The title of this post comes from a chapter of The Incal, something that you should read if you get a chance. Here we have the members of the Church of Industrial Saints (commonly referred to as the Techno-Technos or the Technopriests, a technocratic cult which worships the Dark Incal) whipped up into a religious frenzy after hearing the words of the Techno Pope:

Which brings us to an interesting article by a medical student on circumcision from Lew Rockwell’s site.

Let’s see…

Circumcision for All; Free Choice for None

by Stephanie R. Murphy

I was shocked, surprised, and flabbergasted to hear it. I’m sure that you’ll never believe it, either. The federal government is – get this, readers – butting into your most personal and private business.

A good start!

[…] The CDC is now considering a campaign for universal circumcision in the US.

This is entirely wrong. It is wrong because the government has no right to tell you what you can put into or take off of your body, or your child’s body.

The reason for pushing this one-size-fits-all policy stems from the results of several studies, all done in Africa, which have demonstrated the benefits of male circumcision for reducing the transmission of HIV.

The studies on circumcision and HIV transmission are very interesting. They are large, randomized, controlled trials; the methodology is solid. They show, on average, a 40–60% reduction in the risk of a circumcised, HIV negative man contracting the virus from an HIV positive woman, as compared to an uncircumcised man. The precise mechanism of circumcision’s protective effect is unknown. […]

The rationale offered for circumcision in this case, based on a well designed scientific study, is entirely irrelevant. This is about rights and the proper role of government, not scientific data. If one day they discover that female students are not as proficient at medicine than male students are, should that be used as a basis for banning females from practicing medicine? I am sure that there are some people out there that would say yes. That does not make it right.

However, when considering the benefits of circumcision, there are some significant caveats. For one, circumcision is not a panacea; it does not completely prevent transmission of HIV, it just lowers the probability that a man will contract the virus during any given sexual encounter with an HIV positive woman. It should be noted that these studies only examined the effect of circumcision on transmission of the virus from an HIV positive woman to an HIV negative man. While this is a relatively common scenario in Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV epidemiology in the US is different. Overall rates of infection are lower. Also, HIV in the US is relatively more common among men who have sex with men (MSM). There is no evidence that circumcision protects against HIV acquisition in MSM. […]

All of this, once again, is irrelevant. Science can be used to demonstrate lots of things. None of them should form the basis of legislation.

Circumcision also has risks and demerits. My personal philosophy on medicine leads me to look skeptically at any procedure that removes a part of the body which is not causing harm, pain, or annoyance to the patient; in other words, don’t mess with success. […]

And here is where we encounter the truth of this matter. Some people have an opinion that circumcision is not right, and so they want the state to use violence to stop other people from doing it. Some people think that circumcision is good, for whatever reason, and they want to use violence to make people do it.

Both of these positions are WRONG. No one has the right to force you to do something that you do not want to do. Libertarians are against the use of force to make people do things, and they are against the use of collective force, which is as illegitimate as force employed by a single person.

As with any surgical procedure, infections and pain after circumcision are both possibilities that should not be ignored. Medical errors should be considered as a legitimate risk during circumcision, too. There are rare case reports of penile amputation that have occurred during botched circumcisions. There are also many more reports of less extreme, but still real, consequences resulting from circumcision mishaps.

This is all irrelevant. Medical mistakes happen. Doctors should study hard and practice their art so that they do not happen often. They should never do their procedures on people who are being forced to have something done to them.

Of course, the question on the minds of many who are considering circumcision is that of whether the procedure impacts sexual enjoyment and satisfaction. That question is, in my opinion, impossible to answer accurately. To distill the immense debate surrounding this issue to its barest essence, choice seems to play a significant role in how men view their foreskins (or lack thereof). Men who choose to get circumcised tend to be happy that they did so; those who did not have a choice in the matter because they were circumcised at birth are more likely to lament it.

It may or may not be the case that men who are circumcised lament it. Once again, this is irrelevant to the core of this, which is who has the right to use force against another person so that their personal opinion is the rule of law that everyone is compelled to obey.

That brings me to my main point in writing about the prospect of universal circumcision: the issue of choice. If my patient asked me about circumcision, I would discuss with him the information above. I would also encourage him to do his own research about the procedure if he felt interested. He would make his own decision about whether he wanted to have the surgery.

Correct.

By contrast, the CDC’s attitude demonstrates a lack of consideration for patient autonomy and consent, two essential elements in all medical decisions.

FALSE. And here we get to the center of this argument; is a child property or is it not property? In a very real sense, children are a special form of property. First, lets look at the unborn child

[…]

This brings us to the more complex case of abortion. For the libertarian, the “Catholic” case against abortion, even if finally rejected as invalid, cannot be dismissed out of hand. For the essence of that case — not really “Catholic” at all in a theological sense — is that abortion destroys a human life and is therefore murder, and hence cannot be condoned. More than that, if abortion is truly murder, then the Catholic — or any other person who shares this view — cannot just shrug his shoulders and say that “Catholic” views should not be imposed upon non-Catholics. Murder is not an expression of religious preference; no sect, in the name of “freedom of religion,” can or should get away with committing murder with the plea that its religion so commands. The vital question then becomes: Should abortion be considered as murder?

Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being — i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus [p. 108] as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person, and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

[…]

I completely agree with this. A child has no ‘right’ to remain in its mother’s womb, otherwise, the mother becomes property.

When a child is born however, it becomes a human being with all the natural rights that human beings are born with. It cannot fend for itself in any way; it needs special care and nurturing. Since it is the creation of two people, those parents are, naturally, the people with the responsibility of caring for that child; the child is the ward of the parents.

Being a ward in this way is a special form of property. While you are in the care of your parents, they have total responsibility for you and can have procedures performed on you that they feel are for your benefit. Some parents circumcise their children. Many vaccinate them. Some parents have scars cut into their chldren’s bodies. When they are born, some parents allow silver nitrate to be dropped into the eyes of their children, and allow their children to be injected with vitamin K. All of these procedures, when done with the best interest of the child are completely legitimate, and no doctor, or do-gooder or moral crusader has the right to use force to compel a parent to do or refrain from doing any of them.

The CDC would like every baby boy born in America to be circumcised, no matter the opinion of his parents and, more importantly, without the boy’s consent.

Now there are TWO problems in this sentence. The first one is that the CDC wants to mandate a medical procedure. They have no right to do this. The second part of this that is completely wrong is the idea that an infant boy must give his consent to be circumcised. This is totally absurd, and contrary to common sense and the natural relationship between parents and children. This fallacious idea is a part of the move towards ‘children’s rights’ which is a back door way to allow the state to become the ultimate parent of all children, usurping the natural role of the parent. The UN is pushing for it, governments all over the world are picking up this fallacious reasoning as a lever to ban Home Education or even to stop people sailing around the world.

If circumcision were a medically necessary and life-saving procedure with no possible ill effects, things might be different.

This is false reasoning. What is or is not medically necessary, like vaccination or dropping silver nitrate in the eyes of newborns, or injecting them with vitamin K on the day they are born, is a matter of opinion, and it is up to the parent, not the state, or a PhD doctor with the coercive force of the state behind her to make these decisions.

In reality, it is a surgical procedure that is not essential for the health of a normal man;

Wether or not circumcision is essential is irrelevant; circumcision, like piercing the ears of girls is the personal business of parents, and should not be the domain of the personal opinions or prejudices of doctors.

furthermore, it has both risks and benefits.

Everything has risks; it is up to the parent to weigh the risks and make these private family decisions, not doctors or the state.

The relative importance of those risks and benefits is subjective. Every man may value them differently. For that reason, it’s essential that each individual be afforded the choice about what to do with his own foreskin.

FALSE. If we extend this logic, then no infant should be vaccinated, lest when he becomes an adult he should have a religious objection to it. I wonder how many doctors would agree with that?

To be perfectly blunt, I do not see any justification for removing a part of a baby boy’s body without his consent.

Then do not remove the foreskin of your son. If you have a son, I presume that you have not done this. If your husband has no foreskin, he might have had something to say about this. Either way, what you do with your own children is your own business. It is not your place to tell anyone that they should not circumcise their boys, or that what they are doing is wrong and it is entirely immoral to call for the state to stop circumcision.

The people who think that circumcision is correct think that YOU are dead wrong. Both groups can live side by side very happily, as long as one does not try and compel the other to do something, or refrain from doing something, that they do not want to do. This is the very core of Libertarianism. Understandably, emotionalism clouds the thinking of even the best people. When emotionalism and science are mixed together, you get a cocktail that is completely intoxicating; in a drunken stupor the force of the state is then invoked to make sure that, “the right thing is done”. It is however, ALWAYS the wrong thing, and the case of forced circumcision or the banning of circumcision is yet another example.

Men can always get circumcised as adults if they wish; by contrast, once the foreskin is gone, it’s gone forever.

Irrelevant. No child is put onto this world without being created by its parents. If men were self made out of eggs or they grew like fruit from trees neither of which anyone owned, and they could look after themselves from birth like some animals or amoebae do, then you could make an argument like this. The same argument could be made of what a child is fed; if a child wanted to become a pure vegan as a moral response to ‘animal cruelty’, should we refrain from feeding it meat until it becomes an adult? Of course not; what we choose to feed our children is one of the many choices a parent makes, quite legitimately. That also goes for what we feed our children’s minds, and of course, there are ‘experts’ out there who think that children must be taught certain things in a certain way, and these same people are ready to use force to make parents comply with their personal prejudices.

