The Extremist

Free Markets Versus Free Health Care

My readers in their comments about medical care uniformly show a great, and on the evidence, inexplicable trust in Uncle Sam’s ability to do exactly what he promises. They show an equal distrust of ‘greedy’ insurance companies. While mistrust of insurance companies is understandable, often based on personal experience, faith in government’s ability or even desire to keep its promises demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of how governments and free markets work.

This misunderstanding is only made worse by the debate’s focus on insurance. Even Americans who know there’s no free lunch are succumbing to the ‘entitlement’ mentality. The debate over insurance is not about how to reduce costs, it’s about how to get other people to pay those costs for us. No one is looking for the reasons health care costs are increasing at such alarming rates, and even less at how insurance itself drives prices higher. If you had speeding ticket insurance, would you drive faster?

There is widespread agreement that free enterprise and free markets made America rich. There is a great misunderstanding, however, about what government has done and can do to ‘correct’ what are labeled ‘market failures.’

Markets can’t fail any more than gravity can fail. Market forces exist as a fact of human nature, like Newton’s laws exist in the physical world. They are neither good nor evil. They have no political agenda.

People do have political agendas. People use government to manipulate markets for outcomes they prefer over those that the unhampered market might otherwise produce. Market manipulation is done under the guise of protecting people from some horrible injustice or fate. And in some instances regulation is clearly beneficial, for example, in food inspection or traffic controls. Never the less, government action increases costs in free markets regardless of what the action or its stated purpose may be. And as regulation increases, the regulated eventually learn to control the regulators.

Free markets work well at producing a general prosperity because market incentives automatically reward and punish the right behaviors. Markets reward hard work, saving, innovation, efficiency, prudence, responsibility, honesty, and fair dealing. Free markets punish sloth, complacency, dishonesty, inefficiency, waste, recklessness, stupidity, and even honest mistakes. Laws and regulations, on the other hand, are creatures of politicians, whose purposes are often obscure.

Once a marketable item is sufficiently in demand, market forces tend to produce it ever more efficiently. The natural trend for prices in a free market is down. To analyze a product whose price is rising dramatically we must consider government’s role in interfering with normally declining price trends in a free market.

We are encouraged to believe that increased technology and corporate greed are driving up the price of medical care. But new technologies for the treatment of exotic illness only effects those few with exotic illness, unless the costs are forced onto others by government. Technology in routine care would not be adopted if it didn’t offer some advantage in efficiency. Disposable syringes, absorbable suture material, and advanced bone setting techniques were adopted because they were more cost efficient than the old methods.

As to corporate greed driving up prices, why should insurance company greed successfully drive up prices while computer company greed works with opposite results? Aren’t all corporations manned by equally greedy scum?

In fact, the computer and electronics industry offers an excellent example of how unhindered market forces effect prices. Government regulation is extremely light in that sector of the economy. Despite corporate greed, prices have fallen steadily and innovation has exploded. Even in the face of relatively heavy regulation, other industries have shown the same tendency to produce better products for less. The price of a Ford Focus, corrected for inflation is less than a Model T was in the 1920s, and you don’t have to crank a handle to start the Focus.

It is in the public sector, and in the most heavily regulated industries, where we find market efficiency cannot buck the heavy hand of politics. The medical industry is among the most heavily regulated of all, with government on both sides of the supply and demand equation. Here are a few examples of how government drives the cost of medical care steadily higher:

Subsidized insurance, like Medicare and Medicaid, inflates demand for services by spreading costs to those who won’t benefit for many years, and giving almost unlimited funds to beneficiaries. You can’t beat unlimited demand to boost prices.

Tax deductions for corporate insurance programs similarly increase demand for services while punishing individual insurance seekers for whom premiums are not deductable.

Regulation backed by false American Medical Association, the doctor’s union, predictions of a ‘doctor glut’ have created a doctor shortage by limiting the opening of new medical schools.

Medicare, which pays medical residents at teaching hospitals, has similarly limited the number of doctors by controlling the number of residency spots available.

Certificate of Need programs in 33 states severely limit the introduction of new medical equipment like MRIs and other diagnostic and therapeutic tools based on a ‘need’ determined largely by the owners of competing machinery.

State and federal requirements for what insurance companies must offer in their policies drives up prices and reduces competition among those companies, to the point where many companies simply don’t offer products in many states.

The effect market forces would have on the cost and availability of medical care is the same as they have on every industry where they are allowed to work. Pouring our efforts into trying to figure out how we can all get someone else to pay for our own care is just more of the same stimulus of demand and cost shifting. It is our attempt to get ‘free’ medical care that is the problem. Free market competition is the solution.

Hoping for the Impossible

A persistent assertion from those hoping for the passage of ObamaCare is that government competition in the insurance market will lower costs.

Not much is said about how this will come about, or why the massive Medicare and Medicaid programs haven’t already provided the cost lowering competition that ObamaCare will. The details of how government participation will increase competition remain vague, except to point out the obvious fact that if Uncle Sam is selling insurance it would represent one more outfit doing so. But there are already hundreds, if not thousands, of companies selling insurance. Presumably one more wouldn’t effect competition all that much.

Unless, of course, that one competitor had some special advantage. As it happens, the U.S. government does have an advantage. A couple of advantages, really. First, Uncle Sam doesn’t have to compete in the usual way. If the government is losing money on a venture, it can charge the losses off to taxpayers who may not even be involved. The second advantage is that government can simply force people to become customers whether they want to be or not.

