The second theory postulates that Ebola will serve as a depopulation instrument AND the elite (e.g. Bill Gates) will make money on the demise of much of humanity through the implementation of mandatory vaccines, while Ebola rips through the population claiming millions of lives.

This second theory also proposes that the super-elite need not worry about succumbing to Ebola because of the fact that there are at least two vaccines and one vaccine, the 2006 human-tested Crucell vaccine, is being withheld from the public and is not being reported on in the media despite a paper trail pointing to its existence and possible efficacy as a treatment agent in the fight against Ebola. This fact has given rise to the possibility that the Crucell vaccine is effective, but the majority of the population will be receiving the hastily prepared and subsequently dangerous GSK vaccine. On the surface, this would seem like crazy thinking. However, it is actually very logical thinking because the Obama administration refuses to shut down air travel from West Africa or to shut down our porous border while trying to prevent the possibility of bioterrorism involving Ebola. Any prudent person would shut down the entry points of Ebola into the U.S. Therefore, we need to be asking what does the Obama administration know that the rest of us do not?

Which of the two theories is true? In terms of economic collapse, it does not matter which is true because either scenario will result in economic devastation.

The globalists are already warning the world about what lies ahead. On October 8, 2014, the World Bank warned about economic consequences of Ebola outbreaks on West African economies.

 “With Ebola’s potential to inflict massive economic costs on Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone and the rest of their neighbors in West Africa, the international community must find ways to get past logistical roadblocks and bring in more doctors and trained medical staff, more hospital beds, and more health and development support to help stop Ebola in its tracks,” says Jim Yong Kim, the President of the World Bank Group.

In fact, the World Bank has published an economic analysis and a series of projections regarding the impacted Ebola countries in West Africa.
ebola-economics-in-africa

Ebola’s Critical Mass Impact On the U.S. Economy

What is the threshold of GDP loss that a country like the United States can endure before the wheels come off of the economy? In other words, how much of a percentage impact would Ebola have to have on the economy to devastate most businesses? Recently, the Washington Post published figures which set the historical average profit margin for a U.S. business at 4.6%. This means that if the spin-off effects of Ebola exceeds a 5% impact on the economy, the wheels will quickly come off the U.S. economy. Business failures will lead to a Stock Market collapse. Because the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed under Clinton, the Banks would be the next to fail  because they are recklessly tied to  underwriting and insuring many investment events in the Stock Market and individual savings and retirement accounts would disappear as well when the banks collapse.

Quickly, the country would fall into chaos. As widespread as the cascading economic collapse would become, no amount of martial law would contain the chaos.
Turn your attention to the World Bank chart, listed above, with regard to the projected economic impact on Liberia based upon low, medium and high projected effects  of an Ebola outbreak on their economy. Pay attention to the percentage of loss of their economic base listed in the above World Bank projections.

 

Ebola’s Impact on Liberia             Percentage of Impact

Low Impact From Ebola                          – 3.4%

Medium Impact From Ebola                   –  5.8%

High Impact From Ebola                         –  12.0%

 

Some are wondering why Liberia was chosen to illustrate the economic impact of Ebola and what this could potentially mean to the United States economy? Sierra Leone and Guinea have very primitive economies compared to Liberia, therefore, the impact of Ebola on their respective economies would be insignificant as a basis of comparison to the United States. To some extent, a Liberian comparison is invalid on its face because the Liberians do not have anything close to a 3,000 mile salad. In Liberia, there is virtually no “Just In Time” (JIT) delivery which forms the backbone of our service economy here in the United States. However, the Liberian numbers give us some idea of what we could expect in the U.S. when Ebola gains a foothold.

Since the economy of the United States is based upon JIT and our economic institutions are considerably more well-integrated and intertwined than they are in Liberia, what do you suppose would be the low, medium and high impact on the United States? Undeniably, the impact of Ebola as a factor of economic devastation would be catastrophically higher. The social consequences are devastatingly higher as well because a lower percentage of Americans are able to provide their own food supply as compared to Liberia. There are no numbers that I can point to with regard to the low, medium and high impact effect of Ebola on the U.S. economy except to say that any analysis would place the percentage of impact at a far higher rate than the World Bank projections listed for Liberia. It is safe to conclude that even a low impact effect of Ebola on the U.S. economy would exceed the 5% threshold.

When Going Out In Public Becomes Too Much of a Risk

As any politician, sociologist or policeman will tell you that the fabric that holds society together is voluntary conformity and trust. Most Americans obey most laws because we understand the importance of societal cooperation as opposed to the dangers of living in a state of anarchy. The other factor that binds society together is trust. One of the key elements of trust in America is that our citizens trust the fact that it is safe to go out in public. And going out in public is where much of America’s economic business is conducted (i.e. restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, football games, concerts, etc.).

Mike Adams, appearing as a guest on The Common Sense Show on October 6, 2014, captured this notion when he stated that when Americans lose trust in the belief that it is safe to be in crowds, the impact on our way of life, and especially on our economy, will be catastrophic.

