Torna per il quarto anno Radio Laser, una trasmissione in formato mp3. Quest'anno il formato si allunga fino alla mezz'ora. Nella prima puntata del 2007, si parla (male) di Big Pharma.
In questa puntata: - Chiara Bannella di Medici Senza Frontiere parla della campagna mondiale contro la Novartis, che ha fatto causa all'India per la legge sui brevetti. - Serena Tinari, autrice di questo documentario, spiega come le multinazionali svizzere aggirano i controlli "indipendenti" per commercializzare farmaci dannosi - Bussola interviene sul rapporto tra laboratori e l'eco-attivismo, quei movimenti che non aspettano le applicazioni della ricerca per lamentarsi, ma agiscono direttamente nei confronti degli scienziati e dei loro esperimenti di laboratorio, crudeli o necessari secondo il punto di vista. > Ascolta RadioLaser [30 minuti]
Quanti morti ci vogliono, perché un farmaco venga ritirato dal mercato? Cè da fidarsi del foglietto illustrativo? Swissmedic, lautorità svizzera che vigila sui medicamenti, è indipendente dall'industria farmaceutica? Sono le domande che affronta linchiesta di Falò (una trasmissione di inchiesta della televisione svizzera italiana) curata da Serena Tinari e Harry Haener. Da non perdere.
Siamo in Svizzera, la patria di molti colossi farmaceutici, da Roche a Novartis. L'inchiesta documenta, attraverso quattro storie di farmaci scomodi, i meccanismi del mercato farmaceutico, le modalità della sorveglianza e dell’informazione al paziente. Nel servizio anche le testimonienze delle vittime di farmaci regolarmente omologati dagli organi preposti, il loro calvario legale contro i colossi dell’industria farmaceutica e il parere di medici e ricercatori sulla credibilità di un mercato sul quale pesano crescenti interrogativi. Un'inchiesta scomoda, che nelle televisioni italiane probabilmente non vedremo mai. Guarda il video [durata: 47.44] Il sito di Falò
(BAYER) Comunicato Stampa: Esplosione di Baytown
Dopo un'esplosione che ha causato il ferimento di 22 persone, avvenuta in uno stabilimento della Bayer a Baytown negli Stati Uniti, un gruppo di pressione contro la Bayer, con base in Germania, ha invitato il gigante della chimica a produrre sostanze plastiche TDI senza l'utilizzo del fosgene,
Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer Comunicato Stampa, 2 Ottobre 2006 Dopo un'esplosione, un 'gruppo di pressione' invita la Bayer a produrre plastiche TDI senza l'uso di fosgene Dopo un'esplosione che ha causato il ferimento di 22 persone, avvenuta in uno stabilimento della Bayer a Baytown negli Stati Uniti, un gruppo di pressione contro la Bayer, con base in Germania, ha invitato il gigante della chimica a produrre sostanze plastiche TDI senza l'utilizzo del fosgene, un gas velenoso. Philipp Mimkes della Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer afferma: “Sfidiamo la Bayer a creare un impianto per la produzione di TDI senza l'uso del fosgene. La Bayer deve valutare se una esplosione come quella avvenuta negli Stati Uniti possa avvenire anche nei suoi impianti tedeschi per la produzione di plastiche TDI”. Il fosgene, altrimenti noto come carbonil cloride, è un gas tossico utilizzato come arma chimica durante la prima Guerra Mondiale. Migliaia di tonnellate di fosgene sono prodotte ogni anno come prodotto intermedio nella realizzazione di plastiche da parte della Bayer. Al momento la Bayer produce plastiche TDI a Dormagen e Brunsbuettel in Germania e sta costruendo una nuova fabbrica a Shangai (China). Le plastiche TDI possono essere prodotte senza l'uso del fosgene, ma la Bayer non ha mai messo a punto completamente la procedura. L'esplosione di Baytown è avvenuta il 26 settembre in un serbatoio contenente TDI, una sostanza cancerogena. Secondo la Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [Commissione sulla qualità dell'ambiente del Texas] l'esplosione ha danneggiato un'altro serbatoio che conteneva circa 15.000 chili di ammoniaca la quale è altamente tossica. I lavoratori colpiti hanno avuto bisogno di inalazioni di ossigeno. La Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [Amministrazione per la salute e la sicurezza sul lavoro] degli Stati Uniti ha aperto un'inchiesta. L'unità di produzione delle plastiche TDI di Baytown era già stata colpita da una esplosione con incendio nel febbraio del 2004. Nel giugno del 2005 un lavoratore a contratto era morto nella stessa fabbrica dopo essere stato investito da un getto di fenolo chimico. Un'inchiesta della OSHA stabilì che procedure poco chiare avevano portato a un eccesso di pressione nella valvola. La OSHA aveva emesso una doppia denuncia nei confronti della Bayer per mancanze nei confronti delle regole di sicurezza sul posto di lavore e imposto una multa di $5.000. Video: Scenes from the plant http://www.khou.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=90629&catId=35 Explosion in Baytown / Coalition urges Bayer to produce TDI plastics without phosgene http://www.cbgnetwork.com/1633.html Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer www.CBGnetwork.org (anche in italiano) CBGnetwork@aol.com Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Mandate un messaggio e-mail se desiderate ricevere la nostra newsletter gratuita in Italiano e/o in Inglese. Abbiamo bisogno del vostro aiuto. Le nostre campagne internazionali sono costose, non riceviamo alcuna sovvenzione pubblica e dipendiamo interamente dalle vostre donazioni. Potete inviare un assegno bancario a CBG, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germania o un bonifico bancario al seguente numero di conto corrente: 8016 533 000 presso GLS Bank, Germany sort code: 430 609 67 Codice BIC (Bank Identifier Code) /SWIFT : GENODEM1GLS IBAN (International Bank Account Number): DE88 4306 0967 8016 5330 00 Ricordate che un bonifico bancario all'interno dell'Europa costa normalmente quanto un bonifico all'interno del vostro paese se si forniscono i codici BIC e IBAN della banca destinataria
Legalized extortion in Smalltown U.S.A. (Portsmouth, Scioto, OH) - SOMC Part III
U.S. law firms and attorneys may get upset when they are compared to mafia and criminal connections. In the next few paragraphs, I will demonstrate that attorneys tactic is often the same as the original gangster extortion technique. Physical violence may not be involved, but the attack on personal property to obtain compensation by fear is just like extortion by mobsters. Moreover, while mafia is against the law, legalized extortion is protected by Courts and by the Legislative systems, which are controlled by Bar Associations. Mr.R.E.Dever and his law firm (Bannon, Howland & Dever Co., L.P.A.) illustrate the abuses of the due process perpetrated by this kind of lawyers.
ONE. Imagine a law promulgated against working and driving while intoxicated by alcohol and recreational drugs. It would seem a reasonable law. Now imagine a law promulgated against working and driving while intoxicated, a law applicable to the whole community except doctors, health personnel and policemen. It would be crazy, don’t you think? Intoxication is a crime for everyone, except for those who should control and punish intoxication. Isn’t it foolish? Now read the following article of the U.S. Code: "UNITED STATES CODE: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding." It says that everyone should be truthful, except counsels and other person involved in judicial proceedings. Everyone is bound to honesty, except those who are actually in charge of protecting honesty in our society, attorneys and judges. What do you think? These loopholes are used by dishonest attorneys like R.E.Dever to collect legalized settlements by extortion – protected by the law -. TWO The problem of dishonest attorneys abusing the due process has been long known and debated in the highest echelon of the legislative system, as you can see by the following quotation of Judge Rehnquist. "The potential for possible abuse of the liberal discovery [...] may likewise exist in this type of case to a greater extent than they do in other litigation. [...] To the extent that this process eventually produces relevant evidence, which is useful in determining the merits of the claims asserted by the parties, it bears the imprimatur of those Rules and of the many cases liberally interpreting them. But to the extent that it permits a plaintiff with a largely groundless claim to simply take up the time of a number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of the settlement value, rather than a reasonably founded hope that the process will reveal relevant evidence, it is a social cost rather than a benefit. [Securities case: Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 1975 (per Rehnquist, J.)]" And "The belief that discovery is being widely abused was voiced also at the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice in April, 1976." Unfortunately, knowledge of the problem does not mean solution. It is like our health system. Nothing can interfere with business and income. Major university hospitals, medical boards, health associations know how many useless procedures are done in smaller community hospitals, how many doctors thrive with poor medicine. But nothing is done –officially- to limit “business medicine”, as nothing is done to limit “business justice”. Nothing can limit our self-destructive economical growth. GOOD is not what helps you make money. EVIL is not what makes you lose money. JUSTICE is not protecting corporate interests. There is a bit more to morality, ethics and justice THREE Mafia tactics, at least at the origin, were not related to major criminality, murders, drug dealing. Mafia was born to protect defenseless Sicilian people against the corrupted Borbonic police. When Borbonic domination ended, Mafia persisted for long time as a protection system based on extortion. It was made of simple things: “If you do not pay, I will break your house windows, steal your money, bother your family”. The victim had to gauge: “Do I spend more paying protection to the mobsters, or in fixing all the damage the mobsters can do to me if I do not pay”. The well-connected attorney files a willful false complaint. The Court is acquiescent. The Bar Association disregards grievances, explaining that attorneys are not bound to be truthful in their complaints. No matter what is the merit and the value of the complaint, the defendant –usually far away form the accommodating Court- has to face discovery abuse, lengthy procedures, last minute cancellation of conferences, useless motions allowed to the local attorney, refusal of his genuine and commonsensical objections, and so on with more exasperating experiences. After years of legalized abuses, the defendant has to reason exactly like if confronted by mafia thugs: “Do I spend more paying protection to the mobsters, or in fixing all the damage the mobsters can do to me if I do not pay” – “Do I spend more accepting the abuse and paying whatever the mobster-attorney requests, or fighting for justice”. In this system controlled by corporations and law firms, the individual has no choice but to pay to protect his asset and his family against the legalized mafia organized by attorneys, courts and judges. FOUR The Dever's are well rooted in the local environment, holding tentacles in the compliant district Court as well in the only major corporation of the area, Southern Ohio Medical Center. With the "nihil obstat" released by the Ohio Supreme Supervising Agencies, the unbridled corporate attorney was able to file a false complaint, to deny what he himself wrote in the employment agreement, and to abuse groundless discoveries towards in terrorem settlement. The power that the corporate attorney obtains in a small community (where his corporation is the largest and wealthiest employer in the region) is colossal. He uses patronage and nepotism to strengthen his position. Patronage is a system where someone in a powerful position (the Patron) offers handouts in return for support. Nepotism means favoring relatives or personal friends because of their relationship rather than because of their abilities and moral values (see below the executive board at SOMC). But power, money and the compliant local Court allow him and his family to overcome unethical conduct, poor professional skills, dishonesty, personal and family failures. This is the Law of Power. Persons with limited assets loose their savings because of Dever’s family dishonesty and mistakes. Patients with limited income loose their house to pay for SOMC bills. But the Dever’s gain power and money, no matter what they do. The following list shows some information I collected from the community. 1) Rober R Dever: wrongful title searches at Portsmouth Banking Company, costing money to regular individual customers. Responsible for sloppy work, Robert R Dever, was pulled out of troubles because his father was in the Board of Directors and share holder of the bank. Thanks also to the incompetent performance of Senior and Junior R Dever, the bank was sold and dismantled. Holders of savings lost a lot of money in the liquidation of the Bank, while the Dever’s made millions. 2) Medicaid fraud attempt perpetrated by Mary Beth Dever as Director of SOMC Foundation (see following report from the Fraud and Investigative Audit Group). a) "Ohio Medicaid Program A Compliance Audit by the: Fraud and Investigative Audit Group May 06, 2004 SOMC Medical Care Foundation Mary Beth Dever, Administrative Director Re: Audit of SOMC Medical Care Foundation Dear Ms. Dever: We have completed our audit of selected medical services rendered to Medicaid recipients by SOMC Medical Care Foundation for the period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2002. We identified $96,022.85 in findings, which must be repaid to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. A “Provider Remittance Form” is located at the back of this report for remitting payment. The attached report details the bases for the findings. [....] Sincerely, Betty Montgomery, Auditor of State " i) COMMENT: Although the overpayment/over-billing seems a small amount considered the magnitude of today’s healthcare frauds, it is 60% of the total billing... in other words, for every 10$ of collected payment, around 6$ were earned from fraudulent billing. Did SOMC do the same with private insurance? Did SOMC deceitfully over-collected 60% extra from self-pay patients and from other private customers? Unfortunately we will never know, because most individual patients have no expertise to analyze complex hospital bills, nor they have resources to fight SOMC in Court. And why bother going to the local Court, where most of the Court staff (including judges) have favors to render to SOMC? 3) Robert R Dever was less than brilliant in his law studies, despite the strong support received by his father. 4) Mary B Dever was not smart enough to become an attorney. Still, R.E.Dever helped her daughter to become Director of the SOMC Foundation (see note above about Medicaid fraud). 5) R.E.Dever while driving under intoxication hit parked cars. The acquiescent local Sheriff and Troopers concealed the event. 6) Allegation of alcohol and drug use in immediate family members of the Dever’s. 7) Boone Coleman’s dark friendship. 8) People tricked out of property. 9) People tricked in giving away Power of Attorney. 10) Doctors legally persecuted because of disagreements with SOMC leadership (not mentioning myself). 11) Legal aggression against Mr.Wrage. 12) Complicity with Scioto County Engineer(s) and Commissioner(s). 13) Mary B Dever refusal to pay what she buys. Small Claim judge (M.Miller) does not release a fair verdict because of the complicity with R.E.Dever. 14) Other more personal stories that I do not want to disclose, because victims could be easily identified. 15) My time spent at SOMC enduring legal bullying are outstanding examples of willful mendacities and abuses operated by R.E.Dever, Mary Beth Dever and other SOMC administrative leaders (see links). 16) Failed marriages, dysfunctional kids. The community gives the privilege of administering justice to a person (esquire). This person uses the given privilege exclusively for personal wealth and power. He gets so used to his power that he does not even care to file sincere complaints. He has the complicity of the Court, which allows him to use all the unfair attorney’s tactics to persecute the adversary. Part of his fortune comes from putting liens on houses of sick people who cannot pay medical expenses to SOMC. There are no intellectual skills, no moral values. But we all know that money creates power, power brings more money... How a person like him can be referred to justice, when the Judicial System and the Supreme Court allow legal cheating and persecution? How can one stop him, when going all the way to the jury trial is so expensive that even a physician cannot afford it, because of all the unrestrained abuses of process that a well-connected attorney is permitted? How can citizens be entitled to Justice, when only corporations and over-privileged can afford the expenses of a fair and complete due process? We thank for their kind participation: 1) Law Firm: Bannon, Howland & Dever Co., L.P.A. 325 Masonic Building Portsmouth, OH 45662 740-353-1157 2) Southern Ohio Medical Center (SOMC) Portsmouth, Ohio 45662 CEO: Randal Arnett Med Director: Kendal Stewart, MD Head, Board of Directors: Robert E.Dever, Esq Member, Board of Directors: Robert R.Dever, Esq Director, SOMC Foundation: Mary Beth Dever 3) The Ohio State Bar 4) The Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431
i complottisti e quella strana attitudine a pensare
In epoca di media globalizzati, in cui il Potere non puo ignorare del tutto le opinioni delle masse che votano e parlano: la guerra spinta attraverso una strage che grida vendetta, che chiama reazione, che rende accettabile linaccettabile è fatta diventare dallantipensiero necessaria reazione alla paura di un peggioramento della propria situazione.
