Egypt's government nearing end of the road, says ex-PM

20 hours ago
By Amena Bakr | Reuters
Source: Yahoo News

    Comment:  I am posting this article from a mainstream source (Reuters) in order to share the attitude that Ahmed Shafik, a pro- Mubarak  politician, has towards what is happening in Egypt.  Apparently, he is thinking that he will be welcomed in Egyptian politics. What is happening in Egypt is mischief that the global oligarchy is doing through El Bareidi and Co.  It is a test from Allah for President Morsi and most Egyptians to be patient and to be trusting in Allah.  In sha' Allah, the Egyptian people will be patient in this critical time where the global oligarchy /"The Illuminati " is provoking turmoil in Egypt through their puppets.
   Here is the article:

      "ABU DHABI (Reuters) - To his critics, Ahmed Shafik is a typical autocrat consigned to history's dustbin by the Arab Spring - a military man turned politician who ended his career amid corruption allegations and fled to the Gulf.

To his friends - and he has powerful ones in the oil-rich Arabian peninsula - the former air force pilot and prime minister is an authentic voice of opposition to the civilian politician who beat him narrowly in a presidential run-off vote.

Whatever the truth, Shafik is confident that with Egypt in turmoil seven months into its experiment with Islamist rule, its often-reviled political old guard will eventually be seen by Egyptians, and by Washington, in a more kindly light.

"Egyptians reject the current regime," said the silver-haired 71-year-old, the last prime minister of Hosni Mubarak, the president who was ousted in 2011 after three decades in power.

"They do not reject the regime from nothing, they reject it as a result of the actions that have taken place over the last seven months ... It has not been a success."

TURMOIL

"There's is a new system for terrorizing the Egyptian people and this is an indication of anxiety within the upper levels of the regime and of the nearing of the end of the road."

He spoke to Reuters in a gated luxury hotel-managed villa in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, where he fled with his daughters and grandchildren in June 2012, two days after his opponent, Mohamed Mursi, was declared president.

Shafik says Egypt's first popularly elected president is driving the country deeper into political, economic and social turmoil and as a result will lose power.

In recent months, opposition groups have criticized Mursi's perceived drift towards authoritarianism, which they say fueled unrest this year in which at least 59 people were killed.

Shafik said the government's inexperience is to blame and - in a reflex from the Mubarak years - said "terrorism" was embedded in the now-dominant Islamist political groups. Mursi's roots are in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement founded in Egypt in the 1928.

"The situation is not stable," Shafik said. "You can't bring a group from nothing to suddenly running a country of 90 million people with a lot of problems and a sensitive geographical location."

COMBATIVE

He said he did not intend to leave Egypt forever and would return "when the time is right", despite being on an official watch list over graft charges which he dismisses as politicized.

"I decided to leave because I couldn't guarantee what would happen ... When you have someone who is opposing you who is sane you would be reassured about his reaction, but when you have someone opposing you who is insane then you don't know how he'll react," he said.

Shafik speaks loudly and moves constantly. He also carries himself in a combative, stubborn manner, a trait reminiscent of his old boss, Mubarak, Egyptians close to the old guard say.

In a military career spanning four decades, Shafik served as a senior fighter pilot under Mubarak's command, and was credited for shooting down two Israeli aircrafts in the October 1973 war.

Shafik predicted Washington's view of Egypt's political Islamist rulers would become steadily less benign.

"The U.S. used to think that empowering Islamist political parties would bring an end to Islamist terrorism," he said.

"Only recently did they find out that Islamist terrorism is embedded within these parties," he said.

The United States, which was a staunch ally of Mubarak until he was overthrown in 2011, is now trying to build a dependable relationship with Mursi.

(Reporting by Amena Bakr, Editing by William Maclean and Andrew Heavens)"

China poised to control strategic Pakistani port

3 hrs ago
By Sebastian Abbot, Associated Press | Associated Press
Source: Yahoo News

KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) -- China is poised to take over operational control of a strategic deep-water Pakistani seaport that could serve as a vital economic hub for Beijing and perhaps a key military outpost, according to officials.