To illustrate just how devastating the effects can be on the economy when people lose trust in the belief that it is safe to go out in public, let’s take a look at the immediate reaction from the citizens of Dallas when only one Ebola case, Thomas Duncan, surfaced in the city.

When it was announced that Thomas Duncan had contact with some Dallas school children, we saw the immediate impact as Dallas moms began to keep their children home from school. Officials in Louisiana refused to receive Thomas Duncan’s property. Subsequently, and according to the AP and Veolia North America, Duncan’s effects were  disposed of in drums taken from a Dallas apartment where Duncan became ill and were burned at the company’s incinerator in Port Arthur., TX.

It does not matter what I write or what someone broadcasts on their talk show about Ebola, once people perceive there is a threat, even a low-level threat posed by someone like Thomas Duncan, the people will panic. Rationality will not be part of the decision making process. Fear will take over.

How long would police, fire, EMT personnel, hospital personnel, people that service our water supplies and the doctors that service our infirm, stay on the job following an Ebola outbreak? An examination of this question, by using Hurricane Katrina, as a comparison, tells us that by the third day, virtually all essential  services would be seriously compromised because of personnel defections. In this scenario, how would chronically ill people receive their medications? How would people get emergency appendectomies or other emergency medical procedures?  There will be no “911, what’s your emergency”? The factors that bind society together will quickly unravel  as Ebola spreads even on a relatively low level of impact.

What can you do to prepare if the economy collapses because of the economic impact of Ebola?

10 Things You Didn’t Know About the History of Marijuana

Posted on by
1

Cannabis_sativa_Koehler_drawing

By Keri Blakinger

Source: Waking Times

Fancy yourself a connoisseur of all things weed? Then see whether this trip from ancient China to modern Alaska takes you anywhere unexpected.

What do Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Justin Bieber, Maya Angelou and well over 100 million Americans all have in common? They’ve all smoked pot. Throughout its history, marijuana has attracted plenty of unexpected users and proponents. And much of the history of greenery is now familiar to us—thanks to History Channel specials, the burgeoning legalization movement and the popularity of anti-pot propaganda films like Reefer Madness. But even if you’re intimately familiar with the plant in all its forms, we’re willing to wager that some of these facts will surprise you.

1. The first known potheads lived in ancient China, circa 2,727 BC. Emperor Shen Nung helpfully compiled an encyclopedic list of drugs and their uses, which includes “ma,” or cannabis. But ancient Chinese weed consumption is indicated by more than just written records: Six years ago, archaeologists on a dig in the Gobi Desert found the world’s oldest pot stash in the grave of a shaman of the Gushi tribe. The purpose of the cannabis was easily identified because the male plant parts, which are less psychoactive, had been removed.

The Chinese certainly weren’t the only ancient culture to enjoy toking. The Greeks and Romans used marijuana, as did the citizens of the Islamic empires. In 1545, Spanish conquistadors introduced it to the New World when they began planting cannabis seed in Chile to be used for fiber.

2. You probably heard that a bunch of the Founding Fathers grew weed, but did you know the details? Technically, you can’t really classify them as pot farmers because they were growing hemp, which is not the same cannabis variety that you’ll find in a joint. Hemp and pot are the same species—cannabis sativa—but the hemp variety has a lower THC content and was useful instead as a source of fiber for those distinguished dudes’ duds.

But debate continues about whether the Founding Fathers actually smoked cannabis in addition to growing it. While many traditional sources say there’s no evidence of it, other, less buttoned-down ones—including, predictably, High Times—contend that there is.

One factor that muddies the water and the Internet is an oft-repeated Thomas Jefferson “quote” that experts agree is not legit. Although he was a hemp farmer, Thomas Jefferson never said: “Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.”

Admittedly, that’s a pretty difficult image to forget.

3. Hashish, which is a compressed or purified form of pot resin, became faddish in the mid-1800s, as a result of its prominence in popular novels of the era, including two classics: The Count of Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights, an early English translation of One Thousand and One Nights.

In one scene fit to make any DARE instructor shudder, the Count of Monte Cristo virtually coerces another character into a mind-bending hashish adventure, urging, “Taste the hashish, guest, taste the hashish!”

Arabian Nights meanwhile contains multiple references to hashish, including the story “The Tale of the Hashish Eater.” Both Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights found wide audiences due to their exotic settings, foreign cultures and adventure plots that heightened the allure of the drug described on the pages. Contemporary readers who would never had the opportunity to go Persia could at least cop a little bit of Persia off seafaring vessels from foreign ports.

4. Pot’s reputation began to go south when the first English-language newspaper started in Mexico in the 1890s. Sensationalized stories of marijuana-induced violence gave the drug a bad rap, although pot didn’t really hit the US until after the Mexican Revolution in 1910, when a flood of Mexican immigrants moved north, bringing their favorite weed.

US groups began spreading stories of violence induced by the drug, playing on anti-immigrant sentiment, and referring to the drug by the Mexican-sounding name “marijuana.” This highly racialized propaganda led to widespread fear of the drug, which grew into a panic in the early 1930s when government research “determined” that marijuana-induced criminal acts were “primarily committed by ‘racially inferior’ or underclass communities.”