The government is a special competitor with armed agents and prisons instead of a customer service department. When the government offers us protection, it is generally against what government itself will do to us if we don’t obey. Traffic tickets, permits, licenses, inspections, and regulations of all kinds are excellent examples. Given this general business model, and the government’s dismal record in running commercial ventures, the notion that the model will carry over well into the field of medical care seems naively optimistic to this writer.

Government is incapable of lowering the real cost of anything, because government doesn’t produce anything. What it gives to one it must take from another. The cost of brokering the transfer is a net drag on the whole system. It is impossible for government to reduce the cost of a voluntary exchange except to eliminate the costs it imposes. While involuntary exchanges must include the cost of the coercion.

Under the current proposal we will have the option not to buy insurance, but if you don’t you will be penalized with a tax that will be enough to buy the insurance anyway. Eventually pretty much everyone will participate just because it is the smarter of two bad options. The scheme is more likely to drive private insurance out of business than to reduce prices across the board.

Aside from reducing taxes, government can only reduce costs in two ways. Either by being more efficient than the private sector or by shifting costs from a larger group of victims to smaller group of beneficiaries. Cost shifting is how Medicare works now, and why costs for everyone else are exploding.

Anyone who thinks government will improve efficiency needs only to watch a postman and a UPS guy work for 15 minutes, or contemplate a $1000 toilet seat. The suggestion that government competition will force private companies to lay off useless paper pushers to compete with the lean, mean government medical care machine is something that only a congressman could believe.

So we’re back to cost shifting. The problem there will be that with universal coverage there is no victim group to fleece. Once everybody opts in, there’s no one left to loot,  and we are back to counting on government efficiency. The Rapture is a better bet.

No matter what their stated goals, government programs are designed to reward political supporters and punish opponents, increase dependency on government, and expand the power and influence of politicians. Obama Care will do that exceptionally well. If you think politicians give a hoot in hell about your well being I’ve got a deal on a pre-construction condo I think you’d like.

I don’t want to leave you with the idea that the situation is hopeless, however. Far from it. As the government has done so much to increase medical costs, the government can do much to decrease them, by simply doing less.

The first step would be tort reform. A simple ‘loser pays’ rule on liability suits would eliminate law suit extortion, where the outfit being sued pays off the complaint simply because the cost of defending against even a weak case is more than the payoff. The cost of medical malpractice insurance would plummet while patients who have suffered damage would still have access to the courts.

Next we could allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. The proponents of Obama Care claim to be keen for competition but are all in favor of limiting it among private insurance companies. Competition does reduce prices. Let’s have some.

The government could also increase competition by deregulating the products insurance companies are allowed to sell. The last time I bought insurance my policy included coverage for pregnancy, abortion, addiction counseling, psychiatry, and sex change procedures.

My wife’s becoming pregnant would rival the Loaves and Fishes for miracles, I’m not addicted to anything that can’t be had in a supermarket, I’m comfortably maladjusted, and wholly content with my gender. But when I asked my agent if I could save a few bucks by leaving those valuable coverages out of my policy, I found they were required by law.

We could also make health insurance tax deductible for individuals like it is for businesses. That would immediately reduce the cost of insurance by 15% to 35% for thousands of taxpaying, insurance buying families.

Let’s try some real competition before we bet our future on the hope for something that can never be, government efficiency. 

The Laws of Supply and Demand Won't Be Conned

You would think that the destruction of capitalism would be enough to keep our new president busy for at least a year or two. Nationalizing the banking, finance, insurance, and automobile industries is a pretty big bite to chew. But as they say in the ads, there’s more. Controlling your money is not enough. There’s your health to consider.

We can take some comfort in the fact that, since the prez is planning to socialize the medical industry too, many of us will very likely not live long enough to get the full effect of living in a socialist hell hole. By the time the country collapses in government run ruins, having our health care in the hands of the same folks who are doing such a bang-up job with Amtrack, Social Security, and the IRS, will spare millions of us the trouble of living long enough to see it happen.

If you’ve ever had to renew a driver’s license, apply for a building permit, or get on an airplane it should be obvious to you why government supplied health care is a lousy idea.

Never the less, with the confidence of the righteous Obama and the fawning media are convinced that a  government-run universal health insurance scheme will bring down the cost of healthcare while improving its quality. Such a notion is logical only to people who believe that capitalism is a scourge that must be wiped out, and that the laws of supply and demand can be conned as easily as voters. If it does turn out to be true, it will be the only accurate government economic prediction ever made.

Unexamined, except to bash greedy capitalists, is the role of government health insurance in driving up the prices of health care. Up until 1964 the cost of health care had never risen faster than inflation. Doctors made house calls. People could afford health care. Few people bought health insurance. 

That was the year the feds got into the health insurance business. They passed Medicare and Medicaid, essentially free health care for the poor and the elderly. They seemed like good ideas at the time. The compassionate looting of the young to pay for the old was wildly popular with the old. The program has been a reliable vote getter ever since.

Politicians gave a large block of voters free health care at the expense of their children and grand children while making it seem like an act of compassion rather than intergenerational looting. It is not a coincidence that starting that year the cost of health care began increasing faster than the rate of inflation.

Government insurance increased medical costs by creating a class of citizens for whom money was no object in considering what treatment they wanted. They weren’t paying for it, so they wanted the best, and right now.

The escalating costs were noticed by those who still had to pay for treatment. Unfortunately, those folks made the mistake of complaining to lawmakers. Politicians stepped in to help by making the problem worse. They made the cost of health insurance tax deductable for employers.

Employers liked it because it was cheaper than paying an equal amount of wages, on which they had to pay Social Security and unemployment taxes. This in turn dramatically expanded the class of the fully insured.

