Jessica Lynch
I’m Jessica Lynch and Here’s My Real Story
In a Glamour exclusive, America’s most famous female soldier straightens out the “war hero” controversy once and for all.
In April, I did something I never imagined I would need to do. I spoke before Congress about how the military creates myths exaggerating the heroics of its soldiers. It was a difficult choice—I knew I could be portrayed as unpatriotic, un-American or worse. But my reasons were personal, and profound. My capture and rescue in Iraq had been transformed into one of those myths.
There’s so much confusion about what happened to me. Here’s what I know: At the start of the war, in March 2003, my convoy was attacked in the city of An Nasiriyah. My Humvee crashed, and a few hours later I woke up behind enemy lines in an Iraqi hospital, badly injured and unable to move my legs. I was a prisoner of war.
Nobody likes to believe our military would mislead people—but they wanted a war hero so badly that they portrayed me as one. They didn’t get their facts straight before talking about what happened, and neither did the media. They said I went down guns blazing, like Rambo—but I never fired a shot, because my rifle had jammed. They later corrected the story, but I’m still paying the price. People write to me and say, “You don’t deserve all the attention.” I’ve received thousands of letters and calls like that. People think I lied or helped create the Rambo myth—that I wanted it.
But I’ve always told the truth. I could have chosen not to. It would have been so easy to say, “Yes, I did those things”— except I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself. Honesty has always been very important to me. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the past few years, it’s that this is my life and I have to stand up for myself.
I remember the first time I put on the Army uniform. I just felt like a totally different person—I felt proud. I knew I was doing something important for my country. I’d signed up after high school, in July 2001, so I could pay for college and see the world. My dream was to go to Hawaii.
I don’t come from a rich family—it’s not like we lived in a cardboard box, but we didn’t have a ton of money. I grew up in Palestine, West Virginia, which is mostly a farming community; there aren’t a lot of jobs. My older brother, Greg, joined the Army at the same time I did. We enlisted before September 11, and that’s important to note. Everyone’s life completely changed after that day. I started basic training in South Carolina a week after the attacks, and I was petrified. But there was no backing out.
Read More http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2007/06/jessica-lynch#ixzz1oYE4cGXP
The CIA and Crack Cocaine
Freeway Rick Ross: From drug-trafficking and CIA connections, to a biopic directed by Nick Cassavetes, the former ‘Donald Trump of crack’ becomes the patron saint of South Central
 |
| Sam Slovick |
| Rick Ross at Highways Performance Space in Santa Monica |
Ross is on the freeway heading north toward Santa Monica from LAX. He is just back from Philly with the sniffles, and the sparkle in his eye is the maniacal megalomania that drives kings of industry and heads of state. The former undisputed Donald Trump of crack is deceptively understated in a black hoodie, cap and jeans, with the meticulously maintained beard of a Fortune 500 CEO. Back in the day he was annually banking a sum that would equal $3 billion in today’s money.
The Laughing Man / Freeway Rick Ross
“I got a cold” is his mantra for an evening of opting for elbow bumps in lieu of handshakes at Highways Performance Space in Santa Monica, where the other LAPD (Los Angeles Poverty Department) is putting on State of Incarceration. The nonprofit performance group is made up primarily of homeless people. Their show is a multimedia uprising that includes a life-size prison dorm complete with some real-live former inmates mixed in the cast.
As soon as his feet hit the pavement, Ross is swarmed by fans who want a piece of the underlord’s magic. The hood loves Rick like Queens loves Gotti. He’s the patron saint of South Central. “How the fuck do these people like me here like this … a fucking guy who sold drugs.”
Ross did the thing the government wouldn’t do: He brought real money into South L.A. communities, which put food in the refrigerator and paid the rent. “Transgenerational poverty,” he explains. “No financial infrastructure, and then along comes somebody like me. When you break down on paper, 100 kilos of cocaine turns into, like, $8 million that circulated in our community.”
The socially conscious website he masterminded in a prison cell after reading about Facebook in The Wall Street Journal is getting 3 million hits a month. TheFreewayenterprise.com agenda is simple: education, not incarceration. “You can’t get rid of the dope dealer and solve the problems. They’ll find themselves another dealer. This is not a problem you can incarcerate your way out of.”
 |
| Sam Slovick |
| Rick Ross at Highways Performance Space in Santa Monica |
Ross is focused on the road ahead. Still, there is a visible scar just under the social skin, which needs some scratching. A part of him is still standing at the podium in the courtroom the day he got a life sentence. “My mom broke down crying. Everybody in the courtroom was hoping that they didn’t give me life, except the prosecutor and the DA — they loved it. Right now I’m going to punish him [Assistant U.S. Attorney L.J. O’Neale] with success,” he laughs. “I don’t wanna punch him in the face or shoot him, but I know it’s going to kill him when I get a Grammy or an Emmy. He can’t take it.” Ross laughs again.
“They had never seen anybody think like me. I beat him at his own game. A guy who grew up in South Central, who couldn’t read or write, in a courtroom debating the law with a Yale grad … and I showed him in his law books where he was wrong and I was right.”
He laughs till his laughter feeds itself and then laughs some more.
 |
| Sam Slovick |
| Rick Ross at Highways Performance Space in Santa Monica |
The father of six sons, Ross offers a legal analysis in child-size bites. “If you got a kid and you come in and he spilled the milk on the floor and he had cereal and he poured them out, he knocked the cookie jar over and broke out a window … you know, he just acted a fool that day. You can whup him for all those things, but you can’t whup him separately for each. You get one whupping and that’s it. He’s been punished. You don’t whup him in a year and do it again and say, ‘I’m whupping you for the milk this time. Last time it was for the cereal.'”
As a schoolkid Ross pursued a tennis scholarship, but the whole thing evaporated when his coach discovered he was illiterate. Later, in college, he started selling cocaine to pay for tennis lessons.
“I never was a drug dealer. I was a businessman who sold drugs. I used to hustle bottles and cans, wash cars and cut yards when I was a kid. I was looking for opportunity. Everybody wants to be a person of means. Nobody wants to be a nobody. Everybody wants to be loved and cared about. That’s what I was after all my life.”
Ross is still smiling as he gets in the car with his lawyer, former prosecutor Antonio Moore, Esq. They’re heading to the 10 East to meet a guy named Gizmo at the Kress nightclub on Hollywood Boulevard for the Cage vs. Cons party.
via http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/02/rick_ross_cia_south_central.php#Comments
The real costs of African-American Women perming their hair
- Received June 15, 2011.
- Accepted September 9, 2011
Hair relaxers are used by millions of black women, possibly exposing them to various chemicals through scalp lesions and burns. In the Black Women’s Health Study, the authors assessed hair relaxer use in relation to uterine leiomyomata incidence. In 1997, participants reported on hair relaxer use (age at first use, frequency, duration, number of burns, and type of formulation).
From 1997 to 2009, 23,580 premenopausal women were followed for incident uterine leiomyomata. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. During 199,991 person-years, 7,146 cases of uterine leiomyomata were reported as confirmed by ultrasound (n = 4,630) or surgery (n = 2,516). The incidence rate ratio comparing ever with never use of relaxers was 1.17 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06, 1.30).
Positive trends were observed for frequency of use (Ptrend < 0.001), duration of use (Ptrend = 0.015), and number of burns (Ptrend < 0.001). Among long-term users (≥10 years), the incidence rate ratios for frequency of use categories 3–4, 5–6, and ≥7 versus 1–2 times/year were 1.04 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.19), 1.12 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.27), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), respectively (Ptrend = 0.002). Risk was unrelated to age at first use or type of formulation. These findings raise the hypothesis that hair relaxer use increases uterine leiomyomata risk.
Childhood hair product use and earlier age at menarche in a racially diverse study population: a pilot study.
Source
Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
Previous studies suggest that hair products containing endocrine disrupting chemicals could alter puberty. We evaluated the association between childhood hair product use and age at menarche in a racially diverse study population.
METHODS:
We recruited 300 African-American, African-Caribbean, Hispanic, and white women from the New York City metropolitan area who were between 18-77 years of age. Data were collected retrospectively on hair oil, lotion, leave-in conditioner, perm, and other types of hair products used before age 13. Recalled age at menarche ranged from 8 to 19 years. We used multivariable binomial regression to evaluate the association between hair product use and age at menarche (<12 vs. ≥12), adjusting for potential confounders.
RESULTS:
African-Americans were more likely to use hair products and reached menarche earlier than other racial/ethnic groups. Women reporting childhood hair oil use had a risk ratio of 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.9) for earlier menarche, adjusting for race/ethnicity and year of birth. Hair perm users had an increased risk for earlier menarche (adjusted risk ratio = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.8). Other types of hair products assessed in this study were not associated with earlier menarche.
CONCLUSIONS:
Childhood hair oil and perm use were associated with earlier menarche. If replicated, these results suggest that hair product use may be important to measure in evaluating earlier age at menarche.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
via Hair Relaxer Use and Risk of Uterine Leiomyomata in African-American Women.
Revisiting Kennedy
Most Americans Believe Oswald Conspired With Others to Kill JFK
Support for conspiracy theory increased sharply in the 1970’s and has been high ever since
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ – The vast majority of Americans believe the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, one of the most infamous events in American history, was a conspiracy. A Gallup poll from March of this year shows that over 8 in 10 Americans (81%) believe that other people were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Only 13% of the public believes that just one man (Lee Harvey Oswald) acted alone. These recent results match the high point of those believing in a conspiracy, a percentage that has increased since the 1960s.
Gallup first asked about a possible conspiracy shortly after the assassination in November of 1963, and at that time, 52% of the public thought others were involved in the assassination. A similar percentage (50%) believed in a conspiracy three years later in December 1966. When Gallup revisited the subject in 1976, the percentage believing others were involved had increased considerably. At that time, 81% thought others were involved in the killing of President Kennedy. It is likely that this large increase in belief in a conspiracy was related to the highly publicized findings of the 1976 HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations), which concluded that Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The percentage believing in a conspiracy decreased slightly, by 7 percent, in 1983 (74%). Support of the conspiracy theory remained high in 1992 (77%), and 1993 (75%), following the release of the popular Oliver Stone film “JFK” in 1991, which presented a variety of assassination conspiracy theories.
Interestingly, those with more formal education tend to have the lowest belief in a possible conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Among those with a post-graduate education, 71% believe others were involved in the assassination, compared with 78% among those with some college education and 84% among those with a H.S. education or less.
Importance of the Assassination
The JFK assassination does stand out as a hallmark event of the previous century, according to the American public. A Gallup poll in 1999 asked Americans about the importance of a variety of events that occurred during the century. The results of that question place the assassination 8th on the list of important events in the 20th century, behind events surrounding both World Wars, women getting the right to vote, and the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Importance of the Kennedy assassination was nearly identical to that assigned to landing a man on the moon in 1969, and ranked ahead of items like the Vietnam War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, economic depression of the 1930s, and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Survey Methods
The results below are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,024 adults, 18 years and older, conducted March 26-28, 2001. For results based on these samples, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were involved in a conspiracy?
|
One man |
Others involved |
No opinion |
||
| 2001 Mar 26-28 |
13 |
81 |
6 |
|
| 1993 Nov 15-16 |
15 |
75 |
10 |
|
| 1992 Feb ^ |
10 |
77 |
13 |
|
| 1983 Oct ^ |
11 |
74 |
15 |
|
| 1976 Dec † |
11 |
81 |
9 |
|
| 1966 Dec † |
36 |
50 |
15 |
|
| 1963 Nov † |
29 |
52 |
19 |
|
| ^ | Wording included “one man, Lee Harvey Oswald,…” | |||
| † | Slight variations in wording: 1963 – “Do you think that the man who shot President Kennedy acted on his own, or was some group or element also responsible?” |
|||
1966 – “Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think others were involved?”