Interestingly, some of the accounts of violence and crime may not have been entirely fabricated. Just as the myth of the unicorn may have been based on early and inaccurate descriptions of the rhinoceros, the tales may have partly been the result of some confusion regarding plant names. Some media stories of the era conflated marijuana with locoweed, a type of poisonous plant. So it’s just possible that some of the horror stories held a grain of truth—relating to a completely different plant.

5. There is no consensus about where the word “marijuana” came from. The word sounds like a Spanish language cognate, but some etymologists trace its origins to China or India. The plant itself originated in Central Asia, and China and India were the first two regions to begin cultivating it.

One theory is that Chinese immigrants brought the phrase ma ren hua—which translates more or less as “hemp seed flowers”—to Mexico, where it became Spanishized into “marijuana.” Another theory is that Angolan slaves brought the Bantu word for cannabis—ma’kaña—to the Americas via Brazil and Spanish-speakers later adapted it. Yet another theory traces the word back to the Semitic root mrr.

Whatever its origins, there is some agreement that the first recorded use of a similar term was in a feature called “The American Congo” published in Scribner’s Magazine in 1894. In the article, author John G. Burke used the word “mariguan” to refer to a species of plant included in his description of the flora on the banks of the Rio Grande River between Texas and Mexico.

6.  But we do know that the term “pot” entered the lexicon in the 1930s as a shortened form of the Spanish potiguaya, an alcoholic drink in which cannabis buds have been steeped. A literal translation of potiguaya or potacion de guaya is “the drink of grief.”

Other terms are also far easier than “marijuana” to trace. “Ganja,” for example, likely entered the English lexicon in the 1800s when it was borrowed from a similar Hindi word. While words like pot and ganja endured, other terms for cannabis—such as “gage” (17th-century word for a pipe)  and “muggles” (used in the 1920s by the New Orleans jazz crowd)—have sadly fallen by the wayside.

7. Henry Ford experimented with the invention of a car that was possibly partially made of hemp. Some pro-pot sites claim that Ford actually developed a hemp-based automobile, but the evidence suggests that they are blowing smoke.

In the early 1940s, Ford developed a plastic car intended to be a lighter, stronger and more affordable alternative to traditional metal vehicles. Newspaper articles stated that the new car was a combination of resin binder and cellulose fiber supposedly drawn from pine fiber, hemp, soybean and ramie. However, The Henry Ford, a museum in Michigan, says that the exact ingredients for the car’s recipe have been lost, so they can’t confirm that hemp was in the mix.

Whether or not Ford’s car contained hemp, current scientists have apparently drawn inspiration from the concept as they work to develop cars made of plant fibers such as hemp and elephant grass.

8. Marijuana was initially criminalized by the federal government in an indirect, de facto way: a 1937 tax act. The act set such high taxes on the purchase of weed that it discouraged people from going through the proper legal channels. And because arrest was the penalty for non-compliance, the tax act essentially criminalized marijuana possession.

In 1969, the act was ruled unconstitutional because paying the federal tax required admitting to the possession of something already made illegal by some state laws—and thus violated the right against self-incrimination spelled out in the Fifth Amendment. The following year the law was repealed and replaced with a measure that fully criminalized marijuana. Prior to the federal bans, though, many states had adopted the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act in the early 1930s, which made pot and other drugs illegal under state law.

Today, in a reversal of that situation, marijuana remains illegal on a federal level but two states—Colorado and Washington—legalized recreational use in 2012. More are likely to follow soon.

9. Popular urban legend has it that the term “420” is a reference to a 1970s police code, but in fact a group of high school kids coined the term. In 1971, five California high school students heard about a plot of pot plants whose owner could no longer tend them. Eager to find the green, sticky treasure, the students agreed to meet outside the school at 4:20 pm to look for the plants until they found them. They never did, even after weeks of hunting.

But their fruitless search would be immortalized. Because their school was in Marin County, a counterculture hotspot, and because the treasure hunters had an indirect contact with Grateful Dead member Phil Lesh, the term 420 gradually became a part of drug culture throughout California and then the country.

10. Alaska effectively legalized marijuana 39 years ago. You might have thought otherwise—especially considering the viral video of Alaskan reporter Charlo Greene quitting on-air last month in order to campaign for marijuana legalization. And policy wonks would insist that pot is technically decriminalized, rather than legalized, in the state. But marijuana in Alaska occupies an interesting legal gray area.

In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court decided that the state’s constitutional right to privacy protects the right of adults to use and possess small amounts of marijuana in their own homes. However, Alaskan criminal law currently bans the possession of even small amounts of pot. As a result, Alaskans can be charged with possession for having pot in their homes—but technically courts should throw out the charges for amounts under four ounces.

This confusing state of affairs may be cleared up very soon, though: Next month, Alaskans go to the polls to vote on an initiative to officially legalize marijuana for recreational use.

CBD Protective Against Ebola Virus

Posted on by
1

med-marijuana

by David B. Allen M.D.