It is all wrong and immoral.

Most people will concede that the procedure is painful even for babies, but they insist that the pain is justified because the baby will not remember it.

It is most certainly painful, and the number of people conceding this is irrelevant. Lots of procedures are painful, like getting a vaccination, one of the 24 that infants up to the age of two receive. Getting a disciplinary slap is also painful; and the pain is one that parents who practice that form of care certainly want a child to remember. There are many things in the world that hurt; hurt cannot be avoided, and the people who try and eliminate all danger and hurt from life either do not understand what life is, or do not have any experience of being a parent.

I wince at the thought of causing pain to a newborn boy. I say that even if he does not remember the physical pain as an adult, he may still suffer from the psychological sting of having had a body part removed without his permission.

This is squeamish emotionalism, and personal weakness. Both of these things have nothing to do with parents and circumcision, and certainly, infants have no concept of giving or withholding permission. Even if they did, children are made to eat things that they do not like every second of the day, ‘for their own good’; should this too be outlawed? Utter nonsense!

Another argument from the advocates of universal circumcision is that it makes good hygiene easier. This is a typical government one-size-fits-all solution: parents are too stupid, in the minds of government agents, to teach their sons good hygiene, so instead we should just circumcise everyone. People are also too stupid to practice safe sex, so we should circumcise them all because they will gain a marginal reduction in the overall risk of contracting HIV. I’ve also heard arguments for circumcision based in religious tradition and cultural norms. Sure, circumcision is common – and a very old tradition in some religions and cultures. But does that make it right?

It does not make it wrong. That is for sure, and it also does not make it any of our business what other people do.

I don’t think that’s for us to decide. I think that each individual, the owner of his own body, should make the call about whether or not circumcision is appropriate for him.

But the subtext here is that infants cannot defend themselves, and so the noble doctor, backed by the force of the state, should step in and protect it, using the ‘rights of the child’ as the pretext. It simply will not wash. And yes, that is why some people circumcise!

It’s difficult for me to assume the mindset of statists who advocate for this kind of thing,

And for the record it is very difficult for me to get into the mindset of people who want to use the state to make other people comply with their personal prejudices. I cannot contemplate going into someone else’s houses and demanding that they eat as I eat, think as I think, or do as I do. It is anathema to me. I also understand what asking for things does in the real world; in the real world, when you ask for something to change, there are consequences in this case, the consequence is, “The federal government butting into your most personal and private business” by telling you that you must, or as this author is advocating, must not, circumcise your boy.

so I raised the issue of universal circumcision in conversation with a few people whose opinions I thought would be unencumbered by that pesky philosophy of leaving others alone and letting them make their own decisions. In addition to the religious and culturally based arguments that several people trotted out, one colleague had an interesting comment. He thought that universal circumcision was a good idea, envisioning a world where no more would awkward teens have to worry about getting teased in the locker room, because “everyone would look the same.” Oh really? The last time I checked, people came in all shapes, colors, and sizes, and that was a good thing!

So is it a good thing that some people are circumcised or not?!

I guess that if everyone looked alike, wore the same clothes, and had the same hairstyles, nobody would ever have to worry about not fitting in. Would this egalitarian also propose to redistribute the wealth from the best-endowed men to those who are not quite as blessed by Mother Nature? Ridiculous.

Many people are brainwashed out there. Some are brainwashed to believe that children have ‘rights’. Since this is the case, it is most logical to not advocate that your personal opinions be made into law. Its hard to do when we are talking about something so wrapped up in emotion, but really, it is the only way to make sure that you do not become the enemy. Follow the non aggression principle; “is what I am asking for going to end up causing force to be used against someone?” If the answer to that is ‘yes’ then you should not do it or ask for it, and you should re-assess your thinking.

I certainly cannot agree with the CDC’s move toward making a blanket recommendation that all boys should undergo a medical procedure at birth, without their consent.

There is the subtext again. The next step is using the state and the medical industrial complex to STOP circumcision under the false pretext of ‘children’s rights’. We could also extend this logic to the very act of birth itself; no child asks to be born – should we seek the permission of a child before it is created wether or not it wants to be created? After all, being born is a sentence to live out up to eighty years in a world full of brainwashed, state loving, warmongering, fear soaked squeamish busy bodies who all have designs on your body and mind from day one. Certainly, some people would rather not be born; life itself is a far bigger pain to suffer than circumcision.

And there you have it; FALSE REASONING.

I want each man to have the opportunity to make his own decision about what to do with his foreskin when he reaches an age at which he is capable of doing so,

“I WANT” hmmm. If you want this, then when you have children, make sure that you have them with a man who is not circumcised, and who does not come from a culture where they do it. Then you can leave YOUR son’s foreskin for him to chop or not chop. What YOU WANT has NOTHING to do with ANYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD, PERIOD.

based on his understanding of the risks and benefits, and how much he personally values each. The bloated, overreaching federal government apparently does not want the same.

[…]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy-s/murphy-s12.1.html

But in fact, what they want is EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT YOU WANT; they want to CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE based on their PERSONAL PREJUDICES. They just happen to be on the ‘other side’ of the argument.

Mises Daily by Yuri N. Maltsev

The system had many decades to work, but widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the healthcare system. In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals.

Irresponsibility, expressed by the popular Russian saying “They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working,” resulted in appalling quality of service, widespread corruption, and extensive loss of life. My friend, a famous neurosurgeon in today’s Russia, received a monthly salary of 150 rubles — one third of the average bus driver’s salary.

In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a “nonpaying” patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually “not available” for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries. This was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats.

To improve the statistics concerning the numbers of people dying within the system, patients were routinely shoved out the door before taking their last breath.

Being a People’s Deputy in the Moscow region from 1987 to 1989, I received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities. I recall the case of a fourteen-year-old girl from my district who died of acute nephritis in a Moscow hospital. She died because a doctor decided that it was better to save “precious” X-ray film (imported by the Soviets for hard currency) instead of double-checking his diagnosis. These X-rays would have disproven his diagnosis of neuropathic pain.

Instead, the doctor treated the teenager with a heat compress, which killed her almost instantly. There was no legal remedy for the girl’s parents and grandparents. By definition, a single-payer system cannot allow any such remedy. The girl’s grandparents could not cope with this loss and they both died within six months. The doctor received no official reprimand.

Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist Party officials, as early as 1921 (three years after Lenin’s socialization of medicine), realized that the egalitarian system of healthcare was good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers — but not as private users of the system.

So, as in all countries with socialized medicine, a two-tier system was created: one for the “gray masses” and the other, with a completely different level of service, for the bureaucrats and their intellectual servants. In the USSR, it was often the case that while workers and peasants were dying in the state hospitals, the medicine and equipment that could save their lives was sitting unused in the nomenklatura system.

At the end of the socialist experiment, the official infant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament, who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the US rate of 8.1 per 1,000 live births.

Having said that, I should make it clear that the United States has one of the highest rates of the industrialized world only because it counts all dead infants, including premature babies, which is where most of the fatalities occur.

Most countries do not count premature-infant deaths. Some don’t count any deaths that occur in the first 72 hours. Some countries don’t even count any deaths from the first two weeks of life. In Cuba, which boasts a very low infant-mortality rate, infants are only registered when they are several months old, thereby leaving out of the official statistics all infant deaths that take place within the first several months of life.

In the rural regions of Karakalpakia, Sakha, Chechnya, Kalmykia, and Ingushetia, the infant mortality rate is close to 100 per 1,000 births, putting these regions in the same category as Angola, Chad, and Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of infants fall victim to influenza every year, and the proportion of children dying from pneumonia and tuberculosis is on the increase. Rickets, caused by a lack of vitamin D, and unknown in the rest of the modern world, is killing many young people.

Uterine damage is widespread, thanks to the 7.3 abortions the average Russian woman undergoes during childbearing years. Keeping in mind that many women avoid abortions altogether, the 7.3 average means that many women have a dozen or more abortions in their lifetime.

Even today, according to the State Statistics Committee, the average life expectancy for Russian men is less than 59 years — 58 years and 11 months — while that for Russian women is 72 years. The combined figure is 65 years and three months.[1] By comparison, the average life span for men in the United States is 73 years and for women 79 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high of 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years just a century ago. The Russian life expectancy at birth is 12 years lower.[2]

After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all. Isn’t it amazing that socialist government, while developing space exploration and sophisticated weapons, would completely ignore the basic human needs of its citizens?

The appalling quality of service is not simply characteristic of “barbarous” Russia and other Eastern European nations: it is a direct result of the government monopoly on healthcare and it can happen in any country. In “civilized” England, for example, the waiting list for surgeries is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State-of-the-art equipment is nonexistent in most British hospitals. In England, only 10 percent of the healthcare spending is derived from private sources.

Britain pioneered in developing kidney-dialysis technology, and yet the country has one of the lowest dialysis rates in the world. The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found that every year 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacements, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain.

Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of healthcare. In Russia, patients over 60 are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 are often denied even elementary forms of healthcare.

In the United Kingdom, in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who are 55 years old are refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. Forty-five percent of 65-year-old patients at the centers are denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely receive any medical attention at these centers.

In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoys priority treatment.

