CISPA Godfather Claims Anonymous is after him

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

 

A co-author of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act says the hacktivist group Anonymous threatened him and others members of Congress on account of their support of CISPA.

The cybersecurity act known as CISPA overwhelmingly passed in the United States House of Representatives earlier this month only to ultimately once again stall in the Senate. Citing the same privacy concerns brought up by opponents outside of Washington, lawmakers in the Senate now say they are unlikely to consider the bill, suggesting that for the second time in as many years CISPA will fail to find its way out of Congress.

But even if those privacy woes indeed warranted a negative reaction from US senators, a co-author of CISPA suggests members of Anonymous had something to do with the defeat.

During a recent interview with Washington, DC-based The Hill, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) said Anonymous hacktivists threatened members of Congress and encouraged anti-CISPA activists to attack supporters of the bill that he co-authored with Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan).

"Anonymous was threatening us. Anonymous was telling [others] to shut down people who supported the bill and that kind of thing," Ruppersberger told the paper during an interview published over the weekend.

When CISPA was introduced by Rogers and Ruppersberger for the first time in 2011, public outcry over alleged privacy violations spurred a legion of opponents to protest on the Web and on the streets. Upon the bill’s reintroduction earlier this year, a similar call to arms was made for privacy advocates to stand up and fight against the argumentative cyber act.

CISPA was described by its authors as being able “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities,” but its opponents have raised a number of questions about at what cost. Under CISPA, federal agencies — namely the US Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice — would intercept and monitor Internet traffic in order to analyze and deter any attempted cyberattacks. Critics have condemned it, however, saying it essentially allows online businesses to escape liability when letting Uncle Sam spy on Internet activity.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the largest anti-CISPA groups, wrote of the bill, “It is written so broadly that it allows companies to hand over large swaths of personal information to the government with no judicial oversight — effectively creating a ‘cybersecurity’ loophole in all existing privacy laws.”

Citing the growing opposition this time around, Rep. Ruppersberger told the Hill recently that he purposely asked other members of Congress favoring his bill to stay silent on the issue until the last moment possible to avoid an alleged backlash: three days before the act went up for vote in the House, recalls the Hill, the number of co-sponsors of CISPA jumped from two to 36.

"I didn't want to put anybody who was going to support the bill ... to be subjected to those attacks in their districts, and calling and threatening and that type of thing, so we really decided to not get anybody on the bill right away and to educate people right to the end," Ruppersberger said.

What exactly Ruppersberger means by attacks isn’t exactly obvious, but the call-to-arms that occurred leading up to the recent House vote is virtually inescapable. As with last year, members of Anonymous — along with the EFF, American Civil Liberties Union and others — went quite public with their opposition to the bill as it was readied for a congressional vote.

Last Monday more than 200 websites went offline in protest of CISPA, and the website Reddit and Web browser Firefox both informed their users of the legislation with predominantly displayed messages.

On their part, one message circulated by Anonymous and viewed over 22,000 times appears void of any actual threat, and instead asks opponents to voice their opinion about the bill using a viral Internet campaign. “Anonymous has asked numerous companies to participate in an Internet blackout on Monday, April 22. But, regardless of what these companies choose to do, individuals like ourselves can still help spread awareness of this threat. Below is a link to an image that promotes the hashtag #StopCISPA on Twitter. Make it your profile image all day Monday. Leave it up as long as you want,” reads the post uploaded to PasteBin and attributed to Anonymous.

“Tweet to #CISPA Reps @Call_Me_Dutch and @RepMikeRogers and tell them you oppose their bill,” reads another highly-read posting. Yet another message, viewed more than 7,000 times in under a week, contained the publically available office phone numbers for every congressman that voted for CISPA, along with information on how to raise objections with members of the Senate.

Since the bills passed in the House, a number of Washington sources have suggested that the Senate will once again let the bill die. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) said of CISPA that its "privacy protections are insufficient,” and the ACLU’s Michelle Richardson told US News & World Report that the bill was likely "too controversial” and “too expansive” to be considered by the Senate as is. Meanwhile, though, a report published by RT last week reveals that the federal government has already started to implement similar cybersecurity practices that put select parts of the Internet under the radar of the DHS.

Source:

RT

http://worldtruth.tv

 

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

9 Ways the One Percent Are Screwing You Over

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

You've probably already heard of the “One Percent.” Basically, they’re the guys at the top: the Gordon Geckos and Tony Starks of the real world. Only, instead of saving Earth from angry Norse Gods, they’re more likely to get their kicks destroying it, one ill-spent billion at a time.