The construction of the port, in the former fishing village of Gwadar in troubled Baluchistan province, was largely funded by China at a cost of about $200 million. It has been a commercial failure since it opened in 2007, because Pakistan never completed the road network to link the port to the rest of the country.

Chinese control of the port would give it a foothold in one of the world's most strategic areas and could unsettle officials in Washington, who have been concerned about Beijing's expanding regional influence.

The port on the Arabian Sea occupies a strategic location between South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. It lies near the Strait of Hormuz, gateway for about 20 percent of the world's oil.

China's interest is driven by concerns about energy security as it seeks to fuel its booming economy. It wants a place to anchor pipelines to secure oil and gas supplies from the Gulf. Beijing also believes that helping develop Pakistan will boost economic activity in its far western province of Xinjiang and dampen a simmering, low-intensity rebellion there.

Some experts view Gwadar as the westernmost link in the "string of pearls," a line of ports from China to the Gulf that could facilitate expansion of the Chinese Navy in the Indian Ocean. That has sparked concern in both the U.S. and India.

Pakistan's Cabinet agreed Wednesday to a proposal for a company owned by the Chinese government, China Overseas Port Holdings Limited, to purchase control of the port from Singapore's PSA International Pte Ltd., which won a bid in 2007 to operate the port for 40 years. The transaction has not yet occurred, a spokesman for Pakistan's Ministry of Ports and Shipping, Mohammed Raza, said Friday.

Pakistan views China as one of its most important allies and a counterweight to the United States, which has given Islamabad billions of dollars in aid but is often viewed as a fickle taskmaster.

China is expected to pay $35 million for control of the port to PSA and two other groups that own an interest, said Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, one of the other shareholders. The third shareholder is the National Logistics Cell, which is controlled by the Pakistani army. The Chinese are waiting for a Pakistani court case challenging PSA's control of the port to be dismissed to complete the transaction, Dhedhi said.

A senior Pakistani official said Beijing has agreed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to finish a 900-kilometer (550-mile) road that would link the port with Pakistan's north-south Indus Highway, facilitating overland transport from Gwadar to China. The Pakistani government was supposed to complete the road in 2012, but it is only 60 percent finished, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.

It will still be a tough drive, passing along the Karakorum Highway that winds through the rugged mountains of northern Pakistan and then into Xinjiang province via a border crossing point at an elevation of 4,693 meters (15,397 feet). The path is often blocked by snow in winter.

Even so, the route will cut the overland distance from China's western provinces to the sea in half, from about 4,000 kilometers (2,500 miles) to China's east coast, to just 2,000 (1,250 miles) south to Gwadar.

Longer-term plans also call for road and rail links from Gwadar that would pass through strife-torn Afghanistan to energy-rich Central Asian states.

Asked about the port on Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said "as long as projects are conducive to China-Pakistan relations, the Chinese side will positively support them."

The port is operating at only about 15 percent capacity now, and machinery originally installed by China is rusting for lack of use, said a Pakistani port worker, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.

On a purely economic basis, the level of trade through the port should be zero because of its drawbacks, but the government is spending millions of dollars in subsidies to ship fertilizer through the facility. It would be cheaper to send the shipments through the coastal city of Karachi, 700 kilometers (430 miles) to the east, the worker said.

Some government officials have claimed that violence in Baluchistan has prevented them from completing the road network. Baluch nationalists have waged a decades-long insurgency against the government, demanding greater autonomy and a larger share of the province's natural resources.

Gunmen shot to death two Pakistani air force personnel and a shopkeeper in a town near Gwadar on Tuesday, said local police official Izat Ali.

Other officials said the ruling Pakistan People's Party simply shifted priorities away from Baluchistan and spent the money building roads in its main areas of support in Sindh province.

"The solution to Gwadar is the Chinese, since they have shown the willingness to work in Pakistan under tough conditions," said shareholder Dhedhi.

___

Associated Press writers Adil Jawad in Karachi, Pakistan, Munir Ahmed in Islamabad and Joe McDonald in Beijing contributed to this report.