Advocates of socialized medicine in the United States use Soviet propaganda tactics to achieve their goals. Michael Moore is one of the most prominent and effective socialist propagandists in America. In his movie, Sicko, he unfairly and unfavorably compares health care for older patients in the United States with complex and incurable diseases to healthcare in France and Canada for young women having routine babies. Had he done the reverse — i.e., compared healthcare for young women in the United States having babies to older patients with complex and incurable diseases in socialized healthcare systems — the movie would have been the same, except that the US healthcare system would look ideal, and the UK, Canada, and France would look barbaric.

[…]

http://mises.org/story/3650

And in case you missed them, BLOGDIAL on Gardakil:

Gardasil…KILLS!
En Gardasil!
En Gardasil! – Touche!
En Gardasil: an update
Doing the math on Gardasil
Gardasil or Chop?
The Mengele Agenda

Soon you will be told to bend over.

You will have to decide whether to grab your ankles, or resist.

Greece is planning mandatory swine flu vaccination.

The Mediterranean country, which receives about 15 million tourists every year, has confirmed more than 700 swine flu cases and no deaths, but world health experts say the true number of cases globally is far higher as only a few patients get tested.

“We decided that the entire population, all citizens and residents, without any exception, will be vaccinated against the flu,” Health Minister Dimitris Avramopoulos said after a ministerial meeting.

Greece has already earmarked 40 million euros for vaccines and has placed orders with Novartis, Glaxo and Sanofi for 8 million vaccine doses, to be received gradually by January.

Vaccine experts say people will likely need two doses of vaccine to be protected from H1N1 swine flu, so Greece would need a total of 24 million doses to vaccinate its entire population. Other countries are taking similar steps.

“Greece will order 16 million more doses from the same companies in the future,” a health ministry official who declined to be named told Reuters.

UAE is forcing all students over the age of 5 to be vaccinated.

Vaccination against swine flu will be mandatory for all students of private and public schools in the UAE when schools open in September, the director general of the Ministry of Health has said.

Vaccination will be mandatory for the country’s 630,000 students and will be free of charge, Dr Ali Bin Shakar told UAE daily Emarat Alyoum.
Only children over the age of five are included in the programme, which will cost the government around AED3.2m ($871,000).

Mandatory vaccination will be coming to your town, sooner or later.

And it could be enforcable, literally.  Uncle Sam is already telling its people that this procedure is constitutional!

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has put states on notice that swine flu vaccinations will begin in October. The editor of the popular blog “Pissed Off Former Democrat” phoned the legal council at the Arkansas State Health Department to seek advice about obtaining waiver forms for a future mass swine flu vaccination program. Only to be told that mandatory vaccines were constitutional and could be enforced at gunpoint by the government if necessary.

Similarly;

“the federal government will buy vaccine from manufacturers and share it for free among the states, which must then “try and get this in the arms of the targeted population as soon as possible,”

The UK has already been ‘primed’ to expect mass vaccination.

They seem to have decided

You need It.

You will get it.

Whether you like it or not.

All this is in the contest of less than 1000 deaths WORLDWIDE, from millions of cases.  For some US perspective, for example: “regular winter flu, […] kills 36,000 Americans a year” … and there’s no mandatory vaccination.

In the UK, which has had around 30 deaths so far; “In a normal outbreak of seasonal flu, some 6,000 people lose their lives. And in the last epidemic, that of 1999/2000, flu killed 21,000.“

In its lethality, swine flu is milder than vanilla flu.  Much milder.  From reported cases we are told that “the swine flu outbreak, still only in its early stages, is already worse than last year’s winter flu, which was itself the biggest outbreak for nine years.”  Yet last year many thousands of people died from winter flu.

Did you hear the calls for mandatory vaccination? No?

Therefore, given this push to inject anyone and everyone whose government can pay for the vaccine, one must ask the question: WTF!?!?!

That is, in this case, WHY THE FUCK!!!!???

If we start with a paranoid question, we could ask exactly what is it that They want you to bend over and be injected with?  One could rationally argue that, given the poor medical justifications, neither the US or UK govs would risk a mandated programme (with all the public order problems that entails) just for a swine flu vaccine.

Of the more paranoid suggestions I have heard, one maintained that this was to be the first of a two-part ‘killer’ jab  The second part would be given at the ‘next pandemic’, thus bringing about the mass population reduction desired by The Elite/Bilderberg/NWO.

It’s immunologically possible (I don’t know about chemically possible, but I assume so); they could try and sensitise people to a certain antigen and then induce disease (autoimmune type or acute allergy-type rather than bug-mediated) with a second dose of that same antigen.  But its a very roundabout route.

The problems are that it would be a bit blatant, and needs a different pandemic for the second mandatory jab. It would be much easier just to release a really vicious virus. To which They would already have a vaccine, obviously.

Thus, having excluded the paranoid, we are left with the probable, which is all too obvious.  This is nothing more than, as one clever person put it, “sheep-shearing on a grand scale”.  You are being used as fodder for a corporate machine to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline predicts swine flu gold rush

Britain’s biggest pharmaceutical company is preparing to sell £3bn worth of swine flu drugs this year, it emerged today.

GlaxoSmithKline revealed its vaccine, one of the world’s first, could be available by September after the UK government placed advance orders for 60m doses.

It also disclosed that international governments were stockpiling large supplies of GSK’s anti-viral treatment Relenza, which can relieve swine flu symptoms.

Worldwide sales from the two drugs are expected to reach £3bn by January, but the company rejected claims it was exploiting the pandemic – stressing that profits would be much lower once development costs were taken into account.

Or, according to the FT…

Drug groups to reap swine-flu billions

Some of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies are reaping billions of dollars in extra revenue amid global concern about the spread of swine flu.

Analysts expect to see a boost in sales from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis when the companies report first-half earnings lifted by government contracts for flu vaccines and antiviral medicines.

Not bad in a global recession, eh?  We could go on, but you know where the G is.

Ever get the feeling you’ve been had?

So, lets assume you’re still feeling a bit worried about swine flu and are still considering letting them give you a skin pop. Just read this update on why not to have the vaccine… from the WHO H1N1 site:

The reason why GBS developed in association with that specific vaccine has never been firmly established. The potential for the development of a similar risk with future vaccines can never be firmly excluded. However, the influenza A (H1N1) vaccine will be manufactured according to established standards and post marketing surveillance will be conducted to monitor potential development of any serious adverse events following administration of vaccine. Safety monitoring systems are an integral part of strategies for the implementation of the new pandemic influenza vaccines.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/vaccine_preparedness/safety_approval/en/index.html

In other words;
If you die we will know the vaccine is Not Good.
You are the guinea pigs.
Do not complain.
You have been warned.
We already have your money.
NO REFUNDS.

“National regulatory authorities have put into place expedited processes that do not compromise on the quality and safety of the vaccine.”

No compromise necessary since there is no quality control or safety testing until it is in your arm.

HMG is wasting more money setting up a ‘Swine Flu Hotline’, where at least 2000 underpaid minions are waiting ask you a number of set questions which will tell if you have Swine Flu. A correct response will get you a ‘scrip for antivirals.

Won’t it be open to abuse?

Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, has himself admitted people will be able to cheat the system.

It will not be long before the “correct” answers that will get people anti-viral drugs will appear on the internet somewhere.

However, the government accepts this is the price it is willing to pay for relieving the pressure on the health service.

Sir Liam says he believes it will only be a “minority” of people who do abuse it.

There are also safeguards in place. Everyone in the country has a unique flu number so if they try to get anti-virals more than once the NHS will know.

So, it’s your taxes, and HMG admits “this is the price it is willing to pay for relieving the pressure on the health service”, so go for it! Get your free Tamiflu and stock it up for when a real virus hits.

The Renegade Parent has a great post about Ed Balls.

I have been looking into this creature over the last few days, and found two articles that sum him up perfectly:

Our children have had the MMR jab, says Brown’s Cabinet friend

By GLEN OWEN

A key Cabinet ally of Gordon Brown has let it be known his children have had the controversial MMR vaccine, in a clear break with former Premier Tony Blair’s policy of refusing to discuss the issue.

Going public: Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls with baby Elle in 1999

Schools Secretary Ed Balls, who has three children with his wife, Communities Minister Yvette Cooper, sanctioned the release of the information in the week that officials revealed Britain is in the middle of the worst measles outbreak for 20 years.

In allowing the disclosure, Mr Balls – who was Mr Brown’s right-hand man at the Treasury for nearly a decade – has broken ranks with Mr Blair’s long-standing ban on Ministers saying whether their children have had the controversial vaccine.

Campaigners are now calling on the Prime Minister to declare publicly that his children, too, have had the MMR inoculation.

Take-up of the vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, plummeted after Dr Andrew Wakefield published research in 1998 that claimed it was linked to autism and bowel problems.

Mr Blair – who has repeatedly refused to say whether his son, Leo, had the jab – was furious at the embarrassment caused to him in January 2001 when Ms Cooper told a newspaper that her daughter, Ellie, had received the inoculation.

He later slapped the ban on Ministers speaking about their personal decisions.

Since then, Mr Balls and Ms Cooper – who is also in the Cabinet – have had two more children reach vaccination age (there are two injections, one at 13 months and a booster between the ages of three and five).

Mr Balls’ decision to lead by example follows a warning from the Health Protection Agency that the number of children suffering from measles has trebled in the past 11 weeks.

The HPA, concerned that even more children will be infected as the autumn term begins, has urged parents to add MMR to their back-to-school list.

After Dr Wakefield published his research in The Lancet, take-up of the vaccine fell to 80 per cent.