Now, let’s be clear: it is totally possible to be both rich and a decent human being. But it often takes a special type of person to squeeze into that fabled, global elite—and that sort of person rarely gives a damn about anyone else. After all, right this very second, the ultra-rich are:

#9: Hoarding Trillions Offshore

"Trickle down” economics work by removing barriers to investment—meaning that the rich splash a lot of money around and the effects of that reach ordinary guys like you or me. All well and good—until the super-rich decide that investing is a fools’ game, because hoarding is where it’s at. Suddenly, the trickle down model inverts, and the economy becomes like a giant vacuum-cleaner, sucking money from the middle class’s pockets and dumping it into Mr Burns’ bank account. And thanks to things called tax havens, there it stays—forever.

Does that sound paranoid? Here are some figures: research published in The Guardian estimates that the ultra-rich are hoarding thirty-one trillion dollars abroad. That’s more than the American and Japanese economies combined. Worryingly, the effect of all this hidden wealth on the rest of us is far from benign. With all that lost revenue fleeing its country of origin, governments are forced to push up taxes to cover the shortfall. In other words, you, I, and everyone reading this has to cough up more and more, so that some billionaire can pay less and less. And while we’re on the subject of taxes…

#8: Avoiding Tax

Let’s face it—no one likes paying tax. There’s nothing worse than getting to the end of a grueling month and learning that the Federal government has taken a nice fat slice of your hard-earned pay check. So why shouldn't the One Percent keep what’s rightfully theirs?

Well, the reason most of us put up with and pay our taxes is that we tend to use the things they buy. Public transport, Medicare, police officers, and firemen are all pretty indispensable things which any society needs to function; as are judges, the military and unimportant-seeming things like roads. If we all stopped paying our taxes, all these things would vanish. Since even the staunchest of Tea Partiers expect to be protected from motorcycle gangs and rogue nuclear states, obviously someone has to pay tax. Unfortunately, that “someone” tends to be shorthand for “anyone but us.”

#7: Acting above the Law

It’s been obvious for years that the most powerful think they’re above the law, but it’s only recently that the law has started agreeing with them. Take the case of HSBC. In 2010, it came to light that the bank had been quietly looking the other way while violent Mexican drug cartels funneled billions of dollars through their systems. According to reports, this money was linked to drugs, terrorists, international fraud, and a whole host of other evils. So when the time came to sentence the clowns in charge, the law threw the book at them, right?

Nope. Authorities decided to swap prosecution for a 1.9 billion dollar fine, despite the bank having helped rogue states like Iran and pre-revolution Libya flout US and international law.

Why did they essentially get away with this? Because the shock of confiscating HSBC’s banking license would have destabilized the world economy. In other words: these guys thought they were above the law, and the law proved them right—which seems to support Shakespeare’s remark in King Lear, “Plate sin with gold, and the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks.”

So it should come as no surprise that they’re at it again, this time illegally laundering money in Argentina.

#9: Killing Democracy

 

We in the West are very proud of democracy: it’s what sets us apart from psychopathic monsters like Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-un. Or at least it would be, if our own psychopathic billionaires weren’t busy dismantling it.

Meet the Koch Brothers. You’ve probably heard of them: multi-billionaires, libertarians and one-time backers of Herman McCain’s spectacularly failed presidential bid. But did you know that they also tried to bring back segregation in Wake County schools, overthrow the judicial process in Florida, and blackmail their employees into voting Romney?

And these guys are only one face of this anti-democratic hydra. Here’s their buddy David Siegel threatening massive job-losses if Obama gets re-elected. And here’s some other man of dubious character forcing his employees to attend a pro-Romney rally, or else lose their jobs.

Just to be clear: this is the sort of thing we used to laugh at the Soviet Union for doing. When your definition of “democracy” is “making everyone do what I want them to do,” you've officially made the transition from “employer” to “cut-price dictator.”

#5: Supporting Slavery

 

There are very few issues that rise above political, ethical, and legal debate and become universal absolutes. One of those absolutes is that slavery is wrong. The only people who think otherwise are bad guys in recent Tarantino movies. So it should come as no surprise that several multi-national companies implicitly endorse the practice.

Take tobacco giant Phillip Morris: in 2010, it was revealed that a plantation they owned in Kazakhstan was forcing children as young as ten to work thirteen hour days for pennies. That would be bad enough—but according to that same link, the plantation was also complicit in human trafficking and a system whereby workers “bought” their freedom—a system once used by the goddamn Nazis.

But wait—there’s more. Until a massive campaign last year, Hershey’s knowingly used child labour in their cocoa fields, while Victoria’s Secret supported an African farm where children as young as thirteen were held captive and routinely beaten. In other words: that sexy lingerie your girlfriend sometimes wears when you've been really good, is made primarily from children’s tears.

