Archive for July, 2010

Scuba Diving in the Gulf Oil Spill

This just makes you want to cry……a scientist who has been studying the coral and diving in the Gulf for years takes us on a scuba dive to see just what is in the water now….


Deet Mosquito Repellent is Neurotoxic

(NaturalNews) New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.
“These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals,” said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.
The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.

Deet’s popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.

In spite of the chemical’s long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.

Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects’ nervous systems.

“We’ve found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals,” the researchers said.

In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.

Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.

Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.

Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.

The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.

Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.

“Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects,” Abou-Donia said. “But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications.”

The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet’s potential to cause neurological harm.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet’s safety planned for 2012.

Sources for this story include:;;;

Credit for the article goes to:

I have done my own research, and the Australian product “OFF!” falls under this banner too.  I just checked – it contains 150grams per kilo – dammit I only bought it because I thought it was a low toxicity repellent.

More on the Swine Flu Hoax

Here in Australia the Government set up a “Swine Flu Hotline”.

Patients were asked a few general questions (that could easily fit the normal seasonal flu).  Then, if they answered yes to “have you experienced coughing, sore throat, nasal congestion” etc, they were told they had swine flu!!

This is how the numbers of the “pandemic” (hah) were obtained!   I know who the “swines” in this case were, and I’m not talking about 4 legged pigs!

Swine flu drug hand-out service raises concerns

Page last updated at 23:05 GMT, Sunday, 4 July 2010 00:05 UK

By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News Man sneezing Swine flu was the first pandemic for 40 yearsJust 12% of patients who got anti-flu drugs using the swine flu hotline and website actually had the virus, figures obtained by the BBC suggest.

More than 1.1m people collected the drugs – which can cause side effects such as nausea – after being diagnosed by the National Pandemic Flu Service.

But figures obtained under a freedom of information request show that of 16,560 people swabbed, 1,932 tested positive.

The Patients Association said this raised questions about the system used.

The flu service was launched last July at the height of the pandemic. It was the first time that prescription drugs had been handed out en masse by the NHS without a patient having to consult a doctor.

Instead, people who felt ill were put through an electronic check-list. Those with swine flu symptoms were then given a voucher number to collect anti-viral drugs, which were used to relieve the illness.

The drugs – Relenza and Tamiflu – both caused a number of side-effects, including nausea and, in some cases, vomiting.

Continue reading the main story

It is always easy to say in hindsight, but we really do need to review this

Katherine Murphy Patients Association

Concerns were also voiced that over-use could have led to resistance – many other countries used them much more sparingly.

There was also a debate about how effective the drugs were.

The independent review of the flu strategy, which was published last week, called for a full evaluation of the flu service, admitting it was a controversial issue.

It cost £13.5m to set it up, although the bill for running it until it closed in February this year has never been published because of commercial sensitivity.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the findings suggested the government had “over-reacted”.

“It is always easy to say in hindsight, but we really do need to review this. It is a low number and we have to bear this in mind when thinking about pandemic planning.”

Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, agreed “lessons must be learned”.

But he added: “It must be remembered the service played a valuable role relieving the pressure on the health service.”

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said he was looking to change the funding system to tackle the issue.

He added: “Unnecessary emergency admissions create a burden on the NHS. We know that what matters most to patients is the outcome they get and their experience of the NHS – not simply how quickly they are seen.”

Credit for this article goes to:

Corrupt Medical Research on Drugs

Never trust an expert!  Ever wondered why so much health advice is contradictory? It’s because two-thirds of medical research is wrong or fraudulent

By David H Freedman

Last updated at 3:42 AM on 6th July 2010

Have you been left confused by expert health advice? Even people like me, with years of experience in science and medical journalism, are left scratching our heads when research is contradicted by other studies or turns out to be wrong.

In early 2008, new guidelines for life-saving emergency heart attack treatment said you should no longer bother with the ‘mouth-to-mouth’ part of CPR (­cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Instead, you should pump the chest non-stop.