It has since recovered to 88 per cent, which is still short of the 95 per cent rate the HPA recommends.

The study is being scrutinised by medical watchdog the General Medical Council in a professional misconduct hearing involving Dr Wakefield and two of his co-authors.

Meanwhile, in a series of briefings timed to coincide with the start of the new term, Mr Balls announced he will write to every headteacher in the country to urge them to help deliver ‘a world-class education for every child’.

The new term also sees the start of a ban on schools selling fizzy drinks, chocolates or sweets in vending machines.

From now on, pupils will have to choose from foods such as bagels, muffins and breadsticks.

[…]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/

This is a man (and his ‘wife’) who would use (and if he gave the MMR specifically for this purpose, SACRIFICE) his daughter’s health to show support and undying loyalty for the evil gargoyle Gordon Brown, and to curry political favor.

If he will do this with his own child, imagine what he would do with yours? Well, you do not have to; you have the Balls and Badman report in your hands.

And here, we have an example of the Balls anti family agenda, where the school and the state are the new parent in the totalitarian dystopia being born in the UK:

Teachers ‘must worry about pupils when they go home’, warns education secretary Balls

Teachers have a responsibility for what happens to children after they return home from school, Education Secretary Ed Balls warned today.

On the day that he and Gordon Brown are launching a national debate in Bristol on the future of children’s services, Mr Balls has urged schools to do more beyond their gates.

“Not every school sees their responsibility as worrying about what happens when the child goes home… and they should,” he told The Guardian.

Praising breakfast clubs for giving children a good start, Mr Balls added: “A little boy may not eat between leaving school and coming back the next day. There’s no way the school can solve that problem.

“It requires parents with the support of social services to do that, but the school can provide an early warning.”

Mr Balls dismissed Tory claims that society in Britain is “broken” following the spate of killings of teenagers in London and other cities.

“There are always going to be some kids that get into more serious trouble with the law, but we shouldn’t demonise young people.”

Prime Minister Gordon Brown today opened the first new school built under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.

He arrived at the Bristol Brunel Academy in the inner city Speedwell area flanked by Mr Balls.

The school is the first in England to be completed under the Government’s £45 billion BSF programme.

The initiative is intended to re-build or refurbish every one of England’s state secondary schools over the next 15 years.

About 1,000 pupils moved into the school this morning which replaces Speedwell Technology College whose crumbling buildings sit immediately in front of the gleaming new academy.

The Prime Minister will tour and then officially open the new school.

Later this morning he will take part in the first citizen jury held in the school’s sports hall.

The Prime Minister looked at a “wishing wall” at the school entrance which is covered in messages from pupils.

One message read “I wish I could eat toenails” while another read “I wish to become a successful accountant”.

He then chatted with pupils, each with their own personal laptop computer, in a Year 7 IT class being taught in one of the school’s many open-plan classrooms.

The Prime Minister then visited pupils undertaking a soldering lesson in a craft design and technology class.

The pupils were guided by overhead monitors in a state-of-the-art classroom as they worked on circuit boards.

[…]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Do I really have to spell this out for you?

Have a look at all these articles on Balls for yourself.

I wouldn’t leave this man in charge of an ice cube in the Antarctic.

Now you can demand that your records are deleted. Good news.

This is the statement direct from NHS Connecting for Health:

Change to the position on deleting Summary Care Records

Following recent discussions with the Information Commissioner, it has now been agreed with NHS Connecting for Health that a patient’s Summary Care Record (SCR) can be deleted – if asked by a patient, unless the SCR has been used by a healthcare professional in the course of treatment or should have been used.

A Department of Health spokesperson said:

“Our early adopter programme was set up precisely so we can learn from emerging issues such as this one.

“Our priority is to ensure that the information provided to patients is accurate. As soon as we realised that one of our early adopters had inadvertently suggested the Summary Care Record could be deleted, if a patient changed their mind, we took immediate steps to update the website and information leaflet.

“Following discussions with the Information Commissioner we have now agreed that anyone can now request that their record is deleted. In the event that a record was accessed as part of someone’s healthcare, a record of that access needs to be kept in case there was a subsequent investigation of the performance of a clinician or a dispute about the facts – this is in the best interests of both patients and clinicians.”

[…]

http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/

What this means is very clear.

If you accept healthcare from the NHS, then they will retain your records. They need to do this in case you sue them for malpractice. You can delete your records at any time between now and before they treat you, but once you are treated by them you can kiss your privacy good bye.

Like I said before, only the rich will have privacy in the UK (July 10 2004). Anyone who has a private doctor and who never uses NHS services will never have their private medical details violated.

It seems to me to be outrageous that the state should steal money from you to provide healthcare for everyone, and then provide a healthcare that mandates that you give up your dignity. Is dignity too now only for the rich?

Since there are almost no accident and emergency rooms that are private, going to one and revealing everything medical about yourself to them so that you do not get killed by a shot of penicillin being allergic to it, will mean that this information will be on the Spine forever, and you will not have the right to remove it, since the NHS has to indemnify themselves. If you are going for a home birth and are forced to decamp to hospital, all the records of that birth and you will be on the Spine with no option open to you for deletion.

That’s not right.

Clearly you should be able to delete your records no matter when or how they are created, and the NHS performance and liability excuse is nonsense. If you sign a waiver giving up your rights so sue the NHS, then that should be enough to allow them to delete your records without any fear of repercussions.

In any case, here is how you go about deleting your Summary Care Records. Or not.

I telephoned the friendly people at Connecting For Health on 0845 603 8510, and got put through to a nice man, who I will call Dave. Dave told me that, “you have to go to your GP’s surgery and ask for an opt out form.”

He then told me that once you fill out this form and your records are processed, “your records will still be on the spine, but will not be available to other computers”. I informed Dave (who trained in November 2008) that in fact this is not what I was asking about, and that Connecting For Health has put out a statement that Spine records are now to be DELETED COMPLETELY from the system on demand, and not just ‘shielded’ from other computers.

He claimed that he knew nothing about this. I asked wether or not he was on the internet there; he said that he was. I directed him to the news article above, and he was surprised by its contents. He said that he would speak to his supervisor to see what it was all about.

Clearly they do not have a system in place so that you can have your records deleted. Perhaps they have no intention of allowing you to delete them at all, and they are going to keep them on ‘The Spine’ for your doctor, but ‘shield’ them from users other than your GP. Maybe they need time to set up a system to manage deletion. Lets hope its that.

NHS Blog Doctor, one “Dr John Crippen” has linked to a Blogdial post on MMR:

The champagne corks will be popping to night at JABs

First, we are Blogdial.

We are not JABS, we have no links to JABS and we do not in any way suggest that our opinions are shared by JABS, and vice versa.

before they dance round the mumbo-jumbo pole to sing “Soomer is a-comin’ in.” Their MMR scaremongering has been successful. There is now a major outbreak of measles.

With insults as poor as the above, Dr Crippen deserves to see a wicker man from the inside. However, he only presents a straw man argument.  There is not a major outbreak of measles.  And if anyone is scaremongering it is the likes of Dr Crippen, HMG and BBQ who present a relentless tax-sponsored campaign to scare parents into permiting their children to be jabbed with whatever They deem necessary. It has been MMR, it is now HPV (as we have discussed before) and will soon be chickenpox (as we have discussed before).

Furthermore, the post to which Dr Crippen links was obviously too complex in its arguments for him to understand. Dr Crippen accuses us of scaremongering when in fact that post simply highlights;

1. how government policy has restricted patient choice
2. how it is the restricted choice of vaccine which is now limiting uptake
3. how HMG could alter this policy, but refuse
4. how, rather than change policy, HMG pass blame onto parents refusing MMR – as is their choice
5. how the NHS, Dr Crippen included, fail to support parental choice and exacerbate the problem
6. how it is HMG, NHS, BBQ and now Dr Crippen – and not parents –  doing all the fearmongering

Health chiefs in Wales are dealing with a “massive” measles outbreak, with numbers already four times the highest figure recorded over the past 13 years.

Lies, damned lies… and very selective reporting. If, for instance, one looked at all the years of measles cases one may say something like “the outbreak is among the 20 lowest number of cases per year in recorded history.”

BBC Heaven forbid that we should start using nasty inflammatory words like “epidemic” or “pandemic” about this illness that could be eradicated were it not for the gullible worried-well lapping up noxious propaganda from the Wakefield brigade.

Patronising tosh. There would not be so many “worried well”, as Dr Crippen calls them, were it not for the deliberate scare-mongering of the health industry. No worried well, no mass market for HPV vaccine, no mass market for chickenpox vaccine, no mass market for statins over-the-counter, no multi-billion dollar industry in unneccessary vitamins and supplements. The ‘worried well’ do not go to the doctors asking for vaccine X, health screen Y or treatment Z  for no reason: – it is because the have been subject to a targeted marketing campaign based on fear, guilt and scaremongering by the health industry.  And the NHS is an integral piece of the health industry. The worried well are exactly the market targeted by BigPharma for vaccines against relatively inoccuous diseases like chickenpox.

And over the last year I have read precisely ZERO articles suggesting a link between MMR and autism (“noxious propaganda from the Wakefield brigade”). In contrast, there is a wealth of “noxious propaganda” telling me I am endangering myself, my children and the health of the nation if I fail to give my kids MMR. A wealth of “noxious propaganda” telling me how evil a disease measles is in 21st Century Britain. Just look at the noxious propaganda on the BBQ alone!

