July 5, 2020

CGI’s HotCoffee: 49 DOSES OF 14 VACCINES BEFORE AGE 6. 69 DOSES OF 16 VACCINES BY AGE 18

49 DOSES OF 14 VACCINES BEFORE AGE 6. 69 DOSES OF 16 VACCINES BY AGE 18

Source: CGI’s HotCoffee: 49 DOSES OF 14 VACCINES BEFORE AGE 6. 69 DOSES OF 16 VACCINES BY AGE 18

Share

Drought can increase radon gas risks

*Editor’s Note* – If you believe ANY of what is written in this article, you are a big fool. Not only is this report loaded with “maybes,” “coulds,” and “mights” but they must think all of us stupid. Notice the headline and the quoted excerpt from the article. They tell us drought CAN cause an increase in radon gas to levels “higher than recommended levels.” Mind you, like cholesterol, someone who stands to profit, selected an “acceptable” level.

However, further down in the article is reads: “Wet weather is usually more common for elevated radon levels, since wet ground allows the gases to move more quickly to the surface.” (emphasis added)

So, there you have it. Drought (dry weather) CAN increase radon levels and wet weather USUALLY elevates levels of radon.

Just like all of you run to the doctors to make sure you get your monthly doses of cholesterol and blood pressure-lowering toxic chemicals, make sure to contact a “professional” to come to your house and “test” for radon. They can fix it. Yessiree! They “vent it outdoors” so it doesn’t harm you. Remember, they told us radon is heavier than air and so sinks. When the radon is vented outside…..what? It’s not harmful to people anymore? Bwahahahahaha…Bwahahahahahaha. LMAO

The severe drought in some parts of the U.S.—particularly California—may be increasing the risk of radon gas inside homes.

Source: Drought can increase radon gas risks

Share

Nuclear Chemist Publishes Paper Detailing: “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity via Geoengineering”

“In response to an urgent call through an article in Current Science for assistance to understand the geological association of high aluminum mobility with human health in the Ganga Alluvial Plain, I describe evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity that has occurred for at least 15 years, and which has escalated sharply in the last two years. The geoengineering activity via tanker-jet aircraft emplaces a non-natural, toxic substance in the Earth’s atmosphere which with rainwater liberates highly mobile aluminum. Further, I present evidence that the toxic substance is coal combustion fly ash. Clandestine dispersal of coal fly ash and the resulting liberation of highly mobile aluminum, I posit, is an underlying cause of the widespread and pronounced increase in neurological diseases and as well as the currently widespread and increasing debilitation of Earth’s biota. Recommendations are made for verifying whether the evidence presented here is applicable to the Ganga Alluvial Plain.”

Source: Nuclear Chemist Publishes Paper Detailing: “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity via Geoengineering” | Humans Are Free

Share

This Week Congress May Pass Bill that Pays Medicare Doctors More if They Avoid Sickest Patients

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Are Republicans and Democrats Creating a Mini-Death Panel for Medicare in the “Bipartisan” Doc Fix Bill?

New “Merit-Based Incentive Payment” System is Eerily Similar to Independent Payment Advisory Board

Sickest Medicare Patients Likely to Suffer Under IPAB-Like Payment System

Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACR) Restructures Medicare’s Payments So Doctors Have Incentives to Avoid the Sickest Patients

Washington, DC – Congress is set to establish an IPAB-Like payment system in Medicare, argues a new National Policy Analysis paper from the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Medicare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board has never gotten off the ground, thanks in part to the work of conservatives and libertarians,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center. “Now a coalition of politicians, including many Republicans, are on the verge of passing a bill that will introduce a payment system that is consistent with IPAB’s mission, incentive structure, and likely outcomes.”

In “Medicare Doc Fix Bill is IPAB-Lite,” Dr. Hogberg points out that the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MARC) re-structures Medicare’s payment system so that physicians will have incentives to avoid treating the sickest patients.

“MACR is supposed to repeal Medicare’s unworkable Sustainable Growth Rate,” says Dr. Hogberg. “Fine. But why use it to do the business of the highly unpopular IPAB?”

Dr. Hogberg points out that the new payment system, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), grades physicians based on how well physicians’ patients score on quality measures and how many medical resources physicians use to treat patients. Physicians will either receive bonuses or penalties based on how well they score. It is easier for physicians to receive a high grade and, thus, receive a bonus under MIPS with only moderately ill patients since such patients will score well on quality measures and require fewer treatment resources.

By contrast, sicker patients will score poorly on quality measures. Treating them will require more resources. A sicker caseload likely means a physician will fare poorly under MIPS and see his Medicare fees cut.