Il XXI secolo mi riempie di sconforto. Perché cio’ che viene promosso a valore umano, con pretesa ,oltretutto, di laicissima universalità ereditata dalla migliore tradizione illuminista e post illuminista, è l’antipensiero globale: una visione del mondo che implica la sistematica costruzione di versioni edificanti delle cose , con tutto il loro apparato linguistico e dogmatico. Questo antipensiero non viene imposto con la forza, viene ,per così dire, iniettato nella mente attraverso delle parole-chiave e dogmi-chiave che vengono ripetuti dai media , nel frasuono della loro sovrabbondanza informativa, come una sorta di mantra ,che i nostri simili, quelli che contano poco ma votano, imparano a pensare come Verità. In epoca di globalizzazione , chi pensa con la propria testa, chi si pone domande, chi vuole capire la realtà che vive, non è più un filosofo, un uomo attento, una persona cosciente del proprio tempo. No. E’ un complottista. Sinonimo di delirante, destabilizzatore di menti ordinate, farneticante individuo che specula sulla morte di migliaia di innocenti per sfogare la sua frustrazione. Quando parla, persegue lo scopo di divulgare teorie di sapore nazifascista volte a propagare odio, in particolare contro il popolo della grandissima nazione americana,che invece sappiamo insuperabile in democrazia, capace di meditare sui suoi difetti, di rendersene cosciente, nonché di correggerli. Complottisti sono coloro che spandono dubbi sulla versione ufficale dell’11 settembre. Complottisti sono anche coloro che pensano che la politica americana stia facendo pressioni sull’Europa per sostenere l’amico Israele. Complottisti sono coloro che ritengono che lo “scontro di civiltà” , inteso come matrice del terrorismo islamico, sia una enorme finzione che copre un concerto internazionale di decisioni politiche, volte a tutelare certi interessi e a seppellirne altri. Ma qualcosa , in questo antipensiero globale sta scricchiolando. Per esempio vi sono obiezioni dal basso che si moltiplicano: i siti internet che si occupavano dei dubbi sull’11 settembre, due anni fa erano poco piu’ di un migliaio. Oggi ne sono stati contati 14 milioni. Il potere non si fa nessuno scrupolo nello svilire le capacità dell’opinione pubblica considerandola gregge che si beve con facilità la tesi dello scontro di civiltà. Esso fa leva sul malcontento che viene espresso, nelle periferie occidentali, per l’emigrazione di massa degli extracomunitari,in particolare magrebini. Il disprezzo per le donne e la “barbarie” che a volte questa cultura manifesta vengono sistematicamente generalizzati e i media ne fanno terreno di coltura per l’odio antiislamico tout court. Ma per passare alle vie di fatto, cioè alla guerra, ci vuole qualche altro passaggio, poiché i civilissimi e post illuministi occidentali hanno rigettato auschwitz e lo sterminio razziale fine a se stesso. Come si passa ,in televisione e sulla stampa, dall’antipatia verso gli extracomunitari ai governi che “fanno una giusta e legittima guerra al terrorismo”? La storia è antica ed è una storia di menzogne e di come vengono raccontate. Di particolari che vengono amplificati ed altri che vengono omessi. Ma la storia non cambia tanto nella sostanza. Come diceva G.B.Vico: è fatta di corsi e di ricorsi. Oggi,l’immaginario collettivo su cui il Potere coltiva le convinzioni della pubblica opinione, si rifà agli eroici americani che sbarcarono in Normandia, esposti al fuoco nemico, non per tutelare il loro territorio, ma per salvare l’Europa dal nazismo. Per portare in Europa quella libertà madre della libertà che godiamo noi oggi, anche chi scrive. Si senta in colpa chi mette in dubbio tutto cio’. Nelle 2 guerre mondiali il territorio americano non è mai stato toccato, se si fa eccezione per Pearl Harbour. In compenso gli americani sono intervenuti in Corea e In Viet-nam per sconfiggere lo spauracchio di allora: il tremendo comunismo . Il potere USA ha costruito negli anni un’immensa ideologia popolare che ha esportato in Europa e che nessuno ha piu’ messo in discussione: l’America difende la libertà dei popoli. Cio’ non è vero, perché, per esempio, nel caso del suo intervento indiretto a favore del golpe di Pinochet ha agito esattamente all’opposto (potrei fare decine di esempi,ma non m’interessa dilungarmi qui), ma l’importante è che a furia di ripeterlo le masse si convincano. Quello che non è stato preso in esame a fondo è che l’uomo è un ente pensante. Cio’, a dispetto di ogni campagna pubblicitaria, che produce effetti prevedibili, ma non all’infinito. Questo antidogmatismo della statistica è qualcosa che dà speranza. Le posizioni che si prendono in materia politica possono anche non essere frutto di ideologia o di interesse economico, ma semplicemente le conseguenze dell’attitudine umana a porsi domande. Le domande sull'11 settembre, per fare un altro esempio, che non hanno veramente sinora avuto risposte esaurienti (senza entrare nel merito delle enormi obiezioni tecniche che fa per esempio un sito come luogocomune sull’accaduto) tant’è vero che ci sono in ballo cause legali al congresso da parte di parenti di vittime e testimoni, che accusano l’amministrazione Bush di tradimento. Una delle prime domande che ci si dovrebbe porre è: perché nessuno sui media ufficiali ne parla,neanche nell’anniversario dell'11 settembre, delle centinaia di persone che ritengono che Bush sia un traditore della patria e che hanno messo in campo avvocati e soldi per dimostrarlo? La mia risposta è: perché l’America è in guerra contro l’Iraq e presto lo sarà anche contro l’Iran. E non è bello che si dica in giro che ci sono, tra i parenti delle vittime dell’11 settembre, che di queste guerre è la causa, persone che ritengono che Bush sia un traditore e un assassino. Un’altra domanda che mi affiora è: come mai dal 2000 in poi sono riaffiorati personaggi che in passato erano collusi in vari modi con gli americani? E perché in questi anni hanno così radicalmente cambiato idea, tanto da scatenare addirittura uno “scontro di civiltà”? Bin Laden, infatti risale agli anni 80, quando fu pagato per organizzare le truppe taliban contro il mostro sovietico che stava provando ad invadere l’Afghanistan. L’America non intervenne direttamente, troppo fresco era il dissenso nato col Viet-nam presso la pubblica opinione. Agì imperialisticamente parlando. E pagò Bin Laden per fare cio’ che avrebbe voluto fare lei. Così come pagò Saddam Hussein per muovere guerra per 8 anni all’Iran. E forse pagò anche Ahmadinejad, che faceva parte del commando che nell’ambasciata di Tel Aviv sequestro’ dei funzionari americani, per poi restituirli incolumi lo stesso giorno in cui venne eletto Ronald Reagan, che si nutrì di questo trionfo. A volte ritornano. Oggi, a distanza di piu di 20 anni, sono tornati tutti. E,ancora per esempio, a proposito di Ahmadinejad, un’altra domanda che mi faccio è come mai, in barba alla diplomazia volta alla piu’ semplice sopravvivenza, emette dichiarazioni che paiono esclusivamente funzionali a provocare reazioni equivalenti in Bush, che, per ora a parole, non perde occasione per preparare la coscienza dell’opinione pubblica che presto “verrà anche il suo turno”. Perché se Bush ci ha mentito riguardo alle armi di distruzione di massa, non dovrebbe mentirci anche sull’11 settembre? E’ plausibile, a mio avviso, che la guerra non convenzionale, che tutti condannano, ma che tutti poi perpetrano, costituisca ,concettualmente ,un’estensione di cio’ che s’intende comunemente solo come uso di armi non accettate dalle convenzioni internazionali (usate con i curdi, con i ceceni, con i filippini ecc…) . Che esso coinvolga anche un modo diverso di fare la guerra: quello di “creare una motivazione” nella gente, che renda digeribile un attacco militare, nonostante le crisi economiche interne ai paesi occidentali. In epoca di media globalizzati, in cui il Potere non puo’ ignorare del tutto le opinioni delle masse che votano e parlano: la guerra spinta attraverso una strage che grida vendetta, che chiama reazione, che rende accettabile l’inaccettabile è fatta diventare dall’antipensiero necessaria reazione alla paura di un peggioramento della propria situazione. Non dimentichiamo le stragi italiane e il fitto mistero di accordi italo-americani che le circonda, battezzato “strategia della tensione” e mai chiarito. Non dimentichiamo che l’atomica lanciata sul Giappone ha il pregresso della menzogna secondo cui i giapponesi non avrebbero dichiarato guerra e avrebbero attaccato Pearl Harbour in modo inaspettato. Pregresso su cui la storia ha già dato il suo parere, in quanto a mancata conferma dei fondamenti. Non si rinunci a pensare. A prendere posizione non in base al tifo o alle ideologie. Si combatta l’antipensiero innanzitutto con la responsabilità del significato di noi stessi in quanto vivi e in quanto umani essenzialmente pensanti.
SOMC: Corporate in-justice in Portsmouth, Ohio  Part II: The real patients perspective
Small-town hospitals [Southern Ohio Medical Center or SOMC epitomizes this approach] employ massive advertising to brainwash local people about the alleged great medical care available on site [very good things are happening here]. Testimonials are the mainstay of their campaign. The problem with testimonials is that they are not reliable and they lack science. A "true" testimonial is reported here, followed by few considerations.
