Let the Culling Commence!
The danger signs are spread all around us yet scarcely register in the standard economic models. Nature is the greatest obstacle of all to the future of the free-market system and cannot be treated as an adversary. The message must be protect or perish.
Giant corporations, wealthy communities and rich individuals, whatever their assets cannot escape the consequences of ecological degradation. Yet even they seem powerless to halt the process. They illustrate the paradox of beneficiaries unable to protect the system that benefits them, a paradox we shall encounter frequently in this Report.
At its heart lies the problem of the 'free-rider'. Whereas only some would pay the costs for turning these destructive trends around, all would benefit. If one company stopped trawling in order to allow fish stocks to recover, some less scrupulous rival would move in, take whatever fish remained and ruin the more ecologically responsible firm in the bargain. Short-term interests are paramount.
No one wants to go first, so all end up going last. Entrepreneurs do not want powerful states which can impose stringent rules on business, much less a global government, so no one regulates. No one can afford to stop and turn around, so destruction continues. Yet no one can live on a dead planet.
The bedrock of free-market theory and practice, need we remind the Commissioning Parties, is not altruism or self-sacrifice but immediate self-interest and profit. It would thus be astonishing to find this market rife with statistically significant unselfish behaviour. This holds true even when it can be shown that some policies and individual actions are much more likely to protect the system than others; to allow it to pass on, as it were, its genes. Market players care only about themselves, today, not about transmitting their individual or collective inheritance.
It should come as no surprise that unregulated (or 'self-regulated') markets are quite capable of creating tensions (mass unemployment, social upheaval, environmental degradation, financial crash) that undermine the market system itself. Global shock-absorbers are not being installed on our standard model. Given an inherently fragile system lacking legitimate, enforceable rules, we can only warn against a global accident some time in the early twenty-first century (if not before).
A system based on individual freedom, self-regulation and 'Darwinian' competition and survival of the fittest will not suddenly turn around and, by and of itself, beg to be regulated. The system's chief beneficiaries cannot be expected or, under present circumstances, forced to act against their own immediate interests, against the very principles of profit and self-advantage upon which the free market and their own success are founded. To imagine that thse beneficiaries might, in large or even significant numbers, recognise in time the need for external regulation is to deny all known laws of human behaviour. This contradiction must be underscored and faced.
Huge annual population increases are not merely disquieting for ecological reasons. Paradoxically, they call into question the very theoretical foundations of the liberal society that it is our mandate to defend. According to the doctrine of laissez-faire and the seminal works of Adam Smith, individual decisions in the marketplace will have benign outcomes for society as a whole; each person pursuing self-interest will unwittingly contribute to the general good or what Smith called the 'public interest'. This postulate is the bedrock of liberal theory.
Yet here is the paradox: poor people in poor societies who are most responsible for the population explosion are usually having children for sound individual economic reasons...
From the point of view of most poor Third World parents, a child brings in more than it costs. In rural settings, it helps with chores from an early age. In urban environments, some 250 million child labourers under the age of 14 help their families to survive...
The philosophical contradictions of the free-market system appear here in a harsher light. One must ask who has a right to participate in this system by making individually rational economic decisions. Is this participation a universal right? Wiith regard to reproduction, is it normal and permissible or abnormal and illegitimate that each individual seeks to maximise his or her own advantage, given that children are usually an advantage?
We know for sure that hundreds of millions of individually justifiable decisions to have children will lead to the presence of a higher population than the planet can ultimately support. We also know with mathematical certainty that excessive populations in individual countries will result in increased pressure on land and other resources, the reduction of output per capita and therefore a drop in the standard of living.
Today's rulers seem to have lost sight completely of the fundamental duty to maintain population stability, and, rather than lying to their citizens for their own good, they seem more often to be lying to themselves. Whether from cowardice or from ignorance, they pretend that the market can, by itself, bring happiness, riches and well-being to all, even in the face of staggering growth in the numbers of people pursuing these rewards.
The system cannot function without an ongoing struggle between products, firms and individuals. The fewer people entitled to share in the wealth, the greater the rewards to be distributed among the winners. Each person must compete not merely against his neighbors but against strangers thousands of miles away whom he will never meet.
Since profit is the goal and the motor of the system, corporations must be free to pursue it. The corporation belongs to those who have invested in its stock, its shareholders. Whatever moralists may say, it does not belong to its employees, to its suppliers or to the town, city or country in which it happens to be located. This is doubtless as it should be, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it. The workforce, suppliers, local community and country will have to accept sacrifices.
...thoughtful and responsible people, including Socrates and Plato, have known for millenia that uncontrolled numbers place unacceptable stress on the social order. Aristotle, too, points out that 'of all known well-ordered' states, not one has an 'excessive population'. For the citizens, good government implies 'excellence of order maintained among them' and 'excess in numbers does not lend itself to order'. If the polis is over populated, even the best laws will be to no avail and only 'divine providence' can then save it by providing order.
Divine providence is unlikely to provide order in our earthly cities. The greater the excess in mankind's numbers, the more good government — and the declared purposes of the United Nations — will be defeated, including the goal of a social and international order guaranteeing the very rights the UN champions. Swelling populations and human rights as conceived by the signatories of the Universal Declaration are mutual incompatible.
The Universal Declaration, while appearing to approve or condone the population explosion, is not accompanied by a corresponding authority or global institution which might legitimately intervene to curb it. Speeches at UN conferences are cheap. Binding contracts are never proposed nor are incentives offered. International bureaucracies exercise no moderating influence on population growth and nothing is to be expected at the intergovernmental level.
Let us assume, however, that it were decided 'we' could support 8 to 12 billion people. What sort of people would they be? What would supporting them require? To begin with, since there would be far more Outs than Ins, it would dictate an unending transfer from wealth creators to wealth consumers. Those who did not (and doubtless could not) contribute anything to the system would still expect it to service their needs. Hundreds of millions could not be absorbed into the productive economy, yet would demand some version of a universal welfare state to take care of them.
To sustain such numbers, we would also need a global environmental police force and a strict judicial system to make sure that drastic conservation measure were instituted and obeyed. Even so, with 8 to 12 billion people on earth, we could not prevent massive deforestation, species habitat destruction, mushrooming, unliveable and polluted cities, lakes and seas dead from industrial and human wastes; all constantly intensified by ever-growing multitudes, until the entire substance of the earth was devastated and consumed.
Income transfers from the relatively rich to the absolutely poor would necessarily be accompanied by transfers of power; the West would have to relinquish not just its wealth but its authority. It would thereby seal the fate of the liberal system and ensure its certain demise. The entire exercise would be revealed as self-defeating.
The Commissioning Parties have instructed us to be straightforward and explicit. They will have drawn for themselves the unmistakable conclusions of our analysis: we cannot both sustain the liberal, free-market system and simultaneously continue to tolerate the presence of superfluous billions.
Those unfit to participate in the system because they are unable or unwilling to embrace its culture now place far too high a burden on the system and weigh upon it far too heavily. They can only constitute a drain on the mass of productive individuals. The latter will eventually refuse to support the huge and growing numbers of the unproductive, even at present inadequate (as seen from the point of view of the unproductive) levels. Clash is inevitable, not just between civilisations, but within all our present social spaces.
The only way to guarantee the happiness and well-being of the vast majority is for the total population of the earth to be proportionally smaller. This choice may appear stark but it is dictated at once by reason and by compassion. If we wish to preserve the liberal system — the very premise of our assignment — there is no alternative. All else is illusion and wishful thinking.
We believe this course to be not only economically, socially and ecologically imperative but ethically defensible. Fewer people living in a less stressed environment would mean that all were better off. Instead of continually depressed living standards and the reign of anarchy, the rule of law would prevail, the pursuit of happiness could become a reality, the planet would survive. Such is the true meaning of the slogan 'sustainable development'...
Our intent is not to shock or blaspheme: the fact remains that in earthly affairs, the market, at its broadest and most inclusive, is the closest we are likely to come to the wisdom of the Almighty. Yes, the market creates suffering for some; its decisions may appear harsh and cruel, but let us not forget the theological parallel to the market according to which 'God, supremely good, would never allow that there be evil in His works unless He were so powerful and so good that even from evil He could do good.'
If capitalism can be said to possess an ontology, an essence, it is surely that the market, in its full sweep and scope, is harmonious and wise. Like God, it too can create good from apparent evil. From destruction it draws the betterment of humankind and the highest possible equilibrium of the whole.
The moment has come to put this ontology to the test. It is time to ask if the beneficiaries of the free-market and the liberal system, including the Commissioning Parties, are prepared to accept the seemingly harsh consequences of their beliefs.
Can the environment and civilised society sustain present and future numbers? Should Western culture be represented by 15, then 10, then 5 per cent of humanity? Should the most productive individuals and nations sacrifice their well-being in the name of problematic gains for the least productive ones? Should now-powerful countries willingly relinquish their authority? Such are the questions our analysis obliges us to put to ourselves and to the Commissioning Parties; for our part, we answer 'no' to all of them.
We have dwelt at length on the likelihood of environmental collapse and social anarchy. We have spoken of the mirage of the universal welfare state and the illusion of universal human inclusion. We have warned against the folly of renouncing one's own power and culture in the bargain. As Machiavelli pointed out to the Medici long ago, the choice is to remain Prince and to do whatever is necessary to that end, or to cease to be Prince. We have no doubt that the Commissioning Parties will choose to remain, as it were, Prince. The great question thus becomes, 'What is necessary to that end?'
If twenty-first century capitalism cannot continue to function optimally — if at all — under foreseeable future demographic conditions, then those conditions must be altered.
Such a statement, should it be seized upon by self-appointed moralists, would doubtless be denounced as a declaration of intended 'genocide'. Not only would this betray a careless use of language; it is not what we intend.
The liberal, market-based system does not now provide happiness, comfort and a measure of security for the majority of humanity; not will it do so for projected populations in future: these are givens and must be recognised. We doubt that any other system could do so either, but in the context of this Report that is irrelevant. Even in the best-off countries, not everyone can possess and accumulate capital or succeed as a risk-taking entrepreneur; whereas the labour market is just that, a market, obeying market rules.
According to the founding principle of competition, the global market takes the best and leaves the rest. Today, although no one knows for sure, the 'rest' are almost certainly more numerous than those whose talents, skills, education, moral qualities, birth, luck and so on have placed them inside the system. Even the International Labour Organisation puts the number of those 'unincorporated' in the labour force at over a billion: add their dependants and the enormous size of this category become apparent.
From the time of the Greeks and the Romans to that of the nineteenth-century colonists, sophisticated conquerors always sought to incorporate the land, resources, wealth and people of the conquered territory because they represented significant assets. The labour of the conquered population, often under the watchful eye and the heavy rod of a collaborating local oligarchy, was another source of riches and power. Today, the idea of holding colonies is faintly ludicrous: their assets can be better extracted through other methods, their populations are, for the most part, not merely useless but burdensome as well.
Just as physical rubbish and waste litter the landscape and theaten to overwhelm many cities and their services, so social rubbish and waste endanger liberal ideals and the market, though few dare to say so in public. Proper management and social control are impossible when all efforts to ameliorate the situation are immediately neutralised, indeed swamped by proliferating, poorly integrated populations.
The question for us is not whether but how to achieve the goal of drastic population reduction.
The twenty-first century must choose between discipline and control or tumult and chaos. The only way to ensure the greatest welfare while still preserving capitalism is to make that number smaller.
...We begin with 6 billion human units in the year 2000 with the goal of attaining 4 billion within 20 years. Although the curve [referring to a population graph the author cites] would initially continue to increase, in the final stage there would be an annual decline of up to 280 million net units. In terms of timelines, around the year 2005, world population would attain its maximum value of 6.4 billion. Five years later, in 2010, it would have settled back to today's level of about 6 billion. For the next ten years, until 2020, absolute and quite rapid decline would ensue.
To reach the target of 4 billion in 2020, world population must be reduced on average by 100 million people a year for two decades. Nine-tenths or more of the reduction should take place in the less developed countries. Effort must be brought to bear both on mortality increase and fertility decrease in proportions which will vary according to time and chance.
Why be concerned with ideas and beliefs rather than proceeding immediately to practical matters? Simply because ideas and beliefs govern the world — but they are not immutable. They emerge and are shaped according to the needs of the times; Marx should have said that they evolve to suit the needs of the dominant class. Ideology is water for the fish of which the fish are unaware. Our concern here is to mould ideology consciously so that the dominant ideas and beliefs of our time serve to justify the grand design.
For example, our era looks on epidemics or famines anywhere on the planet with horror, yet the early Christian theologian Tertullian wrote of 'the scourges of pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes [which] have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race. He lamented as well the 'vast population of the earth to which we are a burden', to the point that 'she scarcely can provide for our needs.'
For this Church father, natural or man-made scourges are positive 'blessings' because they save 'overcrowded nations' from the dire consequences of their own reproduction. War, famine and pestilence safeguard the community and the future. Thanks to these so-called calamities, in reality beneficial to humanity, the survivors and their descendants will once more enjoy earth's bounty. Without them, the earth could never 'provide for our needs', all the more because these needs are growing all the time.
If the ground rules are to be changed and the strategy we recommend is to succeed, it is imperative that we first transform the current ideological climate and put our conceptual and ethical houses in order. Dominant ethical systems have evolved throughout history and there is no reason why they cannot change again. If ethics can be seen as a given society's collective survival strategy, ours is in need of serious overhaul. Our present ethics will reject effective population management unless and until the contradictions between market individualism, 'human rights' and the need for collective harmony are resolved.
In Revelation, the Fourth Horseman is called simply Death but his 'pale horse'...is the colour of decomposing corpses and 'Hell follows him' to swallow up the victims of plague. He is the most redoubtable and for our purposes, the most useful of the Horsemen. Historically, pandemics have had a far greater impact on population dynamics than war or even famine.
Pestilence unavoidably prunes live as well as dead wood; some who should be spared perish; disease does not always distinguish between rich and poor, competent and inept, useful and superfluous. Statistically speaking, however, it stikes the more vulnerable and dispensable first.
Even during the Black Death, the rich found it easier to escape to the countryside than the indigent. When an epidemic of meningitis broke out in Brazil in 1974, wealthy Brazilians packed up and went abroad until it had run its course. As an Indian physician says, 'People who wear ties don't get cholera.'
The antibiotic market is likely to be worth $40 billion in the year 2000. The more the phenomenon of resistance to tried-and-true antibiotics spreads, the more differentiated rich-poor health care will become, since a day's treatment of the latest superbug with the latest superdrug can easily cost $500. Such costs reflect the companies' right to amortise their research and hedge their risks, particularly since many drugs are similar and competition to market them is fierce...
As the disease moves inexorably down the social scale, the 'biopolitician' will learn that few votes are garnered by funding programmes for the dregs of humanity. Compassion for scum may be a virtue, illustrated by Mother Teresa, but it remains a heroic one. Happily, few politicians are heroes.
Susan George. The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century
Toronto Star: Bird flu a 'global threat' -- EU ministers [Oct 18 2005]
European Union foreign ministers Tuesday declared the spread of avian flu from Asia to Europe a global threat, as the Swiss manufacturer of the only available anti-flu drug announced it was building a new U.S. plant to increase production amid fears of a major flu outbreak.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
The flu's spread westward by migrating wild fowl has intensified fears the virus may mutate into one that can be easily transmitted among humans, a development experts fear could provoke a global epidemic putting millions of lives at risk.
From The Wilderness: A Career In Microbiology Can Be Harmful To Your Health [Feb 14 2002]
In the four-month period from Nov. 12 through Feb. 11, seven world-class microbiologists in different parts of the world were reported dead. Six died of "unnatural" causes, while the cause of the seventh's death is questionable. Also on Nov. 12, DynCorp, a major government contractor for data processing, military operations and intelligence work, was awarded a $322 million contract to develop, produce and store vaccines for the Department of Defense. DynCorp and Hadron, both defense contractors connected to classified research programs on communicable diseases, have also been linked to a software program known as PROMIS, which may have helped identify and target the victims.
In the six weeks prior to Nov. 12, two additional foreign microbiologists were reported dead. Some believe there were as many as five more microbiologists killed during the period, bringing the total as high as 14. These two to seven additional deaths, however, are not the focus of this story. This same period also saw the deaths of three persons involved in medical research or public health.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
[O]n Nov. 23 CLPH [Center for Law and the Public Health] released a 40-page document called the Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). This was a "model" law that HHS [US Department of Health and Human Services] is suggesting be enacted by the 50 states to handle future public health emergencies such as bioterrorism. A revised version was released on Dec. 21 containing more specific definitions of "public health emergency" as it pertains to bioterrorism and biologic agents, and includes language for those states that want to use the act for chemical, nuclear or natural disasters.
According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), after declaring a "public health emergency", and without consulting with public health authorities, law enforcement, the legislature or courts, a state governor using MEHPA, or anyone he/she decides to empower, can among many things:
When the federal government wanted the states to enact the 55 mph speed limit, they coerced the states using the threat of withholding federal monies. The same tactic will likely be used with MEHPA. As of this writing the law has been passed in Kentucky. According to AAPS, it has been introduced in the legislatures of Arizona, California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. It is expected to be introduced shortly in Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin. MEHPA is being evaluated by the executive branches in North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington, DC.
The research the microbiologists were doing could have developed methods of treating diseases like anthrax and smallpox without conventional antibiotics or vaccines. Pharmaceutical contracts to deal with these diseases will total hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. If epidemics could be treated in non-traditional ways, MEHPA might not be necessary. Considering the government's actions nullifying many civil liberties since last September, MEHPA seems to be a law looking for an excuse to be enacted. Maybe the microbiologists were in the way of some peoples' or business' agendas.
We also know that DNA sequencing research can be used to develop pathogens that target specific genetically related groups. One company, DynCorp, handles data processing for many federal agencies, including the CDC, the Department of Agriculture, several branches of the Department of Justice, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the NIH. On Nov. 12 DynCorp announced that its subsidiary, DynPort Vaccine, had been awarded a $322 million contract to develop, produce, test, and store FDA licensed vaccines for use by the Defense Department. It would be incredibly easy for DynCorp to hide information pertaining to the exact make-up, safety, efficacy and purpose of the drugs and vaccines the US government has contracted for.
Gulf War Vets: Armed Services opt to discharge those who refuse vaccine [March 11 1999]
After threatening him with court-martial, the Air Force discharged Airman 1st Class Bettendorf under "other than honorable conditions" because he refused to take a vaccine that the Pentagon says could save his life one day.
The vaccine is meant to protect against an attack with anthrax, one of the deadliest biological agents turned into a weapon. But Bettendorf, once a senior airman with an untarnished record, came to believe that the Pentagon had never proved the vaccine's safety and effectiveness.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
To refuse the vaccination is to disobey an order. [em. mine] Each of the services is responsible for its own discipline, but because commanders cannot force the shots on subordinates, most cases have ended with discharges -- some general, some bad conduct.
Scientific American: If Smallpox Strikes Portland... [March 2005]
After we began developing EpiSims in 2000, smallpox was among the first diseases we chose to model because government officials charged with bioterrorism planning and response were faced with several questions and sometimes conflicting recommendations. In the event that smallpox was released into a U.S. population, would mass vaccination be necessary to prevent an epidemic? Or would targeting only exposed individuals and their contacts for vaccination be enough? How effective is mass quarantine? How feasible are any of these options with the existing numbers of health workers, police and other responders?
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
In the case of a smallpox outbreak, these simulations indicate that mass vaccination of the population, which carries its own risks, would be unnecessary. Targeted vaccination would be just as effective so long as it was combined with rapid detection of the outbreak and rapid response. Our results also support the importance of measures such as quarantine and making sure that health officials give enforcement adequate priority during highly infectious disease outbreaks.
Of course, appropriate public health responses will always depend on the disease, the types of interventions available and the setting. For example, we have simulated the intentional release of an inhalable form of plague in the city of Chicago to evaluate the costs and effects of different responses. In those simulations we found that contact tracing, school closures and city closures each incurred economic losses of billions of dollars but did not afford many health benefits over voluntary mass use of rapidly available antibiotics at a much lower economic cost.
Most recently, as part of a research network organized by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences called the Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study (MIDAS), we have been adapting EpiSims to model a naturally occurring disease that may threaten the entire planet: pandemic influenza.
Flu and the Future
Over the past year, a highly virulent strain of influenza has raged through bird populations in Asia and has infected more than 40 human beings in Japan, Thailand and Vietnam, killing more than 30 of those people. The World Health Organization has warned that it is only a matter of time before this lethal flu strain, designated H5N1, more easily infects people and spreads between them. That development could spark a global flu pandemic with a death toll reaching tens of millions.
The White House: President Holds Press Conference [Oct 5 2005]
Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.
The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. [em mine; cf: Avian Flu: Bush's Excuse for Martial Law]
And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the President to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe, or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.
Secondly -- wait a minute, this is an important subject. Secondly, during my meetings at the United Nations, not only did I speak about it publicly, I spoke about it privately to as many leaders as I could find, about the need for there to be awareness, one, of the issue; and, two, reporting, rapid reporting to WHO, so that we can deal with a potential pandemic. The reporting needs to be not only on the birds that have fallen ill, but also on tracing the capacity of the virus to go from bird to person, to person. That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person. And we need to know on a real-time basis as quickly as possible, the facts, so that the scientific community, the world scientific community can analyze the facts and begin to deal with it.
Obviously, the best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins. As you know, there's been a lot of reporting of different flocks that have fallen ill with the H5N1 virus. And we've also got some cases of the virus being transmitted to person, and we're watching very carefully.
Thirdly, the development of a vaccine -- I've spent time with Tony Fauci on the subject. Obviously, it would be helpful if we had a breakthrough in the capacity to develop a vaccine that would enable us to feel comfortable here at home that not only would first responders be able to be vaccinated, but as many Americans as possible, and people around the world. But, unfortunately, there is a -- we're just not that far down the manufacturing process. And there's a spray, as you know, that can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease, which is in relatively limited supply.
So one of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic. In other words, can we surge enough production to be able to help deal with the issue?
I take this issue very seriously, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can: We're watching it, we're careful, we're in communications with the world. I'm not predicting an outbreak; I'm just suggesting to you that we better be thinking about it. And we are. And we're more than thinking about it; we're trying to put plans in place, and one of the plans -- back to where your original question came -- was, if we need to take some significant action, how best to do so. And I think the President ought to have all options on the table to understand what the consequences are, but -- all assets on the table -- not options -- assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.
House Committe on Veterans' Affairs: Testimony...Regarding Lessons Learned from the Gulf War [Jan 24 2002]
Seeking a preemptive medical response to the Iraqi chemical warfare threat, in the fall of 1990 the Defense Department obtained an investigational new drug (IND) exemption from the Food and Drug Administration to use a drug, pyrodostigmine bromide (PB), as a chemical warfare prophylactic. Ostensibly, PB was intended to protect the troops from the effects of nerve gas exposure. During Desert Storm, at least 250,000 Army troops swallowed one or more of the little white pills. Taking PB was not optional; troops who refused faced punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
After years of denying there was a problem with PB, Bernard Rostker (the Pentagon's point man on Gulf War illnesses) told the Senate Veterans Affairs committee in 1998 that PB should never have been given to U.S. soldiers. Rostker admitted that DoD's 'threat assessment' had been wrong, that Iraq had probably not in fact weaponzied the nerve agent soman, the effects of which PB was thought to be capable of countering. Given its potential effects on the brain's neurotransmission process, PB has long been suspected as a cause of the neurological problems reported by so many Gulf War veterans. Amazingly, PB is still in the Pentagon's NBC medical formulary, and Department officials have said they may still use PB in future conflicts, if the 'threat assessment' so warrants.
In a similar vein, the Pentagon's infatuation with vaccine-based biological defense has already proved to be a costly military and public health failure.
Prior to Desert Storm the Pentagon sought to employ a 20-year old anthrax vaccine as a biological warfare prophylactic. Even though this vaccine had never been approved by the FDA for such a use, the Pentagon managed to secure FDA acquiescence and proceeded to inoculate an estimated 150,000 troops with one or more doses of the vaccine. Because use of the vaccine was classified at the time, medical record keeping in this area was compromised, and the true effects of the vaccine on the wartime recipients remains unknown.
Seven years after the end of the war, the Pentagon resumed the inoculations under the rubric of the force-wide Anthrax Vaccine Inoculation Program (AVIP). Shortly after the AVIP began, reports of severe system adverse reactions to the vaccine began to emerge in the press. Over the next three years, a number of key facts about the vaccine would emerge, data that would once again highlight the Pentagon's wanton disregard for both the truth and the health of servicemembers. Consider these facts:
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Given the AVIP's abysmal track record, all of us should be deeply concerned about the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program (JVAP), the $322 million cost-plus biowarfare vaccine program initiated in 1998 by the Pentagon's Joint Program Office for Biological Defense.
The JVAP calls for the Dynport Corporation to develop at least three, and possibly as many 12, additional biological warfare vaccines over the next decade. What happens when you give a human being a dozen or more BW vaccines? Nobody knows. Not DoD, NIH, CDC, the World Health Organization or any other medical or scientific body.
Will these vaccines actually work against a real threat? Again, nobody knows; no challenge or efficacy studies have been conducted in animals, so far as VVA is aware. This means that the JVAP is a giant biowarfare defense gamble; it assumes that our enemies will field weapons that our vaccines will defeat. As with so many other things, the Gulf War experience is instructive here.
Dr Leonard Horowitz: Avian Flu Fright - Politically-Timed For Global 'Iatrogenocide' [Oct 11 2005]
To make the human vaccine specific for the H5N1 mutant virus, you must start with the human virus which does not yet exist, except in perhaps military-biomedical-pharmaceutical laboratories. In fact, this is precisely what is being prepared based on news reports. To produce the human pathogen, the avian virus must be cultured for lengthy periods of time in human cell cultures, then injected into monkey and ultimately humans to see if these experimental subjects get the same feared flu. Thus, the flu virus the world currently fears most is either: 1) now being prepared in labs paid by industrialists with massive wealth-building incentives to "accidentally release the virus; or 2) has already been prepared in such labs to take advantage of this current fright and future sales following the virus's release.
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Most people fail to realize all vaccines carry a list of ingredients that typically increase human disease and death (i.e., morbidity and mortality). These include toxic elements and chemicals such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and formalin (used to preserve corpses), MSG, foreign genetic material, and risky proteins from various species of bacteria, viruses, and animals that have been scientifically associated with triggering autoimmune disorders and certain cancers. A growing body of scientific evidence strongly suggests vaccines are largely responsible for increasing cases of autism and other learning disabilities, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, Lupus, MS, ALS, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, hay fever, allergies, chronic draining ear infections, type 1 autoimmune diabetes, and many, many more pandemics. These chronic ailments are said to require long-term medical care for the patients, management causing toxic side effects resulting in America's leading killer--iatrogenic disease. That is, vaccines and other pharmaceutical industry inventions are literally killing or disabling millions with little effort on the part of government officials and their drug industry cohorts to arrest this scourge.
For all we know, governments are ordering an avian flu vaccine that will precisely deliver this pandemic to the world to affect population control.
The White House: President Details Project BioShield
3. New FDA Emergency Use Authorization for Promising Medical Countermeasures Under Development. Some of the most promising treatments for a terrorist agent may still be under formal FDA review when an attack occurs. The President proposed an emergency use authorization to permit the effective use of such treatments in an emergency, if alternative treatments are not available. This will improve access to a potentially beneficial treatment in an emergency situation, when it is most likely to save lives, even if it has not yet been proven to be suitable for routine general use or has not completed the formal process for full FDA licensure. [em.mine]
The White House: Project Bioshield
US Department of Health & Human Services: From National Vaccine Program Office: Preparing for the Next Pandemic
In the event of a pandemic, good surveillance, timely vaccine development and production, and the ability to administer vaccine to large numbers of people in a short amount of time will be very important.
The vaccination program during a pandemic will probably be different from current annual flu shot programs in several respects
In addition, communication and emergency response systems will have to be in place to assist in managing a pandemic.
National Vaccine Information Center: Briefing Paper- Homeland Security and Vaccine Compensation
On November 13, 2002, the Homeland Security Bill was passed by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate. Originally intended to set up a new Department of Homeland Security, the 484-page bill also provided for the biggest reorganization in government since 1947. The last four sections of the bill, (1714-1717) shielded the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits for injuries caused by FDA-approved vaccines,
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Section 304 of the bill [ie: Homeland Security Act] removed from the states their historic control over public health laws, including vaccination laws, and handed it over to federal health officials. This section allows the Secretary of DHHS to issue a "declaration" after concluding that "an actual or potential bioterrorist incident" or "other potential public health emergency" warrants the administration of "a substance or substances" to "individuals during the effective period of the declaration." The law provides for no exemptions to vaccination or medication and is expected to override state public health and vaccine laws which currently provide medical and/or religious exemptions to vaccination for school entry. This federal law also does not preclude the use of the U.S. military to enforce the administration of vaccines or other "substances" to individuals as ordered by the Secretary of DHHS. [em. mine; cf: Smallpox in America, esp 'The National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC) maintains that Section 304 of the Homeland Security Act is the "fulfillment of a federal plan in development for several years to allow public health officials to force vaccination and medical treatment on Americans without their informed consent while removing all accountability from drug companies and those who participate in enforcement of the policy."']
Tommy Thompson, Former Secretary of HSS, on Verichips
These chips are extremely small, I don't know if you can see how small they are -- they can be implanted in your arm within seconds and it's completely voluntary so anyone who wants to can. And all it does is identifies you with a database that has your medical records.
And you know, Ed, that you can be traveling from one city to another city and if you have a stroke or an accident and you go into a hospital it takes too long of a period of time to get your medical records to that hospital where you're at and you can die in the meantime or you can suffer some degree of an allergic reaction to medicines that you can't take and all of this is because you don't have your records at the disposal of the doctor that's treating you.
And this will take care of that because it will give an identification number and all you have to do is run a wand over it and will then bring up your medical records. So it's very beneficial and it's going to be extremely helpful and it's a giant step forward to getting what we call an electronic medical record for all Americans.
Wikipedia on current Secretary of HSS Michael Leavitt
Michael Okerlund Leavitt (born February 11, 1951) is an American, Latter-day Saint politician,
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
...Leavitt also serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Mr. Leavitt has described the most serious threat to American security as the avian flu virus. Mr. Leavitt's cited the work of the WHO's (World Health Organization) Dr. Michael McCoy as the most probative scientific work into the ominous threat of the Avian Flu virus predicting Armageddon like circumstances following a inevitable pandemic of the avian flu virus. Dr. McCoy is a world renown and well respected leader in region of viral pathogens including but not limited to the Avian Flu Virus.
Michael Leavitt: A Wilderness Crossing - Welcoming Ceremony, Mormon Trail Wagon Train [July 22 1997]
I have learned the benefit of obedience in her description of an honorable wagon master's promise on the first day of their journey - that those who kept his rules would receive protection in passage, but also a warning - those who did not, would have no promise.
Michael Leavitt: Chairman's Closing Remarks, National Governors' Association Summer Meeting [July 10 2000]
When the forces of change in the marketplace being [sic] to operate, our reactions may determine survival. The forces can be cruel in their certainty.
The White House: President Meets with Vaccine Industry Representatives to Discuss Avian Flu
[HSS] SECRETARY MICHAEL LEAVITT: We have just concluded the meeting with a group of representatives from the vaccine industry with the President. We discussed the potential of a pandemic flu, and the preparations that are necessary. We talked -- we received expressions of vigorous support from the vaccine industry, their willingness to aggressively help us prepare. We talked about the need for short-term and long-term preparations; talked about the importance of a vigorous domestic vaccine market, and the need for us to be planning not just for the H5N1, but for the long-term prospect of a pandemic.
The Evening Standard: Roche sees £1bn Tamiflu sales [Oct 18 2005]
Sales of pharmaceutical giant Roche's Tamiflu bird flu treatment could reach £1bn in the next two years as governments frantically stockpile it as a precaution against the disease.
The Swiss-based company's own Tamiflu sales forecast earlier this year - long before avian flu threatened Europe - was £385m.
Analysts now believe the frantic international stockpiling of recent weeks could send Roche profits off the dial. Its shares are already trading close to an all-time high at 188 Swiss francs.
'The profit potential is enormous,' one analyst said. 'A billion pounds is not unlikely over a prolonged period. They don't disclose production capacity or profit margin, but one assumes something in the order of 27%...'