Millions could now say, “Ok, Doc, make my deductable!” When government employees themselves got on the health insurance bandwagon the class of the fully insured expanded once again.

As it did, naturally, health care costs exploded. There were now millions of people who, after paying just a few hundred bucks of their own money, could command vast corporate or public fortunes to treat any ailment they might have. When price is no object, demand goes up. As demand increases, prices increase.

Today the U.S. government is the largest single buyer of health care in the United States by a wide margin. The government has been as thrifty and prudent spending that money as it is buying every last limousine, junket, and toilet seat.

 And now the “debate” boils down to how much more the government should meddle in the insurance and health care market. There are no proposals to get the feds out of health care. The only choice we hear about is between doing nothing and creating one compulsory government run class of fully insured consumers. The choice is do nothing or  create essentially unlimited demand for medical services. Unlimited demand does not make for falling prices.

Unlimited demand can only drive up prices. In similar systems, the Canadian, British, Australian, and many others, demand is controlled the only way it can be, by rationing care. Bureaucrats decide who is the most deserving of limited available treatment, the rest die on waiting lists. Universal national health insurance is why Canadian politicians come to the U.S. when they get really sick.

Once we have it in the U.S., where will you go if you get really sick?

Dr. Mercola on Swine Flu Bunkum

Critical Alert: The Swine Flu Pandemic – Fact or Fiction?

By Dr. Mercola

American health officials declared a public health emergency as cases of swine flu were confirmed in the U.S. Health officials across the world fear this could be the leading edge of a global pandemic emerging from Mexico, where seven people are confirmed dead as a result of the new virus.

On Monday April 27th, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its pandemic alert level to four on its six-level threat scale,¹ which means they've determined that the virus is capable of human-to-human transmission. The initial outbreaks across North America reveal an infection already travelling at higher velocity than did the last official pandemic strain, the 1968 Hong Kong flu.

The number of fatalities, and suspected and confirmed cases across the world change depending on the source, so your best bet -- if you want the latest numbers -- is to use Google Maps' Swine Flu Tracker.

Several nations have imposed travel bans, or made plans to quarantine air travelers² that present symptoms of the swine flu, such as:

• Fever of more than 100
• Coughing
• Runny nose and/or sore throat
• Joint aches
• Severe headache
• Vomiting and/or diarrhea
• Lethargy
• Lack of appetite

Top global flu experts are trying to predict how dangerous the new swine flu strain will be, as it became clear that they had little information about Mexico's outbreak. It is as yet unclear how many cases occurred in the month or so before the outbreak was detected. It's also unknown whether the virus was mutating to be more lethal, or less.

WHO and CDC Pandemic Preparedness Seriously Broken

The pandemic warning system has failed as it simply doesn't exist, even in North America and Europe. To improve the system massive new investments in surveillance, scientific and regulatory infrastructure, basic public health, and global access to common sense interventions like vitamin D optimization are required.

According to the Washington Post, the CDC did not learn about the outbreak until six days after Mexico had begun to impose emergency measures. There should be no excuses. The paradox of this swine flu panic is that, while totally unexpected, it was accurately predicted. Six years ago, Science dedicated a major story to evidence that "after years of stability, the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fasttrack".

However, maybe this is precisely what public health authorities desire.

This is NOT the First Swine Flu Panic

My guess is that you can expect to see a lot of panic over this issue in the near future.  But the key is to remain calm -- this isn't the first time the public has been warned about swine flu. The last time was in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.

Do you happen to recall the result of this massive campaign?

Within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the vaccine. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.

However, several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after they were injected with the swine flu vaccine. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics.

And the swine flu pandemic itself? It never materialized.

More People Died From the Swine Flu Vaccine than Swine Flu!

It is very difficult to forecast a pandemic, and a rash response can be extremely damaging.

As of Monday April 27, the worldwide total number of confirmed cases was 82, according to WHO, which included 40 cases in the U.S., confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control.  But does that truly warrant the feverish news headlines?

To put things into perspective, malaria kills 3,000 people EVERY DAY, and it's considered "a health problem"...  But of course, there are no fancy vaccines for malaria that can rake in billions of dollars in a short amount of time.

One Australian news source,³ for example, states that even a mild swine flu epidemic could lead to the deaths of 1.4 million people and would reduce economic growth by nearly $5 trillion dollars.

Give me a break, if this doesn't sound like the outlandish cries of the pandemic bird-flu I don't know what does. Do you remember when President Bush said two million Americans would die as a result of the bird flu?  

In 2005, in 2006, 2007, and again in 2008, those fears were exposed as little more than a cruel hoax, designed to instill fear, and line the pocketbooks of various individuals and industry. I became so convinced by the evidence AGAINST the possibility of a bird flu pandemic that I wrote a New York Times bestselling book, The Bird Flu Hoax, all about the massive fraud involved with the epidemic that never happened..

What is the Swine Flu?

Regular swine flu is a contagious respiratory disease, caused by a type-A influenza virus that affects pigs. The current strain, A(H1N1),  is a new variation of an H1N1 virus -- which causes seasonal flu outbreaks in humans -- that also contains genetic material of bird and pig versions of the flu.

Interestingly enough, this version has never before been seen in neither human nor animal, which I will discuss a bit later.

This does sound bad. But not so fast. There are a few reasons to not rush to conclusions that this is the deadly pandemic we've been told would occur in the near future (as if anyone could predict it without having some sort of inside knowledge).

Why a True Bird- or Swine Flu Pandemic is HIGHLY Unlikely

While in my opinion it is highly likely factory farming is responsible for producing this viral strain, I believe there is still no cause for concern.

