A new study by ‘scientists’ in Australia claims a warning for middle aged people that they risk embarrassing themselves through drinking is more effective at improving behaviour than highlighting the health implications.
The report claims that adults aged between 30 and 65 have only “minor” concerns about the health effects of alcohol. The truth of this can easily be observed as, in spite of frequent scaremongering campaigns by governments and their tame ‘scientists’ a huge number of people who drink more than the ridiculous recommended limits advised by governments are living happily and healthily to a ripe old age.
The study, carried out in Australia, not a country noted for abstemiousness, by the University of Adelaide, analysed interviewee’s responses about alcohol consumption from 13 previous papers, finding that for the middle-aged people without an existing drinking problem, the “principal barrier to reductions in alcohol consumption is not the lack of information about health risks”.
The report was vague about what the principal barrier to reducing alcohol consumption actually is, probably because it relates to people having completely lost confidence in ‘scientists’ and never having trusted government anyway. Thus the punters do not have much dificulty working out that all these scare stories floated by ‘scientists’ are nothing more than a scam to justify imposing the kind of punitive tax levels on alcohol as have failed to stop about 30% of people from smoking.
People simply do not like government pokenoses telling them what they can and can’t do. Government meddling in private lives only ever results in an enormous, catastrophic clusterfuck.
The Austrialian researchers suggest, (extremely idiotically, even by the idiotic standards of ‘scientists’) public health campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption could be more effective if they focus on the risk of behaving inappropriately after drinking too much, although, predictably, no definite examples of what kind of inappropriate behaviour they mean. An enthusiastic rendition of My Way at a Karaoke night maybe?
Acceptable drinking was classed as that which “was appropriate to one’s age or stage of life”, allowed the group to still meet their responsibilities and adhered to social norms, they found. Again that is just sanctimonious drivel. What responsibilities? What social norms? Science is supposed to be about precision, not about vague platitudes.
The report stated: “The drinkers in these studies were aware of public health messages, but drew upon alternative narratives to re-frame their behaviours in ways that minimised or dismissed personal risk. Health was either described as a minor concern or not considered at all.”
Lead researcher Emma Muhlack said: “It is surprising that health does not strongly factor in the way that this group thinks about their drinking. Well Emma, let Boggart Blog help you out, human beings are individual. Pseudo – science like your report seems to start from the assumption that we are all stereotypes who have no free will and are quite incapable of making our own decisions.
“We knew very little about the decision-making processes that go into the alcohol consumption of middle-age drinkers. The results from this review help us to better understand how drinking alcohol fits into their everyday lives and which factors may need to be taken into consideration when attempting to reduce alcohol consumption in this group.” Ms. Muhlack added.
The fact is that just as people have their own limits on how drunk they want to get, they have their own standards on behaviour, so a public health campaign, no matter what kind of behaviours it targets, is unlikely to engage the attention of more than a very small percentage of the target group. It has been known for example, since I was studying sociology fifty years ago, that middle aged people are less susceptible to peer pressure than they young.
The researchers suggest that campaigns which focus on failing to meet responsibilities because of alcohol and the possible loss of respect may be more effective than health messages.
Perhaps the researchers are thinking of a follow up report suggesting using targeted ads on social media. But again, middle aged people are less likely to be heavily addicted to social media than millennials, and also social media advertising is notoriously ineffective.
In a case that could halt the development of GM crops around the world, and thus the push by a few global corporations to gain control of the food supply, a court San Francisco this week awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, whose lawyers claimed Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
Johnson’s trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate based herbicide that he was a=obliged by his job to use up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn’t think he’d live to live to see the verdict.
Johnson told the court that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was soaked with the herbicide. The first of these occurred in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma – which has since covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions.
Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict.
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.
Monsanto is now a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June.
On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information.
According to a report in The Guardian, Johnson’s lawsuit against is the first such case against Monsanto to complete the full trial process over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States. Many of these are still tied up in the labyrinthine procedures of the American justice system and many other complainants have either run out of money or simply given up.
The Johnson case focused on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974. The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. –SHTFplan.com
In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long study. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Johnson’s case is not part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco – who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff’s expert opinions “shaky.”
Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
As the New York Times commented last year, leaked internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
These documents detail the meaures to which the Monsanto was willing to resport in order to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. A biologist involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe. In the bigger picture these documents will throw into doubt legal judgements in many other cases, as they strongly suggest Monsanto have misled the courts in their evidence.
Lancet, the journal of British medical professionals has published a completely innacurate editorial which falsely claims seven million deaths linked to air pollution were caused by “climate change.”
“The effects of climate change are inextricably entwined with health,” the May 12 editorial begins, “ranging from the WHO estimate of 7 million deaths from breathing polluted air indoors and outdoors.” The editorial then goes on to list a series of other alleged harmful effects of climate change, none of which are backed by hard evidence.
The main statement is patently false, and the Lancet editors must surely know that.
The World Health Organization (WHO) report to which the editorial refers makes no mention of climate change and speaks only of the adverse health effects of breathing polluted air, which is a different thing altogether.
According to the WHO report, “around 7 million people die every year from exposure to fine particles in polluted air that penetrate deep into the lungs and cardiovascular system, causing diseases including stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and respiratory infections, including pneumonia.”
All of these harmful substances which have potentially fatal consequences are causes by “exposure to fine particles in polluted air” and not by global warming.
In its infographic on the causes of air pollution, the WHO lists six sources of dangerous fine particulate matter, none of which is related to climate change, a phenomenon due entirely to the release of carbon dioxide from human activity according to the environmentalist lobby. The six sources of air pollution are industry and energy supply, dust, agricultural practices, transport, waste management, and household energy.
Among the six solutions proposed by WHO for combatting air pollution, not one of them touches on carbon dioxide emissions, for the simple reason that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not harmful to human health. Unlike pollutants, carbon dioxide is odorless, colorless, and most importantly, non-toxic. In fact the trace gas is essential to life, being the fuel used by the photosynthesis process to grown plant matter.
The report notes that deaths linked to air pollution occur mainly in third-world countries where a majority of the population “do not have access to clean cooking fuels and technologies in their homes.” The article in Lancet ignores that essential point and shamelessly links lethal air pollution to global warming, without bothering to attempt to establish a real connection between the two.
It then goes on to speak of how the horrible effects of air pollution can be averted by implementing measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from industrial, domestic and agricultural activity, which, again, is complete bollocks.
The overtly political editorial seeks to persuade a naïve public to enact policy to reduce CO2 emissions by making them think that this will curb deadly air pollution, which it will not. It will however appease the medical professions’ paymasters in politics and the Big Pharma corporations.
Climate Lies (omnibus)
Climate change and the missing refugees
Trump Announces US To Quit The Paris Climate Accord
German Scientist Confims Climate Change Ia A Politically Motivated Scam
Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’ – Dutch Scientific Study
Nurses and midwives are required to “acknowledge white privilege” as part of a new code of conduct. Source: istock
<p>A Joint statement from the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, Public Health Association of Australia, Consumers Health Forum of Australia and National Rural Health Alliance proves beyond resonable doubt that even Okkers are being castrated by political correctness.</p>
<p>The opening section of the statement reads:<br>
“If we want Australia’s First Peoples to have the best possible healthcare, then all healthcare providers and professions have to seriously embrace the concept of cultural safety.</p>
<p>In saying this we strongly support the joint statement on cultural safety in healthcare recently released by the nation’s five leading national nursing and midwifery bodies.</p>
<p>Cultural safety in this context involves health professionals examining their own beliefs, behaviours and practices, as well as issues such as institutional racism, in ensuring that their services are perceived as safe—by the patient rather than the provider.”</p></div>
<p>‘For much too long Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have found health services unwelcoming, and even traumatic to the point where they will discharge themselves from hospital against medical advice’, AHHA’s Strategic Program Director, Dr Chris Bourke said.</p>
<p>Nurses and midwives around the country must now adhere to a new code of conduct with a section specifically dedicated to “culture” and which details white Australians’ inherent privilege “in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders”.</p>
<p>What the cupid stunts who run Australia’s health service seem to be forgetting is they are talking about people who run around the outback bollock naked and live on a diets that includes grubs and worms. Of course hospitals seem unwelcoming to they, they are not accustomed to people who wear clothes, have never slept in a bad and tend to eat each other for lunch.</p>
<p>It is gratifying to learn that Aussie nurses are resisting changes that requires them to “acknowledge white privilege” before treating patients from aboriginal backgrounds. Why aren’t the abos being asked to apologise for being ignorant Wombat felchers?</p>
<p>The new code, which came into effect in March, has been labelled “politically correct idiocy”, “cultural madness” and “unacceptable authoritarianism”. A peak body representing nurses in Queensland is even calling for the chairman of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia to be sacked over it.</p>
<p>“This is eye-watering stuff,” Graeme Haycroft from the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “We’re calling for the resignation of the chairman of the board (Associate Professor Lynette Cusack) because she’s put her name to it and it’s unacceptable.”</p>
<p>Credlin called it “almost too hard to believe”. “Before (a midwife) delivers a baby to an indigenous woman she’s supposed to put her hands up and say: ‘I need to talk to you about my white privilege’, not about my infection control, my qualifications or my training as a midwife?” she asked Mr Haycroft.</p>
<p>He said that was correct, but there’s no requirement to “announce” anything. The nurses must simply abide by the new code which state clearly that “cultural safety is as important to quality care as clinical safety”.</p>
<p>“Cultural safety … requires nurses and midwives to undertake an ongoing process of self-reflection and cultural self-awareness, and an acknowledgment of how a nurse’s/midwife’s personal culture impacts on care,” the code reads.</p>
<p>We really do have to find a way to teach these university brainwashed morons that in the great scheme of things and individual’s feelings are no more significant than a gnat’s fart in a hurricane. How ca medical staff respect the cultural safety of people who are more accustomed to going behind the nearest bush for a shit that using a toilet. There can be no doubt that Australian nurses are being victimised by racists here, and if the politically correct left were not such hypoocrites (because they don’t really give a flying fuck about Abos, all they are interested in is virtue signalling, <b>being seen to care</b>.</p>
<b>Information Source:</b> <a href=”http://ruralhealth.org.au/media-release/cultural-safety-crucial-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-healthcare”>Austrialian National Rural Health Association</a>
Government to introduce Organ Donation opt out scheme to be regulated by The Office of the Public Guardian
‘The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is an independent statutory office established to protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of adults with impaired decision-making capacity, and children and young people in the child protection system.’
Hmmmm…. sounds like state intervention to me.
Your organs are being targeted. When you are lying on your deathbed, doctors will gather around you like vultures, ready to pounce the moment you expire and strip your cadaver of any bits that might still be useful. We should have seen this coming when medical professionals started talking about “harvesting organs” from the newly dead. I notice they have dropped that now, the PR people must have had a word.
While many nations in the EU already have laws which decree tht the government owns your dead body and has the right to “harvest organs” from it for transplant surgery, in Britain, where we value personal liberty more that statistics, organ donation has always been an opt in issue. If you are prepared to give organs you must carry a card stating your willingness (just in case you get run over by a bus or chance to meet a surgeon who needs a liver, kidney or set of lungs to avoid his monthly performance stats falling short.)
This week however, the Prime Minister has announced the intention to launch a public consultation on increasing rates of organ donation. The proposals will include a new opt-out system for organ donation for England. The consultation will be launched by the end of the year. This means you will have to carry a card saying “When I’m dead, you cannot burcher the corpse as if I’m some clapped out old car in a scrapyard.”
In 2016 to 2018 there were 1,169 deceased organ donors and 3,293 transplants in England. While this was the highest ever rate of organ donation, there are still more people waiting for transplants than there are organs available. It means some people die before a suitable organ becomes available. On the other hand about 550,000 people die per year. Some very big warehouses will be needed to keep all those dead bits in.
Mts May’s consultation will outline ways to increase rates of organ donation and propose a new approach where every person would be deemed to have given consent unless they choose to opt out. It will run for 12 weeks.