PATIENT’S CARE AT S.O.M.C. EMERGENCY ROOM I would now ask you to go over this case with me. I will be as critically objective as possible in giving my interpretation of facts described by the ED nurse and signed by Dr.Bruce Ashley. I will remind you that Dr.Ashley is currently working as emergency physician at SOMC. At the time of this case, Dr William Angelos was director of the ED. Dr Angelos is still the ED director. This 50yo patient was brought to the ED unresponsive and, apparently, in respiratory arrest. I will repeat the same words in the assessment done by ED personnel: · Unresponsive; · Respiratory arrest x2; · Persistent vomiting, vomiting all day, nausea and vomit; · Abdominal pain; · Seizures (new onset?); · Magnesium and potassium deficiency (i.e. severe dehydration?) Apparently, the patient was so sick that the ED doctor attempted to intubate him for at least sixteen minutes. While the physician was trying to intubate the patient, the attending nurse documented that the patient was awake, talking, and with a saturation of 100% while breathing at 18 breaths/minute (all normal vital signs). When the physician finally decided that he was unable to intubate the patient, he ordered the scan of the head (appropriate), and also a scan of the neck to find out soft tissue injuries possibly caused by his clumsy attempt to intubate. No scan or other test was ordered for the abdomen (considering unresponsiveness, abdominal pain, dehydration, nausea+vomiting - it would have been reasonable to suspect an abdominal catastrophe such as leaking abdominal aneurysm or such as peritonitis/perforation). You can verify that the patient was admitted at 23:15 and discharged less than four hours later at 03:12. In my opinion any single assessment listed above was enough to warrant an admission, or at least 24hr observation. Instead, a patient who arrived to the ED unresponsive, after failed intubation, after a limited investigation, is discharged home less than four hours later. A legitimate question is: SOMC emergency physicians are so exceptional that they can clear an unresponsive seriously ill patient in less than 4 hours, or this is a serious case of harmful medical incompetence. What happened after the discharge will answer this question. Between 24 and 48 hours later (records are no longer in my hands), the same patient was brought again to the ED, this time with acute abdomen and sepsis. I was consulted as the surgeon on call. Exploratory laparotomy revealed abdominal abscess and peritonitis from a previously ruptured appendix. It is difficult to judge medical care. It is unfair to call for medical mistakes every time that a patient does not do well. I am a physician and I know that the decision-making is usually more difficult than what appears in the aftermath of the event. Other times –and I believe this is one of these- the “mistake” is not a simple “mistake”, but a failure to apply rational and appropriate attention. This is a failure that goes beyond the single event, and has no justification. It is a failure that makes one wonder about the whole structure. “Can I trust an ED, or an hospital, where a patient arrives sick and unresponsive, and is discharged four hours later?” - this is what I would ask myself. Marketing and advertising cannot compensate for serious structural failure. I believe that the inappropriate discharge seriously jeopardized the patient’s life. He could have died of sepsis, could have arrested again and have died before reaching the hospital. The delay made surgery and postop course more complex. I am reasonably convinced that the delay had negative influence on the physical and psychological well being of the patient for long time. The problem with testimonials -as used in SOMC ads and by most marketers- is that they are not reliable and lack "science". In every hospital (and probably in any "business"), you can find satisfied and unsatisfied customers. Although hospitals should not be considered businesses: I believe in social universal medicine, not in a privately owned health system (we could discuss related problems in a different blog), in which the “cow-patient” is milked first, then treated accordingly. Cancer treatment is pretty much standard, for example. The question is: how does the hospital compare with other hospitals, analyzing data based on a large court of patients? One can find outliers for the testimonial: an early stage cancer who survived very long, for example, cured in other words, can tell what a great job was done at SOMC... obviously this approach is objectively not relevant. Testimonials are easy marketing tools; they are neither quality care parameters nor scientific data. Hospitals like SOMC are not keen to release true data, such as mortality and complication rates of -for example- acute MI in ER; discharge-readmission from ER; survival for staged breast, lung or colon cancer; type of procedures and complications weighted per severity scores; and so on. So one could really judge the true quality of delivered care.
SOMC: Corporate in-justice in Smalltown, USA (Portsmouth, Scioto County, Ohio)  Part I
Southern Ohio Medical Center (SOMC): how corporate in-justice works in small town USA (Portsmouth Ohio, Scioto Co). Leaders of the local hospital sells poor medicine using improper ads, control information by funding the local newspaper, manipulate justice by using the compliant local district Court and Judges. === Ironic disclaimer: Mr. Robert E Dever, SOMC Corporate attorney and chairman of the Kings of the Hill, threatened to file libel, defamation and so on against me. How Mr Dever is allowed to file knowingly false statements in the local Court, while I should not be able to disclose substantial truth?
My professional service was appreciated while I was practicing surgery at SOMC in Portsmouth, Ohio. In 2001, SOMC offered me a formal written salary contract, and then changed it to an unfair guarantee while I was relocating. Later, SOMC leaders Dr K Stewart and Mr R Arnett exploited the guarantee terms to abuse my position. They added a 9% levy on my collections without rendering any service. They forced unpaid general surgery calls, even though the agreement was for thoracic surgery. When I disagreed, they compelled a leave and a sham peer review (I never had any clinical problems, malpractice or patient’s complaint) under the chairmanship of a physician (JM) with a criminal record of fraud. Few months later, I left for a disabling medical leave, proven by symptoms and consistent MRI, formally correct to allow release from the contract. SOMC leaders removed my clinical privileges the day I requested the medical leave. Nonetheless, after partial functional recovery, I presented a written offer to resume practice in Portsmouth. The offer was never answered, so I accepted a position elsewhere. One year later, SOMC attorney and chairman R.E.Dever filed a complaint based on knowingly false allegations. Mr. Dever, legal counsel for SOMC, alleged that I committed an ‘anticipatory breach of contract’ when I was actually compelled to leave by the administration after the sham peer review. I never wanted nor requested that leave. Mr. Dever also claimed that I ‘refused to sign a promissory note’, but a promissory note was never presented to me when his daughter, Mrs. Mary Beth Dever (SOMC Foundation Director) illegally interrupted my payment period before the term. Over one year, as an experienced physician without malpractice and double certified in Surgery and Thoracic Surgery, my income was well below the salary initially offered by SOMC. On the other hand, SOMC gained money from hospital billing on my patients, from the unfair 9% levy, and from unpaid general surgery calls. Clearly there was no unfair gain on my part, nor economical damage on SOMC part. In other words, Dever and SOMC committed perjury to repossess not a bonus or a perk that I did not deserve, but a reasonable professional income honestly earned over one year. Their aggressive legal attack is dictated not only by greed, but also by evil and unlawful intention to inflict emotional and economical distress to me, for not complying with the abuses perpetrated by SOMC executives. Manipulation of contracts is only one of SOMC dishonest actions that I endured while I was in Portsmouth. This type of fraud seems recurrent within SOMC administration. I found “Trinidad vs SOMC” filed at the Supreme Court of Ohio. I knew Dr Trinidad. He is a good orthopedic surgeon and a decent human being. He would not have fought SOMC unless he had true reasons to suspect fraud. I wonder how many frauds and attempts to cheat SOMC leaders carried out, if only few are now common knowledge. The “persecute, settle and gag” is a technique widely used by SOMC and other corporations. The behavior of SOMC leaders seems arrogant when the victim is in a weak position (doctors in need to start a practice, with an educational debt, on probation, or foreigners and strangers to the area). The stalwart leadership envisioned by Dr Kendal Stewart is strong when the victim is vulnerable, and when the aggressor can rely on local connections to legalize abuse. ====================================== Is SOMC leaders’ dishonesty a chronic state of mind? We may have asked Dr.Trinidad, who realized later on that Dever/Arnett/Stewart cunningly changed to their favor the contract that Dr.Trinidad previously had reviewed with his counsel; We may have asked Dr.Marotta, who was brought to Portsmouth as a thoracic surgeon, but was dismissed shortly after because there was not enough thoracic surgery to do; We may have asked Dr. Abul-Khoudoud, currently ICU director at Our Lady of Bellefonte Hospital; We may have asked Dr.Reese, appreciated orthopedic surgeon, now at King’s Daughter Hospital; We may have asked Dr.Georgi, and Dr.Variath’s husband, and probably many other physicians, what kind of honest treatment they received from SOMC administrators. Regrettably, only cases brought to the Supreme Court leave a record, as Dr.Trinidad did (see file enclosed). Almost all cases fall under the protocol “Persecute, Settle and Gag”. Story repeats itself. The politically connected corporate attorney (R.E.Dever) files the case in the acquiescent local county court (Judge W T Marshall for example). The unwavering physician, in disagreement with the leadership, has no time and energy for a long fight on hostile (and occasionally far away) ground. Many of the court workers –including judges- have ties with SOMC. No matter what is the merit of the complaint, the separating physician have to settle and to accept the invariable ‘gag clause’. On the other side, some physicians with behavioral and criminal record thrive very well under SOMC leadership. Because these physicians have been forgiven and recycled, are easily controlled by the various Stewart/Arnett/Dever’s. Public knowledge is the drug abusing ob-gyn physician (Crawford) who went back to practice at SOMC after a short rehab. Another surgeon –reportedly- demonstrated criminal behavior, threatening a colleague with a gun: this surgeon is still doing well at SOMC (recently nominated “professor” for the D.O.s). Please, check by yourself the court record of the committee head (James Mullins) that punished me –surgeon with a spotless record- after a sham peer review. Dr.JM was obviously in debt with the leadership, so he did what the medical director asked him to do. Dr.JM does not only have a long list of civil trials, but also state and federal criminal records for fraud. Arnett, Dever and Stewart –the SOMC mafia leaders- know which corrupted physician is ready to return them a favor, when requested. Because SOMC is the only and unchallenged hospital –and largest employer- in Scioto County, SOMC leaders have become “untouchable”. This is a dangerous bundling of corporate, political and legal power. Bundling in my language is translated: FASCISMO. ================================== See also: http://rivervices.blogspot.com/ MALPRACTICE [independently written by professor Robert Forrey] Particular attention to recruiting, positions, physician’s opportunities, medical jobs, and prospective employees: read the above, if you plan to come to work for SOMC.
Risk of Genetic Engineering of Food and Crops
Detail analysis of the flaws of Genetically Engineered Food. Many links to organic and sustainable technology web sites.
traduzca: inglés => Español http://babelfish.altavista.com As farmers look for tools to deal with pest problems and increase their yields, genetic engineering is promoted by agribusiness as the solution to their problems. According to the National Center of Food and Agricultural Policy, 14.4 million acres of Bt corn were planted in 1998, accounting for 18 percent of the total corn acreage in the U.S. Genetically engineered soybean, cotton and corn together accounted for 20 - 44 percent of acreage planted in 19981. Genetic engineering is seen as a beacon of hope for some, but the poorly understood ecological dynamics of GE pose more questions than answers for sustainable and organic farming. Genetic engineering differs radically from traditional breeding. When referring to genetic engineering, industry tends to utilize the more benign term of biotechnology. Industry often explains that genetic engineering is simply an extension of selective breeding practices that have occurred since the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago. This is not the case. Traits can be manipulated across species, kingdom, and even phylum lines; thus genetic engineers create combinations of genes not possible in nature. Genes are moved from one organism to another void of their stable genomic (genetic material) context. These new combinations of genes create novel organisms and also create novel risks. These novel risks pose potential threats to ecological stability, sustainable agriculture and human health. Some of these risks are examined below. GE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT While there are many examples and issues that can be brought forward, the following points outline major concerns of the use of GE in agriculture production and its impact on the environment: 1) The transfer of engineered genes (via pollen) to related "wild" species (and in some cases even unrelated species). When engineered genes are transferred via pollen to related "wild" or unrelated species, the engineered traits are conferred on an undesirable plant or weed. This could allow the undesired plant or weed a competitive advantage via enhanced fitness or greater reproductive capacity, thereby creating "super weeds." In effect, they are plants that have the capacity to overwhelm a given ecosystem.2 The Union of Concerned Scientists cites the spread of rice engineered for salt tolerance into nearby estuaries as a hypothetical example. While the tolerance to salt for growing rice in a given area might be desirable, the spread of salt tolerant plants might also choke out native plants and eventually destroy the estuary. A potential Midwestern example is canola, a member of the Cruciferae (mustard) family. Canola is used for oil production. Suppose that a canola cultivar genetically engineered for herbicide resistance (Roundup Ready) out-crossed with wild mustard, thereby creating a weed resistant to Roundup. Two studies raise intriguing questions about this and similar scenarios: Using a mustard species (Arabidopsis thaliana) to study the likelihood of GE crops outcrossing, researchers found that the transgenic varieties of the mustard were 20 times more likely to out-cross (breed) than their "un-engineered" cousins. According to research team member, ecologist Joy Bergelson, University of Chicago, "We’re still trying to find the mechanism that drives the pattern we saw. There’s a lot we don’t understand, including how common [out-crossing] is."3 New research by British botanists shows that pollen blown from large fields of GE oilseed rape remains fertile over greater distances than expected. Using male-sterile plants and examining a "worst-case scenario" researchers found that even at sites 400 meters away from transgenic plots, as many as 7 per cent of the seeds (from non-GM oilseed rape plants) were herbicide resistant.4 2) Genetic erosion. The National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) in this country was built in response to the broad introduction of hybrids and the subsequent loss of genetic variability when so many crops of the same hybrid were planted. Similarly, many scientists are concerned about loss of genetic variation due to widespread plantings and uniformity of GE crops. The corn-blight epidemic of 1970 was traced to the broad distribution of a single genetic character. In response to problems like corn-blight plant breeders have had to, in the past, seek out "landraces" in order to replenish the genetic material of commercial stocks. Landraces are populations with genetic variability lending different responses to diseases, pests and environmental conditions. There is concern by some scientists and plant breeders that this natural "warehouse" of genetic material could be destroyed by the out-crossing potential or genetic pollution from GE crops. In First the Seed, Jack Kloppenburg warns, "Though the capacity to move genetic material between species is a means for introducing additional variation, it is also a means for engineering genetic uniformity across species."5 3) The spread of viral pathogens via GE plants. Viruses are used as vectors or "gene carrying" mediums in the gene engineering process. The fear among farmers and consumers alike is that crops containing viral pathogens may exchange genes with other viral pathogens, creating more viral strains with unknown properties and attacking unknown plants, further disrupting a given ecosystem. An epidemic of African Cassava Mosaic Virus devastated cassava, a major food crop in East Africa. This virus is thought to be a result of natural recombination (breeding) of virus carrying plants.6 4) ) The potential effects on soil ecology. New studies on the impacts of Bt corn on soil communities have not concluded whether Bt corn and the resulting toxins pose a risk to non-target insects and organisms.7 Integrated pest management consultant, Charles Benbrook, states "laboratory studies exploring direct Bt impacts on non-target organisms are an inadequate basis from which to project - and dismiss-longer-run soil ecosystem impacts of Bt - transgenic crops."8 Bts originating from transgenic crops are more active than conventional foliar Bt sprays which are in a more inactive form. Likewise, with densely planted transgenic Bt crops there is a much greater volume of Bt entering the soil than naturally occurring or spray forms of Bt. Thus, it is inappropriate to extrapolate from foliar Bt research to research on the long-term soil ecosystem and soil health impacts of Bt-transgenics. Further study is needed into the longer-term impacts of transgenic Bt crops on soil health and ecosystems. 5) Impacts on wildlife and ecosystems. The experiments at Cornell University and Iowa State University (both in 1999), in which monarch butterfly larvae had a high mortality rate after ingesting genetically engineered (Bt) corn pollen from milkweed, is a potent reminder of the potential impact on biodiversity. This impact is in most cases not well understood and therefore not easily anticipated. As Dr. Neal Stewart, a biologist at the University of North Carolina puts it, "we know very little about the community ecology and virtually nothing about the ecosystem ecology of what these [engineered] genes will do." Overall, we don't know and can't anticipate many of the effects of genetically engineered plants on ecological systems (and therefore on biodiversity). This uncertainty requires proceeding with caution with the introduction of such life forms. Moreover, these uncertainties show the need for further public dialogue, research and inquiry into the risks and benefits of biotechnology, particularly those related to genetic engineering. GE IMPACTS ON SUSTAINABLE AND ORGANIC FARMERS Although the first commercialized GE product for agriculture was recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) -- marketed to increase milk production -- the next wave of commercialized GE products focused on: Crops engineered to express Bt (bacillus thuringiensis), a naturally occurring pesticide long used by organic farmers in spray form, and; Crops engineered to withstand heavy applications of certain herbicides (herbicide resistant crops or hrcs), thereby allowing most plants or weeds around them to be destroyed while the crop remains unaffected. Crops genetically engineered to express Bt are marketed by "life-science" companies as having the advantage of reduced pesticide use to control targeted insects and increased yields. In some instances, this has apparently occurred, although there is general agreement that the advantage will disappear as insects develop resistance to Bt.9 Entomologists and other scientists agree that it is only a matter of time before targeted insects develop resistance to Bt expressed in GE crops, despite strategies of planting refuges of non-GE crops next to fields of Bt crops in order to discourage the development of Bt resistant insects. Organic producers will be faced with the loss of a valuable pest management tool (Bt spray) once insects develop resistance to Bt. Crops genetically engineered to express resistance to popular herbicides (herbicide resistant crops or hrcs) are marketed with the same claims as Bt crops-that chemical use will be decreased and yields increased. However, many critics charge that despite the large number of acres planted with hrcs, overall use of herbicides has not notably diminished in the U.S.10 In the case of herbicide resistant soybeans, there is a "yield drag" -- a decrease in bushels per acre. Yield drag is attributed to inferior production genetics of soybeans genetically engineered for resistance to herbicides.11 Farmers are faced with an increasingly uncertain economic risk vis-à-vis GE crops in that: 1. GE seeds are more expensive to purchase; 2. Herbicide use may not be reduced; 3. Yields may be less, and; 4. Prices paid for GE crops are likely to be less in the face of global consumer resistance to foods containing GE products. Farmers who use sustainable or organic techniques and do not plant GE crops or invest in heavy chemical inputs have a decided economic advantage if they can keep their crops free of genetic pollution from genetically engineered crops. On the national level, the American Corn Growers and the National Family Farm Coalition have developed a resolution on genetic engineering demanding that corporations be held liable for damage to farmers, human health and the environment resulting from the use of GE crops and livestock. The "Farmer’s Declaration on GE in Agriculture," also demands suspension of all further environmental releases and government approvals of GE seeds and agricultural products. The 33 groups signing the declaration argue that American farmers have serious concerns with the economic impacts GE seeds and products will have on producers. The loss of markets has been a blow to farmers during an already hard time in the farm economy. The groups assert that the independence of farmers is threatened by corporate control of seeds and other agricultural products. Concern expressed by consumers and scientists in Europe and elsewhere over potential health and environmental effects of GE crops and food has resulted in a loss of markets and devaluing of GE grains and beans. Producers growing non-GE crops are promised a premium but must prove (and hope) that their commodity has not been genetically polluted, either during the growing period (pollen drift) or by improper segregation of non-GE from GE commodities during the storage/transport/distribution process. Genetic pollution has resulted in hardships for food producers as well as food distributors. For example, farmers who plant conventional seed are faced with the threat of lawsuit if GE plants somehow show up in their fields. For example, T to ensure that farmers do not hold back seed for next season, corporations such as Monsanto are searching out and suing those producers who have Monsanto patented technology in their fields but haven't signed a contract and/or been authorized to use those seeds. Thus, the unfortunate farmer who finds GE seeds mixed in his/her non-GE seeds or experiences pollen drift into a field is vulnerable to lawsuits.12 In addition, this kind of contamination makes it difficult for food distributors to ensure that food is GE-free. Moreover, when genetic pollution is discovered, it can be costly. A Wisconsin food company specializing in organic foods had an entire shipment of corn chips to Europe destroyed when it was discovered that GE corn adulterated its organic chips. The adulteration was traced back to a Texas farmer whose organic corn had been polluted by pollen drift from a neighboring field of GE corn. Organic producers and sustainable farmers are confronted with the prospect of not being able to plant crops which might be subject to pollution from neighboring fields of GE crops. For example, this past year, several producers in North Dakota decided not to plant organic canola for fear of drift from GE canola grown prevalently in their area. It should be noted that some crops, such as canola and corn, because they are open-pollinated crops, are more subject to pollen drift than self-pollinators like soybeans. Thus the problem of genetic pollution is more serious for some crops than for others. For growers of such crops, there is more a chance for liability -- and more of a chance that an organic grower could lose certification. For sustainable as well as organic producers, the potential exists for loss of premium markets if their harvest is not GE free. The fear of planting crops that may be affected by genetic pollution via pollen drift prevents normal crop rotations, a major practice of sustainable farmers. Sustainable and organic farmers are also concerned about the terminator seed technology, whereby crops are engineered to produce sterile seed, forcing farmers to buy seed every year. Sterile seed technology is one of a class of so-called "gene protection systems" in which important genetic traits (yield, pest resistance) are controlled or turned on only by the application of external chemical catalysts.13 Farmers who purchase seed with gene protection systems must also purchase and apply the external chemical catalyst in order for the crop to express a given trait. Critics argue that the technology, dubbed "traitor technology," would make farmers totally dependent on seed companies or turn them into "bioserfs." The "life-science" companies counter that the technology is necessary to control and protect their investments in genetically engineered crops. Due to growing public pressure in the U.S. and abroad, Robert Shapiro, CEO of Monsanto, in an open letter to Gordon Conway, president of the international development aid giant, the Rockefeller Foundation, made a "public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed 'terminator.'" He did not rule out development of other types of trait-turn-off technologies, however.14 Furthermore, Monsanto’s proposed acquisition of Delta and Pine Land, the company that developed terminator, has fallen through. USDA and Delta have offered no promises to abandon the so-called terminator technology they own. Monsanto is not the only research and development company working on gene protection systems. There are nearly 30 other patents pending on terminator type technologies. CONSUMER CONCERNS ABOUT GE FOODS While corporations work to develop and market genetically engineered (GE) products for the food sector, it is important to ask if there is consumer demand for such products, which in turn determines whether producers will have a market for their GE crops. Consumers around the world are expressing concerns about GE foods. As a result of this concern, the European Union, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Japan all require the labeling of food derived through GE. Europeans have taken the lead in consumer opposition to GE foods. Consumer demands have led to retailers shifting to GE free products. For example: Seven of Europe's largest supermarket chains (from six different countries) announced in March of 1999 that they have formed a consortium to jointly source GE free ingredients for their products.15 McDonalds, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken operating in the United Kingdom announced in February of 1999 that they would become GE free. US consumers have lagged behind European and Asian consumers in expressing concern over GE foods. Yet, in July 1999 Gerber (Novartis AG of Switzerland is the parent company) and Heinz, the two leading US baby food manufacturers, announced that they would ban GE corn and soybeans from their baby foods. The same month Iams, the US based high-end pet food producer, announced it will not use GE corn in its pet food. In January 2000 Frito Lay asked its contract farmers not to grow GE corn.16 These decisions reflect the rising concern of US consumers about genetically engineered foods. Consumer concerns arise for a number of reasons including public health consequences and ethical, religious and cultural issues (including the desire to support environmentally sound agricultural practices and technologies that do not undermine family farmers). Health Concerns Health concerns that arise with genetic engineering include the potential for increased allergenicity, decreased efficacy of antibiotics and increased cancer risks. Increased allergens and toxins in the food system. GE has the potential to increase allergens in the food system through the introduction of known allergens to a new food host where the allergens cannot be readily identified. The process of GE could create new toxins and increase the prevalence of allergens and toxins in the food system. A well-known example of the transference of a known allergen is Pioneer’s use of GE to insert a gene from the Brazil nut into soybeans to increase their protein level. Although the transferred Brazil nut gene is a known allergen, the soybean had passed animal tests and was considered safe for consumption.17 A study at the University of Nebraska revealed that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts also reacted to the transgenic soybeans.18 This situation revealed some glaring deficiencies in regulatory procedures. First, it was the Nebraska study that kept the product off the market, not regulatory procedures. (Pioneer voluntarily kept the soybean off the market once the Nebraska study was published). Second, genetically engineered foods are not labeled, and people with Brazil nuts allergies would not be able to identify products containing the GE soybeans. Third, although Brazil nut allergiesy areis currently rare, adding the gene to soybeans could increase exposure and, most likely, reactivity.19 Another unintended and unpredictable consequence of genetic engineering is the creation of new allergens or toxins. Even if the transferred gene itself is not allergen producing, it may cause an imbalance in the chemistry of the new genome and create new "bioactive compounds or change the concentration of those normally present."20 As Dr. Marion Nestle points out in The New England Journal of Medicine, "Genes encode proteins; proteins can be allergenic."21 Loss of effectiveness of antibiotics. Many GE crops contain genes that code for resistance to antibiotics as well as the genes that code for agronomic traits. Antibiotic resistance is used during the development process as a "marker" to identify plants that have successfully incorporated the new traits. However, these antibiotic resistant genes may be inadvertently transferred to micro-organisms. This transfer could reduce the efficacy of existing antibiotics by creating resistant strains of bacteria. If more antibiotics lose their effectiveness due to resistant bacteria, consumers with antibiotic allergies have fewer safe choices and the chances of bacterial diseases becoming untreatable increases. Increase in exposure to hormones and antibiotics. Many consumers choose not to purchase products that increase their exposure to hormones and antibiotics. A case in point is the GE hormone that is used to increase milk production in cows. Studies show that cows injected with this GE hormone, known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or Rbst), have increased susceptibility to mastitis and other health problems.22 Because of these bovine health problems associated with rBGH more antibiotics are often used to improve the health of the cows. Consumers have expressed concern over conflicting scientific evidence about the residue levels of rBGH, antibiotics, and Insulin Growth Factor -1 (a hormone known to increase risk of cancer in some humans when found in elevated levels) in dairy products from cows treated with rBGH.23 As a result of consumer demand, some dairy manufacturers are labeling their dairy products as rBGH-free. Canada banned the use of BGH in 1999. Several studies were undertaken as part of the decision-making process on whether or not to ban rBGH in Canada. One of these studies, the "Gaps Analysis" found that insufficient evidence on oral absorption of rBGH and IGF-1 and procedural and data gaps were found which failed to properly address the human safety requirements of rBGH.24 The United States remains the only developed country permitting the use of rBGH. Ethical, religious and cultural concerns There are also non-health reasons consumers have concerns about GE foods. Some consumers choose not to buy GE foods because they fundamentally believe that genetic manipulation of life forms constitutes tampering with the building blocks of divinely created life and is therefore immoral or blasphemous. Most major religions have food rules or traditions. Dietary preferences (for either religious or ethical beliefs) can be undermined with GE foods when, for example, someone wishing to avoid animal products eats a tomato which has had a flounder gene genetically engineered into it. Philosophical and ethical beliefs lead people to only consume food that supports particular production methods. The potential negative impacts genetic engineering can have on the environment (described above in "GE Impacts on the Environment") and the structure of the food system (described below in "GE's link to Corporate Control and Reduced Decision-Making") are the basis for some consumers’ decisions to avoid GE foods. Distrust of the Regulatory Processes One reason for the extreme resistance to GE food shown by consumers in the European Union is the recent history and consequences of lax food safety regulations and of insufficient scientific caution. In the mid-1990s, British consumers were assured that their health was protected even when cows that were fed food which included parts of slaughtered animals developed Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or "Mad Cow Disease"). Yet regulators later recanted on their assurances and acknowledged that they had been insufficiently cautious when a link was proven between BSE and New Varient Crenzfeld - Jakobs Disease, a disease that has killed over 40 people in the UK/Europe. Another example occurred in Belgium in the spring of 1999., s Scientists were very slow to report the illnesses and deaths of chickens due to the presence of dioxin in reprocessed animal fats used in chicken feed. Many critics of genetically engineered GE foods in the United States say they see evidence of similarly insufficient Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory oversight. They cite FDA's failure to set the regulatory bar higher for the donors of organisms of unknown allergenicity. They challenge the review protocols FDA uses for approvals of new agricultural biotechnologies. In 1992 the FDA ruled that food derived through genetic engineering is "substantially equivalent" to conventionally grown food, and thus does not require testing or labeling. Through the discovery process in a civil action lawsuit against the FDA for its blanket approval of GE foods, internal reports and memos reveal that the FDA’s own scientists' concerns about the safety of genetic engineering were ignored.25 Furthermore, the revolving door between biotech companies and U.S. government regulatory agencies raises serious concerns that the industry's desire for a rapid approval process of GE foods dictates U.S. regulations.26 Tremendous consumer concerns in Europe and growing concerns in the U.S. have fueled a major controversy regarding labeling of foods produced using GE. An estimated 30,000 items in U.S. grocery stores have been produced using GE. U.S. consumers have only recently begun to join their European counterparts in asking for labeling to assure they know whether their food has been produced using GE. However, the U.S. government has taken a very different stance, having come out against mandatory labeling. This position seems to be moderating with the introduction of the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act" into the U.S. House of Representatives on November 16, 1999. At the state level, signatures are being gathered for a Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Ballot Initiative in California and legislation on labeling genetically engineered foods is being considered in New York, Vermont and Minnesota. The European Union and Consumers International (a worldwide federation of 246 consumer groups) say any food produced with genetic engineering techniques should be labeled as such. As previously mentioned, there is overwhelming public support in Europe for labeling;. Indeed, 92% ninety-two percent of respondents to a survey by UK Consumers' Association wanted genetically manipulated food to be labeled, regardless of the presence of a GE ingredient in the final product. In the U.S. there is also support for labeling. A survey done by Time magazine (Jan. 11, 1999) showed that 81% percent of U.S. consumers think GE food should be labeled. The U.S. government opposes mandatory labeling of all GE foods. However, the recently adopted Biosafety Protocol, which has the same international standing as the World Trade Organization, allows countries to restrict imports of GE products. Shipments of GE commodities must be labeled as "may contain" GE organisms. Within two years more specific labeling requirements will be negotiated.27 Most concerns that consumers have can be summarized into public policy issues when building the case for labeling. The rationale for labeling is based on consumers' right to choose their food, whether for health or other reasons. It follows several key precedents and principles of good public policy: Public Right to Know. The statutory basis for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) that demands industry disclose its toxic emissions, is premised on the basic recognition that citizens have a right to know about their exposures to potentially hazardous toxic substances. The agricultural biotechnology industry should also be held to this reasonable expectation. Consumer Right to Choose Food. Like salt-free, fat-free, organic or other diet choices, consumers have the right to make informed choices about food for reasons of health and, as with Kosher foods, should be able to make informed choices based on environmental, religious and ethical grounds. Free Market Economics. The U.S. government passionately promotes the merits of free markets as a natural social regulator of the supply and demand of goods through consumer choices. A crucial premise of free market economic theory is that consumers are informed about their choices. In a free market economy, full consumer information about genetically engineered foods is crucial. Precautionary Principle. This principle states that in the presence of scientific uncertainty it is important to take precautions, in other words, to look before we leap. It recognizes that we don't know all that can harm us. In the realm of GE foods, although there are questions about the validity of claims of danger, much is unknown about long-term and complex effects of such foods. Thus, we should invoke the precautionary principle. Scientific Inquiry. Those concerned about agricultural genetic engineering argue for reliable scientific studies to ascertain long-term health effects of these technologies. Many scientists argue that labeling is necessary to actually conduct meaningful epidemiological studies about the relationships between genetically modified foods and human health. GE'S LINK TO CORPORATE CONTROL AND REDUCED DECISION-MAKING In addition to the environmental issues and consumer concerns raised above, genetic engineering has greatly decreased farmers' latitude for on-farm decision-making. Historically, there has been a continual move from farmers making decisions locating decision-making about crops, livestock and inputs on the farm to putting power in the hands of corporations, locating decisions in distant markets or within large industrial organizations in distant markets. The movement toward industrialized agriculture with its heavy dependence upon scientific expertise can be traced back to the beginning of the century. Hybrid seeds, commercial fertilizer and, soon thereafter, chemicals became common inputs on farms while farm equipment also became much larger. These technologies led to consolidation of acreage into fewer and larger farms, while reducing the number of people living on farms and in rural communities. GE is only the latest round in furthering this consolidation. The patenting of genetic material has intensified oligopolistic control in the seed, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural sector seek to link genetic material with agricultural inputs and markets for food and agriculture products in the hands of a few firms who prioritize profit margins over other concerns. The overlapping oligopolies created by these alliances disguise the anti-competitive practices taking place and reduce the likelihood that the anti-trust provisions of corporate law will be invoked. In the last three years there have been well over $15 billion worth of mergers and acquisitions between seed, chemical and pharmaceutical companies.28 Investments in GE extend agribusiness control of the food industry from genetic material to production and distribution. As control of the market becomes consolidated by a few transnational corporations, the increased marketing of GE products provides a means to regain research investments in the technology. This vertical integration, where genomics, seeds and chemicals are linked, means agriculture is becoming supply, not market, driven. The development of Roundup Ready seeds is an example of this. The patent on Monsanto's herbicide Roundup will expire in the year 2000. In order to maintain significant profits from their herbicide, Monsanto developed a soybean that is resistant to Roundup. Subsequently, they developed Roundup Ready corn, cotton, and canola. Through extensive advertising and public relations campaigns, Monsanto has encouraged farmers to purchase the seed-herbicide package. Since the seeds are genetically linked to the herbicide and farmers must sign a contract guaranteeing that the farmer will use Roundup with Roundup Ready seeds, Monsanto can better assure themselves of profit and control even after their Roundup patent expires. The numerous corporate "alliances" in agriculture lead to what is often called a "seamless system" from the gene to the supermarket shelf. In such a system, markets cease to exist and "price discovery" happens only at the supermarket checkout. Thus, the food and agriculture system becomes centrally organized, where inputs and outputs are usually not purchased or sold until processed into their final food product. In these food system clusters, the food product is passed along from stage to stage, but ownership and decision-making remain with the dominant firms that make up the cluster - not the farmer or consumer. The farmer becomes a grower, providing the labor and often some of the capital, but never having clear title to the product as it moves through the food system -- and never making the major decisions. Because GE is such a capital intensive research enterprise, most small firms in the industry soon become marginalized because they cannot generate needed capital. Larger and more powerful firms receive patents on their technologies, further eliminating competition. Monsanto has acquired a number of established seed firms in the past few years. Starting with the seed to which all other inputs are linked, these mergers and acquisitions result in a handful of companies dominating the biotechnology industry. Even a firm as large as Cargill decided to sell their global seed business to Monsanto and form a joint venture with them rather than try to enter the biotechnology field on its own. It is clear that GE is embedded in an industrialized system where the goal is profit without concern for sustainability. Corporations make the major decisions about our food production and basically control how GE will be used in the food system. Unlike farmers, dominant food firms expect to achieve a 20 percent return on stockholder equity. Corporation's travel around the world "sourcing" their products wherever they can get them produced the cheapest while selling them in the most profitable consumer markets. In the globalized system, both capital and technology -- i.e. GE -- are very mobile and can be moved anywhere in the world very rapidly. Similarly to small and moderate size farmers in this country, developing world farmers are having to choose to either purchase expensive GE crops and livestock and their associated input packages or face not having access to technologically improved varieties. These farmers in both developing and developed countries are left with fewer choices because neither are the scales of these technological improvements appropriate to their needs nor are they affordable. Sustainable agriculture is about ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially just food and farming systems. Genetic engineering as it is currently practiced is about privately held, industrialized