You may not know this, but all H1N1 flu's are descendants of the 1918 pandemic strain. The reason why the flu shot may or may not work, however, from year to year, is due to mutations. Therefore, there's no vaccine available for this current hybrid flu strain, and naturally, this is feeding the fear that millions of people will die before a vaccine can be made.

However, let me remind you of one very important fact here.

Just a couple of months ago, scientists concluded that the 1918 flu pandemic that killed between 50-100 million people worldwide in a matter of 18 months -- which all these worst case scenarios are built upon -- was NOT due to the flu itself!⁴

Instead, they discovered the real culprit was strep infections.

People with influenza often get what is known as a "superinfection" with a bacterial agent. In 1918 it appears to have been Streptococcus pneumoniae. 

Since strep is much easier to treat than the flu using modern medicine, a new pandemic would likely be much less dire than it was in the early 20th century, the researchers concluded.

Others, such as evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald,⁵ claim that a pandemic of this sort simply cannot happen, because in order for it to occur, the world has to change. Not the virus itself, but the world.

In a previous interview for Esquire magazine, in which he discusses the possibility of a bird flu pandemic, he states:

"They think that if a virus mutates, it's an evolutionary event. Well, the virus is mutating because that is what viruses and other pathogens do. But evolution is not just random mutation. It is random mutation coupled with natural selection; it is a battle for competitive advantage among different strains generated by random mutation.

For bird flu to evolve into a human pandemic, the strain that finds a home in humanity has to be a strain that is both highly virulent and highly transmissible. Deadliness has to translate somehow into popularity; H5N1 has to find a way to kill or immobilize its human hosts, and still find other hosts to infect. Usually that doesn't happen."

Ewald goes on to explain that evolution in general is all about trade-offs, and in the evolution of infections the trade-off is between virulence and transmissibility.

What this means is that in order for a "bird flu" or "swine flu" to turn into a human pandemic, it has to find an environment that favors both deadly virulence and ease of transmission.

People living in squalor on the Western Front at the end of World War I generated such an environment, from which the epidemic of 1918 could arise.

Likewise, crowded chicken farms, slaughterhouses, and jam-packed markets of eastern Asia provide another such environment, and that environment gave rise to the bird flu -- a pathogen that both kills and spreads, in birds, but not in humans.

Says Ewald:

"We know that H5N1 is well adapted to birds. We also know that it has a hard time becoming a virus that can move from person to person. It has a hard time without our doing anything. But we can make it harder. We can make sure it has no human population in which to evolve transmissibility. There is no need to rely on the mass extermination of chickens. There is no need to stockpile vaccines for everyone.

By vaccinating just the people most at risk -- the people who work with chickens and the caregivers -- we can prevent it from becoming transmissible among humans. Then it doesn't matter what it does in chickens."

Please remember that, despite the fantastic headlines and projections of MILLIONS of deaths, the H5N1 bird flu virus killed a mere 257 people worldwide since late 2003. As unfortunate as those deaths are, 257 deaths worldwide from any disease, over the course of five years, simply does not constitute an emergency worthy of much attention, let alone fear!

Honestly, your risk of being killed by a lightning strike in the last five years was about 2,300 percent higher than your risk of contracting and dying from the bird flu.⁶ I'm not kidding! In just one year (2004), more than 1,170 people died from lighting strikes, worldwide.⁷

So please, as the numbers of confirmed swine flu cases are released, keep a level head and don't let fear run away with your brains.

So is the Swine Flu Getting More or Less Dangerous?

On Sunday, April 26, The Independent reported that more than 1,000 people had contracted the swine flu virus in Mexico, ⁸ but by the afternoon that same day, Mexican President Calderon declared that more than two-thirds of the 1,300 thought to have contracted the disease had been given a clean bill of health and sent home.⁹

Additionally, the number of actual confirmed cases appears to be far lower than reported in many media outlets, leading me to believe that many reporters are interchanging the terms "suspected cases" and "confirmed cases." According to the World Health Organization's Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response site; as of April 27, there are:

• 40 laboratory confirmed cases of A(H1N1) in the U.S. -- 0 deaths
• 26 confirmed cases in Mexico -- 7 deaths
• 6 confirmed cases in Canada -- 0 deaths
• 1 confirmed case in Spain -- 0 deaths

Additionally, nearly all suspected new cases have been reported as mild.

Personally, I am highly skeptical. It simply doesn't add up to a real pandemic.

But it does raise serious questions about where this brand new, never before seen virus came from, especially since it cannot be contracted from eating pork products, and has never before been seen in pigs, and contain traits from the bird flu -- and which, so far, only seems to respond to Tamiflu. Are we just that lucky, or... what?

Your Fear Will Make Some People VERY Rich in Today's Crumbling Economy

According to the Associated Press at least one financial analyst estimates up to $388 million worth of Tamiflu sales in the near future¹⁰ -- and that's without a pandemic outbreak.

More than half a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences Inc., Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and other companies with a stake in flu treatments and detection, have seen a rise in their shares in a matter of days, and will likely see revenue boosts if the swine flu outbreak continues to spread.

As soon as Homeland Security declared a health emergency, 25 percent -- about 12 million doses -- of Tamiflu and Relenza treatment courses were released from the nation's stockpile. However, beware that the declaration also allows unapproved tests and drugs to be administered to children. Many health- and government officials are more than willing to take that chance with your life, and the life of your child. But are you?

Remember, Tamiflu went through some rough times not too long ago, as the dangers of this drug came to light when, in 2007, the FDA finally began investigating some 1,800 adverse event reports related to the drug. Common side effects of Tamiflu include:

• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Headache
• Dizziness
• Fatigue
• Cough

All in all, the very symptoms you're trying to avoid.