To compare, search the BBC for ‘MMR autism’ and the latest hit is over a year ago. And that is a report of the GMC hearing against the original researchers.

Still, it’s a thought.

No, it’s not.  There is no thought in your post at all, and that is the problem, Dr Crippen.

The NHS news line reports today that there are fewer cases of swine flu in the UK than there are cases of measles. And in Wales, there are two hundred times more cases of measles than of influenza.

Why is it not on the front page of every newspaper?

Maybe because some editors are keeping it in perspective? Maybe because only BBQ is in the pay of HMG? Just a  thought.

A valiant soldier alerted me to this:

Another arsehole here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8057785.stm

Advocates of home birth have, within the last month, claimed that “the vast majority of women have low-risk pregnancies”.

In fact, by all accepted standards, more than half of women have, or will develop, risk factors that make home birth unwise.

He FAILS by not pointing out – or not even realizing, more likely – that the “accepted standards” are those which he and his ilk have determined.

100% correct.

Now.

This article was written by Professor Philip Steer who is a man, not a woman. He is, “British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology editor-in-chief”.

What is ‘Obstetrics’?

Obstetrics (from the Latin obstare, “to stand by”) is the surgical specialty dealing with the care of women and their children during pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. Midwifery is the non-medical equivalent. Veterinary obstetrics is the same concept for veterinary medicine.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetrics

So, now you have all that you need to know.

This man, this MALE, has based his entire career on treating pregnancy and birth as if they were a medical condition and not a perfectly natural occurrence that does not, on average require intervention of any kind.

I can tell you this; if MEN gave birth instead of WOMEN, NO MAN ON THIS PLANET WOULD PUT UP WITH THE NONSENSE THAT THE OBSTETRICS INDUSTRY FORCES UPON WOMEN.

The fact of the matter is that only in the west are women subjected to the complete insanity and degradation of unnecessary obstetric procedures.

The fact that there is a ‘population problem’ in the world proves that obstetric intervention is totally over the top in the west. The majority of women in the world give birth OUTSIDE OF A HOSPITAL, and it is so successful, that there are ‘TOO MANY PEOPLE BEING BORN’.

The fact of the matter is the people who practice Obstetrics are doing it mostly for the money. They attack midwifery and home birth because midwives and home birth, should they become the norm, would totally decimate their incomes, industry and prestige.

All the statistics show that Home Birth is safer than hospital birth. There is no refuting this; what the BBC has done, once again, is promote the medical industrial complex by publishing its propaganda. They do it all the time. Here is another piece that just appeared saying that everyone should be taking medicine to lower their blood pressure as a matter of routine:

Blood pressure pill action urged

Everyone aged 55 and over should be taking drugs to lower their blood pressure, a London-based expert says.
Epidemiology expert Professor Malcolm Law said blood pressure drugs cut the risk of heart attack and stroke even for those with normal blood pressure.

His conclusion, published in the British Medical Journal and backed by other experts, is based on a review of 147 studies, involving 464,000 people.

However, the Stroke Association warned the drugs could have side-effects.

This is yet another article from the BBC without a named author. They do this to protect the identity of the person who accepted money to write this story on behalf of the PR companies that work for the drug companies. They know perfectly well that if the name of the author was given in every instance, someone would be able to correlate the stories and trace them to PR companies and cash payments for placement of these stories on the BBC news website.

This is why they deserve all the contempt that they get.

But I digress.

The facts about childbirth are that sometimes, a mother and her unborn child can get into distress during labor, and at those times, obstetricians can save lives. That is a fact, and I am thankful for obstetric practitioners, for the work that they do, and the lives of the mothers and children they have saved.

But.

If obstetricians try and influence the direction that birthing takes away from natural birth and towards the mechanized birth by using FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt), simply because they do not want to lose clients and money, then they need to be sharply put in their places.

Women are not animals, and pregnancy is not a medical condition. It is up to the woman to decide how she should give birth.

If she wants to give birth alone, that is her affair. If she wants an elective Caesarean that is also her business. If this is not the case, then women become a form of property, that falls under the control of the state or some other monster; in the west, pregnant women are increasingly the property of the state under the control of Obstetricians. This is totally unacceptable, and as I say above, no man would ever accept it.

What is worrying about this article is the following lie:

In fact, by all accepted standards, more than half of women have, or will develop, risk factors that make home birth unwise.

Think about the words:

‘By all accepted standards’…. WHOSE STANDARDS?
‘Risk factors’ … WHOSE ASSESSMENT OF RISK?
‘Unwise’ … WHOSE WISDOM?

The standards of an obstetric practitioner will be different from another person’s standards. Because we are dealing with PEOPLE and not MACHINES, the wishes of the mother trump everything, no matter what anyone says. The same goes for risk; it is up to the mother to decide what level of risk she wants to take with ANYTHING she does, not just pregnancy and birth. If an obstetrician can make a decision or assessment of risk and force a decision on a pregnant women, then that woman becomes PROPERTY at that instant.

Women are wise. The know how to give birth, (especially after the first time) and they know how to assess risk. They have a right to assess risk and to make decisions for themselves and their children. Anyone who gets in the way of that by force is a beast, and should be put down like one.

Women in the west are now sharing information about home birth, and finding that they want to give birth just like everyone else in the world does. Medical professionals are LIVID that they are going to be pushed out of the loop. Well, thats just tough shit. Women come before your desires for money, and if all women in the west want home birth, you have no choice but to accept that and sit patiently until your services are needed.

All of my friends who have children have opted for home birth. They all did it at home, and some of them delivered their children by themselves. The return to natural birth is now unstoppable. Medicalized birth will fade into history like the prohibition of alcohol; it will be seen as an insane aberration of the twentieth century.

The choice the medical community have to make is wether or not they want to be the enemies of their patients or their dutiful servants. I am sure that all women would prefer the latter.

Finally, ‘home birth’ is not anti technology any more than people who choose organic food are anti technology; they are exercising quality control. Take for example, the services of Caroline Flint, whose services are not about home birth, but about the woman having total control over her pregnancy and birth. She will look after you during your pregnancy, and if you want an elective Caesarean, she will arrange that for you. This is the thing the Obstetricians fear the most; being supplanted by and having their incomes at the mercy of Midwives.

ContactPoint, the pure evil paedophile directory invented by the monsters of New Labour and developed by Capgemini, has ‘gone live in a local authority pilot’.

The reprehensible and vile BBC News has a nauseating article, that has an inappropriate picture, and which trots out all the lies HMG want you to swallow unchallenged. Of course, you and I know better.

Since we have been through ContactPoint sufficiently, we can now turn to something fascinating that is related to ContactPoint tangentially.

This is an article, a dreadful article, from ‘CIO‘: “Business Technology Leadership”. This is from their ‘about’ page:

CIO is the leading information brand for today’s busy chief information officer. Available online at www.cio.co.uk and in print via our monthly magazine, CIO addresses issues vital to the success of chief information officers worldwide. CIO provides technology and business leaders with analysis and insight on information technology trends and a keen understanding of IT’s role in achieving business goals.

Ok…… if this is piece of writing is an example of what they describe above, it is no wonder that there are people out there who say things like:

The database is only intended to be accessed by professionals working with children, such as social workers, doctors and the police, and the government has said users cannot download the contents from ContactPoint.

That line was repeated in print, unchallenged by ‘Siobhan Chapman’ in Computerworld UK, who commits an unpardonable sin. Either this idiot is a paid liar for HMG, or she is computer illiterate, or completely immoral or as stupid as they come; whatever way you slice it, that she has written this article is deeply shameful and disgusting. That two magazines / websites that pretend to have expertise in IT can accept and reproduce a piece of writing like this that is clearly full of nonsense / propaganda makes them look bad and is absolutely astonishing.

Every schoolboy knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a database system accessed by browsers that can prevent the users of the system from copying the entries. The fact that ContactPoint holds ‘minimal’ (more on that later) details makes it easier to copy entries, since they can all fit in a small space in the browser and can be copied with a single click of the mouse. And remember, we are talking about COPYING entries; to use the word ‘download’ is disingenuous. The point about the dangers of this database is that the entries can be copied, will always be copyable and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop copying, short of not having a database at all. It is very important that right now, some journalist puts up a bounty for a photograph of a ContactPoint entry to demonstrate that anyone can make a copy of a ContactPoint entry, and that those copies can be transmitted to anyone anywhere, and the idea that the entries are ‘not downloadable’ is purely farcical.

Now, lets get onto the insanity of Siobhan Chapman:

ContactPoint children’s database rolls out

Not so. It has not been ‘rolled out’ it is being piloted. This is important; it is easier to stop ContactPoint and the escape of all the data on the children living in Britain at this early stage. To imply that it is a fait accompli is to be on their side; the side of the paedophiles, child farmers and monsters.

System has been dogged with security faults

This is a magazine about IT. What on earth is a ‘security fault’? The people who write for this magazine should know that ContactPoint cannot be secured. They should know how databases work, how browsers work, how operating systems work, and they should have a good understanding of what data is. Someone who fits that bill would not use the phrase ‘security faults’ – it is meaningless.

A controversial database featuring the details of every child in England has become available to childcare professionals today.

Up to 800 social workers, head teachers and health officials will be able to use the new system, called ContactPoint, as it begins its national roll-out in the north west. Eventually, the system will be rolled out across the country.

This is underplaying the horror of ContactPoint. We know that over 300,000 ‘professionals’ will have access to it. To say that 800 people have access makes it sound like only a carefully selected few will have access to it, when it fact, a million people will have access. The implications of this have been discussed on BLOGDIAL, at length.

The system, which cost an estimated £224m has been dogged with data security fears and has been delayed twice due to faults.

Once again, this is a magazine for IT professionals; what were the ‘faults’ that you are writing about? And as for ‘dogged with data security fears’ have the people who created ContactPoint changed the nature of the universe and solved the problem of the security of the data on this database? If you are competent, you should know that it is impossible for them to secure ContactPoint. These are not ‘fears’ they are FACTS.

ContactPoint has also come under heavy criticism from civil libertarians. A report written by information policy experts at Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust described the database as “almost certainly illegal”, and warned that storing information leads to vulnerable people, such as young black men, single parents and children, being victimised.

If it is illegal, a legal challenge should be mounted immediately. I have £100 to contribute right now to the fighting fund.

In 2007, Deloitte and Touche said in a report that the project could never be totally secure.

And what is the opinion of Siobhan Chapman? How is it that CIO has no opinion on this dastardly database? How can a magazine like this not lambast ContactPoint? Do these idiots not have families of their own? It beggars belief. They are busy talking about greening their CIO activities as a part of corporate citizenship, but do not attack ContactPoint, which is pure evil and a clear and present danger. Absolutely pathetic.

In March, the launch was delayed after a fault sometimes exposed the information of vulnerable children, including victims of domestic violence and those in witness protection schemes.

This is nonsense. All the children on ContactPoint are vulnerable by virtue of being on the database. Since every entry on it can be copied, the system exposes all children’s information by default, no matter who they are. There are few things more annoying than a person without brains writing about something like this.

Think about it; if all the people who access ContactPoint are trusted, then how can it be a bad thing that the details of ‘vulnerable children’ are exposed to them? Surely these people, being good, can do no harm by seeing the details of ‘vulnerable children’?

The truth of this statement is that the details of the children of the rich and famous was found to be not hidden from the users of the system, meaning that curious ContactPoint users would be able to look up the details of people who have had their details ‘shielded’. If it is necessary for the rich and famous to be shielded because of harm from the supposedly trusted users of ContactPoint, how is it that the children of everyone else are safe from these trusted users? The whole thing doesn’t make any sense!

But Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary (pictured) said there has been “important and careful work” to build ContactPoint over the past four months.

Including lines from Ed Balls is…..balls.

No matter what this aparatchick says, ContactPoint is immoral and a danger to children. To repeat his words is give credence to the logic of a paedophile violator who would sell the children of Britain to a company for money.

“If we are to do our best to make sure children are protected and that no child slips through the net, then it’s crucial the right agencies are involved at the right time and get even better at sharing information,” said Balls.

This is utter garbage. To protect children, just like the children of the rich and famous, ContactPoint must be dismantled. The children of the rich and famous are vulnerable by virtue of being on the database, that means that ALL children are vulnerable by default.

Also, all of the recent cases involving abuse, like the ‘Baby P’ case were known about by social workers in detail, and yet, in each case, the worst possible outcome was the result. This database will not prevent people from being hurt, will not stop criminals from committing crime and will do nothing but violate people on an unprecedented scale, and put children at risk.

“ContactPoint is vital for this because it will enable frontline professionals to see quickly and easily who else is in contact with a child.”

Once again, total drivel, and of course, unchallenged by Siobhan Chapman, who lets this monster get away with lying in an article under her name. Absolutely horrible collaboration with evil. There is no need whatsoever to put EVERY child in the country in a database because an extremely small number of children are at risk. The common sense thing to do would be to put only those children on a list of vulnerable children not every child by default. Even then, since the state has insane ideas about who and who is not at risk (gypsies being regularly targeted for abuse from the Local Authorities) you would regularly get children put onto ‘ContactPoint 2.0’ because Local Authorities are staffed by racists. ContactPoint is a bad idea, plain and simple.

It has been welcomed by children’s charities and organisations, including Barnardo’s, KIDS and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. Martin Narey, chief executive of children’s charity Barnardo’s, said it “would make it easier to deliver better-co-ordinated services”.

And so what? Barnardo’s is not a part of government, and will not even have access to ContactPoint; who cares what they think? Martin Narey is an imbecile, clearly. Since when does the opinions of imbeciles justify the violation of millions of children? Once again, Siobhan fails to challenge this by asking the obvious question; HOW is ContactPoint going to, “make it easier to deliver better-co-ordinated services?”. He is bullshitting of course, as is Ed Balls, and you let them get away with it Siobhan. SHAME ON YOU.

ContactPoint, built by Capgemini, is described as an “online tool” that holds “minimal” identifying information of around 11 million under 18 year olds in England, including names, addresses, dates of birth, gender and contact details for parents or carers. Each child is also given a unique identifying number, as well as contact details for the child’s school, GP practices and any other practitioner services involved.

This is incredible. To describe the information as ‘minimal’ is an abuse of the English language. There is enough information on ContactPoint to UNIQUELY identify the parents and children of all families in Britain. There is nothing ‘minimal’ about that at all, in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is more than the Nazis had when the rounded up undesirables with the help of IBM. A tatooed number on your arm is ‘minimal information’ is it not? After all, its ‘just a number’. Of course, we cannot rely on the likes of Siobhan or the anonymous propaganda repeaters at the BBC to tell us this!

The database is only intended to be accessed by professionals working with children, such as social workers, doctors and the police, and the government has said users cannot download the contents from ContactPoint.

CIO

This article appears in two different magazines, with the same unchallenged garbage. The editors of both publications failed to stop this propaganda from hijacking their platforms. This is what we call a ‘lapse of standards’.

We can only hope that a legal challenge is forthcoming, or a Tory victory and the scrapping of this, the NIR, and ID Cards; preferably all of them, all at once. One thing is for sure; with ‘people’ like Siobhan Chapman and the inexcusably inept rags she writes in propping up the propaganda, the task of getting the fact out in the public is made that much harder. We expect nothing but evil from the BBC, so that is par for the course. Thanks you jackasses.

Anyone who boosted ContactPoint, who let propaganda for it pass by them unchallenged, who coded for it, argued for it, made excuses for it, allowed data to leave their office to enter it; everyone who helped make this happen is going to BURN IN HELL for what they have done. It is inexcusable, unforgivable and totally horrible. Any council worker who touches it, trains people for it or even makes a single telephone call where the number came from it, is also going straight to the lake of fire, where they will join the concentration camp runners, PW Botha and all the other villains of history.

ContactPoint is a particularly nasty thing because it uses children it farms children for money; there is no other way to describe it. The company that developed it, Capgemini, has become the greatest abuser of children in the history of the world, along with the government that commissioned it. They are making money out of children; they will have priced for the work they did based on the size of the database, i.e. the number of children it records; they were paid per child. This is a sin in every culture in the world. How these people can sleep at night is beyond me, and the irony is clearly lost on them that they are using children to make money and justifying it by saying that the act of using ALL the children in the UK to make money is going to stop the abuse of children.

You can’t make stuff like this up…. and these days, you don’t have to. That is the problem; every dystopian nightmare is trying to come true right before our eyes.

Finally, do not suffer under the illusion that just because they have put all the pieces in place that ContactPoint cannot be completely dismantled. It CAN be dismantled, and all the data erased. The DNA database climb-down is the most recent demonstration of what it looks like when HMG is forced to stop doing evil. Not only should all the data be erased, but it should be illegal for anyone in government to create a database of children that is accessible to people outside of a council. Capgemini can keep their fee. That money will condemn them forever.

Think about it; under what circumstances would a council need to keep a database of all children in its ward? The schoolmasters know how many places there are and who is applying for places, the doctors know who is on their (preferably paper) records and do not need to be served by a database run by the council or central government; for decades everyone has done without this ‘service’, so why should the privacy and dignity of families be violated in this way? The general census provides enough data for planning, so why do they need to do this? For ‘efficiency’? If that is the criteria, then why not take all children from their parents at birth and house them in a central Kibbutz, where efficiency is absolutely maximized? I’m sure that this idea appeals to the New Labour monsters, but most normal people would reject it outright.

Efficiency is not everything and certainly people should not be violated to provide the state with greater efficiency. Inefficient systems that protect people and their dignity are infinitely preferable to efficient systems that violate people. That is why a doctor’s office that runs on paper, even though it may be less efficient than a doctor’s office that runs on databases, is far preferable than the latter. Paper is private. Paper is decent. Paper protects the sacred oath of confidentiality that all doctors pledge. That it takes more time to organize the information of a patient in a ‘paper practice’ is NOTHING compared to the loss of confidentiality, and as we have seen with ContactPoint, there are unintended consequences to ‘modernization’, like the automated uploading of confidential patient records to the NHS Spine, the elimination of prescription privacy and everything else that flows from the availability of digital information.

Unintended consequences lead to what we call ‘feature creep’. We see that ContactPoint is going to be used to see who is and who is not ‘fully recorded’. The ‘minimal information’ that is supposed to re-assure everyone that ContactPoint is benign is actually extremely intrusive. For example, by keeping a list of what doctor you have, should there be a blank in the ‘GP’ field, (because your child has never needed to see a doctor for example) a Local Authority worker will immediately say that you are an abuser because your child does not appear to have a GP. And make no mistake, ContactPoint will allow the Local Authority to print a list of all children who have missing fields; that means children not registered with a GP, children who are not registered at a school, etc etc.

At the very least, the Local Authority will generate automated letters to all the parents from these records. That means that millions of letters generated from ContactPoint will be in the post, presumably with the child’s unique identifying number. As we saw before with the stolen child benefit DVDRs, the letters that were sent out to apologize to parents ended up being sent to wrong addresses, exposing the private information of families to strangers.

This is the sort of nonsense, and worse, that we can expect should ContactPoint be allowed to go live.

ContactPoint must be scrapped and the data permanently deleted. Nothing like this must ever be attempted again. There is no justification for it by any stretch of the imagination, an you should do everything in your power not to be touched by it. It is pure evil, a recipe for multiple disasters and for sure, a child is going to die as a result of this database.

This is one of Alun’s comments, that simply had to be promoted to a full post:

“Martin Barnes, chief executive of the think tank DrugScope, who sits on the advisory council, said it was crucial that a rigorously independent body was entrusted with this type of research. […]

Mr Barnes added that when no other drug was involved, ecstasy accounted for between 10-17 deaths a year. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7882708.stm

For comparison:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

“Figures on alcohol-related deaths in 2007 indicate a levelling-off of the trend, following rapid increases since the early 1990s. There were 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007, lower than 2006, but more than double the 4,144 recorded in 1991. The alcohol-related death rate was 13.3 per 100,000 population in 2007, compared with 6.9 per 100,000 population in
1991.”

Back to the report and responses to it:

“The Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales has expressed opposition to suggestions that ecstasy should be downgraded to a Class B drug.

Ian Johnston, president of the association, told the BBC the downgrade could be dangerous.

He said: “This is not some academic or scientific exercise, this is dealing with people’s lives. If we downgrade ecstasy, we are in danger of sending mixed messages out to young and vulnerable people.”

Last month, the Home Office restored cannabis from Class C to Class B, against the wishes of the advisory council.

Ministers are now set to resist the council’s recommendation on ecstasy. “[…]

So, what exactly is the mixed message?
That heroin is as ‘good’ as E, or that E is as ‘bad’ as heroin?
That 30 deaths from an untaxed substance is bad, but 8724 deaths from a heavily taxed substance is acceptable?
That independent, expert advice is necessary, but worthless?
That arses and elbows are identical in Jacqui Smiths head?

Or that while HMG claims to know “What is Right and Wrong for You”, HMGs response to this report yet again only demonstrates why only idiots submit to governmental control over what goes in their body?

A Home Office spokesman said: “HPV vaccines can and do kill unpredictably; there is no such thing as a safe dose. The government firmly believes that HPV vaccines should remain a class A drug.”

A vigilant lurker writes:

I had to send you this abstract. Unfortunately I don’t have access to the full article. 

1: Am J Public Health. 2009 Feb 5. [Epub ahead of print] Links

The Moral Justification for a Compulsory Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program.

Balog JE.

The College at Brockport, State University of New York.

Compulsory human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of young girls has been proposed as a public health intervention to reduce the threat of the disease. Such a program would entail a symbiotic relationship between scientific interests in reducing mortality and morbidity and philosophical interests in promoting morality. This proposal raises the issue of whether government should use its police powers to restrict liberty and parental autonomy for the purpose of preventing harm to young people. I reviewed the scientific literature that questions the value of a HPV vaccination. Applying a principle-based approach to moral reasoning, I concluded that compulsory HPV vaccinations can be justified on moral, scientific, and public health grounds.

One can contact him here:

Joseph E. Balog, PhD

State University of New York, College at Brockport
Health Science
350 New Campus Drive
19 Hartwell Hall
Brockport NYUSA
14420
Email: jbalog@brockport.edu

And if you want a laugh, take a look at his ‘justifications’ in the presentation linked at this page…
http://apha.confex.com/apha/135am/techprogram/paper_152993.htm

This reminds me of a certain Joseph Mengele:

Who also justified his human experimentation on the grounds that he was doing it for the ‘greater good’ and ‘in the name of science’.

Morality should NEVER be legislated, and it is not the job of scientists to determine what is or is not moral on behalf of anyone. It is even more of an outrage that this modern Mengele

wants to use his ‘scientific’ method to create a moral position that will be translated into a law that will cause millions to be injected with this worthless vaccine.

Here are some of the links on Gardasil from BLOGDIAL:

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1256
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=490
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=846
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=838
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=831

While we are at it, HPV is not a public health issue, it is a personal health issue because HPV is an STD. In order to become infected with it, you have to have sex with someone. That is a private act that has nothing to do with the state.

HPV cannot be sneezed onto someone, cannot cause an epidemic resulting in millions of deaths due to casual contact. It is quite different from the other highly contagious diseases, and even with those, vaccination is not compulsory in civilized countries.

It’s one thing to develop a product (Gardasil) and then use corruption, fear-mongering and the perversion of statistics to influence people to choose to have it shot into themselves by the millions; it is quite another to try and engineer a fallacious malignant morality wrapped in the authoritative voice of ‘science’ as a pretext for new law that will compel parents to violate their children.

Treatises on morality should never appear in a scientific paper. They should be published in the appropriate place. Publishing a tract justifying the morality of something in a scientific journal or paper is wrong because science is about facts and evidence only; it is not about making a personal judgement.

When we mix science with morality the former lends its power, the power of facts that can be proven and all the results that have flowed from that to create all the great tools that we enjoy today, to the latter, which is purely subjective. Balog believes that all girls should be shot with Gardasil. This is not a scientific fact, or at least the question of wether or not they should be shot with it is not a fact. What he believes applies only to him, and his twisted sick morality, whereas scientific truth applies to everyone like it or not.

And for the record, by ‘scientific truth’ I do not mean what any scientist knows or does not know, or what is written in peer reviewed journals. What scientists know is a number, when all the facts of the universe are taken into account, indistinguishable from zero. I am talking about gravity. Gravity ‘holds you down’ no matter what you think or like, or what its true nature is. Homeopathic medicine works, wether you like it or not. Gardasil is junk. Get shot with it if you like, but no one should be forced to be injected with it. The same goes for all other vaccines; they should never be injected into people by force, for any reason.

Finally, monsters like this man are a part of the concerted effort to dismantle the family as the center of human culture. They want to replace the family with the state and themselves as the ultimate authority over all life on this planet.

Gabby Swank was a straight-A student and cheerleader.

But that was before she became very ill following the standard dose of three Gardasil vaccinations, Attkisson reports.

You know the commercial. It showed teenage girls saying “I want to be one less” who gets the HPV virus, which is linked to cervical cancer.

“It was like a big hype among my friends, because we’re like, ‘we’re gonna get it’ because we felt almost pressured by the commercials,” Gabby said.

Gabby got sicker after each shot, progressing to seizures, strokes and heart problems. It was her neurologist who suspected Gardasil was to blame.

“I think there are too many people having serious long-term side-effects,” said neurologist Dr. Dwight Lindholm.

Last fall, the government and vaccine maker Merck concluded there’s no link between Gardasil and serious adverse events like Gabby’s. But a new analysis calls that finding into question.

The National Vaccine Information Center, a private vaccine-safety group, compared Gardasil adverse events to another vaccine, one also given to young people, but for meningitis. Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits – more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil.

“If I’d have known, we never would have gotten the shot,” said Emily Tarsell, whose daughter, Chris, died three weeks after her third Gardasil shot. She was one of the 29 fatalities reported in two years. “And she’d be here to hug.”

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the NVIC, said: “Now we know from this report that there are more reactions and deaths associated with Gardasil than with another vaccine given in the same age group. It’s irresponsible not to take action.”

Merck, the FDA and CDC question the value of the new analysis, say they continue to review the data, Gardasil remains safe and effective, and its benefits outweigh the risks.

Those who believe the vaccine hurt them aren’t convinced. Gabby isn’t cheering anymore and is too sick to even attend school.

“I struggle with guilt a lot, because I made the choice to get the shot for her,” said Gabby’s mom, Shannon Swank.

Meantime, Merck has asked the FDA to approve it for boys, who can pass on the cancer causing virus to girls, meaning the number of people getting Gardasil may double.

[…]

CBS News

We.
Told.
You.
So.

Jab offered over measles outbreak

More than 10,000 youngsters across Cheshire are being offered the MMR vaccine in an attempt to contain an outbreak of measles.

Health officials said there had been 62 reported cases of the illness mainly around Crewe, Sandbach and Middlewich.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said there had been 106 cases in the county since January.

Cheshire has the highest rate of reported measles cases in the UK outside of London in 2008.

Professor David Salisbury said: “This is the legacy. This is the milestone [sic] we carry because a decade ago we didn’t vaccinate our children because of fear over the MMR jab.”

More than 50% of cases have occurred in children of nursery and primary school age, said a HPA spokesman.

This is the milestone [sic] we carry because a decade ago we didn’t vaccinate our children because of fear over the MMR jab.

No.

No. This is the consequence of government policy.  Consider: you are HMG, an altruistic body whose only purpose is to serve the public interest.  You know that, of measles, mumps and rubella, only measles is potentially a serious public health concern.  However, in a misguided moment you have (1) withdrawn licences to produce single vaccines against these diseases and (2) given a monopoly to a triple-jab, MMR, despite this seeming to go against your stated aim of allowing patient choice.   For whatever reason, confidence in MMR decreases and the incidence of measles increases. Since you are an altruistic body whose only purpose is to serve the public interest, you wish to protect the nations children against measles.

Do you:

(a) rapidly re-introduce single vaccines for those children whose parents who prefer them, leading to increased uptake, increased protection and removing any question of dereliction of duty, or…

(b) blame the media for anti-MMR hysteria, blame parents for being paranoid and attempt to induce a compulsion to vaccinate by MMR through fear-mongering, while refusing to change policy on single vaccines and sneering ‘told you so’ as children are hospitalised by measles.

Listen to Prof David Salisbury in this article:

Measles cases reach 13-year high

Hear him blame parents for not taking up MMR. Hear him acknowledge he has been worrying about a measles epidemic for “a considerable period of time”.

But what has he done? Nothing. He is useless. Worse than useless, he is perpetuating the problem. He will not propose single vaccines, but repeatedly says it is up to parents to give children MMR, or else it’s their fault when measles increases. He is no longer acting as a physician, but as a political puppet acting in the interests of… well, who knows? BigPharma? HMG? Certainly not you, the people, who pay his wages.

Some information on single vaccines is here.

In a sneaky move, BBQ have been utilised to further fear-moger against single vaccines and for MMR.

Single vaccine ‘safety’ warnings

So, after several paragraphs suggesting your child may die due to anaphylaxis if you give it single vaccines and not the MMR we get:

Study leader Dr Mich Lajeunesse, a consultant in paediatric allergy in Southampton, said: “It is so unusual that if you saw one case of anaphylaxis to vaccines you would be surprised.

“We can’t think of any reason why it would be higher for single vaccines and it’s probably an anomaly.

The data are extrapolated from estimates because single vaccinations are essentially unregulated because… government policy does not allow your GP to administer them!!!

So HMG have not only watched as your risk of measles increased and refuse to do anything about it, but may also be increasing your risk of side effects from single vaccines because these vaccines can now only be given by unmonitored clinics.

What a farce!

Whilst googling around today for the uses of colloidal silver after reading an extraordinarily inflammatory post that I wont trouble you with, I wandered onto some facts about how children are being born in the USA. It is now the law, (a real, not color of law, actual statute, unlike the non existent mandatory vaccine laws) that Silver Nitrate or some other anti bacterial wash be dripped into the eyes of a newborn as soon as it emerges:

§16-3-10. It shall be unlawful for any physician, nurse-midwife or midwife, practicing midwifery, or other health care professional to neglect or otherwise fail to instill or have instilled, immediately upon its birth, in the eyes of the newborn babe, the contents of a single-use tube of an ophthalmic ointment containing one percent tetracycline or one half of one percent erythromycin or the equivalent dosage of such medications or other appropriate medication approved by the director for prevention of inflammation of the eyes of the newborn. Every physician, nurse-midwife or midwife or other health care professional shall, in making a report of a birth, state the name of the appropriate medication which was instilled into the eyes of said infant. The director shall establish a list of appropriate medications for prevention of inflammation of the eyes of the newborn. The list shall be kept current and distributed to appropriate health care facilities and such other sources as the director may determine to be necessary.

[…]

WTH??!!

‘What the heck’ indeed.

Naturally, the first reaction of any decent person is to think, “how the hell can anyone get away from this madness?”.

Home Birth is the first obvious choice; having a birth plan where Silver Nitrate or tetracycline is refused clearly is not an option, since the staff will simply say, “its the law” and secondly, they take your baby from you immediately and then do all their dastardly deeds out of sight.

But there is another way that is gaining momentum: ‘Freebirth’.

A Freebirth or Unassisted Childbirth is a birth where midwives and doctors are excluded by choice in advance.

This is what it looks like:

Of course, doctors obstetricians and the medical establishment are against this with all guns blazing. The fear-mongers are full of rubbish of course.

Read this from Laura Shanley’s Born Free website:

One of the greatest myths perpetuated by the medical system is that hospitals are the safest place to give birth. Stories abound of women dying in childbirth before the advent of modern hospitals. And yet, few people realize that women were not dying due to the fact that childbirth is inherently dangerous, but rather because of the living conditions at that time. Poor women were generally underfed and overworked during pregnancy, while wealthy women were often deprived of fresh air and sunshine because brown skin was considered socially unacceptable. Wealthy girls were corsetted from the age of eleven, so that by the time they turned fourteen, their pelvises were literally deformed. These physical factors, combined with various psychological ones (fear, shame, and guilt) led to the problems that some women encountered.

Throughout history, normal, healthy women have rarely died in childbirth. In fact, when birth moved from the home to the hospital in the 1920s, the infant and maternal mortality rates actually rose. A major study done as early as 1933 showed that hospital births were not as safe as home births. Studies done in the last twenty years, prove this is still the case. (Mayer Eisenstein, MD, The Home Court Advantage, 1988.)

When a laboring woman goes into the modern-day hospital, she is surrounded by medical personnel and machinery. Often she is told what to eat (generally nothing), what position to be in (generally flat on her back, which narrows the pelvic outlet and prevents her from utilizing the natural gravitational force), and when and when not to push (which interferes with her own instinctive knowledge of birth). Her progress is charted and measured and she is treated more like a machine than a thinking, feeling, intelligent adult.

If her labor is not progressing at the speed at which the hospital has arbitrarily decided it should be, she is often given drugs to speed things up. The drugs, however, may make her contractions more painful, which in turn, cause her to take more medication to deal with the pain. Not only does this medication prevent her from fully participating in the birthing process, it also crosses the placenta, adversely affecting her unborn baby.

Sometimes a woman’s body simply shuts down after all this intervention, and the woman is told she needs a cesarean section in order for her baby to be born safely. Unaware that the intervention she received actually caused the “complications” in the first place, she often consents “for the good of the baby.” Nearly one in four babies in this country are now born by cesarean section.

Many women who have given birth in the hospital report dissatisfaction not only with the way they were treated, but with the way their babies were treated as well. Babies are often taken away from their mothers immediately after birth to be weighed, measured, tested and cleaned. Eye drops are administered “just in case” a mother has a venereal disease, and Vitamin K is administered because babies are supposedly born “deficient.”

When a woman gives birth at home, she is free to eat what she wants, assume any position she wants, and push or not push depending on how she feels. When no one is telling her what to do, she is able to “tune in” and listen to “the still, small voice within.” The same loving consciousness that knew how to grow her baby inside her perfectly, knows how to get her baby out safely and easily, if only she will let it. With no one shouting commands at her, a woman is free to relax, and naturally birth her baby. After the birth, there is no one there to separate her from her baby. She can hold and nurse him as long as she wishes. Women all over the world are rediscovering the fact that birth works best when it is interfered with least.

In the past several years I have received hundreds of stories from women and couples who have successfully given birth without medical assistance. Their stories speak for themselves. No one, however, regardless of their “expertise,” can guarantee that a baby will be born safely. Some babies die. It’s simply nature’s way.

[…]

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/uc/isucsafe.html

That is all true, My friends™.

Finally, from the Washington Post article linked above:

The intensifying contractions were three minutes apart as Lynn Griesemer tried to reassure her 11-year-old daughter, who hovered anxiously beside her. Her husband, Bob, had not returned the four increasingly urgent messages she’d left on his cellphone and had neglected to give her his new office number at the Pentagon. The couple’s sixth child would be born that Friday in June 2002 and Griesemer was worried he might not make it in time.

Heh.

When someone from the Pentagon chooses unassisted childbirth, it makes you wonder, “just what has he read about vaccines and vitamin K to make him choose something so unusual?”.

But I digress.

I know someone who delivered his own son completely unassisted. He will tell anyone who asks that it is a most wonderful thing to deliver your own child.

And then there are all the other benefits of not having a drugged wife or a drugged baby, no arguments with bolshy staff about Vitamin K, bizarre vaccinations or harsh chemical eye wash, no forceful rotation of your baby’s legs to see if she has ‘clicky’ hips….a perfectly clean, natural fresh start, with everyone calm and no one destroyed or unnecessarily disturbed.

And just in case you didn’t know, if your baby DOES get conjunctivitis, all you need to do is squirt some breast milk into his or her eyes and it clears up perfectly.

Nature is best!

The usual disclaimers apply; if you have an elective Caesarian because of your workload in your job at the bank, and you want every vaccination going to be shot on day one, and you want Vitamin K, guthrie test with addition to DNA database, clicky hips rotation, eyes washed with tetracycline AND Silver Nitrate, straight onto vitamin fortified formula milk from Nestle, put directly into the crib and shipped off with the nanny….THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS AND YOUR RIGHT.

Take a look at this site, called ‘Gapminder’.

It is a fascinating piece of software that displays the positions of countries on a graph of different factors set against each other.

If you look at the default graph on this site, you will see that the most prosperous and longest living people live in Hong Kong.

Jim Rogers has moved his family, including his two daughter, to Singapore, where she is being tutored in Mandarin, because he wants. “to prepare her for the future”.

Fascinating.

And thanks to the lurker who pointed us to it.

Speaking of useful tools, check out this one, called ‘Sitefinder’: The Mobile Phone Base Station Database. You put your postcode into the slot, and it returns a map of all of the cellular telephone masts in your immediate area. Clicking on the blue triangles brings up information on who operates the transmitters and the amount of power they are outputting.

This is an amazing resource for those who do not want to buy a house that is being drenched in emissions from the many towers that provide near blanket coverage of the UK.