Source: Cannabis Digest

There is good scientific evidence that cannabinoids, and in particular Cannabidiol (CBD), may offer control of the immune system and in turn provide protection from viral infections (4). Cannabis has already been recognized to inhibit fungus and bacteria and can be considered a new class of antimicrobial because of the different mechanism of action from other antimicrobials. (1)

Ebola is a complex RNA viral organism that causes the cell to engulf it by pinocytosis, and then the virus hijacks the cell to replicate itself. This replication can involve many mutations in the RNA code that make it difficult to impossible to create an effective vaccine. There are U.S. Patents showing evidence that Cannabinoids have significant anti-viral activity. (3) (4)

Normally any virus infected cells will produce surface proteins that are identified as foreign. The Immune system attacks these cells when the surface protein is identified as foreign.  The Ebola virus infection causes the cell to produce proteins that hide the virus from the immune system. The viral proteins are sterically shielded, i.e. “hidden” from view, thereby hindering cellular (and thus viral) destruction by the immune system.  This mechanism allows the RNA virus to hide the infected cell by shielding it from view from the immune system.

The cause of death by this virus is the body’s own immune response to the viral infection. This is what causes the mortality and morbidity of this infection.  Subsequently, the virus triggers the immune killer cells to release the enzymes (cytokines) they hold. This release of enzymes causes other lymphocyte to release even more Cytokines in a Storm of release. This is properly termed a Cytokine Storm.

Causes small blood clots to form in all arterioles, called; DIC or Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation.
Causes a massive Coagulopathy where the blood will not to clot properly simultaneously with the DIC (Bleeding and clotting occur at the same time.) Toxic Shock Syndrome occurs when the cytokines release causes the blood vessels to dilate to such an extent that a shock state exists.

Cannabinoids are proven to reduce and prevent Toxic Shock and DIC (2)

The Ebola virus also attacks the adhesions between cells caused by the immune Killer cells to release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) which result in the destruction of the Tight Junction between cells and causes a fluid leakage between cells until bleeding occurs. The inhibition of VEGF by cannabinoids prevent the cellular junctions from haemorrhage.

Cannabinoids Inhibit VEGF and inhibit Glioma brain tumors growth by this mechanism. (6) It is reasonable to predict that inhibition of VEGF and other Cytokines by Cannabinoids during an Ebola infection will help the survival of this deadly disease.  (6 and 7) Stopping the release of Cytokines will be a key feature of treatment of this deadly disease.

The discovery and application of the Endocannabinoid Signalling System is proving to be the control of virtually all diseases of mankind. Cannabinoids are emerging as a new class of drugs that treat infections of bacteria, fungi and virus by different mechanisms of action not found in any other class of drug. (1)

Cannabinoids are proving to have significant cidal (killer) activity to many viruses, including hepatitis C and the HIV virus. Cannabinoids down-regulate (inhibit) the immune response to the infection (2) (3). The cited U.S. Patents (3 and 4) are proof that cannabinoids inhibit many different virus strains from replicating. These patents also prove cannabinoids decreases the body’s immune over stimulated response to the viral infection.  Claims that are made in these U.S. Patents include the following:

(refer to patent for exact quote.)

  • A method of treating HIV disease by the direct inhibition of viral replication using a cannabinol derivative of claim 2. (see patent)
  • The cannabinol derivatives of claim 10 wherein the cannabinol derivative of claim  is used to treat HIV disease by the direct inhibition of viral replication. (see patent)
  • A method of treating diseases of immune dysfunction which are the result of infectious origin such as Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, Herpes Simplex virus, Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B and C, influenza virus, rhinovirus and mycobacterial infections using the cannabinol derivatives of claim 2. (see patent)
  • This United States Patent, proves cannabinoids treats this immune dysfunction that becomes what is known as a Cytokine Storm caused by different viral infections. (4)

In Summation; The US Patents prove down regulation of the immune system by cannabinoids may be a key in survival of HIV and may indeed translate into survival for Ebola patients. The direct Killing or Cidal effect of Cannabinoids is proven in HIV infections,(4) but not yet in Ebola. Inhibition of VEGF is crucial to prevent endothelial leakage and haemorrhage.

Because cannabis is so very safe especially under doctor supervision, I believe it is crucial for the medical community to start human trials on survivability of Ebola infected patients regardless of the political restraints.

 

David B. Allen M.D.
retired Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeon
Medical Director, Cannabis Sativa, Inc. (Cali215doc@gmail.com)

 

References

1)   Antibacterial Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: A Structure−Activity Study Antibacterial Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: A Structure−Activity Study; Giovanni Appendino et al. The School of Pharmacy, University of London

2)   Protection Against Septic Shock and Suppression of Tumor Necrosis Factor α and Nitric Oxide Production by Dexanabinol (HU-211), a Nonpsychotropic Cannabinoid Ruth Gallily1,
Aviva Yamin1, Departments of Immunology The Hebrew University, Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem,  Rehovot, Israel.