More serious symptoms included convulsions, delirium or delusions, and 14 deaths in children and teens as a result of neuropsychiatric problems and brain infections (which led Japan to ban Tamiflu for children in 2007). And that's for a drug that, when used as directed, only reduces the duration of influenza symptoms by 1 to 1 ½ days, according to the official data.

But making matters worse, some patients with influenza are at HIGHER risk for secondary bacterial infections when on Tamiflu. And secondary bacterial infections, as I mentioned earlier, was likely the REAL cause of the mass fatalities during the 1918 pandemic!

Where did This Mysterious New Animal-Human Flu Strain Come From?

Alongside the fear-mongering headlines, I've also seen increasing numbers of reports questioning the true nature of this virus. And rightfully so. 

Could a mixed animal-human mutant like this occur naturally? And if not, who made it, and how was it released?

Not one to dabble too deep in conspiracy theories, I don't have to strain very hard to find actual facts to support the notion that this may not be a natural mutation, and that those who stand to gain have the wherewithal to pull off such a stunt.

Just last month I reported on the story that the American pharmaceutical company Baxter was under investigation for distributing the deadly avian flu virus to 18 different countries as part of a seasonal flu vaccine shipment. Czech reporters were probing to see if it may have been part of a deliberate attempt to start a pandemic; as such a "mistake" would be virtually impossible under the security protocols of that virus.

The H5N1 virus on its own is not very airborne. However, when combined with seasonal flu viruses, which are more easily spread, the effect could be a potent, airborne, deadly biological weapon. If this batch of live bird flu and seasonal flu viruses had reached the public, it could have resulted in dire consequences.

There is a name for this mixing of viruses; it's called "reassortment," and it is one of two ways pandemic viruses are created in the lab. Some scientists say the most recent global outbreak -- the 1977 Russian flu -- was started by a virus created and leaked from a laboratory.

Another example of the less sterling integrity of Big Pharma is the case of Bayer, who sold millions of dollars worth of an injectable blood-clotting medicine to Asian, Latin American, and some European countries in the mid-1980s, even though they knew it was tainted with the AIDS virus.

So while it is morally unthinkable that a drug company would knowingly contaminate flu vaccines with a deadly flu virus such as the bird- or swine flu, it is certainly not impossible. It has already happened more than once.

But there seems to be no repercussions or hard feelings when industry oversteps the boundaries of morality and integrity and enters the arena of obscenity. Because, lo and behold, which company has been chosen to head up efforts, along with WHO, to produce a vaccine against the Mexican swine flu?

Baxter!¹¹ Despite the fact that ink has barely dried on the investigative reports from their should-be-criminal "mistake" against humanity.

According to other sources,¹² a top scientist for the United Nations, who has examined the outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa, as well as HIV/AIDS victims, has concluded that the current swine flu virus possesses certain transmission "vectors" that suggest the new strain has been genetically-manufactured as a military biological warfare weapon.

The UN expert believes that Ebola, HIV/AIDS, and the current A-H1N1 swine flu virus are biological warfare agents.

In addition, Army criminal investigators are looking into the possibility that disease samples are missing from biolabs at Fort Detrick -- the same Army research lab from which the 2001 anthrax strain was released, according to a recent article in the Fredrick News Post.¹³ In February, the top biodefense lab halted all its research into Ebola, anthrax, plague, and other diseases known as "select agents," after they discovered virus samples that weren't listed in its inventory and might have been switched with something else.

Factory Farming Maybe Source of Swine Flu

Another theory as to the cause of Swine Flu might be factory farming. In the United States, pigs travel coast to coast. They can be bred in North Carolina, fattened in the corn belt of Iowa, and slaughtered in California.

While this may reduce short-term costs for the pork industry, the highly contagious nature of diseases like influenza (perhaps made further infectious by the stresses of transport) needs to be considered when calculating the true cost of long-distance live animal transport.

The majority of U.S. pig farms now confine more than 5,000 animals each. With a group of 5,000 animals, if a novel virus shows up it will have more opportunity to replicate and potentially spread than in a group of 100 pigs on a small farm.

With massive concentrations of farm animals within which to mutate, these new swine flu viruses in North America seem to be on an evolutionary fast track, jumping and reassorting between species at an unprecedented rate.

Should You Accept a Flu Vaccine -- Just to be Safe?

As stated in the New York Times¹⁴ and elsewhere, flu experts have no idea whether the current seasonal flu vaccine would offer any protection whatsoever against this exotic mutant, and it will take months to create a new one.

But let me tell you, getting vaccinated now would not only offer no protection and potentially cause great harm, it would most likely be loaded with toxic mercury which is used as a preservative in most flu vaccines..

I've written extensively about the numerous dangers (and ineffectiveness) of flu vaccines, and why I do not recommend them to anyone. So no matter what you hear -- even if it comes from your doctor -- don't get a regular flu shot. They rarely work against seasonal flu...and certainly can't offer protection against a never-before- seen strain.

Currently, the antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza are the only drugs that appear effective against the (human flu) H1N1 virus, and I strongly believe taking Tamiflu to protect yourself against this new virus could be a serious mistake -- for all the reasons I already mentioned above.

But in addition to the dangerous side effects of Tamiflu, there is also growing evidence of resistance against the drug. In February, the pre-publication and preliminary findings journal called Nature Precedings published a paper on this concern, stating¹⁵:

The dramatic rise of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] resistance in the H1N1 serotype in the 2007/2008 season and the fixing of H274Y in the 2008/2009 season has raised concerns regarding individuals at risk for seasonal influenza, as well as development of similar resistance in the H5N1 serotype [bird flu].

Previously, oseltamivir resistance produced changes in H1N1 and H3N2 at multiple positions in treated patients. In contrast, the recently reported resistance involved patients who had not recently taken oseltamivir.

It's one more reason not to bother with this potentially dangerous drug.

And, once a specific swine flu drug is created, you can be sure that it has not had the time to be tested in clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness, which puts us right back where I started this article -- with a potential repeat of the last dangerous swine flu vaccine, which destroyed the lives of hundreds of people.

Topping the whole mess off, of course, is the fact that if the new vaccine turns out to be a killer, the pharmaceutical companies responsible are immune from lawsuits -- something I've also warned about before on numerous occasions.

Unfortunately, those prospects won't stop the governments of the world from mandating the vaccine -- a scenario I hope we can all avoid.

How to Protect Yourself Without Dangerous Drugs and Vaccinations

For now, my point is that there are always going to be threats of flu pandemics, real or created, and there will always be potentially toxic vaccines that are peddled as the solution. But you can break free of that whole drug-solution trap by following some natural health principles.

I have not caught a flu in over two decades, and you can avoid it too, without getting vaccinated, by following these simple guidelines, which will keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you're far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with.

• Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I've previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency is likely the TRUE culprit behind the seasonality of the flu -- not the flu virus itself.

This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. I would STRONGLY urge you to have your vitamin D level monitored to confirm your levels are therapeutic at 50-70 ng.ml and done by a reliable vitamin D lab like Lab Corp.

For those of you in the US we hope to launch a vitamin D testing service through Lab Corp that allows you to have your vitamin D levels checked inexpensively at your local blood drawing facility and relatively inexpensively. We hope to offer this service by June 2009.

If you are coming down with flu like symptoms and have not been on vitamin D you can take doses of 50,000 units a day for three days to treat the acute infection. Some researchers like Dr. Cannell, believe the dose could even be as high as 1000 units per pound of body weight for three days.

• Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a strong immune system is key to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.

• Get Enough Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night's Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.

• Have Effective Tools to Address Stress . We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness.
  
  If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma. You can check out my free, 25-page EFT manual for some guidelines on how to perform EFT.

• Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. You can review my exercise guidelines for some great tips on how to get started.

• Take a good source of animal based omega-3 fats like Krill Oil. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.

• Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this -- antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.

• Eat Garlic Regularly. Garlic works like a broad-spectrum antibiotic against bacteria, virus, and protozoa in the body. And unlike with antibiotics, no resistance can be built up so it is an absolutely safe product to use. However, if you are allergic or don't enjoy garlic it would be best to avoid as it will likely cause more harm than good.

• Avoid Hospitals and Vaccines In this particular case, I'd also recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you're having an emergency, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds, and could be one of the likeliest places you could be exposed to this new bug.  Vaccines will not be available for six months at the minimum but when available they will be ineffective and can lead to crippling paralysis like Guillain-Barré Syndrome just as it did in the 70s.

--

Shoddy science and media hysteria...

Using public health scares to terrorize the
public and push government/big pharma
agendas.

Get the facts about "swine flu" and share
with your friends.

Details:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/610.html

Just a Coincidence

To a crime investigator a coincidence is a clue. Scientists on the other hand assume that clues are only coincidences until proven by experiment.    

The rule in science is that correlation does not prove cause. Clearly it doesn’t. For example, we cannot decide that because all scientists drank milk as babies that drinking milk as a baby causes people to become scientists.

   

Similarly, as U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) insists, we cannot assume that autism is caused by childhood inoculations simply because the incidence of autism has risen in lockstep with the increase in compulsory vaccinations. CDC scientists maintain that until research proves otherwise, the correlation between autism and vaccinations is just a coincidence. (see chart)

   

Autism is a poorly understood neurological disorder whose symptoms mimic those of mercury poisoning. Science has long known that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin in even tiny amounts. It is an interesting coincidence that until just recently all vaccines given to children in the

U.S.

contained mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal. It has been banned in European vaccines for years. It has been ruled unfit for use in veterinary medicines.

   

The history of compulsory mass inoculation is full of interesting coincidences. For instance, there was a coincidental increase in the rate of polio after the first mass polio vaccinations. In some states polio rates went up several hundred percent after mass inoculations. The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), predecessor to the CDC, called it a coincidence.

   

The PHS declared the polio vaccine safe and effective even after doctors from the National Institutes of Health called it “worthless as a preventative and dangerous to take.” Coincidentally, many doctors refused to give the vaccine to their own children and many local health departments refused to use it. In another interesting coincidence, the PHS clinically redefined polio causing an automatic drop in reported cases.  

   

Coincidentally, in 1976 the inventor of the vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk, said he believed that most if not every case of polio in the

U.S.

since 1961 had been caused by the vaccine. His vaccine was used until 2000 in the

U.S.

   

In 1991 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) increased the number of compulsory vaccinations from six to twenty-two. Coincidentally, in the next 10 years there was an explosion in the rate of autism. Roughly 1 in 160 American children are autistic today. Before the 90’s that figure was one in 2500. Before the first mass inoculations in the 1930’s the disease was unknown. The CDC insists the correlation is just a coincidence.

   

There is disagreement about the safe amount of mercury that can be injected into a child. But the cumulative amount of mercury administered to children who get all the currently recommended vaccinations is many times what even government agencies consider safe. Coincidentally, the symptoms of autism and mercury poisoning are identical.