The Department of Health will seek views on:
how government can increase rates of organ donation, particularly from BAME communities
how the issue of consent should be managed within the NHS
what role technology could play in helping people to discuss their preferences with family
how opt-out could work in practice, what safeguards would be necessary, and how families could be supported
There is currently a severe shortage of suitable organs, with around 6,500 people currently on transplant waiting lists. Every day up to 3 people die while waiting for an organ to become available.
I have always found the idea of organ transplants disgusting, but being of a stoical turn of mind I have always believed we should accept our destiny. When I have discussed this people usually say, “You’d soon change your tune if you needed a heart transplant. I’m sure I wouldn’t, when I faced death twenty years ago although a transplant could not have saved me because I was having a brain haemorrhage, I asked my wife to be brave enough to let me go if I was going to be a basket case.
Death is something our ancestors lived with for several million years. We must learn to live with it again. To die is not a personal failure.
Baron Frankenstein’s creation (Image source: www.johhnytruelove
An investigation by Reuters news agency has uncovered the shocking news than an American company has made huge profits from selling human organs and other body parts donated to science, for surgical transplant purposes, often without the knowledge of relatives. Under US law it is legal though many people question the ethics involved. It would not be the first time doctors’ enthusiasm for turning us into Frankenstein monsters has run into ethical problems. A few years ago a plan in the UK to replace failing human organs with healthy ones from pigs ended in disaster.
This latest scheme, launched in 2008 by Arizona based Science Care Inc. had the goal of to maximizing profits from the sale of human bodies donated to science. The company’s model for ensuring quality was based on the McDonald’s Corp business plan.
The company promised to provide customers, i.e. the transplan surgery teams of hospital groups linked to the USA’s private healthcare system, with the same cuts from cadavers no matter which Science Care branch handled the order. Company boss James Rogers cited production methods perfected by Ray Kroc, the visionary who turned a hamburger stand into a fast-food empire, according to a Science Care executive turned whistleblower.
“He used the McDonald’s analogy that no matter where you go, you get the same exact thing,” the executive, former quality assurance director John Cover, said in a sworn statement.
“It was all about quality,” Cover said when interviewed for the Reuters investigation. “When you get a Big Mac, it’s going to taste like a Big Mac, whether you’re in Louisiana or San Francisco.”
Instead of selling hamburgers and nuggets however, Science Care has made millions from human body parts according to Reuters report of its investigation, titled The Body Trade.
According to its own website Science Care, along with its subsidiaries, serves as “a link between individual donors and medical researchers and educators”. It also promises cremation at no cost to the donors or their families.
Body donation differs from organ donation which is closely linked to lifesaving procedures such as when a patient receives a heart or a kidney from the recently deceased. Organ donation is strictly controlled in the US, and selling organs and other body parts for transplant is against the law. Body donation provides material for medical research and training mainly in universities.
Science Care doesn’t break the law, as US regulations don’t prohibit doing whatever you want with corpses donated to science. Science Care is free to sell or lease the bodies and their parts, torsos, heads or limbs. Families of people whose bodies are donated will, however, be shocked to learn their loved ones bodies are not being used for valuable research, but “harvested” like a wrecked car for useful parts that will be sold for profit.
Science Care obtains many of its bodies from hospices caring for the poor and from needy families who cannot afford funerals. Body donation commonly saves families lots of money. A funeral including the cost of a coffin, the memorial service, and burial, may cost a family $7,000, while the price for a simple cremation, which is getting increasingly popular, comes in at $1,000.
The mystery illness or illnesses that has stricken North American diplomats in Cuba, causing symptoms ranging from hearing loss and brain injuries have become even more bizarre, with Associated Press reporting that certain symptoms were confined to specific rooms or parts of rooms in the US and Canadian Embassies.
US Embassy in Havana, Cuba
Details surrounding what the White House coyly described as “health incidents” are sparse, and the causes are even less documented. All that is really known is that US diplomatic employees experienced a “variety of physical symptoms” while serving in Cuba. Some experts speculate that the symptoms are consistent with ultrasound attacks.