3)    Cannabinoid derivatives US patent 20070179135 A1

4)    Treatment of HIV and diseases of immune dysregulation US 20080108647 A1

5)    Curr Pharm Des. 2006;12(24):3135-46. Cannabinoids, immune system and cytokine network. Massi PVaccani AParolaro D, University of Insubria, Via A. da Giussano 10, 21052 Busto Arsizio (VA), Italy

6)    Cancer Res August 15, 2004 64; 5617 Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas Cristina Blázquez HYPERLINK “http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/16/5617.full”1,

7)    How Cannabis Might Keep Coronary Stents Open Longer
http://www.cbds.com/…/how-cannabis-might-keep-coronary-stents-open-longer
Jun 10, 2014 David Allen M.D.

Another “Gift” From Monsanto: Cancer-Causing Astroturf

Posted on by
Reply

images

Could artificial turf cause cancer?

Source: La Opinion

Artificial turf has always been seen as practical; not only are old tires being put to good use, athletic facilities are spared the expense and maintenance costs of keeping up with real grass. There appears to be a huge potential down-side to this common athletic tool, however–it may be giving people cancer.

Artificial turf is made of synthetic grass fibers, filled in with black or green pieces of re-purposed rubber, typically gained from old tires. It was first introduced to the public in 1965 by Donald L. Elbert, James M. Faria, and Robert T. Wright, employees of Monsanto Company, a company now best-known for its genetically modified crop products. The University of Connecticut Health Center indicates in 1967, Indiana State built the first stadium with outdoor artificial turf, a product called Astroturf.

Since then, many debates have surfaced as to the health risks of artificial turf exposure. Concerns have ranged from an increase in athletic injuries to cancer, with parents, teachers and other officials worried what prolonged exposure to tire particles might mean for children. The rubber in artificial turf heats up on hot days, causing the rubber particles to release small amounts of chemicals. The question is: Are these chemicals being released in enough quantity to actually cause someone harm?

What the research says about artificial turf and cancer

First and foremost, there are no studies linking artificial turf to cancer, and the Synthetic Turf Council, an industry group, says that the evidence collected so far by scientists and state and federal agencies proves that artificial turf is safe.

“We’ve got 14 studies on our website that says we can find no negative health effects,” said to NBC News, Dr. Davis Lee, a Turf Council board member. While those studies aren’t “absolutely conclusive,” he added, “There’s certainly a preponderance of evidence to this point that says, in fact, it is safe.”

Other research and a number of case studies suggest otherwise, though, like the inconclusive evidence saying artificial turf is safe, these studies and individual accounts also don’t prove the turf causes cancer. What has been proven is that, in its natural setting, artificial turf does leech out potentially dangerous substances.

Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) notes artificial turf was examined in the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station report, and found to leech more than two dozen chemicals into the environment, some of which have been linked to cancer in other studies, with four compounds conclusively identified with confirmatory tests: benzothiazole; butylated hydroxyanisole; n-hexadecane; and 4-(t-octyl) phenol.

“Those chemicals identified with confirmatory analytical studies at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station study have the following reported actions:

  • Benzothiazole: Skin and eye irritation, harmful if swallowed. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
  • Butylated hydroxyanisole: Recognized carcinogen, suspected endocrine, gastrointestinal toxicant, immunotoxicant, neurotoxicant, skin and sense-organ toxicant. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
  • n-hexadecane: severe irritant based on human and animal studies. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
  • 4-(t-octyl) phenol: corrosive and destructive to mucous membranes. There is no available data on cancer, mutagenic toxicity, teratogenic toxicity, or developmental toxicity.

The study also detected metals that were leached from the tire crumbs. Zinc was the predominant metal, but selenium, lead and cadmium were also identified,” states EHHI.

In addition to the substances found in the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station study, in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated their artificial turf data, stating another concern for individuals in close contact with this athletic product was exposure to lead.

“The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur,” stated the CDC. “As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases. If exposures do occur, CDC currently does not know how much lead the body will absorb; however, if enough lead is absorbed, it can cause neurological development symptoms (e.g., deficits in IQ). Additional tests are being performed by NJDHSS to help us better understand the absorption of lead from these products.”

While no link between these risks and actual cancer cases have been established, some experts believe the individual reports speak for themselves.

In the NBC News report, soccer coach Amy Griffin said she was visiting athletes in the hospital during 2009, two of which were goalkeepers diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. She hadn’t thought much about the correlation between the illness and artificial turf until a nurse made the comment, “Don’t tell me you guys are goalkeepers. You’re the fourth goalkeeper I’ve hooked up this week.”

Since then, Griffin has compiled a list of 38 American soccer players who have been diagnosed with cancer. Thirty-four of those players are goalies, individuals who have the most contact with the turf compared to other players.

The case reports suggest athletes and those spending time on artificial turf may be putting themselves at-risk in a manner similar for people who work in rubber and tire plants.

“Use of recycled tire shreds or crumbs in athletic fields, gardening and playgrounds involves repeated and direct exposures for both children and adults to tire dust and some chemicals similar to those in tire plants,” stated EHHI. “A comprehensive assessment of the information known about the health risks to the public is necessary to assess safety.”