#4: Destroying Wealth

 

There’s a myth that the very-rich are “wealth creators.” The One Percent, we are told, are the guys whose tax dollars make this country work, the ones who keep our economy turning over. Well, hold on…

A study published by the BBC in 2009 reported that high-flying bankers destroy £7 in the economy for every £1 they are paid. Top advertising executives destroyed £11, while accountants to the super-rich were calculated to wipe £47 from the system for every £1 they receive.

Meanwhile, The Guardian crunched some figures and found that, while productivity in the USA had risen 119% between 1947 and 1979, it rose only 80% in the following thirty years. Basically, at the same time instant earnings exploded for the One Percent, money began to vanish for everyone else. In real terms, this means that most of us are no better off in 2013 than we would have been—doing the same job—in 1978. In the decades before that, real earnings had risen across the board. Now, they only rise for the very rich.

#3: Destroying the Environment

 

Sometimes, destroying the democratic process just isn't enough; you've gotta take on the environment too. Yep, it’s the Koch brothers again, up to more Disney-villain-esque shenanigans. Welcome to Crossett, where people are getting sick and a Koch-owned chemical plant is pumping some seriously nasty stuff into the rivers. No link has yet been proven, but it’s worth noting that the Brothers have previously been held responsible for three hundred separate oil spills across six states, and for dumping a known carcinogen into the skies above Texas and then trying to cover it up. So, yeah, their record isn't great.

At the same time, they campaigned to keep formaldehyde off the list of known carcinogens, despite overwhelming evidence for its inclusion. Then there’s their commitment to neutering the EPA, even where its involvement might save lives. In short, these guys are to environmental protection what one of their chemical spills is to the actual environment—an utter disaster.

#2: Making You Pay for Their Mistakes

 

You probably remember the financial crisis: the economic meltdown that nearly destroyed the world, and created this never-ending recession. You probably also remember who caused it. Yeah, those same super-rich finance types responsible for every single other bad thing on this list. But they seem to have forgotten who exactly bailed them out.

In 2008, Goldman Sachs hoovered up roughly twenty billion dollars in taxpayer-funded bailouts. To put it another way—our money saved their incompetent asses. The result? CEO Lloyd Blankfein offered this non-apology for his bank’s role in destroying the world economy, while quietly awarding his senior staff nearly the entire bailout fund in bonuses. Ex-Barclay’s boss Bob Diamond went one better, asking people to stop bashing bankers even as his bank was illegally fixing the Libor Rate.

But what sticks most in the craw is this recent report, which found that bailed-out banks took money earmarked for small businesses and used it for anything but. So, to recap: our money bailed the banks, who then told us to stop whining while they misdirected yet more of our money into a giant circle of corrupt hypocrisy. There’s a word for that sort of behavior, and it’s not suitable for a family website.

#1: Destroying America

 

In 1315, Venice was the place to be. A rapidly expanding economy, a burgeoning middle class, and a society in which anyone could rise to the top through hard work, all contributed towards an economic powerhouse. Sound familiar? Well, the next bit should too: the ruling class got fed up with these uppity merchants gadding about in their solid gold pantaloons, and put a stop to it. Specifically, they killed social mobility stone dead by forcing non-nobles out the political process, and then forcing them out of the economic one too. As Chrystia Freeland noted in the New York Times, this killed off the rising middle class and effectively doomed Venice to centuries of near-poverty. And guess what? It’s happening again.

In the days of Horatio Alger, Henry Ford, and Benjamin Franklin, the US used to have one of the highest rates of social mobility anywhere on earth. Now it has the lowest in the developed world. Forty-two percent of children born at the bottom of society will stay there, meaning we’re that we’re excluding an enormous part of the poor from potentially reaching the middle class.

At the same time, the middle class is getting hit with the biggest squeeze on its living standards in decades, while watching their own chance to reach the top slowly disappear. Put simply, we’re killing the middle class—and just as in Medieval Venice, that’ll prove to be a one-way ticket to oblivion. A one-way ticket for all of us; even the super-rich.

In sum: unless a handful of greedy fools start sharing their loot, America as we know it may well be done for.

Source:

listverse.com

http://worldtruth.tv

 

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Human Tissue Found in Meats

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

The horse meat fiasco in Europe has prodded scientists to look a bit deeper into what else we might be consuming. A team of South African scientists have just found traces of human tissue in meat meant for public consumption from 9 provinces. The issue was revealed to parliament, almost as a side note, during Human Tissue briefings on Tuesday. A University of Stellenbosch scientist and his team conducted a microbial analysis that revealed traces of human elements, but said that slaughterhouse workers sometimes cut themselves . . . or other things . . . which could lead to the findings.