Secret government documents reveal vaccines to be a total hoax

 January 08, 2013 
 by: Ethan A. Huff
Source: Natural News

(NaturalNews) If you have children, you are more than likely already aware of the official U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Immunization Schedules," which today recommend an astounding 29 vaccines be given between birth and six years of age, including yearly flu shots, as well as another five to 16 vaccines between ages seven and 18 (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). But a recent investigative report compiled by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., uncovers more than 30 years of hidden government documents exposing these vaccine schedules as a complete hoax, not to mention the fraud of the vaccines themselves to provide any real protection against disease.

Though her paper focuses primarily on the British health system's elaborate cover-up of the dirty truth about its own national vaccination program, the tenets of the study's findings still apply to vaccination schedules in general, which are typically designed for the purpose of serving corporate interests rather than public health. Government authorities, it turns out, in an ongoing bid to satisfy the private goals of the vaccine industry, have deliberately covered up pertinent information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines from parents in order to maintain a high rate of vaccination compliance. And in the process, they have put countless millions of children at risk of serious side effects and death.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic's full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Hiding the truth and covering up data to encourage vaccine compliance

Through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Dr. Tomljenovic was able to obtain transcripts of private meetings that were held between the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), a so-called "independent expert advisory committee" that makes recommendations to the government about vaccinepolicy, and various British health ministers over the years. And after poring through this plethora of information, which had previously been veiled from public view, Dr. Tomljenovic made some disturbing discoveries.

"[T]he JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization) made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for 'herd immunity,' a concept which ... does not rest on solid scientific evidence," explains Dr. Tomljenovic in the introduction to her paper.

"Official documents obtained from the U.K. Department of Health (DH) and the JCVI reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program."

These are some strong accusations, but the information Dr. Tomljenovic gathered speaks for itself. Not only did the JCVI routinely ignore questions of safety as they came up with regards to the ever-expanding vaccination schedule, but the group actively censored unfavorable data that shed a "negative" light on vaccines in order to maintain the illusion that vaccines are safe and effective. Beyond this, the JCVI regularly lied to both the public and government authorities about vaccine safety in order to ensure that people continued to vaccinate their kids.

You can access Dr. Tomljenovic's full paper here:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

JCVI was fully aware of MMR vaccine dangers as early as 1989, but covered them up

Beginning on page three of her report, Dr. Tomljenovic begins outlining the sordid details of meetings held as early as 1981 where the JCVI clearly engaged in fraud, cover-up, and lies about vaccines to protect the vaccine industry, not children, from harm. Minutes from these meetings reveal that the JCVI actively tried to cover up severe side effects associated with common vaccines like measles and whooping cough (pertussis), both of which were clearly linked at the time to causing severe brain damage in a substantial percentage of the children that received them.

Of particular concern was how the JCVI handled unfavorable data on the controversial MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. 10 years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his study on MMR in The Lancet, JCVI was already fully aware that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had identified a clear link between MMR and vaccine-induced meningitis and encephalitis. But rather than come forward with this information and call for further safety assessments on the vaccine, the JCVI instead censored this critical information from the public, and blatantly lied about the safety of MMR for years.

"The extent of the JCVI's concerns with the implications of scientific assessment of vaccine safety on vaccine policy explains why they were opposed to any long-term surveillance for severe neurological disorders following vaccination," writes Dr. Tomljenovic. "[I]nstead of re-evaluating the vaccination policy, at least until safety concerns were fully evaluated, the JCVI chose to support the existing policy based on incomplete evidence that was available at that time."

In other words, the JCVI was more concerned with protecting the reputation of the dangerous MMR vaccine, as well as many other questionable vaccines, than with protecting children from sustaining serious injuries as a result of getting the jabs. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, this critical piece of information not only reinforces the legitimacy of Dr. Wakefield's findings from 10 years later, which were illegitimately declared to be fraudulent by the establishment, but also illustrates just how painfully long this scam has been taking place.

Vaccine companies urged to manipulate data sheets, skew safety studies to promote vaccines

If this is not bad enough, Dr. Tomljenovic also drudged up copious amounts of information on the JCVI's longtime habit of encouraging vaccine companies to deliberately alter their data sheets in order to make dangerous and ineffective vaccines appear safe and effective, in accordance with their recommendations. When the JCVI's guidance contraindications for MMR, for instance, did not match those of the vaccine's manufacturer, JCVI apparently instructed the manufacturer to alter its data sheets to avoid "legal problems."

Similarly, the JCVI's official policy was to cherry-pick unreliable studies to support its own opinions on vaccines rather than rely on independent, scientifically-sound studies to make vaccine policy recommendations. Once again, the JCVI's position on the safety and effectiveness of MMR is an excellent example of this, as the group flat out ignored legitimate MMR studies in favor of industry-backed junk studies like the infamous 2005 Cochrane Review, which technically proves nothing about the alleged safety of MMR because the 31 studies it evaluated did not even meet the group's basic methodological criteria.

"Over the years, the JCVI has consistently promoted the MMR vaccine as safe, based on studies that have been proven to be either irrelevant, inconclusive, or methodologically questionable," explains Dr. Tomljenovic, adding that the JCVI routinely chose to rely on flawed epidemiological studies that only identified "association" rather than "causation," a rather ironic inaccuracy in light of how scrutinizing the establishment typically is of studies that contradict its own positions.

The eye-opening, 45-page paper goes on to explain how vaccine schedules were established through the calculated downplaying of vaccine safety concerns and the over-inflating of vaccine benefits; the promotion of dangerous new vaccines into the pediatric schedule through deception; the discouraging of vaccine safety follow-up studies; and the widespread brainwashing of the public through manipulation and scientific sleight-of-hand tricks.

Be sure to check out the complete study for yourself:
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

Sources for this article include:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com

http://foodfreedomgroup.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.html#ixzz2HOaEjZVX

What’s in Your Milk? 20+ Painkillers, Antibiotics, and More

12/28/2012
by Lisa Garber
Source: Natural Society

With the aid of innovative and highly sensitive testing, Spanish-Moroccan scientists determined that there could be up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics, and growth hormones in a single glass of milk. The researchers say that the traces are so small that consumers need not worry about adverse effects, so we’ll just have to take their word for it, it seems.

The scientists analyzed 20 samples of milk—cow’s, goat’s, and human—bought in Spain and Morocco, and found a chemical cocktail of ingredients added to the animal’s diet prior to milking or contamination through feed or on the farm. Some of the contaminants found in trace amounts include triclosan (an anti-fungal), 17-beta-estradiol (a sex hormone), and florfenicol (an antibiotic).

It’s worth noting that the image provided by the University of Jaen lists the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac twice in error. Their findings were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Advances in Food Safety

University of Jaen’s Dr. Evaristo Ballesteros marveled over their technique, which could be used to assess the food safety of other products. “We believe the new methodology will help to provide a more effective way of determining the presence of these kinds of contaminants in milk or other products.”

“Food quality control laboratories could use this new tool to detect these drugs before they enter the food chain. This would raise consumers’ awareness and give them the knowledge that food is…harmless, pure, genuine, beneficial to health, and free of toxic residues.”

While all types of milk tested contained chemicals cow’s milk was most contaminated. This is not surprising, seeing as cows are routinely given antibiotics, growth hormones, and fed questionable GMO feed. Unfortunately, you will probably be picking up some of these chemicals each time you purchase milk from big-time and conventional supermarkets.

What Milk Should You Buy?

If you do drink milk, there is always a better option than traveling to your nearest grocery store. Organic milk is superior to conventional milk, as the cows won’t typically be on an antibiotic, growth hormone, and GMO corn feed diet; they will likely be grass-fed and graze freely. But there is an even better milk than organic.

Raw milk, like organic, should not come from antibiotic-fed, hormone-injected cows. In addition, raw milk is not pasteurized, a process that destroys beneficial bacteria, transforms proteins, and ruins many of the other vitamins and nutrients found in the milk. It’s always smart to go one step further when buying raw milk to ensure safety, finding out a little bit about the farm and farmer the milk come.

Detoxing Your Body and Environment

Toxic residue in food is hardly limited to milk. The Daily Mail writes about earlier studies that have found fish with altered brain chemistry and sexuality thanks to caffeine, antibiotics, and hormones from contraceptive pills and HRT that survived treatment from sewage plants.

While some scientists say these trace amounts aren’t enough to affect people, many of them are stored in our bodies for great lengths of time, which can become problematic with frequent consumption. To this end, it’s important to limit our exposure to environmental toxins and poisons found in conventionally grown and prepared food and water. You can also take steps to detox your body naturally.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/the-cocktail-of-up-to-20-chemicals-in-a-glass-of-milk/#ixzz2Gd4fLGaH

FDA Approves Neurotoxic Flu Drug For Infants Less Than One

December 27th 2012

Written By: 

Sayer Ji
Source:GreenMedInfo.com

"Whereas the flu is self-limiting, the FDA's capacity for bad decisions is not...

The recent decision by the FDA to approve the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu for treating influenza in infants as young as two weeks old, belies an underlying trajectory within our regulatory agencies towards sheer insanity.

Tamiflu, known generically as oseltamivir, has already drawn international concern over its link with suicide deaths in children given the drug after its approval in 1999. In fact, in 2004, the Japanese pharmaceutical company Chugai added "abnormal behavior" as a possible side effect inside Tamiflu's package.  The FDA also acknowledged in its April, 2012 "Pediatric Postmarket Adverse Event Review" of Tamiflu that "abnormal behavior, delirium, including symptoms such as hallucinations, agitation, anxiety, altered level of consciousness, confusion, nightmares, delusions" are possible side effects.[i]

Recent animal research on Tamiflu has found that the infant brain absorbs the drug more readily than the adult brain,[ii]  [iii]lending a possible explanation for why neuropsychiatric side effects have been observed disproportionately in younger patients.

The very mechanism of Tamiflu's anti-influenza action may hold the key to its well-known neurotoxicity. Known as a neuromindase inhibitor, the drug inhibits the key enzyme within the flu virus that enables it to enter through the membrane of the host cell.  So fundamental is this enzyme that viruses are named after this antigenic characteristic. For instance,  the "N" in H1N1 flu virus is named for type 1 viral neuromindase.

Mammals, however, also have neurimindase enzymes, known as 'sialidase homologs,' with four variations identified within the human genome so far; NEU1,NEU2,NEU3 and NUE4.  These enzymes are important for neurological health. For example, the enzyme encoded by NEU3, is indispensable for the modulation of the ganglioside content of the lipid bilayer, which is found predominantly in the nervous system and constitutes 6% of all phospholipids in the brain. 

It is therefore likely that neurimindase-targeted drugs like Tamiflu are simply not selective enough to inhibit only the enzymes associated with influenza viral infectivity. They likely also cross-react with those off-target neurimindase enzymes associated with proper neurological function within the host. This "cross reactivity" with self-structures may also explain why the offspring of pregnant women given Tamiflu have significantly elevated risk of birth defects (10.6%) relative to background rates (2-3%), according to a 2009 safety review by the European Medicines Agency.

Beyond the recognition of Tamiflu's intrinsic toxicity, there are two additional problems with the use Tamiflu in infants:

1. Infants do not yet have a sufficiently developed blood-brain barrier capable of keeping the chemical out of their rapidly developing brains
2. Their detoxification systems are not sufficiently developed to remove the chemical rapidly enough to prevent harm

The FDA's decision to include infants under one as treatable with Tamiflu is all the more disturbing when you consider that a 2010 study published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that of 157 evaluable infants (mean age 6.3 months) treated for influenza with Tamiflu, complications due to the medication were found in the majority (54%) of the treated group.

According to the study

Complications were recorded in 84 patients (54%), the most serious of which were meningitis in 1 infant (1%), pneumonia in 9 (6%), and otitis media in 2 (1%).

Are meningitis, pneumonia and otitis media (ear infection) acceptable risks for treating influenza?Apparently for the FDA, it is.

How about death? Is that an acceptable risk of Tamiflu treatment for flu, a self-limiting disease?

In 2011, the International Journal of Vaccine Risk and Safety in Medicine published an article titled, "Oseltamivir and early deterioration leading to death: a proportional mortality study for 2009A/H1N1 influenza," described 119 reports of Tamiflu-induced death. According to the study:  "of 119 deaths after Tamiflu was prescribed, 38 deteriorated within 12 hours (28 within 6 hours)."

The study concluded:

These data suggest Tamiflu use could induce sudden deterioration leading to death especially within 12 hours of prescription. These findings are consistent with sudden deaths observed in a series of animal toxicity studies, several reported case series and the results of prospective cohort studies. From "the precautionary principle" the potential harm of Tamiflu should be taken into account and further detailed studies should be conducted.

So, how did the FDA justify its decision to consider Tamiflu safe in infants under one year? Did it use controlled, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to ascertain safety?  Of course not. Testing drugs on infants is unethical, and no parent in their right mind would enroll their newborn in such a trial. Lacking definitive evidence of safety, the FDA's expanded approval in children younger than one year was based on extrapolation of data from previous results in adults and older children.[iv] This, of course, is inappropriate as it denies the aforementioned differences in the susceptibility to drug toxicity and neurotoxicity between infants and older individuals.  It also avoids proper consideration of the studies in the biomedical literature indicating its potential for severe, if not life-threatening toxicity to infants, children and adults alike.

Another concern, not addressed in the FDA announcement, is that as of Dec. 15^th, 2010, the World Health Organization has acknowledged that, based on over 300 tested worldwide samples of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu, resistance to Tamiflu is growing.[v]  Therefore, treating an infant with Tamiflu-resistant influenza would not only do nothing to combat the infection, but would poison that child and further disable their natural immune response.

The clear winner in the FDA's decision will be the bottom line of Roche, the manufacturer of thispatented chemical.  How much longer can the FDA continue to expect those subject to its regulatory decisions to maintain the illusion that it is interested in the public welfare? 

We must remember that infants do not get sick from the flu as a result of Tamiflu deficiency, or flu vaccine deficiency for that matter.  They do get sick from the immune-disrupting effects of synthetic chemicals completely foreign to human physiology (such as Tamiflu), and lack of vital hormone modulating compounds that result from adequate sunlight exposure (vitamin D3), and good nutrition.

For additional information on this topic view our research on natural anti-influenza agents.

---

Resources

• [i] Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Pediatric Postmarket Adverse Event Review on Tamiflu, April, 2012.

• [ii] Akiko Hatori, Joji Yui, Kazuhiko Yanamoto, Tomoteru Yamasaki, Kazunori Kawamura, Makoto Takei, Takuya Arai, Toshimitsu Fukumura, Ming-Rong Zhang. Determination of radioactivity in infant, juvenile and adult rat brains after injection of anti-influenza drug [¹¹C]oseltamivir using PET and autoradiography. Neurosci Lett. 2011 May 20 ;495(3):187-91. Epub 2011 Apr 2. PMID: 21443926

• [iii] Akiko Hatori, Takuya Arai, Kazuhiko Yanamoto, Tomoteru Yamasaki, Kazunori Kawamura, Joji Yui, Fujiko Konno, Ryuji Nakao, Kazutoshi Suzuki, Ming-Rong Zhang. Biodistribution and metabolism of the anti-influenza drug [11C]oseltamivir and its active metabolite [11C]Ro 64-0802 in mice. Nucl Med Biol. 2009 Jan ;36(1):47-55. PMID: 19181268

• [iv] FDA, News & Events: FDA expands Tamiflu use to treat children younger than 1 year, Dec. 12, 2012

• [v] "Update on oseltamivir resistance to influenza H1N1 (2009) viruses". World Health Organization (WHO). December 15, 2010. Retrieved December 30, 2010. "

Link:http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fda-approves-neurotoxic-flu-drug-infants-less-one.

FL Man Refuses City Order To Destroy His Own Garden

November 9, 2012 

written by: Heather Callaghan

Source: The Activist Post 

"A lot of us have gardens, but is there such thing as just...too much of a good thing?"

The co-anchor responds, "The City of Orlando says when it comes to one house, the answer is Yes..."

Jason Helvingston was ordered to destroy his 25 x 25 micro-irrigated front yard veggie garden on his own property by November 7th but it's still there - "and that's the problem" chimes another news anchor standing among the fruits of his labor, discussing the city's problem (not the residents') with the Orlando, Florida man. WKMG Local 6

"You'll take my house before you take my vegetable garden," Jason said. "There's nothing wrong here, there's nothing poisonous here. This is a sustainable plot of land."

As always, it's only select bureaucrats who are filing the complaint for a code violation that wants yards with a "finished appearance...clean, and inviting."

But destroying this man's garden is an oddity considering that the City Planning Division's mission statement reads:

To inspire and facilitate the development of a well-planned, diverse, and sustainable community to make Orlando more livable for its citizens, businesses and visitors.

Another keynote in cases like these is that no one else seems bothered by his yard. Fellow resident Shelly Snow said, “(I’m) definitely not bothered by it. As a matter of fact, we love it.” He has around 200 signatures for a petition, has garnered other resident support and will argue his case with a code board in December in hopes they will change their restriction.

With hope, the city will not come when he is away and mow it down like a city did with a poverty-stricken woman in Tulsa, OK who came home to find her vegetation and medicinal herbs completely excavated - even though, she followed the code.
ason has already tried reasoning with the city by offering to build a fence, but from his experience, the Tulsa example and Toronto below, we find that reasoning and compromise don't go far.

Things fair just as bad in Toronto when community gardeners discovered that the city destroyed their garden saying it was "illegally planted" even though the gardeners had worked with the city. Of course, they waited until harvest time, until months of toil had gone into the plot, before destruction - allowing no one to benefit from the food or save their rare heirloom seeds.

Also, do you notice the further degradation and forced subservience in having to destroy your work with your own hand on command? Whether it's gardens, raw milk and cheese, or pigs - it's often the victim who is ordered to take up the sacrifice himself.

If we can't rely on authorities to use compassion and common sense during economic desolation and hunger crises - then what on earth are they doing running our towns? It's not a lack of common sense - it's a blatant power play. As always, they tend to quietly run down the average citizen until they know everyone's watching - then they fear going hungry. And yet, it keeps happening.

Jason is not budging - and is another in a long line of gardeners who literally stood their grounds. Which Orlando needs right now because apparently he's not the only one there growing a garden with fears of removal.

One remembers the Victory Garden days when Helvingston says:

This is another example of the government telling us what we can do with our own property -- that should never happen - In any economic downturn in the past history of the United States, the government has always encouraged the people to grow their own food, and so we want to continue with that movement.

Helvingston keeps backyard chickens which don't seem to be under contempt. TreeHugger muses that his yard must be like a mullet: business in front and party in the back. It is, however, a way for the city to usurp his property; and if bureaucrats continue to dictate and destroy front yards, the privacy of backyards may rapidly disappear.

Link: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/11/fl-man-refuses-city-order-to-destroy.html.

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty: To change or not to change

     This is an article from "ahramonline" which was written by Abdel Moneim Said on 10 Oct 2012. It is an analysis of the situation that Egypt finds itself in concerning the peace treaty with The Israeli State. I find it to be both informative and insightful.

     The issue of what Morsi should do concerning the peace treaty is very complicated and has many factors. It involves such factors as: diplomacy, Egyptian security, morality, and the domestic situation (which includes both economic and political factors).  Egypt is still involved in a revolution. Although some of the stages are over, much needs to be done before Egypt and its people can act as a sovereign nation. There are not only economic issues involving: poverty, unemployment and debt. There are also political issues involving: the establishment of a new constitution and the empowerment of an elected legislature.( I, for one, think that the current legislature is valid. But who am I, a Muslim from the U.S., to talk about the validity of an elected legislature that was elected with a great deal of transparency?) There are a number of different political elements within Egypt which need to be acknowledged and dealt with.

      I think Morsi is doing a great job in his attempts to include most of the political elements in Egypt in the decision making process. He has a council of advisers, many of whom are representatives of the major political elements. He has included a Coptic Christian, in this council, who is known to be good at building bridges between Coptic Christians and Muslims.

   There is the issue of Egyptian security. How much security does Egypt have with the peace treaty? How much will it have if the peace treaty is broken?

      Here is the article:
            "Some forces who participated in the revolution object to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, although many add that their objection does not mean going to war. They of course realise that war, like love, must be between two sides and decisions are not taken unilaterally. Also, that the other party will decide whether it is in their interest to live with a no-war no-peace status once again, or go to war before Egypt regains its strength and the revolution succeeds in its development process, making it the “strong Egypt” Abdel-Moneim Abul-Futouh talked about.

          "That is what happened to Egypt after the Czech arms deals, and Israel participated in the tripartite aggression against Egypt in 1956 to stifle Egypt’s military might before it could progress it.
Some of revolutionaries do not reject the treaty in its entirety but want to amend it so Egypt can regain complete sovereignty over Sinai. This would mean revising the security protocol appendix which divides Sinai into areas of limited arms in zones A, B and C and a corresponding Zone D in Israel. This is closely linked to a comprehensive monitoring system of troop movements by multinational forces present in Sinai.
The aim was to create a security system that prevents both Egypt and Israel from performing a strategic surprise against the other, as Israel had done in 1967 and Egypt against Israel in 1973. The real surprise for both sides came from a third party, the Islamist jihadists, who began during Mubarak’s regime to carry out terrorist attacks in Sinai as well as breaching its border with Gaza through tunnels.
After the Egyptian Revolution, jihadists began attacking military and civilian targets, and then used Sinai to attack Israel.

      " This was not the image in the minds of those who signed the peace treaty and the security protocols, but this is the direct outcome of the military vacuum that was manipulated by other forces to directly threaten the security of both sides on a daily basis. There are ongoing battles with the Egyptian army which took a strategic decision to stamp out terrorist forces and close tunnels and single-handedly control decisions of war and peace with Israel.

      "Meanwhile, the Israeli army also battled the same forces which destabilised Sinai and is unacceptable for Egypt, because a precious part of its territories is under a dual threat. First, the threat of force against Egyptian security troops; second, the possibility of Israel giving chase to jihadists into Egyptian territories which threatens Egypt’s security and puts Egyptian territories at risk of being occupied once again. This would mean that Egypt has no other choice but to go to war with Israel once again.

      "This is not all happening in a vacuum. Some domestic revolutionary forces want to renounce the peace with Israel, and while they do not discuss the future of development under such a scenario the natural conclusion would be that development will be postponed indefinitely. Representing this current in political circles is Mohamed Esmat Seif El-Dawla, who has repeatedly said that revising the peace treaty is only a matter of time.

      "This angered the Israelis, and President Morsi’s spokesman Yasser Ali quickly responded that the president’s advisers are expressing their personal opinions and Egypt’s position of upholding the peace treaty has not changed.

      "These contradictory statements in top political circles are the result of contradictions on the ground in Egypt that need to be addressed with determined seriousness, so we can decide our agenda of discussions about Egypt’s national priorities. Today, we want to develop Sinai from corner to corner and for this reason and others we must secure it from corner to corner, whether from a variety of terrorist groups or an attack by Israel.

      "Achieving these goals is not possible without revising the security protocols of the peace treaty to allow Egyptian troops to enter with necessary forces to end the current threat. The problem here is that Israel, and perhaps even the US, must first agree to these revisions. Thus far, they have done so on a temporary basis because of current conditions.

      "This is perhaps the first serious national security issue that President Morsi has to deal with and should rely on his well-known trait of prudence. This position cannot be subject to revolutionary bartering or party manouevring. Perhaps the president should form a group of national security and foreign policy officials to manage the issue and negotiate with foreign parties responsible for implementing the security protocols.
One other matter remains, which the president himself raised, which is the relationship between the peace treaty and the Palestinian cause which is an integral part of the Camp David agreement that is linked to Egypt’s peace with Israel and guarantees the Palestinian people are given their legitimate rights.

      "This is an even more complex issue because so far there has been no specific Egyptian approach in dealing with the issue, and it is unknown if Cairo is willing to exert a special effort to relaunch the peace process after the US elections. Or whether Egypt’s approach is to leave the matter to the key players, the Palestinians and Israelis, to decide.

      "It is a subject that requires a lot of thought and clear direction, because for seven decades this issue has been a priority for Egypt’s national security."
     
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/55214.aspx.