In short, the sickest Medicare patients will have a harder time finding physicians who will treat them thanks to MIPS.

“MIPS is exactly the sort of proposal you would expect out of IPAB,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Its ostensible purpose is to improve quality and cut costs. Its likely outcome is that it will harm the sickest patients.

“This is what happens when an unaccountable group of people pay no cost if the decisions they make are wrong. That’s the set of incentives that board members of IPAB would face. MIPS is similar. It will be run by unaccountable bureaucrats at the Centers for the Medicare and Medicaid Services with advice from professional medical organizations. Neither will pay a cost – such as a loss of employment – if the decisions they make about MIPS are wrong, harming patients. That’s a recipe for bad outcomes.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research was founded in 1982. Sign up for free issue alerts here and go here to make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fight for liberty.

Share

Michigan Governor Snyder’s Veto of Bill to Ban Sale of E-Cigarettes to Minors

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center Risk Analysis Division Director Comments on Michigan Governor Snyder’s Veto of Bill to Ban Sale of E-Cigarettes to Minors

New York NY/Washington, DC – Jeff Stier, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division, has the following comments about Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s veto of legislation to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors in Michigan:

The National Center for Public Policy Research is deeply disappointed that Governor Rick Snyder vetoed Michigan House Bill 4997, Senate Bills 667 and 668 today, which would have banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and treated e-cigarettes differently than cigarettes.

The governor’s veto leaves Michigan as one of approximately ten states where the sale of e-cigarettes to minors remains legal. But worse, the governor went out of his way to suggest that cigarettes and e-cigarettes pose similar risks, a claim that will have deadly consequences.

In his veto statement, the governor parroted arguments of activist public health groups like the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network that complain the legislation does not regulate e-cigarettes exactly the same as deadly cigarettes.

The governor’s twisted logic is a fascinating exercise in political sleight of hand.

The governor (at best) misconstrues how the Federal Food and Drug Administration plans to regulate e-cigarettes, and argues that if Michigan doesn’t treat e-cigarettes the same as deadly cigarettes, the state will ‘unnecessarily sow confusion, send [sic] a mixed health message to the public.”

However, as I wrote in a letter to the governor last week, treating e-cigarettes like cigarettes would undermine a central tenet of the U.S. FDA’s approach to securing the potentials benefit of e-cigarettes, while minimizing any potential harm.

The FDA’s chief tobacco regulator, Mitch Zeller, told the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s New Public Health, “The other example is if at the end of the day people are smoking for the nicotine, but dying from the tar, then there’s an opportunity for FDA to come up with what I’ve been calling a comprehensive nicotine regulatory policy that is agency-wide and that is keyed to something that we call the continuum of risk: that there are different nicotine containing and nicotine delivering products that pose different levels of risk to the individual.”

It is ironic that Governor Snyder would argue that a Michigan bill to do just what the FDA’s Zeller calls for is “not consistent” with FDA policy.

To say that treating e-cigarettes differently than combustible cigarettes would send a “mixed health message” is the kind of deadly double-talk I’d have expected from the tobacco industry in the 1970s. In fact, by insinuating that cigarettes and e-cigarettes carry the same risks and should be regulated the same, Governor Snyder sends a mixed message to Michigan smokers seeking a dramatically less harmful alternative to cigarettes. The consequences of the governor’s statement will be deadly because smokers who may have switched to e-cigarettes may be misled into thinking that e-cigarettes are just as harmful as smoking.

Why would the governor veto a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes to minors just because the bill doesn’t give him everything he wants, such as a high tax on e-cigarettes?

If the governor wants to insist on an e-cigarette excise tax, he’s welcome to introduce a bill to do it, even had the legislation he vetoed today been law. If he wants an e-cigarette sin tax, he should make his best case. And we will explain to the public why it would be a bad idea for public health. Let’s have an airing of the issue through the democratic legislative process. However, the only logical reason he would have vetoed the ban on sales to minors was to use widespread support for this approach to gain support for the ideas he knows he shouldn’t win on the facts, if they were up for consideration independently.

As I warned the governor in a letter last week, “Those approaches do not deserve any halo from the consensus of banning sales to minors. Conversely, a ban on sales to minors should not be delayed because some groups seek to advance approaches that aren’t supported by science and may undermine public health.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research calls on Governor Snyder to immediately remind smokers that there is widespread agreement in the public health community that smokers who switch from cigarettes to e-cigarettes reduce their risks dramatically.
New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff, met with OMB/OIRA officials, and submitted testimony to state legislative hearings. He has testified about e-cigarette regulation before state legislatures and city councils in California, New York, Rhode Island, Oklahoma and elsewhere, and written about the topic for the Detroit News, New York Post , the Huffington Post, the Des Moines Register and elsewhere.

Stier previously worked in both the office of the mayor and in the corporation counsel’s office during the Giuliani administration in New York City. His responsibilities included planning environmental agency programs, legal analysis of proposed legislation, and health policy. Mr. Stier also is chairman of the board of the Jewish International Connection, NY. While earning his law degree at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, he served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Bloomberg Anti-Smoking Campaign Has Been a Failure for Years: New Government Numbers Prove It

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Government Should Embrace, Not Demonize, E-Cigarettes to Help Smokers Quit

Washington, DC – New York City smoking rates have gone up among adults, again, according to newly-released government numbers.

“This failure in public policy provides the most striking and objective evidence to date showing that Mayor Bloomberg’s aggressive anti-smoking campaign has been ineffective,” said Manhattan-based Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that this is “the third straight year that tobacco use has crept up in a metropolis once known for its innovations in getting people to kick the habit, according to government data released Monday.”

The article, by reporter Mara Gay, further says, “City officials and public-health workers blamed a steady drop in funding for anti-tobacco programs for the highest rate of smoking since 2007”

“Actually, I’d beg to differ,” says Stier. “Since 2007, New York City has had some of the most aggressive anti-smoking campaigns anywhere. The city has some of the highest tax rates in the nation, the most restrictions on tobacco displays, and regularly advertises and gives away nicotine gum or patches at taxpayer expense. And New York City spends like a drunken sailor on anti-smoking ads.

Stier argues that it’s not that the city wasn’t spending enough money or that the laws weren’t restrictive enough. Rather, he says, “while Mayor Bloomberg was busy punishing smokers and squandering taxpayer money, the city was among the first to ban the use of e-cigarettes in public places. Yet the emergence of e-cigarettes are perhaps the most promising developments that could help people quit,” says Stier. “But instead of supporting their use to help people quit smoking, the New York City public health establishment spends resources demonizing e-cigarettes and making them less appealing to potential ‘switchers.'”

That is the third straight year smoking rates have increased in New York City, according to the government’s own numbers. This is a big defeat to Mayor Bloomberg on one of his signature issues, Stier says.

“I, for one, am not surprised that the nanny-state approach was ineffective in New York City,” said Stier. “Public health officials should learn a lesson: Put your hands back in your pockets, stop asking for more money and more tax increases for your ineffective policies, and instead show some humility given the new findings.”

Stier says the public health community in New York City and beyond should take heed of the latest numbers and embrace private-sector driven solutions such as e-cigarettes.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Turmeric Extract Puts Drugs For Knee Osteoarthritis To Shame

Millions take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) daily for arthritis and related inflammatory conditions, but are completely unaware that far safer, and at least as effective, natural alternatives already exist — and are as easily accessible and inexpensive as the spices found in your kitchen cupboard.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Are New Sodium Guidelines a Prelude to Salt Ban?

From the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Experts Warn Proposed Federal Guidelines Could Lead to Excessive Mandates, Health Risks

New York City Bait-and-Switch Regulatory Scheme Could Go Nationwide

Washington DC – Government regulators are paving the way toward federally-imposed limits on sodium as the Food and Drug Administration is on the verge of issuing new guidelines on its use in restaurant-prepared and store-bought foods. Policy experts with the National Center for Public Policy Research call the expected action an unnecessary slippery slope rooted in politicized science that will further reduce consumer choice and potentially hurt public health.

“There’s absolutely no legitimate purpose to allegedly voluntary guidelines that are issued by a regulatory agency other than as a precursor to mandatory regulation,” said Jeff Stier, the director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division.

In an interview with the Associated Press, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said new guidelines aimed at lowering the level of sodium in food products are nearing completion. Citing the guidelines as voluntary, Hamburg suggested to the AP that “we can make a big impact working with the industry” to lower sodium levels.

“While there are individuals with specific medical issues requiring a low-sodium diet, a one-size-fits-all prescription for a reduction in our daily salt intake is simply not sound advice for all Americans,” said Cherylyn Harley LeBon, the co-chairman of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network. “As a mom of two children, I am aware that salt assists in the development of healthy brains. Additionally, iodized salt intake is considered essential to preventing conditions that could lead to mental retardation.”

In the same interview in which she teased new sodium limits, the FDA’s Hamburg also cited the need for a “realistic timeline.” Regulatory proponents, such as Michael Jacobsen, Ph.D. of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, are already seeking to use such a timeline as a benchmark to create “a process of mandatory limits.” It’s this sort of expectation of failure that concerns National Center risk assessment experts.

“In fact, the voluntary-before-mandatory approach is simply a political strategy to make the rules palatable to a regulation-weary, salt-consuming public,” said the National Center’s Stier. “Dr. Sonia Angell, the Obama Administration’s point person on non-communicable diseases, recently testified about how guidelines can turn into explicit rules — a tactic she not surprisingly employed while working for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. When New York City’s 2005-2006 ‘market-based voluntary strategy’ to reduce restaurant trans-fats was ruled ineffective, Dr. Angell explained that ‘we had, if not an ethical responsibility, certainly a public health responsibility to take action.’ She touted the benefits of policies which change ‘the entire food supply to a default that is a healthier default. It isn’t about individual decision-making anymore, that’s taken out of it.'”

While advocates for sodium regulation cite increased associated risk of heart disease and stroke, Project 21’s LeBon notes a deficiency of sodium could also lead to similar risks. She said: “A recent study done by the Institute of Medicine concludes that further reducing salt intake may increase health risks in certain groups. That means the potential imposition of new sodium regulations along the lines of existing federal dietary guidelines could actually put people at risk. It proves why a low-salt diet is simply not recommended for everyone and should never be mandated by a bureaucracy.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

    Share

    Human Echinococcosis Mortality in the United States, 1990–2007

    We identified 41 echinococcosis-related deaths among US residents during the period 1990–2007 (Table 1). Age-adjusted mortality rates were higher in males (0.012 per 106) than in females (0.005 per 106), with males more than 2 times as likely to die from echinococcosis than were females (adjusted rate ratio = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.9).

    Although these data are population based and contain large numbers of observations, death certificates likely underreport causes of death and may contain errors, which have been attributed to a variety of factors.

    Fatal echinococcosis may be more common in the United States than currently appreciated. Echinococcosis causes a mortality burden in the United States that may be modified by increased prevention and control efforts, including vaccine development for adult cestode carriers and livestock [13]. Given the presence of echinococcosis mortality in US-born persons, and the risk of travel-related exposure, hygiene precautions should be advised for individuals traveling to Echinococcus species endemic areas. Clinicians should be aware of the diagnosis, particularly in foreign-born patients from Echinococcus endemic areas, and should consider tropical infectious disease consultation early.<<<Read More>>>

    Share

    E-Cigarette Super Bowl Ad Could Save Lives Because They Help Smokers Quit Smoking Tobacco

    But Despite the Health Benefits, Anti-Smoking Activists Want the Federal Government to Ban The Ads

    Washington DC – The public health community should be celebrating the fact that e-cigarettes are being advertised during the Super Bowl — but anti-tobacco activist groups want the FDA to throw a yellow flag against the ads.

    “These activists are committing a foul,” says Jeff Stier, director of the Risk Analysis Division of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “The private sector is paying for the most expensive commercials on television – and these ads will help smokers quit. Contrast these effective, privately funded stop-smoking ads with the government sponsored commercials which do little to help smokers.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported in December that #2 e-cigarette maker NJOY is planning to spend over $30 million in marketing in 2014, with a “lion’s share” of it being for television.

    “Activist groups like the American Lung Association, which are adamantly opposed to e-cigarettes, have called upon the FDA to ban the NJOY ad and similar ads,” says Stier. “Why would the American Lung Association, whose purpose, one would think, is to reduce smoking, be opposed to smoke-free e-cigarettes? Because, they argue, some e-cigarettes look like the real thing.”

    “That’s nonsense. That some e-cigarettes look like cigarettes is actually what makes them so appealing to smokers. If it were up to activist groups, alternatives to cigarette smoking would be entirely unappealing. That means they’d be entirely ineffective,” Stier adds.

    “Those who care about public health should be rejoicing that the private sector is not only placing anti-smoking advertising on the country’s largest stage, but that the ad actually offers smokers an appealing alternative to smoking. Many smokers complain that the gum and patch, which are promoted by government funded anti-smoking campaigns, are not satisfying. However e-cigarettes, which, like the gum and patch, deliver nicotine, also give those trying to quit a more similar experience to the habit of smoking. This may explain why so many former smokers failed to quit smoking with government-endorsed solutions, but are now succeeding with e-cigarettes,” says Stier.

    “E-cigarettes are a product created by profit-driven private sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulations have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. And activists don’t want smokers to know about them,” Stier concludes.

    Jeff Stier has written about the issue for papers around the country (the Des Moines Register here and New York Post here), testified in person and in writing before city and state legislative bodies (New York City Council here and Oklahoma legislature here) and has met with Administration officials about the health benefits of e-cigarettes. He also is a regular guest on radio and television talk shows.
    The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

    Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

    Share