US Has More Sanctions Against Russia Than Against Ebola

Posted on by
Reply

images

By Paul Craig Roberts

Source: PaulCraigRoberts.org

We have known since . . . well, when haven’t we known that our public officials are incompetent [more specifically, incompetent at tasks serving the public interest]. Their incompetence is always expensive, but now it risks a worldwide ebola pandemic.

With so little known about a deadly disease, one would think that with ebola on the rampage in three west Africa countries, air flights to and from these countries would be halted.

When riots or kidnappings present dangers in foreign lands, the State Department issues a travel advisory and warns, and sometimes prevents, Americans from traveling to areas of danger. As the ebola danger goes beyond the person himself, one would think public officials would have halted traffic to and from west Africa. In fact, it is harder for a critic of the US government, especially if the critic is Muslim, to enter the US than for a person infected with ebola. Indeed, there are a number of Russians who cannot enter the US because of unilaterally imposed US sanctions. But there are no sanctions against ebola.

Apparently, public health officials have an outdated and incorrect comprehension of ebola and how it spreads. A sufficient number of medical personnel protected against ebola patients’ body fluids but without respirators have now been infected to indicate that the current strain of ebola can spread by air like flu. This also means surface contact.

Airplane cleaning crews at New York LaGuardia are on strike because there are no precautions or protections for cleaners who could come into contact with ebola from an infected passenger. Neither does the next passenger on an outgoing flight have any assurance that he will not be sitting in the seat occupied by an ebola carrier on the incoming flight.

In fact, something like this might have already occurred. A British citizen who has not been to countries where there are ebola outbreaks has just died in Skopje, Macedonia, apparently from ebola. His companion told authorities that they had travelled straight from the UK. The hotel has been sealed off, and the hotel staff and ambulance crew have been isolated. I assume also the traveling companion, but the report doesn’t say. http://rt.com/news/194640-briton-ebola-macedonia-dead/

Five US airports that have flights to the infected west African countries have imposed screening on incoming passengers, such as temperature checks. This is better than nothing, but if, as is believed, the deadly virus has a long incubation period, this screening would only catch people with symptoms, and, of course, there are many reasons for high temperatures, especially during cold and flu season.

So what our incompetent public officials have arranged is screening that will quarantine people who have caught a cold but fail to catch those carrying ebola who have not yet come down with it.

Par for the course.

Political issues in the Ebola crisis

Posted on by
Reply

ebola

By Patrick Martin

Source: WSWS.org

The report that a healthcare worker in Dallas, Texas, one of those who treated Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan before his death, has herself contracted the disease, is a significant and troubling event. Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, admitted in a television interview Sunday, “It’s deeply concerning that this infection occurred.”

While Frieden claimed that current protocols for treating Ebola patients were effective in preventing the spread of the disease, arguing that there must have been “a breach of protocol,” no actual explanation has been given for how the healthcare worker became infected. She was not one of the 48 primary contacts with Duncan who were being monitored for possible exposure, but worked in a more peripheral role. Her infection was only detected when she contracted a fever and reported it herself.

There are a growing number of such cases, including doctors and nurses in the affected regions of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, who were well aware of the procedures, and an NBC News photographer, whose infection has caused the quarantining of the entire reporting team, led by Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the network’s chief medical correspondent. These cases suggest that despite the repeated assurances from health officials, there is much that is not known about how the disease is transmitted.

What is certain is that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is a catastrophe for the people of that region. More than 8,000 people have been infected and more than 4,000 have died, with no signs that the epidemic has been curtailed. The heroic efforts of doctors, nurses and aid workers have been sabotaged by the collapse of the healthcare systems of these countries, among the poorest in the world. Only 20 percent of the affected population in West Africa has access to a treatment center.

It is almost impossible to overstate the dimensions of the disaster. Until this year, Ebola was a disease of remote rural areas that had killed only 1,500 people in 20 previous outbreaks over 40 years. Now the disease has reached urban centers like Monrovia, capital of Liberia, a city of one million, and individuals infected with the virus have travelled from the region only to fall ill in the United States, Spain and Brazil. There are well-founded fears that Ebola could become a global plague, particularly if it reaches more densely populated countries like Nigeria, or the impoverished billions of South and East Asia.

The impotent global response to the immense tragedy in West Africa is a serious warning. The Ebola crisis has proven to be a test of the ability of capitalism, as a world system, to deal with an acute and deadly threat. The profit system has failed. A society organized on the basis of production for private gain and divided into antagonistic nation-states, with a handful of imperialist powers dominating the rest, is incapable of the systematic, energetic and humane response that this crisis requires. It is no accident that the Ebola outbreak takes place in countries that are former colonies of imperialist powers. Guinea was a French colony, Sierra Leone a British colony, and Liberia a de facto US colony since its founding by freed American slaves. Despite their nominal independence, each country remains dominated by giant corporations and banks based in the imperialist countries, which extract vast profits from the mineral wealth and other natural resources. Guinea is the world’s largest bauxite exporter, Sierra Leone depends on diamond exports, Liberia has long been the fiefdom of Firestone Rubber (now Bridgestone).

These countries are unable to provide even rudimentary healthcare services to their populations, not because they lack resources, but because they are exploited and oppressed by a global economic system controlled by Wall Street and other financial and commodity markets. This economic system is so unequal that the 85 richest individuals on the planet control more wealth than the poorest three billion people, nearly half of humanity.

Economic development, particularly over the past 40 years, has created an interconnected and globalized world. Thousands of people travel every day between West Africa and other parts of the world. The revolution in transportation and communications means that what happens in West Africa today can affect Dallas, Boston, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro tomorrow. This makes the Ebola epidemic not a regional event, but a world event.

But the response to the Ebola crisis is carried out by national governments driven by competing national interests, and concerned, not with the danger of the virus to the world’s people, but with how it affects the interests of the ruling class in each nation. Thus there are calls in the United States and Europe for imposing an embargo on travelers from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, although health experts warn that such an action would cause the economic collapse of these countries, vastly worsening the epidemic and making its global spread more rather than less likely.

Equally reactionary is the Obama administration’s decision to send 4,000 US troops to Liberia, ostensibly to build health treatment facilities. Why are heavily armed soldiers chosen for such a mission? They are not construction workers or healthcare providers. If healthcare workers and journalists have become infected, despite taking every precaution, then certainly soldiers could themselves fall victim to the disease, and bring the virus home with them. The real agenda of Washington is to secure a basis for its Africa Command (AFRICOM), up to now excluded from the continent by local opposition, thus advancing the interests of American imperialism against its rivals, particularly China.

The potential dangers of a disease like Ebola spreading from rural Africa to the world have long been understood by epidemiologists and other scientists. It has been the subject of specialized studies and best-selling books. The issue has even penetrated into popular culture through films from The Andromeda Strain to Outbreak and 28 Days. But the profit system has been incapable of generating a serious effort to forestall an entirely predictable crisis.

The detection of Ebola in the mid-1970s should have been the occasion for the launching of an intensive effort to study the virus, analyze how it is transmitted and develop antidotes and a vaccine. This did not take place, in large measure, as a report last month suggested, because the giant pharmaceutical companies that control medical research saw little profit in saving the lives of impoverished villagers in rural Africa (see “Profit motive big hurdle for Ebola drugs”).

What little research has been conducted on possible cures and vaccines was funded by the US Pentagon, for dubious reasons: at best, to protect US soldiers who might be deployed to the jungles of central Africa as an imperialist invasion force; at worst, to determine whether the virus could be weaponized for use against potential enemies.

What would a serious response to the Ebola crisis look like? It would entail a massive, internationally coordinated response which calls on vast resources on the scale necessary both to save as many as possible of those under immediate threat and to prevent the development of an outbreak on a global scale.

It would mean the mobilization of doctors, nurses, public health workers and scientists from America, Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world to fight back against a deadly threat to the entire human race. And it would mean taking control of this response out of the hands of the national military establishments, particularly the Pentagon, and the giant pharmaceutical firms, one of the most corrupt and rapacious detachments of big business.

Ebola Outbreak: The Latest U.S. Government Lies. The Risk of Airborne Contagion?

Posted on by
Reply

_76476153_76475767

By Prof. Jason Kissner

Source: Global Research

We begin with the Public Health Agency of Canada, which once (as recently as August 6) stated on its website that:

“In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated (1, 6, 13). The importance of this route of transmission is not clear. Poor hygienic conditions can aid the spread of the virus.”

No more; the “airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected” language has been cleansed:

“In laboratory settings, non-human primates exposed to aerosolized ebolavirus from pigs have become infected, however, airborne transmission has not been demonstrated between non-human primates

Footnote1 Footnote10 Footnote15 Footnote44 Footnote45.

Viral shedding has been observed in nasopharyngeal secretions and rectal swabs of pigs following experimental inoculation.”

Are we to suppose that very recent and ground-breaking research was conducted that indicated there is no longer reason to “strongly suspect” that airborne Ebola contagion occurs? Surely, the research was done three weeks ago, and we only need to wait another couple of days until the study is released for public consumption. Feel better now?

If not, perhaps the 9/30 words of the Centers for Disease Control accompanying the Dallas Ebola case will provide some solace. Or, perhaps those words just contain another pack of U.S. Government lies. Let’s investigate.

Before addressing the CDC’s Statement, we should articulate some pivotal Ebola Outbreak facts we’re apparently not supposed to mention or even think about, since they’ve been buried by the Government/MSM complex. So, consider this from an earlier Global Research contribution by this author, drawn from a 2014 New England Journal of Medicine article:

“Phylogenetic analysis of the full-length sequences established a separate clade for the Guinean EBOV strain in sister relationship with other known EBOV strains. This suggests that the EBOV strain from Guinea has evolved in parallel with the strains from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon from a recent ancestor and has not been introduced from the latter countries into Guinea. Potential reservoirs of EBOV, fruit bats of the species Hypsignathusmonstrosus, Epomopsfranqueti, & Myonycteristorquata, are present in large parts of West Africa.18 It is possible that EBOV has circulated undetected in this region for some time. The emergence of the virus in Guinea highlights the risk of EBOV outbreaks in the whole West African subregion…

The high degree of similarity among the 15 partial L gene sequences, along with the three full-length sequences and the epidemiologic links between the cases, suggest a single introduction of the virus into the human population. This introduction seems to have happened in early December 2013 or even before.”

The take-home message is that we now confront a brand spanking new genetic variant of Ebola. Furthermore, we still have no idea at all how the “single introduction of the virus in the human population” of West Africa occurred. And, the current Ebola outbreak appears to be orders of magnitude more contagious than previous outbreaks. It also presents with a fatality count that far exceeds all previous outbreaks combined. But it’s certainly not airborne, so who cares about nit-picking details such as these!

In spite of the above facts, we are supposed to believe that all questions regarding the current Ebola outbreak can be answered with exclusive reference to what has occurred in connection with previously encountered—in terms of genetic composition—and known—in terms of initial outbreak source—Ebola episodes.

Here are a couple of questions. When was the last time an Ebola outbreak coincided with instructions to U.S. funeral homes on how to “handle the remains of Ebola patients”? Not to worry, since Alysia English, Executive Director of the Georgia Funeral Homes Association, is quoted (click preceding link) as saying “If you were in the middle of a flood or gas leak, that’s not the time to figure out how to turn it off. You want to know all of that in advance. This is no different.” So it’s just about being prepared, you see. Of course, nothing resembling this sort of preparation has ever transpired alongside any other Ebola outbreak in world history, so what gives now?

“Oh, it’s because we now have that Ebola case in Dallas.” True, but this response suffers from two fatal defects. First, we’re not supposed to worry about one tiny case as long as it’s in America, right, since according to the CDC on 9/30:

…there’s all the difference in the world between the U.S. and parts of Africa where Ebola is spreading. The United States has a strong health care system and public health professionals who will make sure this case does not threaten our communities,” said CDC Director, Dr. Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “While it is not impossible that there could be additional cases associated with this patient in the coming weeks, I have no doubt that we will contain this.”

If the U.S.’ strong health care system (which is apparently far superior to hazmat suits) is so effective at containment, what explains the funeral home preparations again? If U.S. containment procedures are so superb and the virus is no more contagious than before, what difference does it make whether the case is in Dallas, Texas or Sierra Leone? To be sure, maybe the answers to these questions are simple, and it’s just about corrupt money and the like.

However, the corrupted money explanation isn’t very plausible (at least on its own) either, for the very simple, and extremely disturbing, reason that the “funeral home preparations” article was first published on 9/29 at 3:36 PM PST—a day before the Dallas case was confirmed positive. Of course, this makes the following language at the very head of the article all the more eerie:

“CBS46 News has confirmed the Centers for Disease Control has issued guidelines to U.S. funeral homes on how to handle the remains of Ebola patients. If the outbreak of the potentially deadly virus is in West Africa, why are funeral homes in America being given guidelines?”

If the rejoinder is that “well, people thought the Dallas case might turn out positive”, the reply must be that there were several other cases, in places like Sacramento and New York, that might have turned out positive, but resulted in neither funeral home preparations nor a rash of CDC “Ebola Prevention” tips (wash those hands, since they’re running low on hazmat suits!)

Hopefully, you are in the mood for two more big CDC lies, because they really are quite important. From the 9/30 CDC statement: “People are not contagious after exposure unless they develop symptoms.” This is a lie for three basic reasons. First, the studies that inform the CDC’s professed certainty on this issue relied upon analyses of previous outbreaks of then-known known Ebola variants. The current strain, as stated here early on, is novel—genetically as well as geographically. Second, the distinction between “incubation” and “visible symptoms” is a continuum, not discrete in nature; a few droplets might not be rain, but they’re not indicative of fully clear skies either—so the boundary drawn by the CDC is, like nearly everything else the U.S. government does, arbitrary. Third, as even rank amateurs at statistics know, previous outbreaks have consisted of too few cases to confidently rule out small but consequential probabilities of asymptomatic transmission—completely leaving aside the fact that we have a new genetic variant of Ebola to deal with.

The last major CDC lie mentioned in this article is the claim, repeated ad nauseam, that “infrastructure shortcomings” and the like is wholly sufficient to explain the exponential increase in the number of cases presented by the current outbreak. We should believe that only when presented with well-designed multivariate contagion models that properly incorporate information about Ebola outbreaks and generate findings that socioeconomic differences as between West Africa and other regions of Africa (such as Zaire) alone can fully explain observed differences associated with the current outbreak. It seems to this author that we should strongly doubt that the current contagion can be fully explained without at some point invoking features of the novel genetic strain.

Dr. Jason Kissner is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University. Dr. Kissner’s research on gangs and self-control has appeared in academic journals. His current empirical research interests include active shootings. You can reach him at crimprof2010[at]hotmail.com