inputs in a capital intensive global food system. If biotech continues the way it has started, most of its benefits will not accrue to farmers or consumers, but to firms that hold the technology and cooperate with other large firms in seamless systems. Decision-making will be further displaced away from the farmer and consumer. From that vantage point, genetic engineering as it currently stands is certainly incompatible with the philosophy of sustainable agriculture. GE: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? Public dollars are designated annually to public research institutions to seek solutions to agricultural problems that improve small and large farms alike. Private biotechnology corporations are increasingly capitalizing on the expertise, graduate student labor, building space, and equipment public universities and research institutions like the U.S. Department of Agriculture have to offer. By establishing partnerships with universities, or being treated as a "customer" by USDA, corporations can leverage public investments and receive inexpensive basic research from which they then develop products, seek proprietary rights and increase profits. One example of such a public/private partnerships rose to the surface early in 1999, when it was revealed that more than $200,000 in public tax dollars for agriculture research were spent to develop the terminator technology. This research partnership formed between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Delta and Pine Land Co. helped to fund the terminator technology, the process of genetically engineering seed so that it is sterile in the second generation. Terminator was financed with an investment of $720,000 over four years. Individually, USDA spent $190,000 and jointly, with Delta and Pine Land Co, spent another $255,000 to finance this technology meant to guard the companies' investment in seed genetic engineering. Is it in the public interest when public dollars are used to protect corporate interests? This research and resulting technology raised the ire of U.S. taxpayers. Farmers and consumers believe that the "terminator technology" will lead to fewer choices for small and moderate size family farmers around the globe. Their major concerns surround the ability to save seed, the technology's effects on biodiversity, and the fact that public research dollars were spent on technologies to increase profit for corporations and not to benefit the public. Increasingly, farmers and other citizens in the U.S. are raising their concerns about where our agricultural research agenda and, subsequently, the future of our food system is headed. More and more of the public are asking to have a say in how their research dollars are spent. There are avenues for public input, but are these avenues being taken seriously? As illustrated by the terminator example, when USDA and private industry, and likely representatives from large commodity boards, brokered a research deal farmers, consumers or environmental representatives were not invited to the research decision-making table. Small and moderate size farms (those grossing under $250,000 annually) account for 93% of farms in the U.S. and 40% of the production. Because the current push in agricultural research is toward biotechnologies applicable to large corporate farms (7% of U.S. farms; 60% of production) we see corporate farms on the rise (1998, Economic Research Service). Instead of throwing money at GE, investing public dollars in research aimed at improving cover crops or developing crop varieties more amenable to cultural weed control would be of greater benefit to sustainable, small and mid-size farmers. These farmers are looking for improved management practices, affordable and appropriate scale technologies, ways to lower their costs and reliance on purchased inputs, and ways to capture more value for what they produce. A case in point of the research push towards the more concentrated agricultural model is seen in the example of the "New Leaf" potato that has Bt as part of its genetic makeup. While widespread introduction of the new GE potatoes, soybeans, and corn are of benefit to large scale agriculture, organic growers are concerned about insect resistance to Bt. The impact of this technology on organic growers has not been researched by a public institution. Public research looking at how to combat Bt resistance has focused on developing refuge management plans, rather than finding alternatives to pesticides or safeguarding Bt as only one of few naturally occurring pesticides available to organic growers. Another example of the corporate take over of our public research agenda, is the increasing private funding provided to public research institutions, many that are part of the public land grant (agricultural college) system. GE corporate giant Novartis recently gave $50 million to the University of California-Berkeley School of Natural Resources to build a new research facility and to fund several research appointments, graduate students and equipment. Subsequently, the UC system is now saying it is a "publicly assisted" university rather than a "public" one. In an environment where funding for public agricultural research is declining, private/public partnerships of this nature are on the rise. While it is evident that increasing private/public partnerships and GE have arrived, there are serious economic, ethical, and environmental implications associated with these types of alliances. Also in question are the types of "public goods" created: the pure (non-rival, non-exclusive, available to all users) and impure (non-divisible, partially exclusive by geography or organisms, available to selective users). As public institutions move towards creation of more impure and commercial types of public goods, concerns are raised over definitions of public interest research and who are the beneficiaries are. Public interest research aims at developing knowledge and/or technology that increases the commonwealth. Such research requires complex problem solving and will involve at least the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of people and natural resources. It will require that insights from these different ways of knowing be synthesized, and that an active citizenry be involved. We find the following key benchmarks helpful in identifying public interest research: When the primary, direct beneficiaries of the research are society as a whole or specific populations or entities that are unable to carry out research on their own behalf; When information and technologies resulting from public interest research are made freely available (not proprietary or patented), and: When such information and technologies are developed with collaboration or advice from an active citizenry. Public means "not private." Most research done in the private interest is done for the financial gain of a limited, circumscribed group. Research done in the public interest will seldom involve such direct financial gain to the developers and will benefit a community or the commons. When private corporations leverage public dollars, research has the potential to become potentially can become privately "owned," and academic freedom and the interest of the public good may come into question. In this arrangement, will questions be asked about the effects of a new "genetic engineering" on the social, environmental, health and economic well being of the recipients? Public research institutions must remain true to their missions to serve the public good and to conduct research inquiry regardless of the potential for financial gain. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the agricultural colleges are moving towards greater public involvement in agriculture research decision-making. are in the works. This is largely due to the long efforts by members of the larger public including the environment, family farming and sustainable agriculture communities as well as the public in general. These efforts have long questioned the role of science in society, insisting that social ethics are a crucial part of scientific discovery and resulting technologies. In addition, "stakeholders" should mean more than token involvement by those people who will be beneficiaries of, and directly affected by, the research and resulting technologies. For example, the Agriculture Research Service, the research arm of USDA, is now conducting customer input workshops at which diverse stakeholders share their research needs and help to set the future research agenda. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has named a diverse Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and in a recent speech to the National Press Club warned, "The potential is enormous, but so, too, are the questions…"As we encourage the development of these production systems, we cannot blindly embrace their benefits." He also shared his concern that in our rush to embrace new technologies and bring them into the marketplace we must take care to ensure that, "small and medium sized family farmers are not simply plowed under." CANADIAN ORGANIC GROWERS POSITION STATEMENT ON BIOTECHNOLOGY Canadian Organic Growers (COG) represents organic growers, processors and consumers across Canada. COG endorses and promotes agricultural practices that ensure healthful food and a healthy environment for Canadians. In our view, genetic engineering (GE) runs contrary to the principles of caring for and protecting people and the ecosystems on which they depend. GE is a short-term, ill-conceived and oversimplified approach to agriculture; it does not respect natural systems. Genetically engineered plants, seeds, pollen, microbes and DNA must not be allowed to compromise the natural complexity on which organic agriculture and the food system itself are based. The biotechnology industry must prove with multi-faceted, long-term research that GE foods are safe to humans and the environment, to avoid potential hazards to the food chain from the following: Pesticide-dependent crops that may reduce native populations of beneficial insects Cross-pollination of DNA from new 'superspecies' to heritage plants Modified viruses and bacteria that can cause new diseases foreign to the immune systems of plants, animals and humans. COG strongly urges an immediate moratorium on further releases of bioengineered plants, animals and other life forms by developers, producers and patent holders of agricultural biotechnology. Further, we ask scientists to consider carefully the wider implications that their research could have on Canadian and global ecosystems. COG also calls for an immediate moratorium on the growing of all GE crops. Once these plants are in the field, they cannot be stopped from breeding with adjacent crops and weeds. Some organic growers are losing their livelihood because genetically engineered plants are contaminating their fields. In these cases, the farmers have to begin a three- to five-year process to regain their right to certify their fields as organic. Until GE crops are eliminated, COG demands mandatory labeling of GE foods in the store and in the field. In the store, this would protect the fundamental rights of Canadian consumers to freely choose their food, based on personal preferences and informed choices. This right is, in fact, laid out clearly in the United Nations Charter for Consumer Protection. In the field, labeling of all GE crops will protect the rights of organic and other low-external-input farmers. In addition, a notification procedure must be implemented whereby certified organic farmers are informed of the intent to seed a GE crop within a 10-kilometre radius of their operations. Until GE crops are scientifically and indisputably proven safe to human health and the environment, they must also be segregated from non-GE crops, and from organic crops in particular, at all stages of food processing. This will have the added benefit of creating export opportunities to countries that have regulated against the import of GE foods. COG calls on the many ministries of the Canadian government that support the biotechnology industry with millions of dollars to divert these funds to research on organic crops and techniques, to support for organic teaching faculties and institutions, and to the development of markets for organic production. Organic agriculture builds a foundation that requires and maintains clean water, clean air, living soil and healthy animals, for now and for future generations. This is possible because organic agriculture employs practices that are integrated with and often modeled on ecological systems. Organic practices respect the complex web of plant and animal relationships on which we all depend. These webs of life naturally build resilience and security into the ecosystem and consequently into our food system. Organic agriculture conserves genetic diversity, the benefits of which have been widely acknowledged. It encourages regional self-reliance in the production of high quality food, financial security for farmers and rural dwellers, and food security for us all. Organic agriculture is possible only without any GE components. LINK: http://www.organicconsumers.org http://www.percyschmeiser.com http://www.acresusa.com http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/43.htm http://www.moscowfoodcoop.com/books/wilson.html http://www.safefoodandfertilizer.org/page.asp http://www.organicconsumers.org http://www.icjb.org http://www.bhopal.org/whathappened.html http://www.foodfirst.org http://www.wellbeingjournal.com http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood http://www.non-gm-farmers.com http://www.geneticsaction.org.uk http://www.pan-uk.org http://www.gefoodalert.org http://www.safe-food.org http://www.truefoodnow.org http://www.geaction.org http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/stop_gmo.html http://www.ourstolenfuture.org http://www.factoryfarm.org http://www.gmfoodnews.com http://www.livingnutrition.com http://www.healthmasters.com http://www.notmilk.com http://www.nomilk.com No Child Left Behind Is your child next? Does George Bush have body bag with your child’s name on it? Isaiah 10:1,2 http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/povertylaw-l/msg00092.html Diet Soft Drink POISING - USA Poisons Children http://www.bibleplus.org/health/ms_lupus.htm http://www.stevitastevia.com/product/product.html http://www.organicconsumers.org/BTC/cocacola082405.cfm http://www.killercoke.org volunteering to work on organic farms http://www.wwoof.org ELIMINATE HUNGER Be a Real patriot. Please help disabled people, older people, poor people, widows and fatherless children grow their own Fresh nutritious Organic food. Luke 10:29, Isaiah 1:17,19 Give thanks and praise to God. http://www.victorygardens.net http://www.carbon.org http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/43.htm http://www.hhdra.org.uk http://www.farmgarden.org.uk http://goodgrub.org/kgp/free.html http://www.moscowfoodcoop.com/books/wilson.html http://www.communitygarden.org.au http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/neighborhoods/ppatch http://www.seattletilth.org http://www.leftfootorganics.org http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm http://camphill.org/whatis.php http://www.yesmagazine.com/article.asp?ID=576 Organic Farming will Feed the World: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/92739.php Organic Technology for gardeners and farmers: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/92738.php Solar energy, solar heated homes - buildings Solar heated swimming pools, spas and hot tubs. ~~Advanced Sustainable Technologies for Economic Progress http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/112665.php http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/903470.php http://www.homepower.com Workshops, Classes, Seminars and Online Training: renewable energy and sustainable tech http://solarenergy.org http://www.lowimpact.org/courses.htm http://store.solarlivingstore.com/2005schedule.html http://www.greendragonenergy.co.uk http://homepower.com/education/components.cfm TOURS of SOLAR HOMES and SOLAR BUILDINGS and Links to Groups supporting food security, clean air, climate protection USA- http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/8046.php International- http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=25168 http://www.ases.org/tour http://www.ases.org/tour/2005_tour/California.htm http://www.homepower.com/events/index.cfm http://www.solarliving.org http://www.solarhouseday.com/index01.shtml http://www.homepower.com/links/non_profit.cfm USA- http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/342040.shtml waste not, want not Advanced Recycling Technologies saving Money and energy Intelligently http://www.victoria.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/50509.php http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/53185/index.php Keep Our Country strong like a rock. Please support LOCAL Organic FAMILY farmers. Please use sustainable technology. COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) - Food Security. keeping our communities Safe from Peak Oil and other Disasters ------------------ http://www.cuco.org.uk/index.php?page=3 http://www.localharvest.org/csa http://www.localharvest.org/csa.jsp http://www.eatlocal.org/Ideas.html http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=25077 http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/34/10314 http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=25076 http://www.biodynamics.com/csa.html http://www.csacenter.org http://solutions.synearth.net/2004/02/04 http://www.seedinternational.com.au/CG%20article%201.html http://bolivia.indymedia.org/es/2005/06/20109.shtml http://www.isec.org.uk book: Farms of Tomorrow: Community Supported Farms; author: Trauger Groh http://www.greenpatchseeds.com.au/biodynamic.html book: Rebirth of the Small Family Farm, authors: Bob and Bonnie Gregson http://www.acresusa.com book: MetroFarm; author: Michael Olson http://www.growingedge.com/store USA forces Iraq to use GE Food! Are you the next victim of USA atrocities? http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/92733.php USAID forces other countries to use GE Crops and destroy Local Farmers. Is our country next on Monsanto's Hit List? http://manila.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=3763 USA puts farmers and gardeners in Prisons. Are You next? Will the USA take away your Job and ravish your Family? http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/92734.php http://www.percyschmeiser.com http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/seedsaving031405.cfm GE Food: http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=319 http://www.gmfoodnews.com/in220505.txt http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/92740.php http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gp100505.txt USA Chemical Pesticides are devastating Children worldwide. Is your child safe? http://www.calhealthyschools.org http://www.watoxics.org/redirect/HS_OVER.aspx?fromMenu=0&pos=3&name=HS_OVER http://www.pesticidereform.org http://www.healthyschoolscampaign.org http://www.safe2use.com BUILD INTO the FUTURE Indestructible and energy efficient buildings and homes (Hurricane proof, Tornado proof, Earthquake proof, Tidal Wave proof and Fire Proof) ------------------ http://www.monolithicdome.com http://www.solargenix.com http://www.powerlight.com http://www.swisssolartech.com http://www.quietrevolution.co.uk http://www.kalwall.com http://www.solatube.com http://www.nanosolar.com http://www.heliodyne.com http://www.sunpower.com http://www.rpc.com.au http://www.solarwall.com http://www.demarcoenergy.com http://www.advgeothermal.co.uk http://www.greengridroofs.com http://www.grasscrete.com http://www.rainharvesting.co.uk http://www.ecological-engineering.com http://www.oasisdesign.net http://www.waterless.co.nz http://www.wolvertonenvironmental.com http://www.sloanled.com http://www.cansolair.com http://www.myecospace.com http://www.canadiansolartechnologies.ca http://www.insuladd.com http://www.vestas.com http://www.activepower.com http://www.magenn.com http://www.windwall.nl http://www.sunpower.com http://www.powerefficiencycorp.com http://www.openenergycorp.com http://www.sunengy.com http://www.isolite.com http://www.sunfrost.com http://www.staber.com http://www.solaratticfans.com http://www.solarroofvent.com http://homepower.com GERMAN Sustainable Technology intelligent design ------------------ translate German => english: http://babelfish.altavista.com http://www.bomin-solar.de http://www.solarinfo.de http://www.inn-plan.de http://www.optigruen.de http://www.sses.ch http://www.orange-energy.de http://www.firstsolar.com http://www.thyssen-solartec.com http://www.wind-energie.de http://www.solarfoerderung.de http://www.biocar.de http://www.iwr.de http://www.evt-scooter.de http://www.intersolar.de http://www.sunversy.de http://www.solarwaterworld.de http://www.aet.de http://www.berger-biotechnik.de http://www.biodieselverband.de http://www.btec-rosenheim.de/pageID_1975573.html http://www.campa-biodiesel.de http://www.cleanenergy.de http://www.wind-tschechien.de http://www.windtest-nrw.de http://www.windkraftservice.de http://www.eg-solar.de http://www.windkontor-saar.de http://www.elsbett.com http://www.energiekontor.de http://www.fmso.de http://www.rerorust.de http://www.velomobile.de http://www.boxer99.de http://www.juwi.de http://www.zinco.de http://www.sunoven.de http://www.mindquest.de/Zonnewater http://www.fuhrlaender.de http://www.windkrafttechnik.de http://www.inventusgmbh.de http://www.moratec.de http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/38087/index.php How stupid are the Americans? http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/92742.php book: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, author: John Perkins http://www.johnperkins.org http://www.organicconsumers.org Keep our country and community strong like a rock. Please ban all GM foods from our country. Please refrain from purchasing or consuming any product containing GM materials. Please support LOCAL Organic FAMILY farmers. Please use sustainable technology. (Note: you can save this web page to your hard drive. Then you can open the saved file on your hard drive and click on the links to access the web sites)
Sicurezza sul Lavoro: il fulgido esempio cinese
Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer: Così le industrie farmaceutiche ci vogliono malati/immaginare
Le strategie di marketing dei produttori per incrementare le vendite dei medicinali - Un lieve problema di salute diventa una patologia grave, e la spesa sanitaria cresce
15/7/2006, Quotidiano di Sicilia Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer: Così le industrie farmaceutiche ci vogliono malati... immaginari Le strategie di marketing dei produttori per incrementare le vendite dei medicinali - Un lieve problema di salute diventa una patologia grave, e la spesa sanitaria cresce Sei timido? Non dormirci troppo: potrebbe essere, infatti, un chiaro sintomo di "fobia sociale". Incontri delle difficoltà sessuali? Potrebbe trattarsi di vere e proprie disfunzioni. Sei distratto sul lavoro? Pensaci bene: e se fossi affetto da "disturbo da deficit di attenzione"? Sono bastate, forse, queste poche frasi per alimentare qualche dubbio? Bene. È proprio quello che accade ogni giorno a milioni di persone nel mondo: lievi problemi di salute vengono dipinti come patologie gravi, con la complicità di gigantesche campagne pubblicitarie frutto di attente operazioni di marketing elaborate dalle grosse industrie farmaceutiche, prime tra tutte quelle americane, che vantano un fatturato annuo di oltre 500 miliardi di dollari. Se da un lato, infatti, i giganti mondiali della farmaceutica salvano vite e riducono le sofferenze, dall'altro non si accontentano più di vendere medicine solo ai malati. Si possono fare montagne di soldi, infatti, convincendo la gente sana che è malata. Così, il semplice rischio di una malattia diventa la vera e propria malattia. E, di conseguenza, donne sane di mezza età soffrono di un male latente alle ossa, chiamato osteoporosi, e uomini di mezza età in piena forma hanno un disturbo cronico che si chiama colesterolo alto. E il gioco funziona. Perché, in fondo, stiamo parlando di salute. Un sogno alla Merck Henry Gadsen, direttore generale della casa farmaceutica Merck, trent'anni fa confessò in un'intervista a Fortune il suo più grande cruccio, e cioè che il potenziale mercato della sua società fosse limitato alla gente malata. Avrebbe voluto infatti vendere medicinali come gomme da masticare. Produrre farmaci, cioè, per la gente sana, vendendo così a tutti. Sono bastati tre decenni perché il sogno si avverasse. Le strategie di marketing delle case farmaceutiche mondiali, oggi, prendono infatti di mira, in maniera massiccia, le persone in perfetta salute. Non c'è persona normale che non possa figurare come paziente. E le vendite aumentano. A sostenere questa tesi, tra gli altri, sono due giornalisti scientifici, Ray Moynihan e Alan Cassels, che hanno scritto il libro Farmaci che ammalano, e case farmaceutiche che ci trasformano in pazienti (Nuovi Mondi Media editore), tradotto in Italia da Simona Minnicucci, da cui derivano gran parte delle informazioni che vi stiamo presentando. Negli Stati Uniti, spiegano i due autori, la spesa farmaceutica è salita del 100 per cento, e continua a crescere. Il prezzo dei farmaci aumenta sempre più. Ma soprattutto aumentano le prescrizioni dei medici. Specialmente quelle di medicinali per il cuore e antidepressivi: guarda caso, le categorie maggiormente pubblicizzate. Un esperto newyorkese di pubblicità, Vince Parry, in un articolo dal titolo "L'arte di fabbricare una malattia" ha rivelato che le società farmaceutiche stimolano la creazione delle patologie mediche. A volte accendendo i riflettori su malattie poco note, o anche inventando un nuovo nome e una nuova definizione per vecchi disturbi. Promuovere esclusivamente le pillole sarebbe riduttivo. La vera propaganda, quindi, la si fa direttamente "sponsorizzando" disturbi e malattie. Come? Mettendo in campo eserciti di informatori, influenzando la ricerca scientifica, sponsorizzando importanti convegni medici, persino "pilotando" le commissioni statali che aggiornano le definizioni delle malattie. Sono sempre più numerosi i casi di medici che redigono le direttive il cui nome compare sui libri paga dei produttori di farmaci. Colesterolo, che fortuna Il primo dei timori? Il colesterolo alto. Una paura diffusa, che ha fruttato guadagni per 25 miliardi di dollari all'anno ad industrie come la Bayer, l'AstraZeneca, e la Pfizer. Con una spesa pubblica che è cresciuta al punto da diventare una seria minaccia, in taluni stati dell'Est europeo, per il sistema sanitario nazionale. Eppure, il colesterolo in sé non è un nemico mortale. Piuttosto è indispensabile per vivere! Nel caso di persone sane, l'unica cosa scientificamente accertata è che l'elevato livello di colesterolo nel sangue è solo uno dei tanti fattori che possono incidere sul rischio di disturbi cardiaci. Tra i pochi fattori, però, su cui si possa agire direttamente attraverso dei farmaci: le statine. Per le quali esistono investimenti promozionali colossali, paragonabili a quelli di certe marche di birra. Le statine sono un rimedio valido per chi ha già avuto problemi cardiaci. Per tutti gli altri, ovvero la maggioranza delle persone sane, le strategie per mantenersi in salute sono molto più semplici: una buona dieta, più movimento, niente fumo. Questione di definizioni Nell'ultimo decennio le vendite di statine sono salite alle stelle. Negli anni '90, secondo i National institutes of Healts (Istituti nazionali per la salute), sono 13 milioni gli americani che hanno bisogno di cure a base di statine. Persone classificate come "affette da colesterolo alto". Una classificazione che viene periodicamente rivista. Nel 2001, infatti, il numero sale a 36 milioni, secondo il parere di una commissione di esperti che riformula le direttive. Nel 2004 un altro aggiornamento: si arriva a 40 milioni. Quadruplicato il numero di pazienti oggetto di una possibile terapia farmacologica. Otto dei nove esperti che hanno redatto le direttive nell'interesse pubblico della nazione lavorano anche come relatori, consulenti o ricercatori per le maggiori case farmaceutiche al mondo: Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Bayer, Abbott, AstraZeneca e GlaxoSmithKline. Una maglia di legami finanziari per un conflitto di interessi sconcertante. Ma lo scopo è raggiunto: il colesterolo preoccupa "un sacco" di pazienti. Un potere sotterraneo L'intreccio tra redattori di direttive e l'industria - spiegano Moynihan e Cassels - sono solo un aspetto della vasta rete di interrelazioni tra medici e case farmaceutiche. Si "gonfiano" le direttive sulle malattie per ampliare il bacino dei pazienti-clienti, e si condiziona anche la ricerca scientifica. Sempre negli Stati Uniti, si stima che un buon 60 per cento della ricerca e dello sviluppo biomedico riceva finanziamenti da fonti private. In prevalenza, si tratta di case farmaceutiche. La percentuale sfiora il cento per cento nel settore degli antidepressivi: quasi tutti i test clinici di questi farmaci vengono finanziati dagli stessi produttori. E anche la Bibbia degli psichiatri, il Manuale diagnostico e statistico dei disturbi mentali, un librone di mille pagine che classifica i disturbi della mente, è risultato essere un testo poco trasparente: più della metà dei membri del gruppo di esperti che ha redatto le definizioni, infatti, ha legami finanziari con aziende del settore farmaceutico. Non vi basta? C'è una notizia ancora più sconvolgente: persino le attività di diverse associazioni per la difesa dei pazienti e dei malati vengono "sostenute" dall'industria farmaceutica. Uno scenario inquietante. Depresso? Va' dal medico La depressione è una diffusa patologia psichiatrica dovuta con ogni probabilità ad uno squilibrio chimico nel cervello. Si può curare al meglio con una moderna categoria di farmaci chiamati Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, o Ssri (inibitori selettivi della ricaptazione della serotonina). Vi sembrerà più semplice chiamarli Prozac, Paxil o Zoloft. E se a consigliarvi questi farmaci è il vostro medico, perché non fidarsi? Dietro ai consigli dei medici, è noto, c'è un esercito di professionisti: gli informatori medico-scientifici. Le industrie infatti intervengono anche sul modo in cui i medici prescrivono i farmaci. Rappresentanti (28 mila in Italia) e rivenditori sono sempre pronti al sorriso e ad elargire preziosi ed amichevoli consigli sui farmaci più recenti, oltre che i migliori aggiornamenti sulle malattie. Chiunque metta piede in uno studio medico ne sa qualcosa. Un lavoro dagli abbondanti frutti: è grazie a questi professionisti, infatti, che in alcuni Paesi le prescrizioni di antidepressivi si sono triplicate nel corso degli anni '90. Con un fatturato complessivo, per i produttori, di oltre 20 miliardi di dollari. E la depressione? Gli specialisti di malattie mentali dicono che la teoria della mancanza di serotonina è solo una delle tante teorie scientifiche, per di più semplicistica e anche sorpassata. Ma tenuta viva dall'apparato promozionale fatto di tante strette di mano e campioncini gratuiti negli ambulatori medici. Una salutare informazione Le industrie fanno solo il loro mestiere: vendere il più possibile al prezzo più alto possibile. E lo fanno investendo il 30 per cento del loro fatturato in un'aggressiva politica di marketing. Soltanto in Italia, fatturano 20 miliardi di euro. E il Servizio sanitario nazionale? Ha l'obiettivo opposto: comperare medicine al prezzo più basso possibile, e soltanto per pazienti che ne hanno veramente bisogno. Compreso il danno? Non è solo per il paziente reso indebitamente "malato", ma per l'intero sistema gestito dallo Stato, costretto a reggere una spesa pubblica superiore a quella effettivamente necessaria. Non è facile stabilire dove stiano i confini tra salute e malattia, specie quando enormi forze promozionali sono all'opera per cercare di confonderli. A volte le malattie sono reali, dolorose e mortali, e la cura è auspicabile. In molti altri casi, i problemi sono talmente lievi e passeggeri che non fare niente potrebbe rilevarsi la migliore scelta. La soluzione? Ci vorrebbe più informazione indipendente. I medici accolgono a braccia aperte gli informatori, le riviste mediche dipendono troppo dalla pubblicità delle industrie farmaceutiche. Trovare materiale di qualità non è facile. Ma perlomeno, uno sforzo merita di essere fatto. Prima di correre in farmacia. di Agostino Laudani Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer www.CBGnetwork.org (anche in italiano) CBGnetwork@aol.com Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Mandate un messaggio e-mail se desiderate ricevere la nostra newsletter gratuita in Italiano e/o in Inglese. Abbiamo bisogno del vostro aiuto. Le nostre campagne internazionali sono costose, non riceviamo alcuna sovvenzione pubblica e dipendiamo interamente dalle vostre donazioni. Potete inviare un assegno bancario a CBG, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germania o un bonifico bancario al seguente numero di conto corrente: 8016 533 000 presso GLS Bank, Germany sort code: 430 609 67 Codice BIC (Bank Identifier Code) /SWIFT : GENODEM1GLS IBAN (International Bank Account Number): DE88 4306 0967 8016 5330 00 Ricordate che un bonifico bancario all'interno dell'Europa costa normalmente quanto un bonifico all'interno del vostro paese se si forniscono i codici BIC e IBAN della banca destinataria.
mentre scontiamo ancora gli esiti disastrosi del referendum sul nucleare, Bersani parla in difesa della centrale a CARBONE di Civitavecchia, ancora piu' inquinante. Nel frattempo il prezzo dell' energia sale del 5% al mese -- ovvero raddoppiera' in un anno. E tutte le altre merci presto seguiranno la stessa strada. e poi ci parlano delle veline..
Tariffe, nuova stangata da luglio aumenti di 62 euro per le famiglie ROMA - Nuovo rincaro per luce e gas da luglio: le bollette elettriche saranno più costose del 5,8% e quelle del gas del 4,2%. Lo rende noto l'Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas nel consueto aggiornamento trimestrale per il periodo luglio-settembre 2006. L'Authority precisa che la spesa media annua per le famiglie aumenterà in media di 62 euro, pari al 4,7%, rispetto al precedente aggiornamento tariffario. (2006-06-28 20:07:38)
La Bayer è accusata di accordi illegali sui prezzi
La Bayer è accusata di accordi illegali sui prezzi "I responsabili dovrebbero essere in prigione" La Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer (CBG) ha denunciato il Presidente del Consiglio di Amministrazione della Bayer, Werner Wenning, alla Procura di Colonia.
Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer (CBG - Germania) Comunicato stampa del 27 giugno 2006 La Bayer è accusata di accordi illegali sui prezzi "I responsabili dovrebbero essere in prigione" La Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer (CBG) ha denunciato il Presidente del Consiglio di Amministrazione della Bayer, Werner Wenning, alla Procura di Colonia. La Coalizione accusa il manager di aver tollerato o orchestrato la partecipazione della Compagnia ad accordi illegali sui prezzi. Negli ultimi anni la BAYER è stata condannata in numerosi casi di reati di cartello. Nel solo ultimo anno finanziario, la Compagnia ha dovuto pagare 275 milioni di Euro in multe. "Stiamo parlando di accordi di cartello per cifre di parecchie centinaia di milioni di Euro. E' impensabile che decisioni di questa magnitudine siano state prese senza che il Presidente ne fosse a conoscenza. L'effetto deterrente si può avere solo se i dirigenti responsabili rischiano seriamente una condanna penale." Così si esprime Philipp Mimkes della CBG. La Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer è convinta che la maggior parte degli accordi illegali sui prezzi non sia stata ancora scoperta. "Il conto lo pagano i consumatori e i contribuenti" continua Mimkes. "E' inaccettabile che persone responsabili di frodi per milioni di Euro non siano giudicate penalmente. Eberhard Reinecke, legale della CBG, afferma: "L'alto numero di questi accordi di cartello e le precauzioni usate nei bilanci, provano che dietro c'è una scelta sistematica. Perciò il Presidente della Bayer AG è responsabile di malversazione." A livello politico sono stati recentemente fatti degli sforzi per portare in giudizio i responsabili. Il Commissario Europeo per la Concorrenza, Neelie Kroes, valuta le denuncie di privati contro reati di cartello ritenendole un importante mezzo per combattere gli accordi illegali sui prezzi. Dopo aver imposto alla BAYER una multa di 58 milioni di Euro, Kroes ha affermato che "i cartelli sono una piaga e farò in modo che continuino ad essere scoperti, giudicati e puniti. Con quest'ultima decisione intendo mandare un forte segnale ai consigli di amministrazione che i cartelli non saranno tollerati e agli azionisti che devono stare ben attenti a come vengono gestite le loro compagnie." Casi recenti di cartelli sui prezzi in cui la Bayer è implicata: Bayer, Chemtura: Cartello sui prezzi dei prodotti chimici per la gomma Bayer, Menarini e Abbott: Antitrust sanziona cartello sul prezzo di vendita dei test diagnostici L'ente antitrust del Portogallo multa Abbott e Bayer per accordi illegali sui prezzi Bayer, Abbott: L'Antitrust multa cinque "big" della farmaceutica EU Commission fines four firms €75.86 million for rubber chemical cartel Former Top Bayer Executives Indicted in Price-Fixing Conspiracy Vedi anche la denuncia della CBG contro la Bayer (solo in tedesco) Coalizione contro i pericoli derivanti dalla Bayer www.CBGnetwork.org (anche in italiano) CBGnetwork@aol.com Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Mandate un messaggio e-mail se desiderate ricevere la nostra newsletter gratuita in Italiano e/o in Inglese. Abbiamo bisogno del vostro aiuto. Le nostre campagne internazionali sono costose, non riceviamo alcuna sovvenzione pubblica e dipendiamo interamente dalle vostre donazioni. Potete inviare un assegno bancario a CBG, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081 Duesseldorf, Germania o un bonifico bancario al seguente numero di conto corrente: 8016 533 000 presso GLS Bank, Germany sort code: 430 609 67 Codice BIC (Bank Identifier Code) /SWIFT : GENODEM1GLS IBAN (International Bank Account Number): DE88 4306 0967 8016 5330 00 Ricordate che un bonifico bancario all'interno dell'Europa costa normalmente quanto un bonifico all'interno del vostro paese se si forniscono i codici BIC e IBAN della banca destinataria.
lo stato venezuelano rilevera' la filiale locale della multinazionale italiana
Ha del sensazionale la notizia di oggi data dal vicepresidente venezuelano Rangel, riguardo all' intenzione da parte dell' esecutivo boliovariano di rilevare la filiale locale di Parmalat. Mas info su: http://diariodacaracas.splinder.com
L'ager pubblicus come possa essere negato per forma psicologiche che vengono da noi stessi Leopardi e la Dickinson..E lo scontro tra proprietà privata e ager pubblicus...Le rispettive classi...Il discorso della prassi sensibile e dei suoi nuovi sensi si rende rispetto all'ager informaticus ingannato ma sempre senza etica si comprende male e si porta altrove ogni libero produrre lo si strumentalizza...Nella mimesis...Non è uva...Si vuole da noi metafora e ci si chiude dentro...a questa metafora per noi...metafore obbligate...pagine di servizi
Il problema di un ager pubblicus ed informatico…Una prassi unica comunicativa e per essa ai fatti fanno seguito strutture a sé date comunicative…Semantica indipendente con necessità di non dover interpretare…Aggrovigliarvisi…La dialettica vero e non…Va ignorata…Come domanda per sé inacetta…Un modo frammentario ed elusivo…Che mette vicino vuole associato…riconosciuto…Vedere in televisione o sotto casa…Controfigure…Nel significato evidente…Di una psicologia di ciò…Decampi in troppi vagli…I due corni chi ha davanti qualcuno per questo chi è il qualcuno il somigliante…e chi per sé a davanti a l’altro una sua copia che non è lui…I due corni…Questa forma estesa del prendere di sorpresa la persona determina l’ager pubblicus ed i nessi tra questo e l’ager privato…Imponendo una griglia di significati…Che il discorso lo tranciano…lo obbligano…e danno tutti i significati…già dati…parole e cose…parole che hanno molti stessi oggetti…o costrette al personale…indiziario…Rispetto alla proprietà privata- l’accesso…La scrittura giornalistica rende metafore continue dice per dire altro…pagine di servizi…Lo spazio della comunicazione e lo spazio dell’interrogatorio…Giulio Preti (?) scrisse di come certo giornalismo spiegasse con il peggior behaviourism …il lavoro e perché certe osservazioni sociali…L’ager pubblicus…La negazione della negazione negare la proprietà privata per la proprietà sociale…negare in vece la proprietà sociale l’ager pubblicus per dare a luoghi la proprietà privata-chiusi in casa- stessa casa nei giorni della peste…o nell’invecchiamento e malattia…Fino ai luoghi ove più sono propri certi volti addolorati dei loro stessi abitatori…e guardiani… i manicomi le case di cura etc…Essi istituiti come cottage system –casa del padrone per la working class- per i 72 000 orfani e fannulloni come Hitler stesso ne impiccasse di malati di mente e vagabondi…Preti ne spinsero tra orfanelli e bambini a iosa al suicidio…ove se non era utile si spingeva il degente al suicidio dati scarsi i soldi del mantenimento…Negato il fuori…Oltre il giardino…Con Leopardi e la Dickinson…Negare l’uscire per motivi personali psicologici per motivi sociali…Negarsi la doccia come per una promessa di doccia si dava poi gas…Adoperandosi quelle cimici 1/100 di millimetro…Il corpo e la scarsa igiene conobbe acari scabbia…Doccia …A scusa per gasare e l’inganno…Come i luoghi della comunicazione…siano ager pubblicus per finta…Essi separati ed indipendenti grandi mezzi di produzione…In mano a lobby e certo con di dentro per linee a favore di gruppi economici e politici…Offrano accanto al tradizionale behaviourism…Tracce persone come segni…Si prende una pettinatura un vestito…Per quello che assieme all’atteggiamento offre diretto o meno riferimento…Scrisse molta gente a riguardo…Faccio riferimento agli indirizzi che pure compaiono diversi…Via Cristoforo Colombo 19 divenne a seguito di altro elenco sempre via Cristoforo Colombo ma numero 330…Gli smistamenti postali…L’ager pubblicus è negato ai vagabondi ai venditori ambulanti… per la proprietà privata stessa che se lo ingloba…per idee razziste al riguardo di chi sia la famosa terra…fuori dall’ager pubblicus della proprietà come proprietà sociale… a chi negata segue l’internamento manicomio o galera…Questo sta…al motto…’’Voi che pace cercate per far quel che voi volete’’quindi…La sfera umana del desiderio e la sfera sociale…anzi le diverse interdipendenti sfere e gli antagonismi dentro di esse…Si sono sempre contese il suolo l’ager pubblicus come spazio della politica…chi vi cammina ha le scarpe rotte e magari va in autobus usa i pubblici servizi…e sia l’ager –informatico -diremmo informaticus…Nella sfera della produzione e riproduzione del concetto e per esso i suoi personaggi…rispetto all’antagonismo sul terreno della critica dell’economia politica…Non rende la divisione sociale del lavoro qui…che come dimensione coatta forzata…determinatasi dal tipo di accumulazione come quantità di macchine di strumenti ed ora rapporto per produrre e determinatamente…cosa e per chi…da parte di chi…La sfera del privato se soppresso ne viene a momenti la creatività ed altri aspetti sempre vagliati seguiti come mente e linguaggio…Dovrebbero tornare come forze del capitale esse stesse forze proprie il libero produrre vienea impedito e determinato dal controllo e centralizzazione di sistemi di mezzi di produzione…Sono miglior dottore nel diritto di lei signora professoressa…La divisione sociale del lavoro sopprime certo la stessa concorrenza…E assieme denaro e macchine…Antitesi alla società civile lo stato per ciò esso esiste e non permette come dottore in diritto a chi non lo è …pur sapendone…Lo stato crea e riproduce la divisione sociale del lavoro…E come forze del capitale e come legate alla precarietà ma assieme l’impedire con ogni mezzo la libertà produttiva…Il poter come liberi produttori…Allora la rete…Ad essa come ager pubblicus…come resta come ad ogni cosa il discomunicare il trasformare nel suo contenuto ridurre questo contenuto di elementi da foto da testi…Il problema dell’aggiunta a qualche cosa…Del cancellare o usare cose di altri…Ï attribuirle…Va inteso anche nella sfera della concorrenza e della lotta ideologica i libri non scritti…Ne da ‘’noi’’ne con qualche diritto si debbono scrivere cose su altri…Eppure se si…aggrovigliarvisi avviene…Il pittoricismo certi legami…tra immagini spazzatura e testi parole ed immagini…Libri e caratteri…Esiste un feticismo indiziario…Da spazzatura…Abbiamo visto bene come nella produzione vecchi rapporti subentrino nei nuovi…Il passato domina il futuro…E si crea un epoca di rivoluzione…Tra modi della produzione stessa e rapporti giuridici corrispondenti…e superati dalla nuova forma della soggezione delle forze umane intellettive e materiali…Un operazione che ieri chiedevamo direttamente al rapporto salariato ed alla forma di soggezione la linea editoriale dentro la divisione del lavoro li avveniva certa produzione ora fuori nella rete anche-ager informaticus- e lo scrivere dato dopo taccuini interviste e poi …Altre attività non indirizzate…Peccano…Ecco…Di questa catastrofica gestione certo votare no al prossimo referendum…Viene anche voglia tuttavia di non essere gestiti da reti psicologiche ed associazionismi…mentali altrui…con aspetti comportamentistici …Persona che somiglia a persona…Vestita d’oro perché preziosa…Vestita d’arancione perché ?