Having got my Red Cross certificate some years ago, I wanted to know more – but discovered that while this change was endorsed by the European Resuscitation Council, the Red Cross still trains people to give mouth-to-mouth.

Scientist looking at liquid in test tubesTesting, testing: Medical research can often result in incorrect conclusions

So I asked Paul Schwerdt, a cardiac resuscitation expert who restarts hearts daily. He told me to forget about CPR, because even trained laypeople rarely do it well enough to make a difference.

He said the best thing is an Automated External Defibrillator – a portable, easy-to-use device that is increasingly available in public places.

I found an article that said it can raise the survival rate for people having heart attacks outside hospital from 1 per cent to 80 per cent. But then I read another study saying such devices don’t increase survival compared with CPR.

Little wonder that ‘expert’ health research leaves many of us confused – and that includes medics, too.

John Ioannidis, a doctor specialising in infectious diseases who is also a medical research analyst, has looked at hundreds of studies and discovered that two in every three conclusions published in medical journals are later found to be wrong.

The problem is that those are the sorts of conclusion your doctor reads when deciding if it makes sense to prescribe an antibiotic for your child’s ear infection, or if the benefits outweigh the risks in suggesting that middle-aged men take a small daily dose of aspirin.

The two-out-of-three wrongness rate Professor Ioannidis found could be worse: he examined only the less than one- tenth of 1 per cent of research that makes it to prestigious journals. So, what is going on?

Here are some of the reasons why experts get it so wrong:


The research community likes to say that the high-profile cases of fraud we see in the media – such as the South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang’s fake claims to have cloned human stem cells in 2005 – are rare events.

Another notorious example was that of the cancer researcher William Summerlin, who won praise for achieving skin grafts on genetically incompatible black and white mice.

In fact, he had used a marker pen to blacken patches of fur on white mice. But research fraud appears to be rife.

In an anonymous survey of 3,200 medical researchers in the journal Nature, a third confessed to at least one fraudulent act or ‘massaging’ research results.

In a similar survey, half the research workers said they knew of studies that involved fraud.

The proportion that are caught is minuscule. What motivates such surprising levels of dishonesty?

The answer is simple: researchers need to keep on publishing impressive findings in scientific journals in order to keep their professional careers alive, and some seem unable to come up with them through honest work.


Highly respected scientists toss out data all the time. They pretty much have to. It would be hard to justify keeping ‘findings’ when a key piece of equipment is faulty or if patients in studies are caught not sticking to their drug or diet regimens.

The problem is that it’s not always clear where to draw the line between data that is bad and data that the researcher just doesn’t like.

Douglas Altman, who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine in Oxford, examined more than 100 drug studies, comparing raw data and published results.

He found that in most studies some data was left out – and more often than not it didn’t fit the conclusions and might raise difficult questions.

The ultimate form of data cleansing is throwing away a whole study’s worth of information by not submitting it for publication because the results aren’t the ones hoped for.

Often, these ‘lost’ negative results are from studies funded by drug companies – if you are trying to get a medicine onto the market, you don’t want to publish research that makes it look bad.

A study two years ago revealed that 23 out of 74 antidepressant trials were not published.

All but one had found the drugs to be more or less ineffective compared with a sugar pill placebo.

In contrast, all 37 positive studies were published.


The reason trials may prove untrustworthy is because they study the wrong people. A study might be virtuous about its results, except it was assessing a drug’s effects on the wrong people – those who do not represent the patients who would need the drug.

Sometimes people in medical studies are particularly health conscious or unusually ill. Then there is the fact that many studies pay you to take part, which results in a high percentages of poor people, and sometimes alcoholics, drug misusers and the homeless. These sway the results.

Studies in the Nineties appeared to prove hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reduced the risk of heart disease by 50 per cent. Then a large study in 2002 seemed to prove HRT increased the heart disease risk by 29 per cent.

Why the huge discrepancy? It turned out the groups had significantly different balances of people: the first had relatively young women, the second older women, leading both to produce misleading results.