   

The CDC held a conference in 1999 to examine possible links between mercury in vaccines and autism. A single sentence summarizes the report, “…the number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant.” Stripped of the scientific jargon, that means the greater the number of mercury laced shots children get the greater the number of neurological problems they have. The CDC’s own records show the correlation.

   

Coincidentally, CDC scientists did not move to remove Thimerosal from vaccines immediately. Instead they coincidentally marked the report of the conference “Confidential, Do Not Copy.”  They released it after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Coincidentally one of the doctors mentioned in the report that his newborn grandson would be receiving only Thimerosal free vaccines. The same doctor, in fact all the doctors, had no problem with your grandchildren receiving the other kind.

   

A sudden drop in autism rates after a ban on Thimerosal would have been an embarrassing coincidence. An immediate ban would have cost drug companies millions. The CDC continues to insist publicly there is not enough data to prove that the autism epidemic is the result of compulsory poisoning. Its own data shows otherwise.

   

A few years after the conference, Thimerosal had gradually disappeared from most, but not all vaccines. The CDC allowed mercury laced vaccines to continue to be used until their expiration dates. The CDC ruled that vaccines containing mercury were just fine for export. Influenza vaccines for infants and tetanus shots for older kids still contain mercury.

      

Coincidentally, autism rates have fallen steadily in states that banned Thimerosal without CDC approval. The CDC insists that the drop in autism rates in

California

since switching to mercury free vaccines is just a coincidence. And what do CDC scientists think of the fact that autism is practically unknown among unvaccinated populations such as the Amish of Pennsylvania and several others?

Just a coincidence.

More Information:
Autism Reasearch Institute
Put Children First
Safe Minds Report
Generation Rescue
The Autistic Society

Technorati Tags autism • mercury • health • vaccine

Preventive Medicine

Shortly after I turned 50 I had a medical checkup in Key West. I remember only one specific piece of information the doctor gave me during that exam. He said, “There is no reason anyone should ever die of colon cancer.” An annual preventive colonoscopy would detect most potentially dangerous tumors before they became serious. The doctor planned to have an endoscopic exam himself every year.

His remark impressed me because genetically I’m in a group whose members too often draw the short straw for cancer. My father’s uncle died of colon cancer at age 43. Two more of my grandmother’s siblings also died of cancer in their 50’s. My sister, at 41, is an eight-year cancer survivor, and happily, enjoying a remission. My father developed lung cancer at 56, my age now. He survived 13 more years on one lung, stubbornness, and an ironic sense of humor.

The chances of my having a winning ticket in the cancer lottery should have put me on the colonoscopy bandwagon long ago. But it didn’t. Apart from the obvious reasons to put it off, there is another. Whether it’s also a genetic flaw I do not know, but I’m an insufferable tightwad. When I discovered the procedure in Key West cost something north of $5,000 I kept finding excuses to wait.

Five thousand bucks! The insurance policy I was paying $8,000 a year for wouldn’t cover any part of it — unless I already had cancer. The company promised up to a million dollars for treatment, but not a cent for prevention. Go figure.

In the five years since my 50 year exam I’ve saved $25,000 and avoided seeing my GI tract on TV, but at the risk of wishing I’d spent the money.

Now I’m living in Costa Rica. Medical care here is first-class. Private and public systems run side by side. A private doctor’s visit cost me $40. I waited less than a week for it. That doctor, not surprisingly, recommended an annual preventive colonoscopy.

I scheduled one. I called for an appointment around noon on a Thursday. I was stunned when the doctor asked me if I had eaten breakfast that morning. If I hadn’t, he was going to do the exam the next day. When I reported my huevos and tortillias he scheduled me for the following Monday. He told me how to get ready.

“How much will it cost?” I asked.  “₡110,000,” he said.  That little C gizmo means Colones — rhymes with baloneys in Spanglish. That’s about $220.

It would take about an hour from arrival to departure. I would have to buy my own laxative. Another $10 down the tubes, so to speak. Which brings me to an other advantage of having a colonoscopy in a second language. If your Spanish is bad enough, as mine surely is, embarrassment vanishes in the fog of linguistic confusion. Asking a pretty woman for a few doses of a laxative powerful enough to purge a water buffalo caused me not the slightest unease. I was too busy trying to understand her answer.

The procedure took place in the doctor’s office on the 7th floor of a modern clinic. I was 10 minutes late. We began immediately. The small consulting room was clean and new, lined with modern electronic gear and staffed by two typically friendly and perfectly lovely Costa Rican nurses. They spoke enough English to get me checked in with a minimum of embarrassment and confusion. When my Spanish collapsed, the doctor spoke fluent English. Even at less than a 20th of the cost of the same procedure in Key West, I didn’t notice any scrimping or cut corners.

They knocked me out without any fuss. I awoke less than an hour later with some cramps and no memory of the procedure. My wife was thrilled she got to watch the whole thing.

The aftereffects were limited to a few spectacular farts. In 15 minutes I was on my way home with a dozen hi-res color photos taken inside my never-before-seen, looks-as-good-as-new large intestine.

So why do you pay 10 to 20 times more for the same hour’s work in the U.S.? I can think of a few reasons.

Separate public and private health care systems in CR means very few third party payers and even fewer costly regulations in the private system.

Without insurance, private patients do not suddenly become rich as Croesus when their bill reaches the magic “deductible” number. Demand is limited by common sense rather than the limits of gold-plated insurance policies. Preventive medicine is cost effective. People spending their own money are always more careful with it. It keeps prices reasonable.

And then there’s the legal system. Contingency lawsuits are unknown here. You can’t just sue a doctor and expect a settlement because it’s cheaper to pay than fight. Sue and lose you pay for everything. In the States we have a lawyer for every 275 people.  If we just include working adults, there are only about 125 to support each attorney. By comparison, they are thin on the ground here. The money Costa Ricans save on lawyers alone buys a lot of medical care.

It’s no wonder Ticos live so long. They can afford to.

Technorati Tags Costa Rica /Health Care/ colonoscopy/ lawyers

Mad As A Hatter

"I'm investigating things that begin with the letter "M.” — The Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll’s

Alice

in Wonderland.

   

The term “mad as a hatter” has its roots in a tragic occupational hazard of the early hat making industry. Mercury nitrate was used in manufacturing felt hats. People eventually figured out that exposure to mercury caused nervous disorders, odd behavior, and even insanity. In

Danbury

,

Connecticut

, the hat making center of the world in the 19th century, the disease was so common it was known as “The Danbury Shakes.” Even with a clear link between mercury and a deadly disease the industry and the unions resisted banning mercury for years. Such is the inertia of common practice. When mercury substitutes were developed in the 1940’s, hatters stopped going mad.

   

Mercury still had its uses, however. In the 1930’s, as mercury was disappearing from the hat trade, the drug manufacturer, Eli Lilly, developed mercury-based thimerosal as a preservative for vaccines. Lilly hid results of its own tests that showed the compound was poisonous. In 1935 research by a Lilly competitor, Pittman-Moore, using dogs as subjects determined that thimerosal was “unsatisfactory as a serum for use on dogs.” Ely Lilly, however, still considered it just fine for humans. The CDC and FDA agreed. Thimerosal is still in use today as a preservative in vaccines.

   

According to a June 2005 Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the CDC has known since 1999 that thimerosal causes autism and other neurological disorders in children. In 2000 the CDC and FDA sponsored a secret, invitation-only meeting for mucky mucks from the drug industry and government regulatory agencies. Everyone who was anyone in the vaccine industry was there, including the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization.

   

The meeting was secret because the CDC had a big problem. Kennedy had to obtain transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act. At the meeting the CDC revealed results of research by its own epidemiologist Tom Verstraeten that showed an unquestionable link between thimerosal in vaccines and neurological disease. There wasn’t any doubt. Verstraeten had massive amounts of CDC data to work with. His results approached statistical certainty.

   

Ironically it was the FDA/CDC recommendations in the early 1990’s that made the connection obvious. Before 1989 American kids received just three vaccinations against seven diseases — polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, and measles-mumps-rubella. The mercury preservatives in those vaccines were poisonous but not obviously so. Although autism had increased in lockstep with compulsory vaccinations, it still occurred in only one in 2500 children. After 1989, on federal recommendations, the number of immunizations received by American children before the first grade increased to twenty-two. The autism rate exploded to one in 165 children.

   

Nobody at the FDA or the CDC had thought to add up the total load of mercury that twenty-two inoculations would put into a developing brain. As it turns out, an infant who receives all the shots and boosters the feds recommended, is injected with 187 times the level of ethyl mercury the EPA considers safe in just the first six months of life. Even if mercury is metabolized and excreted as drug companies claim, that’s a lot of mercury.

   

You would naturally think the largest public health organization in the country would have immediately taken steps to notify us and stop any further poisoning of our children. You think that because that is what you or I would have done. But you and I don’t run the outfit that is largely responsible for poisoning hundreds of thousands of kids.

   

According to the transcripts, the last two days of the secret meeting were spent figuring out how to cover everything up. The CDC has subsequently given all the data used by Verstraeten to a private company so people couldn’t get it with a FOIA request. The CDC also commissioned further studies with specific instructions that the results should show no connection between thimerosal and autism. When you have the kind of resources the CDC has, you get what you want.

   

A series of flawed, dishonest, CDC sponsored studies got the required results. A study conducted by the

Institute

of

Medicine

, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that thimerosal is safe. The IOM went so far as to recommend that no further studies be conducted. Not even Congressmen are buying that.

   

RFK, Jr., heir apparent to the Kennedy political dynasty of uncommonly rich socialists, was stunned by the government’s lies, noting in his article that “Even many conservatives are shocked by the government’s trying to cover up the dangers of thimerosal.” Anything bad enough to shock a conservative must be grave indeed. Never the less, the report of the House Government Reform Committee investigation, overseen by Republican representative Dan Burton, did not equivocate. It said, “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic.”

   

Those who question the thimerosal autism connection would say that correlation doesn’t prove causation, but that doesn’t mean that correlation isn’t convincing. In countries where thimerosal is banned autism is extremely rare. In countries to which thimerosal laced vaccines were exported after the CDC cover up began, autism rates have skyrocketed.

Iowa

and

California

have banned thimerosal. Autism rates in both states have begun to decline.

   

I found an informal, private, one-man study particularly convincing. Because vaccination is compulsory for school children, control groups, those who have never been vaccinated, are hard to find. But UPI reporter Bill Olmstead found such a group — the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The Amish refuse to inoculate their children for religious reasons. Olmstead scoured

Lancaster

County

for autistic children in the Amish population. Using national rates there should have been 130 cases. Olmstead found only four. One of those had been exposed to mercury from a power plant. Each of the other three had been vaccinated.

       

Nearly all vaccines are available now in thimerosal free formulations. If you need a shot, request mercury free vaccine. Check the package insert and the label on the vaccine. Government officials have been known to patronize the public.

Federal officials still claim that thimerosal is safe. The CDC has research to prove it. Maybe it is, but you’d have to be mad as a hatter to subject yourself or your kids to mercury laden vaccines if you don’t have to.