1976 – “Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think others were involved?”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1813/most-americans-believe-oswald-conspired-others-kill-jfk.aspx
The maker of organic toddler formula with brown rice syrup probably “has the best of intentions. They’re trying to produce a … formula people want to buy.” Sighhhh
Organic Brown Rice Syrup: Hidden Arsenic Source
If you’re shopping organic and see brown rice syrup listed first among ingredients, you may want to think twice: That product could have high levels of potentially toxic arsenic, Dartmouth researchers reported today.
A team led by environmental chemist Brian P. Jackson found what Jackson called dangerous amounts of arsenic in organic powdered baby formula, intended for toddlers, whose top ingredient was brown rice syrup. That formula contained six times more arsenic than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe for the water supply.
Jackson and his colleagues also reported elevated arsenic levels in some brown rice-sweetened cereal bars, energy bars and energy “shots”consumed by endurance athletes, according to a study published today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.The results, which do not identify any products by name, follow recent reports about trace levels of arsenic in apple juice and previous reports of arsenic in rice.
ABC News conducted an online search for baby formula with organic brown rice syrup as the primary ingredient and found two products, Baby’s Only Organic Dairy Toddler Formula and Baby’s Only Organic Soy Toddler Formula, both made by Nature‘s One.
In a prepared response, Nature’s One said its California-based supplier of the syrup “uses qualified, world-renowned, third-party, independent lab to test arsenic levels in their organic brown rice syrup. Their testing results report undetectable amounts of arsenic at laboratory testing limits.”
“As an organic manufacturer, Nature’s One’s primary concern is the amount of environmental chemicals ingested by infants, toddlers and children. Parents can rest assured that Nature’s One® will test arsenic levels for every lot of organic brown rice syrup and organic rice oligodextrin prior to production,” the statement said. Rice oligodextrin is another type of sugar also used in some baby products.
Given that organic brown rice syrup “may introduce significant concentrations of arsenic to an individual’s diet,” the researchers saw “an urgent need for regulatory limits on arsenic in food.” Dietary sources of arsenic represent “potentially a big public health issue that has not been taken on board,” Jackson told ABCNews.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has been sampling and testing a variety of “more conventional” rice products, including rice crackers and rice cereals, “to evaluate what the risk is and what the levels are in these products” said Siobhan DeLancey, a spokeswoman for the agency’sCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
Depending on what the testing reveals, she said there was “a possibility” that the agency would set a threshold for arsenic levels in rice. The FDA previously set a “level of concern” of 23 parts per billion of arsenic for fruit juices, the only other food to have such a designated level. The EPA standard for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb.
“The bottom line is this shows there’s a need for FDA to figure out some limits on this and put that out there,” said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group in Washington, D.C. She said FDA needs to take a broader approach toward arsenic in what we eat, rather than going “food by food.”
“There’s been quite a lot of press on arsenic in rice in the past six years, but less so on the rice products,” Jackson told ABCNews.com. As Americans consume more rice-containing foods, they’re unknowingly ingesting more arsenic, he cautioned. He pointed out that they’re buying more organic packaged foods, more gluten-free products made from rice instead of wheat flour, and choosing foods sweetened with organic brown rice syrup because of the buzz they’ve heard linking high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.
But they’re frequently unaware that many of these foods contain rice. “Even if you were an educated consumer, some products might just creep under the radar,” Jackson said in an interview Wednesday.
The maker of organic toddler formula with brown rice syrup probably “has the best of intentions. They’re trying to produce a … formula people want to buy,” Jackson said.
Jackson said he originally was studying arsenic levels in major brands of baby formulas, but even those made with rice starch were low. However, two organic formulas, intended for toddlers, (one milk-based, the other soy-based) made with brown rice syrup had 20 to 30 times more arsenic than the other formulas.
Baby Formula Findings Extended to Rice Syrup-Sweetened Foods
That sparked his interest in broader testing of packaged organic foods with and without brown rice syrup, purchased from local supermarket aisles in Hanover, N.H. The researchers tested infant formulas, cereal bars, energy bars and energy “shots,” which are gels consumed by endurance athletes.
Arsenic occurs in several forms, some thought to be more dangerous than others. Organic forms of arsenic can be found naturally in the soil, along with arsenic-based pesticides used before the EPA banned them in 2009. Rice, Jackson noted, “takes up more arsenic than all the other grains.”
Inorganic arsenic is considered much more toxic than organic arsenic, Jackson said. Brown rice is usually higher in total arsenic and inorganic arsenic than white rice because the outer layer that’s removed in white rice contains the inorganic arsenic. However, another form of arsenic can be found inside the grain of both white and brown rice.
The EPA drinking water standard is 10 parts per billion for total arsenic, which combines inorganic and organic arsenic. Jackson’s team tested one package of soy-based toddler formula made with organic brown rice syrup and found a total arsenic level of 60 ppb, including about 25 ppb of inorganic arsenic.
That kind of level is dangerous, given babies’ small size and developing bodies, they said. Given the variety of formula brands available, he said, “I would choose one that wasn’t based on organic brown rice syrup.”
They also detected arsenic levels ranging from 23 to 128 ppb in cereal bars made with brown rice syrup; and levels of 84 to 171 ppb in three flavors of energy shots.
“I don’t necessarily think eating a cereal bar every couple of days is a health risk,” said Jackson, who collaborated on the study with researchers at Dartmouth’s Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Center, which is funded by the EPA and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “But we don’t have any guidelines for maximum allowable amounts in food or the cumulative amount of arsenic intake during the day.”
“There’s no perfect advice,” Lovera said. “There’s no one thing people can do.” But she said, the surprising presence of arsenic in packaged foods give people a chance to ask themselves, “How many foods do I need to eat that are processed with ingredients I don’t really know that much about?”
“Just wait. We’ll be sending you coupons for things you want before you even know you want them.”
By CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: February 16, 2012
Andrew Pole had just started working as a statistician for Target in 2002, when two colleagues from the marketing department stopped by his desk to ask an odd question: “If we wanted to figure out if a customer is pregnant, even if she didn’t want us to know, can you do that? ”
Pole has a master’s degree in statistics and another in economics, and has been obsessed with the intersection of data and human behavior most of his life. His parents were teachers in North Dakota, and while other kids were going to 4-H, Pole was doing algebra and writing computer programs. “The stereotype of a math nerd is true,” he told me when I spoke with him last year. “I kind of like going out and evangelizing analytics.”
As the marketers explained to Pole — and as Pole later explained to me, back when we were still speaking and before Target told him to stop — new parents are a retailer’s holy grail. Most shoppers don’t buy everything they need at one store. Instead, they buy groceries at the grocery store and toys at the toy store, and they visit Target only when they need certain items they associate with Target — cleaning supplies, say, or new socks or a six-month supply of toilet paper. But Target sells everything from milk to stuffed animals to lawn furniture to electronics, so one of the company’s primary goals is convincing customers that the only store they need is Target. But it’s a tough message to get across, even with the most ingenious ad campaigns, because once consumers’ shopping habits are ingrained, it’s incredibly difficult to change them.
There are, however, some brief periods in a person’s life when old routines fall apart and buying habits are suddenly in flux. One of those moments — the moment, really — is right around the birth of a child, when parents are exhausted and overwhelmed and their shopping patterns and brand loyalties are up for grabs. But as Target’s marketers explained to Pole, timing is everything. Because birth records are usually public, the moment a couple have a new baby, they are almost instantaneously barraged with offers and incentives and advertisements from all sorts of companies. Which means that the key is to reach them earlier, before any other retailers know a baby is on the way. Specifically, the marketers said they wanted to send specially designed ads to women in their second trimester, which is when most expectant mothers begin buying all sorts of new things, like prenatal vitamins and maternity clothing. “Can you give us a list?” the marketers asked.
“We knew that if we could identify them in their second trimester, there’s a good chance we could capture them for years,” Pole told me. “As soon as we get them buying diapers from us, they’re going to start buying everything else too. If you’re rushing through the store, looking for bottles, and you pass orange juice, you’ll grab a carton. Oh, and there’s that new DVD I want. Soon, you’ll be buying cereal and paper towels from us, and keep coming back.”
The desire to collect information on customers is not new for Target or any other large retailer, of course. For decades, Target has collected vast amounts of data on every person who regularly walks into one of its stores. Whenever possible, Target assigns each shopper a unique code — known internally as the Guest ID number — that keeps tabs on everything they buy. “If you use a credit card or a coupon, or fill out a survey, or mail in a refund, or call the customer help line, or open an e-mail we’ve sent you or visit our Web site, we’ll record it and link it to your Guest ID,” Pole said. “We want to know everything we can.”
Also linked to your Guest ID is demographic information like your age, whether you are married and have kids, which part of town you live in, how long it takes you to drive to the store, your estimated salary, whether you’ve moved recently, what credit cards you carry in your wallet and what Web sites you visit. Target can buy data about your ethnicity, job history, the magazines you read, if you’ve ever declared bankruptcy or got divorced, the year you bought (or lost) your house, where you went to college, what kinds of topics you talk about online, whether you prefer certain brands of coffee, paper towels, cereal or applesauce, your political leanings, reading habits, charitable giving and the number of cars you own. (In a statement, Target declined to identify what demographic information it collects or purchases.) All that information is meaningless, however, without someone to analyze and make sense of it. That’s where Andrew Pole and the dozens of other members of Target’s Guest Marketing Analytics department come in.
Almost every major retailer, from grocery chains to investment banks to the U.S. Postal Service, has a “predictive analytics” department devoted to understanding not just consumers’ shopping habits but also their personal habits, so as to more efficiently market to them. “But Target has always been one of the smartest at this,” says Eric Siegel, a consultant and the chairman of a conference called Predictive Analytics World. “We’re living through a golden age of behavioral research. It’s amazing how much we can figure out about how people think now.”
The reason Target can snoop on our shopping habits is that, over the past two decades, the science of habit formation has become a major field of research in neurology and psychology departments at hundreds of major medical centers and universities, as well as inside extremely well financed corporate labs. “It’s like an arms race to hire statisticians nowadays,” said Andreas Weigend, the former chief scientist at Amazon.com. “Mathematicians are suddenly sexy.” As the ability to analyze data has grown more and more fine-grained, the push to understand how daily habits influence our decisions has become one of the most exciting topics in clinical research, even though most of us are hardly aware those patterns exist. One study from Duke University estimated that habits, rather than conscious decision-making, shape 45 percent of the choices we make every day, and recent discoveries have begun to change everything from the way we think about dieting to how doctors conceive treatments for anxiety, depression and addictions.
This research is also transforming our understanding of how habits function across organizations and societies. A football coach named Tony Dungy propelled one of the worst teams in the N.F.L. to the Super Bowl by focusing on how his players habitually reacted to on-field cues. Before he became Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill overhauled a stumbling conglomerate, Alcoa, and turned it into a top performer in the Dow Jones by relentlessly attacking one habit — a specific approach to worker safety — which in turn caused a companywide transformation. The Obama campaign has hired a habit specialist as its “chief scientist” to figure out how to trigger new voting patterns among different constituencies.
Researchers have figured out how to stop people from habitually overeating and biting their nails. They can explain why some of us automatically go for a jog every morning and are more productive at work, while others oversleep and procrastinate. There is a calculus, it turns out, for mastering our subconscious urges. For companies like Target, the exhaustive rendering of our conscious and unconscious patterns into data sets and algorithms has revolutionized what they know about us and, therefore, how precisely they can sell.
Inside the brain-and-cognitive-sciences department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are what, to the casual observer, look like dollhouse versions of surgical theaters. There are rooms with tiny scalpels, small drills and miniature saws. Even the operating tables are petite, as if prepared for 7-year-old surgeons. Inside those shrunken O.R.’s, neurologists cut into the skulls of anesthetized rats, implanting tiny sensors that record the smallest changes in the activity of their brains.
An M.I.T. neuroscientist named Ann Graybiel told me that she and her colleagues began exploring habits more than a decade ago by putting their wired rats into a T-shaped maze with chocolate at one end. The maze was structured so that each animal was positioned behind a barrier that opened after a loud click. The first time a rat was placed in the maze, it would usually wander slowly up and down the center aisle after the barrier slid away, sniffing in corners and scratching at walls. It appeared to smell the chocolate but couldn’t figure out how to find it. There was no discernible pattern in the rat’s meanderings and no indication it was working hard to find the treat.
The probes in the rats’ heads, however, told a different story. While each animal wandered through the maze, its brain was working furiously. Every time a rat sniffed the air or scratched a wall, the neurosensors inside the animal’s head exploded with activity. As the scientists repeated the experiment, again and again, the rats eventually stopped sniffing corners and making wrong turns and began to zip through the maze with more and more speed. And within their brains, something unexpected occurred: as each rat learned how to complete the maze more quickly, its mental activity decreased. As the path became more and more automatic — as it became a habit — the rats started thinking less and less.
This process, in which the brain converts a sequence of actions into an automatic routine, is called “chunking.” There are dozens, if not hundreds, of behavioral chunks we rely on every day. Some are simple: you automatically put toothpaste on your toothbrush before sticking it in your mouth. Some, like making the kids’ lunch, are a little more complex. Still others are so complicated that it’s remarkable to realize that a habit could have emerged at all.
Take backing your car out of the driveway. When you first learned to drive, that act required a major dose of concentration, and for good reason: it involves peering into the rearview and side mirrors and checking for obstacles, putting your foot on the brake, moving the gearshift into reverse, removing your foot from the brake, estimating the distance between the garage and the street while keeping the wheels aligned, calculating how images in the mirrors translate into actual distances, all while applying differing amounts of pressure to the gas pedal and brake.
Now, you perform that series of actions every time you pull into the street without thinking very much. Your brain has chunked large parts of it. Left to its own devices, the brain will try to make almost any repeated behavior into a habit, because habits allow our minds to conserve effort. But conserving mental energy is tricky, because if our brains power down at the wrong moment, we might fail to notice something important, like a child riding her bike down the sidewalk or a speeding car coming down the street. So we’ve devised a clever system to determine when to let a habit take over. It’s something that happens whenever a chunk of behavior starts or ends — and it helps to explain why habits are so difficult to change once they’re formed, despite our best intentions.
To understand this a little more clearly, consider again the chocolate-seeking rats. What Graybiel and her colleagues found was that, as the ability to navigate the maze became habitual, there were two spikes in the rats’ brain activity — once at the beginning of the maze, when the rat heard the click right before the barrier slid away, and once at the end, when the rat found the chocolate. Those spikes show when the rats’ brains were fully engaged, and the dip in neural activity between the spikes showed when the habit took over. From behind the partition, the rat wasn’t sure what waited on the other side, until it heard the click, which it had come to associate with the maze. Once it heard that sound, it knew to use the “maze habit,” and its brain activity decreased. Then at the end of the routine, when the reward appeared, the brain shook itself awake again and the chocolate signaled to the rat that this particular habit was worth remembering, and the neurological pathway was carved that much deeper.
The process within our brains that creates habits is a three-step loop. First, there is a cue, a trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then there is the routine, which can be physical or mental or emotional. Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is worth remembering for the future. Over time, this loop — cue, routine, reward; cue, routine, reward — becomes more and more automatic. The cue and reward become neurologically intertwined until a sense of craving emerges. What’s unique about cues and rewards, however, is how subtle they can be. Neurological studies like the ones in Graybiel’s lab have revealed that some cues span just milliseconds. And rewards can range from the obvious (like the sugar rush that a morning doughnut habit provides) to the infinitesimal (like the barely noticeable — but measurable — sense of relief the brain experiences after successfully navigating the driveway). Most cues and rewards, in fact, happen so quickly and are so slight that we are hardly aware of them at all. But our neural systems notice and use them to build automatic behaviors.
Habits aren’t destiny — they can be ignored, changed or replaced. But it’s also true that once the loop is established and a habit emerges, your brain stops fully participating in decision-making. So unless you deliberately fight a habit — unless you find new cues and rewards — the old pattern will unfold automatically.
“We’ve done experiments where we trained rats to run down a maze until it was a habit, and then we extinguished the habit by changing the placement of the reward,” Graybiel told me. “Then one day, we’ll put the reward in the old place and put in the rat and, by golly, the old habit will re-emerge right away. Habits never really disappear.”
Luckily, simply understanding how habits work makes them easier to control. Take, for instance, a series of studies conducted a few years ago at Columbia University and the University of Alberta. Researchers wanted to understand how exercise habits emerge. In one project, 256 members of a health-insurance plan were invited to classes stressing the importance of exercise. Half the participants received an extra lesson on the theories of habit formation (the structure of the habit loop) and were asked to identify cues and rewards that might help them develop exercise routines.
The results were dramatic. Over the next four months, those participants who deliberately identified cues and rewards spent twice as much time exercising as their peers. Other studies have yielded similar results. According to another recent paper, if you want to start running in the morning, it’s essential that you choose a simple cue (like always putting on your sneakers before breakfast or leaving your running clothes next to your bed) and a clear reward (like a midday treat or even the sense of accomplishment that comes from ritually recording your miles in a log book). After a while, your brain will start anticipating that reward — craving the treat or the feeling of accomplishment — and there will be a measurable neurological impulse to lace up your jogging shoes each morning.
Our relationship to e-mail operates on the same principle. When a computer chimes or a smartphone vibrates with a new message, the brain starts anticipating the neurological “pleasure” (even if we don’t recognize it as such) that clicking on the e-mail and reading it provides. That expectation, if unsatisfied, can build until you find yourself moved to distraction by the thought of an e-mail sitting there unread — even if you know, rationally, it’s most likely not important. On the other hand, once you remove the cue by disabling the buzzing of your phone or the chiming of your computer, the craving is never triggered, and you’ll find, over time, that you’re able to work productively for long stretches without checking your in-box.
Some of the most ambitious habit experiments have been conducted by corporate America. To understand why executives are so entranced by this science, consider how one of the world’s largest companies, Procter & Gamble, used habit insights to turn a failing product into one of its biggest sellers. P.& G. is the corporate behemoth behind a whole range of products, from Downy fabric softener to Bounty paper towels to Duracell batteries and dozens of other household brands. In the mid-1990s, P.& G.’s executives began a secret project to create a new product that could eradicate bad smells. P.& G. spent millions developing a colorless, cheap-to-manufacture liquid that could be sprayed on a smoky blouse, stinky couch, old jacket or stained car interior and make it odorless. In order to market the product — Febreze — the company formed a team that included a former Wall Street mathematician named Drake Stimson and habit specialists, whose job was to make sure the television commercials, which they tested in Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Boise, Idaho, accentuated the product’s cues and rewards just right.
The first ad showed a woman complaining about the smoking section of a restaurant. Whenever she eats there, she says, her jacket smells like smoke. A friend tells her that if she uses Febreze, it will eliminate the odor. The cue in the ad is clear: the harsh smell of cigarette smoke. The reward: odor eliminated from clothes. The second ad featured a woman worrying about her dog, Sophie, who always sits on the couch. “Sophie will always smell like Sophie,” she says, but with Febreze, “now my furniture doesn’t have to.” The ads were put in heavy rotation. Then the marketers sat back, anticipating how they would spend their bonuses. A week passed. Then two. A month. Two months. Sales started small and got smaller. Febreze was a dud.
The panicked marketing team canvassed consumers and conducted in-depth interviews to figure out what was going wrong, Stimson recalled. Their first inkling came when they visited a woman’s home outside Phoenix. The house was clean and organized. She was something of a neat freak, the woman explained. But when P.& G.’s scientists walked into her living room, where her nine cats spent most of their time, the scent was so overpowering that one of them gagged.
According to Stimson, who led the Febreze team, a researcher asked the woman, “What do you do about the cat smell?”
“It’s usually not a problem,” she said.
“Do you smell it now?”
“No,” she said. “Isn’t it wonderful? They hardly smell at all!”
A similar scene played out in dozens of other smelly homes. The reason Febreze wasn’t selling, the marketers realized, was that people couldn’t detect most of the bad smells in their lives. If you live with nine cats, you become desensitized to their scents. If you smokecigarettes, eventually you don’t smell smoke anymore. Even the strongest odors fade with constant exposure. That’s why Febreze was a failure. The product’s cue — the bad smells that were supposed to trigger daily use — was hidden from the people who needed it the most. And Febreze’s reward (an odorless home) was meaningless to someone who couldn’t smell offensive scents in the first place.
P.& G. employed a Harvard Business School professor to analyze Febreze’s ad campaigns. They collected hours of footage of people cleaning their homes and watched tape after tape, looking for clues that might help them connect Febreze to people’s daily habits. When that didn’t reveal anything, they went into the field and conducted more interviews. A breakthrough came when they visited a woman in a suburb near Scottsdale, Ariz., who was in her 40s with four children. Her house was clean, though not compulsively tidy, and didn’t appear to have any odor problems; there were no pets or smokers. To the surprise of everyone, she loved Febreze.
“I use it every day,” she said.
“What smells are you trying to get rid of?” a researcher asked.
“I don’t really use it for specific smells,” the woman said. “I use it for normal cleaning — a couple of sprays when I’m done in a room.”
The researchers followed her around as she tidied the house. In the bedroom, she made her bed, tightened the sheet’s corners, then sprayed the comforter with Febreze. In the living room, she vacuumed, picked up the children’s shoes, straightened the coffee table, then sprayed Febreze on the freshly cleaned carpet.
“It’s nice, you know?” she said. “Spraying feels like a little minicelebration when I’m done with a room.” At the rate she was going, the team estimated, she would empty a bottle of Febreze every two weeks.
When they got back to P.& G.’s headquarters, the researchers watched their videotapes again. Now they knew what to look for and saw their mistake in scene after scene. Cleaning has its own habit loops that already exist. In one video, when a woman walked into a dirty room (cue), she started sweeping and picking up toys (routine), then she examined the room and smiled when she was done (reward). In another, a woman scowled at her unmade bed (cue), proceeded to straighten the blankets and comforter (routine) and then sighed as she ran her hands over the freshly plumped pillows (reward). P.& G. had been trying to create a whole new habit with Febreze, but what they really needed to do was piggyback on habit loops that were already in place. The marketers needed to position Febreze as something that came at the end of the cleaning ritual, the reward, rather than as a whole new cleaning routine.
The company printed new ads showing open windows and gusts of fresh air. More perfume was added to the Febreze formula, so that instead of merely neutralizing odors, the spray had its own distinct scent. Television commercials were filmed of women, having finished their cleaning routine, using Febreze to spritz freshly made beds and just-laundered clothing. Each ad was designed to appeal to the habit loop: when you see a freshly cleaned room (cue), pull out Febreze (routine) and enjoy a smell that says you’ve done a great job (reward). When you finish making a bed (cue), spritz Febreze (routine) and breathe a sweet, contented sigh (reward). Febreze, the ads implied, was a pleasant treat, not a reminder that your home stinks.
And so Febreze, a product originally conceived as a revolutionary way to destroy odors, became an air freshener used once things are already clean. The Febreze revamp occurred in the summer of 1998. Within two months, sales doubled. A year later, the product brought in $230 million. Since then Febreze has spawned dozens of spinoffs — air fresheners, candles and laundry detergents — that now account for sales of more than $1 billion a year. Eventually, P.& G. began mentioning to customers that, in addition to smelling sweet, Febreze can actually kill bad odors. Today it’s one of the top-selling products in the world.
Andrew Pole was hired by Target to use the same kinds of insights into consumers’ habits to expand Target’s sales. His assignment was to analyze all the cue-routine-reward loops among shoppers and help the company figure out how to exploit them. Much of his department’s work was straightforward: find the customers who have children and send them catalogs that feature toys before Christmas. Look for shoppers who habitually purchase swimsuits in April and send them coupons for sunscreen in July and diet books in December. But Pole’s most important assignment was to identify those unique moments in consumers’ lives when their shopping habits become particularly flexible and the right advertisement or coupon would cause them to begin spending in new ways.
In the 1980s, a team of researchers led by a U.C.L.A. professor named Alan Andreasen undertook a study of peoples’ most mundane purchases, like soap, toothpaste, trash bags and toilet paper. They learned that most shoppers paid almost no attention to how they bought these products, that the purchases occurred habitually, without any complex decision-making. Which meant it was hard for marketers, despite their displays and coupons and product promotions, to persuade shoppers to change.
But when some customers were going through a major life event, like graduating from college or getting a new job or moving to a new town, their shopping habits became flexible in ways that were both predictable and potential gold mines for retailers. The study found that when someone marries, he or she is more likely to start buying a new type of coffee. When a couple move into a new house, they’re more apt to purchase a different kind of cereal. When they divorce, there’s an increased chance they’ll start buying different brands of beer.
Consumers going through major life events often don’t notice, or care, that their shopping habits have shifted, but retailers notice, and they care quite a bit. At those unique moments, Andreasen wrote, customers are “vulnerable to intervention by marketers.” In other words, a precisely timed advertisement, sent to a recent divorcee or new homebuyer, can change someone’s shopping patterns for years.
And among life events, none are more important than the arrival of a baby. At that moment, new parents’ habits are more flexible than at almost any other time in their adult lives. If companies can identify pregnant shoppers, they can earn millions.
The only problem is that identifying pregnant customers is harder than it sounds. Target has a baby-shower registry, and Pole started there, observing how shopping habits changed as a woman approached her due date, which women on the registry had willingly disclosed. He ran test after test, analyzing the data, and before long some useful patterns emerged. Lotions, for example. Lots of people buy lotion, but one of Pole’s colleagues noticed that women on the baby registry were buying larger quantities of unscented lotion around the beginning of their second trimester. Another analyst noted that sometime in the first 20 weeks, pregnant women loaded up on supplements like calcium, magnesium and zinc. Many shoppers purchase soap and cotton balls, but when someone suddenly starts buying lots of scent-free soap and extra-big bags of cotton balls, in addition to hand sanitizers and washcloths, it signals they could be getting close to their delivery date.
As Pole’s computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy.
One Target employee I spoke to provided a hypothetical example. Take a fictional Target shopper named Jenny Ward, who is 23, lives in Atlanta and in March bought cocoa-butter lotion, a purse large enough to double as a diaper bag, zinc and magnesium supplements and a bright blue rug. There’s, say, an 87 percent chance that she’s pregnant and that her delivery date is sometime in late August. What’s more, because of the data attached to her Guest ID number, Target knows how to trigger Jenny’s habits. They know that if she receives a coupon via e-mail, it will most likely cue her to buy online. They know that if she receives an ad in the mail on Friday, she frequently uses it on a weekend trip to the store. And they know that if they reward her with a printed receipt that entitles her to a free cup of Starbucks coffee, she’ll use it when she comes back again.
In the past, that knowledge had limited value. After all, Jenny purchased only cleaning supplies at Target, and there were only so many psychological buttons the company could push. But now that she is pregnant, everything is up for grabs. In addition to triggering Jenny’s habits to buy more cleaning products, they can also start including offers for an array of products, some more obvious than others, that a woman at her stage of pregnancy might need.
Pole applied his program to every regular female shopper in Target’s national database and soon had a list of tens of thousands of women who were most likely pregnant. If they could entice those women or their husbands to visit Target and buy baby-related products, the company’s cue-routine-reward calculators could kick in and start pushing them to buy groceries, bathing suits, toys and clothing, as well. When Pole shared his list with the marketers, he said, they were ecstatic. Soon, Pole was getting invited to meetings above his paygrade. Eventually his paygrade went up.
At which point someone asked an important question: How are women going to react when they figure out how much Target knows?
“If we send someone a catalog and say, ‘Congratulations on your first child!’ and they’ve never told us they’re pregnant, that’s going to make some people uncomfortable,” Pole told me. “We are very conservative about compliance with all privacy laws. But even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.”
About a year after Pole created his pregnancy-prediction model, a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.
“My daughter got this in the mail!” he said. “She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?”
The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man’s daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.
On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. “I had a talk with my daughter,” he said. “It turns out there’s been some activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you an apology.”
When I approached Target to discuss Pole’s work, its representatives declined to speak with me. “Our mission is to make Target the preferred shopping destination for our guests by delivering outstanding value, continuous innovation and exceptional guest experience,” the company wrote in a statement. “We’ve developed a number of research tools that allow us to gain insights into trends and preferences within different demographic segments of our guest population.” When I sent Target a complete summary of my reporting, the reply was more terse: “Almost all of your statements contain inaccurate information and publishing them would be misleading to the public. We do not intend to address each statement point by point.” The company declined to identify what was inaccurate. They did add, however, that Target “is in compliance with all federal and state laws, including those related to protected health information.”
When I offered to fly to Target’s headquarters to discuss its concerns, a spokeswoman e-mailed that no one would meet me. When I flew out anyway, I was told I was on a list of prohibited visitors. “I’ve been instructed not to give you access and to ask you to leave,” said a very nice security guard named Alex.
Using data to predict a woman’s pregnancy, Target realized soon after Pole perfected his model, could be a public-relations disaster. So the question became: how could they get their advertisements into expectant mothers’ hands without making it appear they were spying on them? How do you take advantage of someone’s habits without letting them know you’re studying their lives?
Before I met Andrew Pole, before I even decided to write a book about the science of habit formation, I had another goal: I wanted to lose weight.
I had got into a bad habit of going to the cafeteria every afternoon and eating a chocolate-chip cookie, which contributed to my gaining a few pounds. Eight, to be precise. I put a Post-it note on my computer reading “NO MORE COOKIES.” But every afternoon, I managed to ignore that note, wander to the cafeteria, buy a cookie and eat it while chatting with colleagues. Tomorrow, I always promised myself, I’ll muster the willpower to resist.
Tomorrow, I ate another cookie.
When I started interviewing experts in habit formation, I concluded each interview by asking what I should do. The first step, they said, was to figure out my habit loop. The routine was simple: every afternoon, I walked to the cafeteria, bought a cookie and ate it while chatting with friends.
Next came some less obvious questions: What was the cue? Hunger? Boredom? Low blood sugar? And what was the reward? The taste of the cookie itself? The temporary distraction from my work? The chance to socialize with colleagues?
Rewards are powerful because they satisfy cravings, but we’re often not conscious of the urges driving our habits in the first place. So one day, when I felt a cookie impulse, I went outside and took a walk instead. The next day, I went to the cafeteria and bought a coffee. The next, I bought an apple and ate it while chatting with friends. You get the idea. I wanted to test different theories regarding what reward I was really craving. Was it hunger? (In which case the apple should have worked.) Was it the desire for a quick burst of energy? (If so, the coffee should suffice.) Or, as turned out to be the answer, was it that after several hours spent focused on work, I wanted to socialize, to make sure I was up to speed on office gossip, and the cookie was just a convenient excuse? When I walked to a colleague’s desk and chatted for a few minutes, it turned out, my cookie urge was gone.
All that was left was identifying the cue.
Deciphering cues is hard, however. Our lives often contain too much information to figure out what is triggering a particular behavior. Do you eat breakfast at a certain time because you’re hungry? Or because the morning news is on? Or because your kids have started eating? Experiments have shown that most cues fit into one of five categories: location, time, emotional state, other people or the immediately preceding action. So to figure out the cue for my cookie habit, I wrote down five things the moment the urge hit:
Where are you? (Sitting at my desk.)
What time is it? (3:36 p.m.)
What’s your emotional state? (Bored.)
Who else is around? (No one.)
What action preceded the urge? (Answered an e-mail.)
The next day I did the same thing. And the next. Pretty soon, the cue was clear: I always felt an urge to snack around 3:30.
Once I figured out all the parts of the loop, it seemed fairly easy to change my habit. But the psychologists and neuroscientists warned me that, for my new behavior to stick, I needed to abide by the same principle that guided Procter & Gamble in selling Febreze: To shift the routine — to socialize, rather than eat a cookie — I needed to piggyback on an existing habit. So now, every day around 3:30, I stand up, look around the newsroom for someone to talk to, spend 10 minutes gossiping, then go back to my desk. The cue and reward have stayed the same. Only the routine has shifted. It doesn’t feel like a decision, any more than the M.I.T. rats made a decision to run through the maze. It’s now a habit. I’ve lost 21 pounds since then (12 of them from changing my cookie ritual).
After Andrew Pole built his pregnancy-prediction model, after he identified thousands of female shoppers who were most likely pregnant, after someone pointed out that some of those women might be a little upset if they received an advertisement making it obvious Target was studying their reproductive status, everyone decided to slow things down.
The marketing department conducted a few tests by choosing a small, random sample of women from Pole’s list and mailing them combinations of advertisements to see how they reacted.
“We have the capacity to send every customer an ad booklet, specifically designed for them, that says, ‘Here’s everything you bought last week and a coupon for it,’ ” one Target executive told me. “We do that for grocery products all the time.” But for pregnant women, Target’s goal was selling them baby items they didn’t even know they needed yet.
“With the pregnancy products, though, we learned that some women react badly,” the executive said. “Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We’d put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We’d put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.
“And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works.”
In other words, if Target piggybacked on existing habits — the same cues and rewards they already knew got customers to buy cleaning supplies or socks — then they could insert a new routine: buying baby products, as well. There’s a cue (“Oh, a coupon for something I need!”) a routine (“Buy! Buy! Buy!”) and a reward (“I can take that off my list”). And once the shopper is inside the store, Target will hit her with cues and rewards to entice her to purchase everything she normally buys somewhere else. As long as Target camouflaged how much it knew, as long as the habit felt familiar, the new behavior took hold.
Soon after the new ad campaign began, Target’s Mom and Baby sales exploded. The company doesn’t break out figures for specific divisions, but between 2002 — when Pole was hired — and 2010, Target’s revenues grew from $44 billion to $67 billion. In 2005, the company’s president, Gregg Steinhafel, boasted to a room of investors about the company’s “heightened focus on items and categories that appeal to specific guest segments such as mom and baby.”
Pole was promoted. He has been invited to speak at conferences. “I never expected this would become such a big deal,” he told me the last time we spoke.
Sooooo… about that whole Dumbing down of America Conspiracy theory…
I don’t know, I’m thinking with Teletubbies, Pokemon, Barney, Jersey Shore, The Real Housewives, The Kardashians, Hip Hop, Pop, Hollywood, The Fashion Industry, Reality TV, Monday Night Football, Beer Pong, The Sims, The Simpsons, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, on top of Fluoridated water, Vaccines, and Chemtrails – World Domination by the Elite is possible with absolutely NO resistance at this point…
Did she really say Utopia was a country that started with “U”? Sighhhhh
Those guys that used to wear the tin foil hats are looking pretty brilliant! Okay that might be pushing it, but if this is the state of the nation we’re in trouble.
My New Favorite Doctor
I love this guy, he’s gonna be my Go-to-Guy for all things medical!
Thanks again to my Constitution friend for this clip on Fluoride . Watching that sent me to google to find a plethera of information on Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D.
Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. is a retired neurosurgeon and author whose trailblazing research has tirelessly documented the fact that there is an epidemic of neurological disorders in the western world which are directly connected to toxins in our environment, and how this relates to the larger global eugenics program behind population reduction. In this fascinating interview, Blaylock reveals how depopulation programs forged by the Rockefeller foundation in association with the Nazis were the basis of modern day incarnations of eugenics like fluoride poisoning and vaccinations.
Note to self: India is not the Place to retire…
India’s biometric ID number plan divided by bureaucracy
The prime minister decides the two agencies fighting to collect and control fingerprints, retinal scans and other data will share in the duties.
Reporting from New Delhi —
India’splan to issue each of its citizens a biometric identity number, an ambitious program aimed at cutting corruption, mismanagement and red tape, may yet founder on the very bureaucracy it was designed to minimize.
On Friday, after a battle between two agencies over who would collect and control the fingerprints, retinal scans and other information before issuing the 12-digit numbers,India’sprime minister resolved the issue: Both bureaucracies will collect the information “with suitable provisions to eliminate avoidable overlap.”
Though the program may eventually provide some of the benefits envisioned for India’s citizens, many of whom are so poor and illiterate that there’s no official trace of their existence, analysts say this is hardly a promising start.
“I think the turf war … has been settled by giving 50-50,” said R. Ramakumar, associate professor with Mumbai’s Tata Institute of Social Sciences. “It looks more like ego massaging.”
It also underscores the entrenchment and power of India’s infamous bureaucrats, the systemic barriers to reform and fighting corruption.
“It’s not going to end with this truce,” said Charan Wadhva, an analyst and former president of Delhi’s Center for Policy Research. “There are vested interests that don’t want it to succeed. But at least it’s one step short of open war.”
On one side of the dispute is Nandan Nilekani, a billionaire who left a comfortable position as co-founder of outsource giant Infosys to head the Unique Identification Authority of India.
Sitting in his government office in New Delhi near a large flat-screen TV, Nilekani — who famously gave author Thomas Friedman the title for his 2005 bestseller, “The World is Flat” — explained why he took on this challenge: “I’ve made plenty of money. I wanted to do something for India.”
Supporters of his ID program say it will weed out welfare fraud and duplication, deter illegal migration, boost counter-terrorism efforts and provide access to banking, telecom accounts and government agencies for India’s poorest. (Barely 20% of Indians have bank accounts.)
They also believe it could spur direct government cash transfers, bypassing corrupt local officials. Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi once said that only 15% of government funds reach the poor.
Partnerships between the private sector and India’s rigid bureaucracy are rare, and Nilekani has ruffled feathers by ignoring protocol, moving quickly and sparring with the National Population Register, the competing agency with its own biometric ID project.
The NPR, overseen by powerful Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, has argued that data collected for Nilekani’s universal ID isn’t secure, costs too much at about $3 per record and should be under its control.
- MorphoTrak BiometricsMorphoTrak has a complete portfolio of biometric identification systemswww.MorphoTrak.com
Under Friday’s compromise, both agencies will enroll citizens to their respective programs simultaneously, with the universal ID program authorized to register up to 600 million people. The two agencies are supposed to share captured data and figure out ways to cooperate, though funding for Nilekani’s program will be the topic of a separate process later.
The universal ID program has also faced critics outside the government, who argue that it undermines privacy, could see foreign governments gain access to sensitive information and uses a fingerprint recognition system that can be fooled by a bit of wax and glue.
Nilekani counters his critics with well-practiced answers: Their fears are misguided, the system is secure and interagency differences are the “usual cacophony.”
The challenges, logically, technologically and socially, are huge. If every one of India’s 1.2 billion citizens is registered, the system will need 10 times more data than the biggest existing biometric database covering visitors to the United States.
More than 120 million numbers have been issued under the program, with a goal of 200 million by March and 600 million by 2014 (compared with about 50,000 population registry cards). Some place the ultimate cost of India’s universal ID program at $25 billion.
Unemployed worker Palash Hazara is a testament to some of the troubles that plague the program. Hazara, who migrated to New Delhi in 2007 from West Bengal state, registered late last year for his number, providing his name, gender, age, address, fingerprints, photograph and eye scan.
“For me, it’s more than proving my identity for a job,” he said. “It’s proof that I’m an Indian.”
But his hope of joining the army in Delhi, which would require him to show proper identification, have been undermined by a demanded $1,400 bribe for the job, he said. Even securing his “free” universal ID number cost him $4 in graft, he said — more than a day’s wages — despite its promise to help fight fraud.
And although it’s been months since he registered, the number still hasn’t arrived. Now he is considering a return to his ancestral community, where he’s known and doesn’t need an ID number.
“I came to Delhi to earn my own livelihood, but I’ve been out of work for weeks,” he said. “I wouldn’t mind going back. This place is so expensive and people are hostile.”
Vinod Kumar, a former chemistry professor and director of the civic group MotivOcean, has many concerns of his own about the program, from privacy to security to the integrity of information.
But he acknowledges the potential if Nilekani’s system can track payments through officials’ sticky fingers in a country that is 132 out of 183 economies in an International Finance Corp. ranking in terms of doing business, and 95 out of 182 countries in Transparency International’s corruption perception index.
“We’re spending all this money when nearly half the country doesn’t even have access to a toilet,” he said. “It’s hugely expensive. But if he can pull this off, he’s a god to us.”
Tanvi Sharma of The Times’ New Delhi bureau contributed to this report.
It doesn’t take long for propaganda to leave the shores of the US and land here.
Who needs the HPV vaccine? Making the point for HPV jab
While it’s not considered one of the most common cancers in Bermuda, local women do get cervical cancer.
In 2009, 2.7 percent of the reported cancers were cancer of the cervix. There could have been even fewer cases there
is a vaccine that protects against the most common cause of this type of cancer.
Human papilloma virus or HPV is extremely common. We all come into contact with it everyday. There are several different types broadly classified as high-risk and low-risk. The high-risk HPVs are so named because of their potential to cause cancer while the low-risk do not pose this threat.
Researchers have isolated and named HPV 16 and 18 as the most common causes of cervical cancer. Doing this enabled them to also develop a vaccine. Gardasil and Cervarix are the two recommended for young girls.
In Bermuda, the vaccines are available at the Health Department and from most paediatricians and family practitioners. Vaccines work by introducing a mild form of a pathogen to the body, after which the body develops its own antibodies to fight it. Once such antibodies are created, they remain in the system and patrol the body for the specific pathogen they attacked. This is the body’s natural efficient way of keeping us well; the antibodies quickly recognise the pathogen and launch an immediate attack, preventing the pathogen from having the time to do harm.
In order for the vaccine to be effective, it needs to be administered before the body has been exposed to the pathogen. HPV 16 and 18 are most common in sexual contact and therefore the vaccine is most effective when used before a girl has engaged in sex.
“It is recommended that the vaccine is given at 11 to 12 years, that is an age when parents can discuss the reason for protection with their children, and can continue the conversation about abstinence in teenage years, safer sexual practices and limiting numbers of lifetime sexual partners,” said Hilda Dunsmore, gynaecologist with the Department of Health.
Parental consent is required for any minor to have the vaccine. That’s right, any minor. Research has proved that boys can benefit from Gardasil (not Cervarix which is specific to cervical cancer).
“The Department of Health, paediatricians, family doctors and gynaecologists are all aware of and agreed on the benefits of immunising our youngsters against a virus which has the potential to cause cervical cancer in women,” said Dr Dunsmore.
“There is also an increasing awareness that this virus is associated with cancers in other areas such as genital areas, anus in both men and women, and a rising incidence of oro-pharyngeal cancers (tonsil, tongue, pharynx) in young men,” she added.
Dr Dunsmore, who was involved in HPV research in the UK, explained why girls were the focus when the vaccine was first released.
“Initially many countries have opted to vaccinate the girls only, as 90 percent of HPV-related cancers in women are cervical cancers. It was hoped that if there was a good uptake of the vaccine (over 80 percent of girls immunised) that the boys would be protected by herd immunity,” she said.
“However in light of the rising incidence of HPV-related cancers in men, and the recognition that herd immunity in the female population will not halt the spread of HPV in homosexual men, the recommendation now is that immunisation should be offered to both sexes.”
Her department has had enquiries from parents about vaccinating their sons, Dr Dunsmore said.
While she could not say how many HPV vaccines have been administered to boys or girls locally, she explained why parents should now also seriously consider protecting their sons.
“Parents cannot predict the sexual orientation or sexual practices of their children whether their children will have multiple partners or oral sex and so all boys should be offered protection,” she said.
Cost of the vaccine may vary between doctors in private practice but at the Department of Health each Cervarix shot costs $35 and each Gardasil shot costs $60. In each case, three shots are required over six months.
“This timing will give the recipient optimal immune response,” said Dr Dunsmore.
Bermuda Cancer and Health Centre and the Department of Health are distributing written information about the vaccines to parents and young women who are eligible for immunisation.
via Who needs the HPV vaccine? Making the point for HPV jab | Bermuda Body & Soul.
Bottled Water may not be the answer, but Fluoridated Water is?
Why Minorities Reach for Bottled Water Over Tap & How Marketers Persuade Them
Nadia Arumugam, Contributor
Research has shown that minorities consume bottled water more often than white Americans, and spend a greater proportion of their income (about 1%, compared to the 0.4% white Americans dole out) on this superfluous commodity every year. A recent study in the Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine confirmed this trend – finding that Latino and black parents were three times more likely to sate their children’s thirst with bottled water, compared with white parents. What sets this study apart from previous ones, is that it pinpoints the reasons why minority parents perceive bottled water to be superior, and thus a necessary expense. They genuinely believe it to be cleaner, safer, healthier, and more convenient than the stuff that pours out of the spigot (virtually) gratis. Health experts and tap water advocates heartily disagree and will produce reams of data revealing tap water to be pure, healthful, and entirely sanitary. In fact, authors of the recent study note that the reliance on bottled water may contribute to dental issues in minority children who don’t benefit from the fluoride purposefully added to tap water to maintain the nation’s oral health.
What’s more, a National Resources Defense Council investigation discovered the 17% of bottled waters contained unsafe levels of bacterial loads, and 22% were contaminated with chemicals, including arsenic.
Still, with 10 billion gallons of bottled water imbibed annually in the US, bottled water brands have been actively courting the minority market. Here are four strategies they’ve used to convince black and Latino consumers to swig from their bottles.
Latino-specific Bottled Water Brands
What better way to attract the attention of a minority group than by putting out a product that is aimed directly, if not almost exclusively, at them. Paul Kurkulis, founder and president of Las Oleadas, an Aspen-based company, has been hawking a brand of mineral -enhanced bottled water called Oleada in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and California, with his focus being the Hispanic market. Loosely translated Las Oleadas means “the momentum that drives a wave.” The text on the labels were originally only in Spanish, but they now also feature English, since Kurkulis found he had inadvertently garnered some non-Spanish speaking customers. In 2006, Ravinia Partners, launched AguaBlue. After years of research, they put out the bottled water that sought to pull at the emotional heartstrings of the Latino consumer. The striking, full color label features the flags of Latin American countries, and bilingual production information. Perusing the water aisle, the Guatamalan, Columbian or Puerto Rican shopper spots his or her flag, and swells with pride and warm feelings. Naturally, this makes him or him opt for a bottle of AguaBlue over another generic brand.
Targeting Minority Moms
Over the last two years ago, Coca Cola and Nestle have both rolled out campaigns aimed at minority moms. According to Miriam Muley, author of The 85% Niche: The Power of Women of All Colors—Latina, Black and Asian, 46% of all mothers in the US are Latina, Black or Asian. In April, 2009, Dasani enlisted R&B star Chilli from the Grammy award winning group TLC to deliver its message of health and hydration to African American mothers in a special Mother’s Day program. Via radio, print and in-store advertising, black women were sold on how drinking Dasani was just one step to a happier, more beautiful, more fulfilled, and more balanced them. By visiting the Dasani website, moms could see the latest fashion trends, elicit health and beauty tips and enter contests to win spa-cations. “Among African American consumers, African American moms are the gatekeeper to the household,” said Yolanda White, assistant vice president, African American Marketing, Coca-Cola North America, in an Ad Age interview. “We over-index in single-family households, and so reaching Mom is critical.”
Summer and fall of 2010 saw Nestle’s Pure Life water campaign, “Better Habits for a Better Life”, played out with a vengeance. This time it was Latina moms who were being canvassed, and this time, the campaign wasn’t so much about their health and well-being, but rather those of their families. At the heart of the campaign was a challenge titled “La Promesa Nestle Pure Life,” and it basically called upon mothers to pledge to replace one sugary drink in their family’s day with water, or rather, a bottle of Pure Life. Once her pledge was registered, mom was in the running to win over $20,000 worth of prizes, and a trip for four to Miami.
Celebrity Endorsements
Brands have long since recognized the value of celebrity endorsements to increase sales. But, it wasn’t until the mid-90′s that advertisers really started to take the African American market seriously and realized the profits to be cultivated if they started to use black stars. Remember what Tina Turner did for Hanes hosiery? Well, the bottled water industry certainly does. Coca Cola’s enlisting of TLC’s Chili, a 38 year-old-old actress, singer, and single mother to promote Dasani’s Mother’s Day campaign, was perfectly executed. The star embraces independence, strong family principles and a commitment to health, and, well, looking good – values integral to today’s black mother. “Chilli embodies the struggles and the balance we see in our target audience,” said Yolanda White of Coca Cola, as reported in Adweek.com. “She gives reassurance to moms that you can still be a great mom, take care of yourself and look beautiful.”
Nestle had their own superstar mom in Hispanic TV host Cristina Saralegui who served as the brand’s
spokeswoman, as well as appeared in TV commercials. In one such ad, a mother is seen in a supermarket deciding between a sugary drink or water as she runs into Saralegui, who conveys to her the importance of water. Between 2008 and 2010 when Hispanic commericals featuring Salalegui were aired on TV, the awareness of Pure Life water, and purchase intent levels quadrupled among Hispanics.
All this isn’t to suggest that the boys are neglected. Black comedian and actor Daman Wayans, once endorsed PepsiCo’s Aquafina in the early noughties, now the brand is endorsed by Domenican football player Luis Castillo of the San Diego Chargers.
Say What?
Did he just say that and the audience just sits calmly?
So the Bill Gates says that with the “life saving methods” (wink wink) such as new Vaccines, Healthcare & Reproductive services we could lower the population by 10 or 15%.
My maths aren’t quite working! Unless there is poison in those vaccines or the reproductive services mention refer only to abortion and sterility how do helpful medicines result in reduction!
Hmmmm….
Agenda 21 specifically talks about the over all plan and the worrisome part is contained in Section 1 – Social and Economic Dimensions.
Glen Beck talks about it below – I hate using him as a reference point but he dumbs it down so its easy to grasp.
Abortion safer than giving birth: study | Reuters (Graphic Sorry)
SAFER FOR WHO?
(Reuters Health) – Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
Experts say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.
The message is that getting an abortion and giving birth are both safe, said Dr. Anne Davis, who studies obstetrics and gynecology at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, and wasn’t involved in the new study.
“We wouldn’t tell people, ‘Don’t have a baby because it’s safer to have an abortion’ — that’s ridiculous,” she told Reuters Health. “We’re trying to help women who are having all reproductive experiences know what to expect.”
An induced abortion — like any other medical procedure — requires getting informed consent from the woman, said Dr. Bryna Harwood, an ob-gyn from the University of Illinois in Chicago who also didn’t participate in the new research.
That means women understand and acknowledge the risks of their different options.
What makes it complicated, Harwood added, is when the law interferes and requires doctors to state information that isn’t always balanced or medically sound — usually exaggerating the risk of abortion.
The researchers on the new study combined government data on live births and pregnancy- and abortion-related deaths with estimates on legal abortions performed in the U.S. from the Guttmacher Institute, which conducts sexual and reproductive health research and education.
Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.
That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.
The researchers also cited a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which found that, from 1998 to 2001, the most common complications associated with pregnancy — including high blood pressure, urinary tract infections and mental health conditions — happened more often in women who had a live birth than those who got an abortion.
In their report, published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, Raymond and Grimes write that the findings aren’t surprising given that women are pregnant for a lot longer when they decide to have a baby and so have more time to develop complications.
Harwood said previous studies have also shown the safety of legal abortions.
Most abortions have typically been done surgically, she told Reuters Health. But since the abortion drug mifepristone was approved for use in the United States in 2000, the number of medically-induced abortions has been on the rise.
Both methods are now considered equally safe, she said, with the main risk — though very small — coming from medication- and procedure-related infections.
Depending on the state, however, doctors legally must go over the risks of abortion in language that may be misleading, researchers said, with skewed lists of possible complications. Others require a 24-hour waiting period in between the counseling and the abortion itself.
Harwood said that laws regarding what’s said between the doctor and a woman seeking an abortion often hamper doctors’ attempts to inform patients in a balanced way.
“It is certainly an impediment to have the state dictate my informed consent process beyond the usual,” Harwood told Reuters Health.
“Abortion care and pregnancy care should not really be any different than consenting people for any other procedure.”
Davis agreed that state-mandated discussions have no place in abortion counseling. She said she was glad to see the new report, which helps dispel “misinformation” and “lies” about abortion risks included in some state laws — such as the idea that abortion is linked to cancer.
“Women who are having abortions are having a safe, common surgical procedure or taking medication for the same reason,” she told Reuters Health
“They should feel confident that the medical care they’re having is safe, long-term and short-term.”
SOURCE: bit.ly/s3TyE Obstetrics & Gynecology, online January 23, 2012.
How is this really possible?
HIV and the United States Black population According to the US Census Bureau. in 2010 there were 42 millionAfrican Americans in America of the total population of 308.7 million. The black population exceeded 500,000 in 15 states. Blacks were the largest minority group in 24 states, compared with 20 states in which Hispanics were the largest minority group.
Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino communities have been disproportionately affected by HIV and AIDS in America.
In 2009 the highest percentage of new HIV diagnoses were among those aged 40-44 years.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish HIV statistics for 40 states and 5 dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting. AIDS statistics include all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as the 5 dependent areas.
HIV and AIDS statistics by race/ethnicity
Blacks/African Americans accounted for half of all new HIV diagnoses and just under half of new AIDS diagnoses in 2009. Of the total number of people living with an HIV diagnosis in 2008 in the 40 U.S. states and 5
dependent areas, 46% were black/African American; 31.6% white; 20% Hispanic/Latino; 1.3%multiple races; 0.6% Asian; 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native; and 0.04% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.
Among men diagnosed with AIDS in 2009, 56% of black/African American men, 65% of Hispanic/Latino men and 79% of white men became infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact. Among women diagnosed with AIDS in 2009, 78% of black/African American women, 75% of Hispanic/Latino women and 68% of white women became infected through heterosexual contact.
via United States Statistics by Race and Age.
Survey | Parents Waking Up to Vaccine Dangers | Natural Society
A new study has found that a growing number of parents are waking up to the dangers of recommended childhood vaccinations, with many parents choosing to opt out of all vaccines for their children. More than 1 in 10 parents are now straying from the traditional vaccine schedule, and experts project the number to increase exponentially.
The CDC currently recommends loading up children under 6 with a cocktail of vaccinations, including shots for MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), the seasonal flu, chicken pox, whooping cough, and hepatitis. The full schedule is listed on the CDC website.
The seasonal flu shot, among the recommended vaccinations, contains more than 250 times the safety level of mercury as set by the EPA, and has been found to only be 1% effective in actually preventing influenza. It has also been linked to narcolepsy, a deadly nerve disease, and death. But the health consequences do not stop there. The hepatitis B shot also tops the recommendation list, which has been tied to several serious conditions. Vaccinating with hepatitis B has been tied to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), multiple sclerosis, and numerous chronic autoimmune disorders. Hepatitis B vaccine dangers have even been established by a court ruling.
In the case the plaintiff asserted that they had developed systemic lupus erythematosus as a result of receiving the vaccination. After reviewing the evidence, the U.S. government was forced to admit the vaccine led to the development of the disease. The plaintiff was deceased at the time of the ruling, though the landmark ruling echoed throughout the health community. The United States Court of Federal Claims document summarizes:
“Tambra Harris … filed a petition for compensation alleging that she suffered certain injuries as a result of receiving a vaccination. Among the injuries petitioner alleged that she had suffered as a result of receiving a hepatitis B vaccination was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) … A lump sum of $475,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner as Administratrix of the Estate of Tambra Harris.”
As with most vaccinations, it was known way before the court ruling that the hepatitis B vaccine was dangerous. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was one of the first organizations to report on the potential risks back in the 90s, stating:
In increasing numbers, parents across the country are contacting the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) to report opposition to regulations being enacted by state health department officials that legally require children to be injected with three doses of hepatitis B vaccine before being allowed to attend daycare, kindergarten, elementary school, high school or college.
Simultaneously, as more schools and employers bow to pressure from government health officials and require individuals to show proof they have been injected with hepatitis B vaccine before being allowed to get an education or a job, reports of serious health problems following hepatitis B vaccination among children and adults are multiplying.
Parents are beginning to wake up to these dangers, protecting future generations from becoming scientific guinea pigs in which to examine the long-term effects of vaccinations such as Gardasil and H1N1. As the word about vaccine education is spread like wildfire, the number of informed parents and individuals will explode, leading to an eventual scientific reform of ineffective and deadly vaccinations.
via Survey | Parents Waking Up to Vaccine Dangers | Natural Society.
California Schools Visiting Homes of Unvaccinated Children | Natural Society
The whooping cough frenzy has just been taken to a new level, with California school officials now visiting the homes of children who have not received the whooping cough vaccination. Accompanied by a school nurse, they aim to vaccine the child at their own home. The news comes after it was announced that children were being banned from schools if they did not receive the vaccine, despite scientific research concluding that widespread vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) would do almost nothing to reduce infection rates among unvaccinated children.
District Student Services Director Heyman Matlock from The Natomas Unified School District in Sacramento has been driving door to door to find unvaccinated children. The action is a slap in the face to health-conscious parents who may not want their child vaccinated over legitimate concerns, though California legislatures have already demonstrated their desire to keep parents in the dark over the health of their children. Backed financially by Merck, a prominent vaccine manufacturer, a California bill was passed that would mandate Gardasil and hepatitis B vaccinations for children as young as 12 — without parental consent.
Would you let your son or daughter be vaccinated with Gardasil, linked to the death of 49 individuals and countless hospitalizations? Be a part of the movement: Join Vaccine Information Week
via California Schools Visiting Homes of Unvaccinated Children | Natural Society.
California Gardasil Law Signed | No Parental Consent | Natural Society
Thanks to California governor Jerry Brown, Merck’s human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil will now be given to children 12 years or older without parental consent. Omitting parents from the entire equation, California lawmakers are now leaving 12-year-old children to make their own health decisions. The decision to be vaccinated with the Gardasil HPV vaccine is a particularly risky decision, a decision that thousands of young girls and boys wish they could have re-made. Gardasil, of course, has wrecked thousands of lives nationwide, even leading to over 49 deaths. Considering these facts, why would legislators and Jerry Brown allow for such an insane bill to become a law?
How Merck used bribery to pass the Gardasil bill
As it turns out, there is an answer to that question: the almighty dollar. Merck used financial power to ensure that the bill would pass by paying off key legislators. Caught in the act by Cal Watchdog , targeted politicians who passed the bill received thousands from Merck, the maker of Gardasil. The report highlights the fact that this bill has nothing to do with improving public health of California students and families. In fact, it has a lot more to do with profits. A few thousand dollars spent on key legislators to pass the bill is nothing compared to the increased profit Merck is going to see when this law takes full effect.
Meanwhile, the health of young children will be severely put at risk. Merck and California legislators are effectively taking advantage of the trusting nature of young children by signing this bill into law by using psychological marketing tactics on their developing brains in order for them to comply.
Taking advantage of trusting children to push the Gardasil HPV vaccine
Merck has been found omitting numeric facts and real side effects in their Gardasil advertisements. These are the advertisement brochures that will be given to young children, and the side effects are so downplayed and minor that it sounds truly harmless. In reality, Gardasil has a fortified death link, in addition to placing thousands of children in the hospital.
Merck and health officials also won’t tell children about the fact that Gardasil has been found to contain genetically modified rDNA of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which experts say can lead to cellular mutation and other unknown consequences.
Vaccinating children with Gardasil who are truly in the dark about the negative effects associated with the shot is purely immoral and should be downright illegal. Merck does not even warn consumers of the real side effects of the shot, while secretly bribing politicians to pass the Gardasil bill to make an unknown profit. California residents, and even United States residents as a whole should contact their representatives and demand that the bill be repealed. Furthermore, we should voice our opposition to future bills in other states that mirror the California Gardasil bill.
Educate yourself and inform your children about the risks of Gardasil, and do not let Merck’s disinformation packets lead them to receive the death-linked Gardasil jab.
via http://naturalsociety.com/california-governor-passes-gardasil-law-parental-consent/
3 Girls Dead, Others Hospitalized After Gardasil HPV Vaccine | Natural Society
Following controversy over U.S. state legislatures requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck’s vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), a number of severe side effects have been observed along with the recent deaths of 3 young girls. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer. As of January 2010, Gardasil has been linked to 49 deaths and countless side-effects, while cancer associated with HPV is only responsible for 1% of all cancer deaths. Why then, is it being recommended to millions worldwide?
As of June 2009, 15 million girls have been injected with the Gardasil vaccine. Out of 15 million people, 49 deaths may not seem like a lot. Unfortunately, however, there are many more cases of extreme side effects from the vaccination. In fact, the amount of adverse reactions was so high that Judicial Watch, a group that claims to expose government corruption, was forced to step in. Between May 2009 and September 2010 alone, Gardasil was linked to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; and there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents.
In August 2008, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) required all female immigrants between the ages of 11 and 26 to receive at least one dose of the Gardasil vaccination if they planned on entering the United States. The enforcement was due to a law created in 1996 that required immigrants to receive any vaccination that was recommended by the United States government. The difference between the citizens of the U.S. and the immigrants seeking refuge within the country, is that the citizens can refuse any vaccination they do not wish to receive. While the requirement was lifted on December 14, 2009, countless immigrants were affected. This held especially true for the female immigrants who intended to have children. According to reports, 28 women experienced miscarriages within 30 days of receiving the Gardasil injection. In response, the FDA said it is not worth investigating. Going against the FDA claims that Gardasil was completely safe, some government officials expressed concern over the fact that Gardasil was ever recommended for U.S. citizens.
“If we had known about it, we would have said it’s not a good idea,” said Jon Abramson, the former chairman of the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.
Dr. Diane Harper was the lead researcher during the creation of both Gardasil and a similar vaccine, Cervarix. Leading the research team gave Dr. Harper an inside look at the effects of Gardasil, which she has been exposing for over a year. Dr. Harper said that Gardasil would do very little to fight cervical cancer, and at the very least it should not be recommended to children younger than 15.
Unfortunately, the CDC did not agree, boasting about the anti-cancer effects of Gardasil and even going as far as to recommend it to girls as young as 9. Dr. Harper says that 70% of all HPV infections resolve themselves within a year, and within 2 years the percentage climbs to 90%. During an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, Dr. Harper explained the risks associated with Gardasil. Instead of promoting the vaccine, which was expected of her, she told the truth. The audience was dazzled.
“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.
Experts have spoken out, and the documents have been released. Gardasil is a deadly injection that claims to treat an infection that has a 90% chance to resolve itself within two years. With Rick Perry’s failed attempt to force Gardasil on Texan schoolgirls, it is easy to see that the world has awoken to the truth regarding Gardasil. The research is clear: stay away from this poison serum.
via 3 Girls Dead, Others Hospitalized After Gardasil HPV Vaccine | Natural Society.
GAVI | UN, Bill Gates Foundation Push Deadly HPV Shots | Natural Society
A new campaign has been launched by an organization known as the GAVI Alliance to vaccinate up to 2 million women and girls with either GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix or Merck’s Gardasil by the year 2015. Of course these two HPV shots have been shown to be very dangerous, withGardasil linked to death, countless adverse reactions, andCervarix recently outed as similarly threatening.
Nine countries are candidates for the HPV vaccine campaign, though they are not listed at this time. In addition, the price of the campaign is not being disclosed due to the “sensitive nature” of the price talks.
Why would an organization supposedly dedicated to enhancing health worldwide push either HPV shot on up to 2 million women and young girls? Considering HPV results in only 1% of cancers, and has a 90% chance to resolve itself within two years, it does not seem worth the dangerous side effects and countless millions that will be spent on the upcoming campaign.
GAVI Alliance funded by UN, vaccine industry, Monsanto investor Bill Gates
The GAVI Alliance, a name relatively unknown to many, is a Geneva-based public-private partnership set up in the year 2000 with financial backing from organizations such as the World Bank, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the vaccine industry, UNICEF, and many otherunidentified philanthropists. It is important to note that a public-private partnership is a government and private industry merger or partnership, meaning that these corporate interests can intertwine with big government.
Now known as the GAVI Alliance, the public-private partnership was previously known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. Thanks to a $750 million dollar commitment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI launched its initiative to vaccinate millions of individuals worldwide. Of course the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also currently holds 500,000 shares of Monsanto, the bloated biotech company responsible for genetically modifying the food supply and creating mutated insect populations through the use of heavily altered biopesticides.
It was also the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation that funded the release of genetically modified mosquitoes, which were actually released into the environment back in 2010 for testing purposes.
Bill Gates has personally given an extremely controversial TED talk, in which he states:
“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Skeptics argue that Gates could not have been talking about vaccine-induced deaths, though Gates clearly does not stutter or correct himself after making the statement. Watch the video of the TED talk below and decide for yourself:
Before potentially calling for a reduction in world population through vaccination and healthcare, Gates speaks on the phony the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit
Gates then states that “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.” The audience laughs as Gates jokingly alludes to the human population being reduced to near zero.
Even more concerning is the link between GAVI and the vaccine industry. In the past Merck has used bribery and other forms of corruption to push Gardasil on patients through government legislation and policy. In fact, it was revealed that Merck paid key legislators to pass the Gardasil bill that would enable the state to administer Gardasil to girls as young as 12 without parental permissions.
Without much surprise, the bill ended up passing and being signed into law. The sales boost that Merck will receive from this law is not yet known, however Merck’s profits have recently exploded due in part to the skyrocketing sales of Gardasil. Merck may also manage to establish Gardasil as the primary HPV shot used in the GAVI alliance campaign, which would generate them countless millions.
Governments, World Bank to help pay for deadly HPV shots
Merck is offering GAVI a deep discount on Gardasil, down to $5 per vaccine from $15 per three-dose course. While this may seem thoughtful, as GAVI appears to make 0 profit from their ‘generous’ act of dishing out the deadly Gardasil vaccine on poor nations, Merck stands to make a substantial profit.
Thanks to a GAVI co-financing policy, recipient countries are required to contribute toward the cost of the vaccines. This guarantees that not only Merck, but Gavi as well, will receive considerable amounts of cash from the 9 unknown countries in which the HPV shots are being administered. Furthermore, the UN World Bank is actually issuing bonds to fund the HPV shot campaign.
The International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) is an organization integral in the funding of the campaign. Created to accelerate funding for vaccination campaigns, the IFFImgenerates funds through the issuing of bonds in the capital markets, using long-term government pledges as a guarantee to pay back interest. Since it launched in 2006, the IIFIm has raised more than $3 billion by tapping into capital markets. This has doubled the funds available for GAVI’s immunization programs.
Shockingly, GAVI’s Tax Form 990 for 2009 shows that GAVI has net assets of $2.5 billion— ($2,505,336,042 -page 1).
Not only is the IFFIm generating billions in cash from governments, but Merck or GlaxoSmithKline may soon be getting a chunk of it for the HPV shot campaign. The IFFIm is funded by France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Australia. All of this information is available through GAVI fact sheets, available on their website.
Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank lead-managed bonds
In a 2007 article on the World Bank’s website, it was revealed that the International Finance Facility for Immunisation hoped to raise $4 billion over the next 10 years to fund the vaccination of 500 million children. Among the first buyers were the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and three other British religious leaders at the IFFIm’s launch event in London.
Other investors included North American investors (35%), UK investors (12%), Swiss investors (8%), and investors in the rest of Europe (21%). The remainder was placed with investors in the Middle East and Asia, according to the IFFIm. Interestingly enough, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank lead-managed the inaugural bond issue.
Notes were also placed with North American investors (35 percent), UK investors (12 percent), Swiss investors (8 percent) and investors in the rest of Europe (21 percent). The remainder was placed with investors in the Middle East and Asia, according to IFFIm, the World Bank, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank; the latter two lead-managed the inaugural bond issue.
EU legally bound to pay over 20 years
The article also mentions that the bonds will be repaid over 20 years by the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Norway under the terms of ‘legally binding’ agreements.
The report states :
It’s a good way to fund immunization programs because the benefits—lives saved—are realized more quickly as future donor contributions are used to provide funding now, she says.
Millions spent from drained governments to push deadly HPV shots
As women take legal action against Merck for Gardasil-induced abortions and severe side effects, it seems quite outlandish for GAVI to launch a global HPV shot initiative. The HPV shot led to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths between May 2009 and September 2010 alone. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents.
It was also revealed that the FDA was hiding 26 additional Gardasil deaths until Judicial Watchfiled a Freedom of Information act on the information.
Organizations and governments around the globe should be banning Gardasil, not unleashing it on poor countries. It seems that GAVI, a multi-billion dollar merger of government and corporation, isnot truly interested in improving the health of 3rd world inhabitants.
via GAVI | UN, Bill Gates Foundation Push Deadly HPV Shots | Natural Society.
Activist Post: Monsanto’s GMO Corn Approved Despite 45,000 Public Comments in Opposition
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock. Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of genetically modified food, which has been tied to numerous health ailments such as sterility and infant mortality.
AGRA Watch has issued a press release on the subject:
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’sgenetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet.
Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for “patent infringement.” Monsanto was declared company of the year by Forbes magazine in 2009, despite its history of agricultural abuses. Monsanto has also been accused of dumping toxic waste in residential areas, resulting in a variety of severe health disorders.
via Activist Post: Monsanto’s GMO Corn Approved Despite 45,000 Public Comments in Opposition.
Bill Gates Foundation Buys 500,000 Shares of Monsanto | Natural Society
he Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock. Monsanto is the world’s largest producer of genetically modified food, which has been tied to numerous health ailments such as sterility and infant mortality.
AGRA Watch has issued a press release on the subject:
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’sgenetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet.
Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for “patent infringement.” Monsanto was declared company of the year by Forbes magazine in 2009, despite its history of agricultural abuses. Monsanto has also been accused of dumping toxic waste in residential areas, resulting in a variety of severe health disorders.
via Bill Gates Foundation Buys 500,000 Shares of Monsanto | Natural Society.
Activist Post: Monsanto Investor Bill Gates Says GMO Crops Needed to Fight Starvation
Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post
Bill Gates, the heavy Monsanto investor who purchased 500,000 shares of the biotech giant in 2010, has been touting Monsanto’s genetically modified creations as a tool that is necessary to prevent starvation in poor nations. The same poor nations where thousands of farmers routinely commit suicide after being completely bankrupt by Monsanto’s overpriced and ineffective GM seeds.
The same company that we recently exposed to be running ‘slave-like’ working conditions, forcing poor workers to operate the corn fields for 14 hours per day while withholding pay.
According to Gates, this is the company whose GMO crops are going to save the world from starvation. Of course, along with ‘saving the world from starvation’, GMO crops also bring along a large number of unwanted health and environmental effects.
A prominent review of 19 studies examining the safety of these crops found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans can lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice – particularly in the liver and kidneys.
Are Monsanto’s Devastating Creations Really the Answer to World Hunger?
What’s more is that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, Roundup, has been completely devastating farmlands for years through the creation of resistant superweeds. Experts estimate Roundup usage to result in the destruction of over at least 120 million hectares of farmland thanks to these superweeds.
Is it any wonder that in 2008 a startling report uncovered Monsanto’s blatant abuse of poor farmers in the very poor countries that will supposedly benefit from GMO crops? Thanks to an article in the Daily Mail, it was revealed that thousands of farmers were committing suicide after using Monsanto’s GM seeds. Due to failing harvests and drastically inflated prices, the bankrupt poor farmers began taking their lives — oftentimes drinking the very same chemical concoctions provided by Monsanto as a method of suicide.
‘We are ruined now,’ said the dead man’s 38-year-old wife. ‘We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.’
Monsanto actually conned the farmers into buying their GM seeds, majorly overpriced and performing far worse than even traditional seeds. Monsanto went as far as to charge these poor farmers £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, while they could have purchased 1,000 times more traditional seeds for the same amount. The result? A career-ending harvest that led to mass farmer suicide.
It is quite clear that Monsanto really has no intention of helping these farmers fight starvation in their communities, as Monsanto investor Bill Gates would have you think. You canview Bill Gates’ speech about how GMO crops are the answer to starvation and see for yourself how he puts such strong emphasis on that selling point
via Activist Post: Monsanto Investor Bill Gates Says GMO Crops Needed to Fight Starvation.
World lacks enough food, fuel as population soars: U.N. | Reuters
LONDON | Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:07pm EST
(Reuters) – The world is running out of time to make sure there is enough food, water and energy to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population and to avoid sending up to 3 billion people into poverty, a U.N. report warned on Monday.
As the world’s population looks set to grow to nearly 9 billion by 2040 from 7 billion now, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially.
Even by 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water, according to U.N. estimates, at a time when a changing environment is creating new limits to supply.
And if the world fails to tackle these problems, it risks condemning up to 3 billion people into poverty, the report said.
Efforts towards sustainable development are neither fast enough nor deep enough, as well as suffering from a lack of political will, the United Nations’ high-level panel on global sustainability said.
“The current global development model is unsustainable. To achieve sustainability, a transformation of the global economy is required,” the report said.
“Tinkering on the margins will not do the job. The current global economic crisis … offers an opportunity for significant reforms.”
Although the number of people living in absolute poverty has been reduced to 27 percent of world population from 46 percent in 1990 and the global economy has grown 75 percent since 1992, improved lifestyles and changing consumer habits have put natural resources under increasing strain.
There are 20 million more undernourished people now than in 2000; 5.2 million hectares of forest are lost per year – an area the size of Costa Rica; 85 percent of all fish stocks are over-exploited or depleted; and carbon dioxide emissions have risen 38 percent between 1990 and 2009, which heightens the risk of sea level rise and more extreme weather.
The panel, which made 56 recommendations for sustainable development to be included in economic policy as quickly as possible, said a “new political economy” was needed.
“Let’s use the upcoming Rio+20 summit to kick off this global transition towards a sustainable growth model for the 21st century that the world so badly needs,” EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in response to the report, referring to a U.N. sustainable development summit this June in Brazil.
ACTION
Among the panel’s recommendations, it urged governments to agree on a set of sustainable development goals which would complement the eight Millennium Development Goals to 2015 and create a framework for action after 2015.
They should work with international organizations to create an “evergreen revolution,” which would at least double productivity while reducing resource use and avoiding further biodiversity losses, the report said.
Water and marine ecosystems should be managed more efficiently and there should be universal access to affordable sustainable energy by 2030.
To make the economy more sustainable, carbon and natural resource pricing should be established through taxation, regulation or emissions trading schemes by 2020 and fossil fuel subsidies should also be phased out by that time.
National fiscal and credit systems should be reformed to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices as well as disincentives for unsustainable ones.
Sovereign wealth and public pension funds, as well as development banks and export credit agencies should apply sustainable development criteria to their investment decisions, and governments or stock market watchdogs should revise regulations to encourage their use.
Governments and scientists should also strengthen the relationship between policy and science by regularly examining the science behind environmental thresholds or “tipping points” and the United Nations should consider naming a chief scientific adviser or board to advise the organization, the report said.
The report is available at www.un.org/gsp/
(Reporting by Nina Chestney)
via World lacks enough food, fuel as population soars: U.N. | Reuters.
Abortion rate decline stalls, unsafe abortions rise | Reuters
By Kate Kelland
LONDON | Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:24am EST
(Reuters) – A long-term decline in the rates of abortion worldwide has stalled and the proportion of terminations that are unsafe and put women’s lives at risk is rising, an international group of scientists said on Thursday.
Researchers from the World Health (WHO) and the Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health, said a trend of falling numbers of abortions between 1995 and 2003 had leveled out since then, suggesting that increased access to contraception worldwide has also stalled.
“We are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe,” said Gilda Sedgh, lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute.
Between 1995 and 2003, the abortion rate per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15 to 44 years) worldwide dropped from 35 to 29. This new study found that in 2008 the global abortion rate was 28 per 1,000, virtually unchanged from 2003’s level.
“This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake,” Sedgh told a briefing in London about the findings. “And without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist.”
Alarmingly, Sedgh said, the proportion of abortions characterized as unsafe rose from 44 percent in 1995 to 49 percent in 2008.
The researchers, whose study was published in the Lancet medical journal, define unsafe abortion as a procedure for terminating a pregnancy carried out by someone who does not have the necessary skills, or in an environment that does not meet minimal medical standards, or both.
Despite the decline in the abortion rate, there were 2.2 million more abortions in 2008, when 43.8 million were carried out, than in 2003 when there were 41.6 million. This is due to the increasing global population, the researchers said.
From 2003 to 2008, the number of abortions fell by 0.6 million in the developed world, but increased by 2.8 million in developing countries.
Of all the world’s regions, Latin America has the highest rate, with 32 per 1,000 women in 2008. Africa and Asia follow close behind with rates of 29 and 28 per 1,000 women respectively. Rates for North America and Oceania were the lowest, at 19 and 17.
Sedgh said that while in Europe around 30 percent of pregnancies end in abortion, there was a far higher rate in Eastern Europe than in the rest of the region.
In Western Europe there were 12 abortions per 1,000 women in 2008, while in Eastern Europe at the same time there were 43.
Sedgh said the study’s findings showed strong correlations between abortion rates and access to effective contraceptives, and between abortion rates and the law.
“The abortion rates is clearly lower in places were abortion laws are more liberal,” she said, pointing to Africa and Latin America where rates are high.
There is also a strong link between restrictive laws and higher rates of unsafe abortions. Between 95 percent and 97 percent of all abortions in Africa and Latin America are unsafe, the study found.
Sedgh said family planning services around the world appeared to be failing to keep up with rising demand for effective contraception driven by the desire for small families and better control over the timing of births.
“There are still 215 million women in developing countries who have an unmet need for contraceptives,” she said.
via Abortion rate decline stalls, unsafe abortions rise | Reuters.
Women on the Pill have less menstrual pain | Reuters
(Reuters Health) – Young women on birth control pills tend to have less painful menstrual periods than those not on the contraceptives, a new study finds.
Swedish researchers found that of 2,100 women followed from age 19 to 24, those on the combined birth control pill (estrogen and progestin) had less-severe menstrual pain over time.
It’s already common practice for doctors to recommend the Pill to women with dysmenorrhea — menstrual cramps, back pain and other symptoms that are severe enough to disrupt a woman’s life.
Birth control pills are not specifically approved for that purpose, but doctors can prescribe them for dysmenorrhea on an “off-label” basis. However, it has not been clear how effective the pills are against period pain.
The new findings are not conclusive, but still caused excitement among some researchers.
“Our study provides evidence for the effective relief of painful periods with combined oral contraceptives,” said Dr. Ingela Lindh of Gothenburg University in Sweden, who led the study.
Both Lindh and one of her co-researchers have financial ties to companies that make hormonal contraceptives, although the new research was not supported by drugmakers.
Menstrual pains typically fade as a woman gets older, and they often lessen after childbirth. But even when age and childbirth were taken into account, Pill users had less painful periods in the new study, Lindh told Reuters Health in an email.
The study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, does not prove that the Pill eases dysmenorrhea.
It’s an observational study that looked at the relationship between women’s Pill use and dysmenorrhea risk. Clinical trials — where people are randomly assigned to take a drug or a placebo — are considered the “gold standard” for proving cause-and-effect.
And a 2009 review of 10 clinical trials concluded that there was “limited evidence” that the Pill improved menstrual pain.
Still, the trials in that review varied in their methods and their quality, so it’s hard to draw firm conclusions, according to Dr. Michele Curtis of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, who was not involved in the current study.
She told Reuters Health the new study isn’t definite, but “makes a strong case” that the Pill is effective against menstrual pain.
“I think combined oral contraceptives really do help women with primary dysmenorrhea,” said Curtis, who has received speaking fees from drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline, according to ProPublica‘s database Dollars for Docs.
Primary dysmenorrhea refers to menstrual pain that is not caused by underlying medical conditions such as endometriosis, a disorder of the uterine lining, or non-cancerous uterine growths called fibroids. When a medical condition is the cause, it’s known as secondary dysmenorrhea.
A weakness of the current study, Curtis said, is that it did not determine whether women had primary or secondary dysmenorrhea. In some cases of secondary dysmenorrhea, she said, birth control pills might help, but in other cases will do nothing.
The study included three groups of young women who were 19 years old in either 1981, 1991 or 2001. They all completed a standard questionnaire on menstrual symptoms, then repeated the survey five years later.
Dysmenorrhea was common, the study found. Of the 1981 group, 37 percent had at least moderate menstrual pain that disrupted their daily activities; in the 2001 group, that figure was 47 percent.
But Pill users had less pain over the next five years. Overall, Pill use was linked to a reduction of 0.3 units on the pain scale. That means every third woman on the Pill went “one step down” on the scale — from severe pain to moderate pain, for example — according to Lindh.
The researchers also looked at subgroups of women who were using the Pill at the age of 19, but not at age 24. On average, their menstrual pain increased over time. In contrast, pain decreased among women who were not on the Pill at age 19, but were at age 24.
There are biological reasons that the Pill would help with dysmenorrhea, both Lindh and Curtis said.
Menstruation causes increased muscle activity in the uterus, which lessens blood flow to the uterus. And that’s believed to be the root of menstrual pain.
Hormone-like compounds called prostaglandins help churn up that extra muscle activity. Since birth control pills lower the body’s prostaglandin production, Lindh explained, it makes sense that they would ease dysmenorrhea.
Birth control pills, which cost anywhere from $15 to $50 a month, are not the only treatment for dysmenorrhea.
Some women can find enough relief from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), like ibuprofen and naproxen, according to Curtis. NSAIDs also block prostaglandin production.
What’s more, vitamin B1 and magnesium, exercise, relaxation techniques and acupuncture have all been advocated for dysmenorrhea.
“Clearly, our evidence base is smaller for those things,” Curtis said. But she also said that if a woman does not want birth control or NSAIDs, she could try an alternative.
Birth control pills can have side effects like breast tenderness, nausea and vomiting, and spotting between periods. Pill users also have a slightly higher-than-average risk of blood clots, particularly if they smoke or are age 35 or older.
But most women with primary dysmenorrhea are younger. In fact, Curtis said, if you start having painful periods for the first time when you are 30, it’s unlikely that it’s primary dysmenorrhea. A secondary cause is probably at work.
The new study was funded by grants from the Gothenburg Medical Society and other groups.
SOURCE: bit.ly/zTpZa5 Human Reproduction, online January 17, 2012.
True Conspiracies 