“If I walked into a factory and the sample I randomly selected to test was a meat sample of which the person de-boning the meat had just picked his nose and then touched the meat, I would get a totally different microbial reading,” he said.

Delicious. Beyond the findings themselves, it brings up the global hot-button topic of the moment: food labeling. How much should we know about what we are consuming?

In addition to the troubling statements above, scientist Louw Hoffman noted that only 15% of the meat being sold in South Africa is correctly labeled, revealing other potentially harmful attributes of which consumers are currently unaware:

“In the labelling regulations it clearly states that allergens have to be mentioned and noted,” said Hoffman.

Allergens like . . . other people’s genetic signature?

Yet, Hoffman and his team of scientists concluded that the incorrect labeling poses “no threat” to the consumers who eat it, despite some more gems uncovered:

Meat Musical Chairs

Briefing parliament’s portfolio committee on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, University of Western Cape forensic scientist Dr Eugenia D’Amato said nearly 43% of samples she had tested which were labelled as game, were, in fact, beef.

D’Amato said horse meat had also been used as a substitute for springbok (an African Gazelle with meat similar to beef) in biltong, and pork was found in ostrich sausages.

There was also a smaller proportion of kangaroo in samples.

Despite the overall findings that consumers have absolutely no idea what they are eating – including human remnants – in 85% of the products, SA’s Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries deputy director-general downplayed it by asserting that we are not becoming unwitting cannibals:

“It is possible that (if tested) we could find traces of human DNA in meat. However, even if we do find human DNA, it does not mean we are eating human flesh.”

Great. Unfortunately, we are evidently eliminating healthy microorganisms in the processing of foods, but since there is an acceptable standard of nasty foreign entities, thanks to our regulatory agencies – we have introduced a variety of contaminants into now weakened guts and immune systems. We’d like to think that these food scandals are safe from us – overseas, it’s their problem. But, big problems are usually systemic and many of the developed nations are on the same platform. As with most food scandals, they go on for years unnoticed before the beans are spilled. It doesn't sound like anyone’s literally being run through the meat grinder just yet, but it’s a startling fact that we don’t know much about what our food comes into contact with. And we have scientists and regulatory agencies continually asserting how safe our food supply is.

Are you unsettled at the prospect of ingesting someone else’s particles and blood? Do you wonder what else will be found when the next scientific investigation is conducted in your country?

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves before each meal, “Hey, who’s in there? How’d they get in there? Anyone missing?”

Source:

www.wakingtimes.com

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Bee Harming Pesticides Banned in Europe

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Bee-harming pesticides banned in Europe

Europe will enforce the world's first continent-wide ban on widely used insecticides alleged to cause serious harm to bees, after a European commission vote on Monday.

The suspension is a landmark victory for millions of environmental campaigners, backed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), concerned about a dramatic decline in the bee population. The vote also represents a serious setback for the chemical producers who make billions each year from the products and also UK ministers, who voted against the ban. Both had argued the ban would harm food production.

Although the vote by the 27 EU member states on whether to suspend the insect nerve agents was supported by 15 nations, but did not reach the required majority under voting rules. The hung vote hands the final decision to the European commission, which will implement the ban.

Tonio Borg, health and consumer commissioner, said: "Our proposal is based on a number of risks to bee health identified by the EFSA, [so] the European commission will go ahead with its plan in coming weeks."

Friends of the Earth's head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton, said: "This decision is a significant victory for common sense and our beleaguered bee populations. Restricting the use of these pesticides could be an historic milestone on the road to recovery for these crucial pollinators."

The UK, which abstained in a previous vote, was heavily criticized for switching to a "no" vote on Monday.

Joan Walley MP, chair of parliament's green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, whose investigation had backed a ban and accused ministers of "extraordinary complacency", said the vote was a real step in the right direction, but added: "A full Commons debate where ministers can be held to account is more pressing than ever."

Greenpeace's chief scientist, Doug Parr, said: "By not supporting the ban, environment secretary, Owen Paterson, has exposed the UK government as being in the pocket of big chemical companies and the industrial farming lobby."

On Sunday, the Observer revealed the intense secret lobbying by Paterson and Syngenta.

The environment minister, Lord de Mauley, countered, saying: "Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us but we did not support the proposal because our scientific evidence doesn't support it. We will now work with farmers to cope with the consequences as a ban will carry significant costs for them."

Syngenta, which makes one of the three neonicotinoids that have been suspended, said: "The proposal ignores a wealth of evidence from the field that these pesticides do not damage the health of bees. The EC should [instead] address the real reasons for bee health decline: disease, viruses and loss of habitat."

Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. The plummeting numbers of pollinators in recent years has been blamed on disease, loss of habitat and, increasingly, the near ubiquitous use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

A series of high-profile scientific studies has linked neonicotinoids – the world's most widely used insecticides – to huge losses in the number of queen bees produced and big rises in the numbers of "disappeared" bees – those that fail to return from foraging trips.

The commission proposed the suspension after the EFSA concluded in January that three neonicotinoids – thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid – posed an unnacceptable risk to bees. The three will be banned from use for two years on flowering crops such as corn, oilseed rape and sunflowers, upon which bees feed.

A spokesman for Bayer Cropscience said: "Bayer remains convinced neonicotinoids are safe for bees, when used responsibly and properly … clear scientific evidence has taken a back-seat in the decision-making process."

Prof Simon Potts, a bee expert at the University of Reading, said: "The ban is excellent news for pollinators. The weight of evidence from researchers clearly points to the need to have a phased ban of neonicotinoids. There are several alternatives to using neonicotinoids and farmers will benefit from healthy pollinator populations as they provide substantial economic benefits to crop pollination."

Neonicotinoids have been widely used for more than decade and are less harmful than some of the sprays they replaced, but scientific studies have increasingly linked them to poor bee health.

Many observers, including the National Farmers' Union, accept that EU regulation is inadequate, as it only tests on honeybees and not the wild pollinators that service 90% of plants. The regulatory testing also only considers short-term effects and does not consider the combined effects of multiple pesticides. The chemical industry has warned that a ban on neonicotinoids would lead to the return of older, more harmful pesticides and crop losses but campaigners point out this has not happened during temporary suspensions in France, Italy and Germany and that the use of natural pest predators and crop rotation can tackle problems.

"It is imperative that any alternative chemicals to be used in their place must first pass the same tests failed by the neonicotinoids," said Dr Christopher Connolly, a bee expert at the University of Dundee. "The recent findings have highlighted an urgent need for more rigorous safety testing protocols."

In Brussels, the countries that voted against the ban were: the UK, Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Austria and Portugal. Ireland, Lithuania, Finland and Greece abstained. Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden voted in favour.

Source:

www.guardian.co.uk

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

The Real Cancer Killer: rip-off prices for drugs set by ‘profiteering’ Big Pharma Giants

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

Doctors say industry 'profiteering' threatens lives.

An influential group of cancer experts has warned that the high prices charged by pharmaceutical companies for cancer drugs are effectively condemning patients to death.

The group of more than 100 leading cancer physicians from around the world, including nine from the UK, accuse the drug industry of “profiteering” – making a profit by unethical methods such as by raising the cost of grain after a natural disaster.

Of the 12 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US in 2012, 11 were priced above $100,000 (£65,000) per patient per year. In addition the price of existing drugs of proven effectiveness has been increased by up to threefold.

~

The specialists say: “What determines a morally justifiable ‘just price’ for a cancer drug? A reasonable drug price  should maintain healthy pharmaceutical industry profits without being viewed as ‘profiteering’. This term [profiteering] may apply to the trend of high drug prices where a life threatening medical condition is the disaster.”

The high prices mean the drugs may not be approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK forcing doctors to fill in a 14 page application apply to the Cancer Drugs fund for British patients who could benefit from them.

In addition, the rising cost of existing drugs in a cash limited health service such as the NHS means treatment is denied to other patients with other conditions.

The authors of the article, published in the journalBlood, are all specialists in blood cancers such as leukaemia, where cancer drugs have proved most effective.

One of the best known – imatinib, whose brand name is Glivec – has proved so successful in chronic myeloid leukaemia that patients who a decade ago survived for a few years can now look forward to a near-normal life expectancy.

But the cost of Glivec has risen from £18,000 per patient per year to around £21,000 in the UK, and from $30,000 to $92,000 in the US. This is despite the fact that all research costs were covered by the original price, and the number of patients treated and the length of time they are on the drug have both vastly increased because of the drug’s success.

Daniel Vasella, former chairman and chief executive of Novartis, the manufacturer, said the original price charged for Glivec in 2001 was considered “high but worthwhile” and was estimated to yield annual revenues of $900 million, enough to cover its development cost in two years. A decade later Its annual revenues in 2012 were $4.7 billion (£3 billion).

The cancer specialists say the revenue earned by Glivec over the last ten years “represent generous profits to the company”. But this has put heavy pressure on those who have to foot the bill. “Grateful patients may have become the financial victims of the treatment success, having to pay the high price annually to stay alive”.

In the US even those with health insurance may pay an average of 20 per cent of drug prices out of pocket. Drug prices are the single most frequent cause of personal bankruptcies in the US.

Three new drugs have been approved for chronic myeloid leukaemia in the last year by the FDA but the prices are “astronomical” the authors say at up to $138,000 a year per patient.

Worldwide only about a quarter of the patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia who could benefit have access to drugs because of the cost. “A small fraction are rich enough to pay individually, and most are treated intermittently or not at all. The effects of these financial pressures on long term survival… are yet unknown.”

In the UK, patients are shielded from the “direct economic anxieties of illness”, the article says.  But Professor Jane Apperley, chair of the Department of Haematology at Imperial College, London, and one of the authors, said high drug prices were still a cause of harm in Britain .

“The price of a drug heavily influences the decision of NICE whether we can prescribe it on the NHS. I am chief of service at Imperial College and we are constantly being asked to reduce our spending. We have to look very carefully at the cost of the drugs we use.”

“Of course we need the pharmaceutical industry to go on developing new drugs. It is very exciting that a number of cancers are now becoming susceptible to these new drugs. But the rising cost is unsustainable. “

“The drugs are very effective at keeping people alive. But if they are priced out of what you can afford you know that you can keep people alive but you can’t afford to do so. It is completely unsustainable for the NHS because the costs are going up every year. We need a serious dialogue about whether we can sustain these costs.”

The authors of the article in Blood conclude: “We believe the unsustainable drug prices may be causing harm to patients. Advocating for lower drug prices is a necessity to save the lives of patients who cannot afford them. We believe drug prices should reflect objective measures of benefit, but should not exceed values that harm our patients and societies.”

The group say they intend to organise regular meetings and campaign for lower cancer drug prices.

A spokesperson for the UK charity Beating Blood Cancers said: “As a charity we want to see an ethical approach to drug pricing . There is no point in us investing in research if the pricing policy means drugs won’t be available to patients.”

In a statement to The Independent, Novartis said: “We recognize that sustainability of health care systems is a complex topic and we welcome the opportunity to be part of the dialogue.  Our critical role, as one of many parties working towards improving cancer care, is to discover and develop innovative treatments.”

“ Novartis innovation in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has changed the course of the disease. Before Glivec(imatinib)* and Tasigna (nilotinib), the five-year survival in CML was only 30 percent. Today, nine out of ten patients with CML have a normal lifespan and are leading productive lives.”

“Over the years, our programs have evolved to improve patient access to our medicines. We work together with government health care systems, charities and other payers to build successful cost-sharing models.”

Expert view: ‘Price of drugs is harming patients’

The following is an extract from an article, contributed to by more than 100 leading cancer physicians from around the world, including nine from the UK, published in the journal, Blood.

This perspective reflects the views of a large group of CML experts, who believe the current [high] prices of drugs may compromise access of needy patients to highly effective therapy, and are harmful to the sustainability of our national healthcare systems...

If drug price reflects value, then it should be proportional to the benefit to patients in objective measures, such as survival prolongation, degree of tumour shrinkage, or improved quality of life. For many tumours, drug prices do not reflect these endpoints, since most anti-cancer drugs provide minor survival benefits, if at all.

As physicians, we… believe the unsustainable drug prices in CML and cancer may be causing harm to patients. Advocating for lower drug prices is a necessity to save the lives of patients who cannot afford them … For CML, and for other cancers, we believe drug prices should reflect objective measures of benefit, but should also not exceed values that harm our patients and societies.”

An ethical price tag? Cancer drugs

Brands used for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia

Imatinib (Glivec) £21,000 per patient per year - Novartis
Designed from first principles, it proved hugely effective and unexpectedly turned into a blockbuster, earning billions of pounds for its makers.

Nilotinib (Tasigna) £21,000 - Novartis
Designed for patients who fail to respond to Glivec, Novartis reduced the cost to get it past Nice, whilst increasing the cost of Glivec.

Dasatinib (Sprycel) £31,000 - Bristol Myers Squibb
Also designed for patients who cannot take Glivec. But it has not been approved by Nice for use on the NHS because of its high cost.

Bosutinib (Bosulif) £76,000 - Pfizer
For patients who suffer side-effects from the other drugs. It won approval in the US in 2012 but is awaiting a licence in the UK.

Omacetaxine (Synribo) £100,000 - Teva
For patients who cannot tolerate other drugs. Approved in US in 2012 but awaiting licence in the UK.

Ponatinib (Iclusig) £90,000 - Ariad
A third-generation drug which works in a different way. Approved in the US in 2012 but awaiting a licence in the UK.

Source:

www.independent.co.uk

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Whole Foods, United Natural Foods and the Myth of Natural

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

WHY ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION  BELIEVES THAT MOST "NATURAL" FOODS ARE A FRAUD

• There is widespread use of GMO (genetically modified organisms) ingredients in so-called "natural" foods, including the "natural" brands that make up most of WFM and UNFI's sales.
• So-called "natural" (non-organic) soy milk, including leading brands such as "Silk," are made with conventional soy lecithin, utilizing the hazardous chemical, hexane, as an extraction agent.
• 90% or more of the vitamins and supplements now on the market labeled as "Whole Foods," "natural" or "food based" are spiked with synthetic chemicals.

Why Target Whole Foods and United Natural Foods?

Corporate Takeovers & Monopolistic Practices

The $25 Billion organic marketplace has enjoyed substantial growth for over a decade, thanks to growing consumer consciousness and farmer innovation.

No longer a passing trend or simply a niche market, organic food and farming are proving to be a viable alternative to the unhealthy, unsustainable and unjust conventional food system.

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud

Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are "certified organic."

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and organic.

A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large companies from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" products. With the exception of the "natural" meat sector, where there are limited voluntary guidelines, there is no definition of "natural." In the majority of cases, "natural" products are green washed conventional products, with "natural" label claims neither policed nor monitored.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while organic farmers continue to lose market share to "natural" impostors. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic.

Excluding Small and Family Farms

Whole Foods and UNFI's business model of centralized sourcing and prioritizing natural products over organic rewards large corporate farms and processors, to the detriment of local and regional small-scale organic farmers and brands.

Organic farmers must "get big or get out" to be able to compete and have free access to markets. Many industrial organic farms and dairy operations reflect the same abuses and problems of the conventional food system: extremely energy intensive, systematic abuse of workers, reduced food quality, and damage to biodiversity.

So-called "natural" products, since they are actually in most cases conventional products in disguise, are being sold at lower prices than genuine organic products--thereby retarding the growth of the organic sector.

Organic and Local Food?

In light of the food system's significant contribution to the climate crisis and the deepening economic troubles facing local food economies, it is more important than ever to prioritize locally produced organic food.

Though Whole Foods talks a lot about supporting local food and producers, the fact is that the vast majority of their products are not local, and much of what they sell is sourced from a small number of industrial organic operations in California, often owned by the same conventional food conglomerates responsible for destroying the world's food system.

Organic Monopoly and the "Whole Paycheck" Phenomena

UNFI has undermined the growth of the organic movement by implementing an unfair tiered pricing system that gives Whole Foods deep discounts while other grocers, coops and independent retailers pay significantly higher prices, in effect subsidizing UNFI for its reduced profits at Whole Foods.

With UNFI as the largest organic (but of course their sales are mostly so-called "natural" products) food wholesaler and Whole Foods as the largest organic (like UNFI most of its sales are "natural") food retailer, organic consumers are assured higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices.

Cancer in a Bottle?

In 2008, the Organic Consumers Association exposed a problem which particularly threatens women - a large number of leading conventional as well as "natural" and "organic" brands of shampoos, lotions, cosmetics and household cleaning products which contained the carcinogen 1,4-Dioxane.

Included in the list of products were several Whole Food's 365 brand products and many products in the UNFI catalog.

While several dozen companies have committed to eliminating the 1,4-Dioxane, neither Whole Foods, nor UNFI, have endorsed OCA's Coming Clean Campaign, nor have they called on the USDA to crack down on blatant labeling fraud in the organic personal care and cosmetics sector.

Corporate Consolidation of Organics

In the last decade, the organic marketplace has experienced hyper consolidation, with numerous small to medium-sized farmers, manufacturers and retailers being taken over by larger, profit-hungry corporations.

Whole Foods has employed an expansion strategy that resembles Wal-Mart with its targeting of local and independent retailers with new store locations while steadily buying out competitors like Wild Oats.

UNFI has also grown rapidly over the last decade, in part by aggressively taking over other distributors, regional wholesalers and manufacturers.

Organics for Elites?

The organic food and farming movements were born out of the desire to provide healthy and safe food to all. Whole Foods' business model: selling overpriced conventional foods as "natural," with organics in a subordinate role, is a recipe for maximizing profits rather than maximizing the growth of organic food and farming.

Worse yet, Whole Food's high prices have not translated into larger profits for family farms or small-scale manufacturers. Likewise, UNFI's growing market share and near-monopoly of the organic and "natural" market has reduced the options for consumers and independent retailers alike, undermining the growth of consumer buying clubs and the lower-cost alternatives.

Anti-worker

UNFI and Whole Foods have a history of cutting workers' benefits. Both have gone to extreme lengths to block their employees from choosing to unionize. Whole Foods has long fought unionization of its retail locations, largely ignored the demands of farm workers organizations, like the United Farm Workers, and kept workers' wages consistently low by industry standards.