Sheer chance means that in a medical or psychological study, you will always see improvement in a group of people over time – a slight loss in excess weight, for instance.

That change needn’t have anything to do with what is being tested, but the researcher can then claim it was due to whatever was being tested by writing up the study as if that change was what was being tested for.

‘It’s like throwing darts on a wall and then drawing a dartboard around them,’ says Douglas Altman.

He has compared study proposals submitted by researchers with the published findings: ‘We found the stated focus of research was different in more than half the cases.’

In other words, half the results were flukes that had been turned into alleged scientific fact.


In a notorious incident four years ago at Northwick Park Hospital, Middlesex, an experimental leukaemia drug was given to six volunteers.

They all quickly fell seriously ill. The drug had been safety-tested beforehand and passed with flying colours. But it had been safety- ested on animals, where it had shown no harmful effects, even at doses up to 500 times higher than those given to the volunteers.

Health research has become dependent on animals. Treatment breakthroughs you see in the media frequently turn out to be based on studies of mice. But often the results don’t translate to humans.

Three-quarters of drugs fail human trials because of dangerous side-effects or simply failing to provide cures.

Adapted from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us And How To Know When Not To Trust Them by David H. Freedman (Little, Brown, £12.99). To order a copy (P&P free), call 0845 155 0720.

Good article isnt it – once again I’m being lazy by using others’ work – but when that work is well written and researched and I give the credit where due – why not?

Great Musical Clip on the 9/11 Crash into the Pentagon.

On a lighter note, here is a great clip called”

Born To Be Lied To – 9/11 Musical  (performed to the music of Born to be Wild)

Funny, but just the same full of facts – with Flight 77 that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon – WHY was there virtually NO wreckage from this huge plane, only ONE CCTV camera caught any footage at all, WHYwasnt the plane shot down way before it reached the Pentagon, and HOW could a so-called Terrorist with only 2 days in a flight simulator manage to manoeuvre a huge plane travelling at huge speeds 3 inches off the ground into a building when experienced pilots have stated that it is virtually impossible to do and not crash into the ground!

Just thought I’d throw this quote in here as it got alot of response when I posted it on my FB profile… true of what has been happening to myself lately.

“All Truth passes through three stages.

First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed and third, it is accepted as
self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer German Philosopher,

One old friend in particular needs to take especial note of this with his constant denial of certain facts that to my mind are now beyond proof.  He also needs to do some work on his constant negativity,  superiority complex and arrogant behaviour – enough said he knows who he is…..

Plus, I have experienced the quote on the receiving end……Awhile ago I read a biography on our (then) Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Australia).  I had already done my own research on her, and discovered she is a member of the Fabian Society.   I quickly realised she had been placed precisely to plan, so I passed on my knowledge to anyone who would listen that she would very soon become our next Prime Minister.

Oh dear, the ridicule I received for this idea – at that stage our PM Kevin Rudd was much respected and loved, everyone I told called me an idiot for even conceiving the idea, many even vehemently opposed the very idea of a woman taking over – and I wont mention the many male reactions to her looks, dress sense or voice!

And now, after a bloodless but extremely emotional coup by Julia and other factions of the Australian Labour Party – Julia Gillard is now our new PM.  I have to say (I’m only human after all) that I have had my moments of gloating ha ha.

But now, many of those same people who laughed in my face have taken on her defence, say she’s doing a great job etc etc.

Oh, the duality of the many astounds me!

Latest on the Gulf Oil Crisis

No doubt everyone is fully up to date on what the MSM (Main Stream Media) are feeding us about what is happening with the Oil Leak down in the Gulf…..

But the questions still arise:  why is BP giving all the orders?  Even the Coastguard are subservient to them, and local councils have not been receiving ANY cooperation from BP at all!  BP has also ignored the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) demand that the use of the dispersant Corexit be stopped immediately as its use is compounding the toxicity of the whole area.

Now we know there is a “No Fly Zone” over the whole area, and reporters and cameramen have been threatened with arrest if they stray outside the designated areas where they are set up with “photo opportunities” and workers are brought in to rake a beach etc.  Soon as the reporters leave – so too do the workers.  We know all this.