UNFI has repeatedly fought efforts by its employees to fight for better pay, benefits and working conditions. Where workers have sucessfully formed unions, UNFI has begun moving jobs to new, non-union locations.

Source:

www.organicconsumers.org

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

‘Missiles fired at’ Russian plane with 159 passengers onboard flying over Syria

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Two missiles were reportedly fired at a Russian plane with at least 159 passengers on board that was flying over Syrian territory. Russian officials admit the jet faced danger, but are not talking of a targeted attack.

The news broke in on Monday as Interfax, citing “an informed source in Moscow,” reported that a Russian passenger plane was attacked.

“Syrian [officials] informed us that on Monday morning, unidentified forces launched two ground-to-air missiles which exploded in the air very close to a civilian aircraft belonging to a Russian airline,” the source told the Russian agency.

The pilots reportedly managed to maneuver the plane in time however, “saving the lives of passengers.”

It is believed the aircraft was intentionally targeted, “but it remains unclear whether the attackers knew it was Russian or not,” the source added.

However, Russian officials, though admitting the plane might have been endangered, are not yet talking of a targeted attack.

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s said on its website the plane’s crew at 4.55 PM Moscow time (12.55 GMT) “detected battle action on the ground that, according to the crew, could constitute a threat to the 159 passengers on board the plane.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry is now “taking emergency measures to clarify all the circumstances of this situation, including making contact with the Syrian authorities,” the ministry’s spokesperson Aleksandr Lukashevich said.

The plane that was allegedly targeted belonged to Nordwind Airlines – a Russian charter air carrier – and was identified as an Airbus A320. On April 29 it was en route to the city of Kazan, in Russia’s republic of Tatarstan, from Egypt's resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.

It was flying over a mountainous area in Syria when one of the pilots noticed “flashes on the ground.” After that, to keep safe, it was decided to increase the height of the flight, Irina Tyurina, a spokeswoman for Russian Union of Tourist Industry told RIA Novosti.

“No one was injured, and the plane was not damaged. The aircraft landed in Kazan as had been planned,” the Russian Federal Agency for Tourism told news agencies. There were 159 passengers and eight crew members on-board the aircraft.

Meanwhile, Syrian aviation authorities received no indication of the alleged attack on the Russian plane, says the director of Syrian Airlines, Ghaida Abdullatif:

“We contacted the service that monitors traffic within Syrian airspace. None of the air traffic control services or other ground services at the airports in Damascus and Latakia have confirmed the information of a Russian plane being fired at"

Russian experts have already voiced their doubts that a passenger plane can actually perform kind of maneuvers that could help it avoid a missile attack.

“Planes are usually attacked either from the side or from above. A pilot could not have seen the missiles ,” Vladimir Gerasimov, a Russian pilot and an expert on flight security told RT. “

A passenger plane crew simply couldn’t see what’s behind. And if something is approaching the plane from the opposite direction – the speed doubles, so there is no time to do anything, ” he added.

The civil war in Syria between the government of President Bashar Assad and opposition forces has been raging for over two years, claiming the lives of more than 70,000 people according to UN estimates. Assad says he is fighting an insurgency that has been sponsored from abroad.

Source:

RT

http://worldtruth.tv 

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Government admits using ‘Professional Actors’ to play the role of Victims in Terror Drills

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

The U.S. government has, since at least 2004, used "professional actors" to depict victims in terror drills that simulate large-scale attacks.

According to this ABC News article from 2004, "professional actors will play the roles of victims." In addition, a "virtual news network" will be created an operated in order to practice the dissemination of government propaganda during the event.

The use of "professional actors" to depict victims is especially telling, given that many Americans believe the government has used professional actors in events like Sandy Hook and the Boston marathon.

This analysis of the Boston marathon bombing claims a double amputee was an actor and that the blood on the scene was "Hollywood blood" designed to look bright red for the cameras. (Real blood is much darker...)

University professor James Tracy also argues that the Boston marathon bombing was pulled off with theatrical elements and wasn't accurately portrayed in the media.

On the Sandy Hook side, many people say the "parent" Robbie Parker was an actor. This video appears to show him laughing and smiling while off camera, then magically transforming into a sad, tearful father once the cameras start rolling:

Here's another compilation video showing Sandy Hook actors:

Regardless of whether you believe professional actors were involved in Sandy Hook or the Boston marathon bombing, the U.S. government openly admits they have used professional actors in nationwide terror drills.

Volunteers and professional actors will play the roles of victims, who will be rescued, diagnosed, decontaminated and treated.
Click read more to read full article!