We dont know WHY??

Well, here is a series of clips that may answer that question.

Firstly, here is a Sea Shepherd plane breaking the no fly zone order and getting in really close.  You can see there is virtually NO clean up going on. Hardly a boat to be seen in the entire area!  Booms placed in random patterns that appear to be doing nothing whatsoever to aid the entrapment of the gushing oil.

Secondly, here is footage of lines of dumptrucks and bulldozers heading to the beaches (closely followed by a mysterious black SUV with darkly tinted windows). That in itself is not too sinister:

But wait, here is the next clip showing a reporter illegally on the beach, using his foot to drag a groove in the pristine white sand – and what???  just underneath the lovely white sand is obviously oil from the gulf   THAT HAS NOT BEEN CLEANED UP OR REMOVED!!

People are down there right now trying to get more footage to actually catch them bulldozing clean sand on top of the spilt oil – I myself noted in the footage you can quite plainly see tread/tracks marks obviously from heavy machinery there on the pristine white sand which he scrapes away!  So once again, we are being lied to and BP have some serious questions to answer!

And finally, here is a great article for you to read:

BP aware of cracks in oil well two months before explosion.

18 06 2010

“BP was aware of cracks appearing in the Macondo well as far back as February, right around the time Goldman Sachs and BP Chairman Tony Hayward were busy dumping their stocks in the company on the eve of the explosion that led to the oil spill, according to information uncovered by congressional investigators.

The Mining and Mineral Services agency released documents to Bloomberg indicating that BP “was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast,” according to the report.

The fissures, which BP began to attempt to fix on February 13, could have played a role in the disaster, though this is a question still being explored by investigators. Improperly sealed, the cracks cause explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft.

“The company attempted a “cement squeeze,” which involves pumping cement to seal the fissures, according to a well activity report. Over the following week the company made repeated attempts to plug cracks that were draining expensive drilling fluid, known as “mud,” into the surrounding rocks,” states the report.

As we previously highlighted, eyewitness evidence indicates that Deepwater Horizon managers knew that the BP oil rig had major problems before its explosion on April 20. A crew member who rescued burning workers on the rig told Houston attorney Tony Buzbee of a conversation between Deepwater Horizon installation manager Jimmy Harrell and someone in Houston. According to the witness, Harrell was screaming, “Are you fucking happy? Are you fucking happy? The rig’s on fire! I told you this was gonna happen.”

The fact that BP managers were aware of problems with the rig and were seemingly unconcerned about fixing them only lends more weight to the already startling indications of some having foreknowledge of the disaster.

As we highlighted last week, on page 37 of British Petroleum’s own investigative report into the oil spill, it is stated that the Hydraulic Control System on equipment designed to automatically seal the well in an emergency was modified without BP’s knowledge sometime before the explosion.

Highly suspicious stock and share trades by people connected to BP before the explosion indicate some extent of foreknowledge.

Goldman Sachs dumped 44% of its shares in BP Oil during the first quarter of 2010 – shares that subsequently lost 36 percent of their value, equating to $96 million. The current chairman of Goldman Sachs is Bilderberg luminary Peter Sutherland, who is also the former chairman of British Petroleum.

Furthermore, as reported by the London Telegraph on June 5th, Tony Hayward, the current BP CEO sold £1.4 million of his shares in the fuel giant weeks before the spill.

On April 12th, just over one week before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, Halliburton, the world’s second largest oilfield services corporation, surprised some by acquiring Boots & Coots, a relatively small but vastly experienced oil well control company.

Halliburton is named in the majority of some two dozen lawsuits filed since the explosion by Gulf Coast people and businesses who claim that the company is to blame for the disaster.

Halliburton was forced to admit in testimony at a congressional hearing last month that it carried out a cementing operation 20 hours before the Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames. The lawsuits claim that four Halliburton workers stationed on the rig improperly capped the well.”

Credit for this blog goes to: