Obamacare program costs $50,000 in taxpayer money for every American who gets health insurance, says bombshell budget report

 

• Stunning figure comes from Congressional Budget Office report that revised cost estimates for the next 10 years
• Government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare
• The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person at best
• The law will still leave 'between 29 million and 31 million' nonelderly Americans without medical insurance
• Numbers assume Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment will double between now and 2025

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 16:38 EST, 26 January 2015 | UPDATED: 18:32 EST, 26 January 2015

It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.

The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's new ten-year budget outlook. 

The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.

SCROLL DOWN TO READ THE REPORT

+3

THE $2 TRILLION DOLLAR MAN: President Barack Obama was in India on Monday when the Congressional Budget Office reported the federal government's gross costs for a decade of Obamacare will be $1.993 trillion

+3

PROMISES: Obama pledged in 2009 during a speech before a joint session of Congress that his health insurance proposal would cost $900 billion over ten years – a far cry short of current numbers

The numbers are daunting: It will take $1.993 trillion, a number that looks like $1,993,000,000,000, to provide insurance subsidies to poor and middle-class Americans, and to pay for a massive expansion of Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) costs.

Offsetting that massive outlay will be $643 billion in new taxes, penalties and fees related to the Obamacare law.

That revenue includes quickly escalating penalties – or 'taxes,' as the U.S. Supreme Court described them – on people who resist Washington's command to buy medical insurance.

It also includes income from a controversial medical device tax, which some Republicans predict will be eliminated in the next two years.

If they're right, Obamacare's per-person cost would be even higher.

President Barack Obama pledged to members of Congress in 2009, as his signature insurance overhaul law was being hotly debated, that 'the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.'

It would be a significant discount if the White House could return to that number today.

Obama in '09: Obamacare won't add one dime to deficit

PRICEY: The federal government will spend $50,000 for each person recruited to buy insurance or neroll in free Medicaid through the Obamacare exchanges

In that same speech, Obama claimed that there were 'more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.'

$900 billion spent on those people would equate to no more than $30,000 each – less than two-thirds of what the CBO now says the program will cost when the dust settles. 

The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, a group of members from both houses of Congress, prepared Monday's report on the overall direction of the federal budget.

They estimated that 'the net costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] will rise sharply as the effects of the act phase in from 2015 through 2017.'

Those costs will 'rise steadily through 2022' before leveling off for three years, the groups' economists determined. But even at that point, the Obamacare program will cost the governemnt 'about $145 billion' each year.

That number doesn't include the insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs paid by Americans – only the government's role in implementing the law and paying for its guarantees.

And the law will still leave 'between 29 million and 31 million' nonelderly Americans without medical insurance, says the CBO.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253801993/CBO-January-2015-Outlook-on-Obamacare

Exclusive: Spending- why 'red' states shoulder the deepest cuts under Tyrant Obama | Reuters

Exclusive: Spending- why 'red' states shoulder the deepest cuts under Obama | Reuters
BY ANDY SULLIVAN

WASHINGTON Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:26am EST


Red states see the deepest cuts under Obama





Jan 28 (Reuters) - As Washington has tightened its belt in recent years, the budget cuts have sliced most deeply in states where President Obama is unpopular, according to an analysis of federal spending by Reuters.

Between the 2009 and 2013 fiscal years, funding for a wide swath of discretionary grant programs, from Head Start preschool education to anti drug initiatives, fell by an average of 40 percent in Republican-leaning states like Texas and Mississippi.

By contrast, funding to Democratic-leaning states such as California and politically competitive swing states like Ohio dropped by 25 percent.

Though Congress sets overall spending levels, the Obama administration determines where much of that money ends up. Lawmakers also have curtailed their ability to direct money to their home states when they adopted a ban on spending in 2011 known as "earmarks."

That has given administration officials more power to steer money to places that might return the favor with votes, said John Hudak, an expert on federal spending at the centrist Brookings Institution who worked with Reuters on the analysis.

"In the context of the Obama administration, swing states and blue states are doing better than red states," said Hudak, who uncovered similar spending patterns by previous presidents in his book "Presidential Pork."

"I would suggest these numbers would tell us there is politicization going on," he said.

For the analysis, Reuters divided the U.S. into three categories: Republican-leaning "red" states where Obama got less than 45 percent of the vote in the 2012 election; competitive "purple" states where he won between 45 percent and 55 percent of the vote; and Democratic-leaning "blue" states where he won more than 55 percent of the vote.

Red, purple and blue states have all shouldered steep spending cuts after a 2011 budget deal, the analysis found. But those cuts have not been doled out evenly.

Discretionary grant funding to red states like Mississippi fell by 40 percent to $15 billion between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2013, the most recent year for which reliable figures are available. Purple states like Ohio and North Carolina saw a smaller drop of 27 percent, to $19.8 billion, and blue states saw a yet-smaller drop of 22.5 percent, to $27.6 billion. (The tally does not include disaster aid handed out after Hurricane Sandy, which went largely to blue states like New Jersey.)

The disparity doesn't show up in payments like Medicaid that are distributed through pre-set formulas. It also does not appear in Obama's 2009 recession-fighting Recovery Act. It only shows up in federal aid that is most directly controlled by the administration: "project grants," which are doled out on a competitive basis by career civil servants and political appointees.

Of course, many factors other than politics come into play. Some states aren't good at writing grant proposals - researchers at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, for example, found that poor planning has hurt that state's ability to compete for federal dollars. A governor from an oil-producing state may be less inclined to pursue green-energy grants.

But the disparity can't be fully explained by these factors. At Reuters' request, Hudak ran a statistical analysis of spending over this period, controlling for differences in population,economy, percentage of elderly residents, miles of federal highway and the number of research universities and hospitals.

Red states still came up short. After 2011, the average red state got 15 percent fewer grants and 1.3 percent fewer grant dollars than the average swing state. That comes out to roughly 500 grants and $15 million for an average-sized red state like Tennessee - enough to pay for 115 additional police officers or upgrade a rural airport to handle larger planes.



PLAYING POLITICS

Veterans of both Democratic and Republican administrations say privately that politics often come into play with such grants. Money to help upgrade a train depot may not boost a president's approval rating in a state where he is deeply unpopular, but it might make a difference in a competitive state like Colorado.

This approach isn't unique to Obama. Under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Hudak found that purple states got about 7.3 percent more grants and 5.7 percent more grant dollars than states that were firmly in one camp.

The Obama administration did not explain why Republican-leaning states have borne the steepest budget cuts, and several Democratic lawmakers declined to comment.

"The administration supports allocating federal grants based on objecting criteria that will help protect taxpayer dollars and ensure that lawmakers are responsible and accountable to the American people," the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement to Reuters.

Project grants, which totaled $74 billion in the fiscal year ending September 2013, help pay for everything from homeless assistance to agricultural research. But they are also a good publicity tool for a president looking to show voters how he's making a difference in their communities.

As Obama ran for re-election in 2012, administration officials traveled to battleground states to announce good news: $45 million for a manufacturing research center in Ohio; $8.2 million for a tech incubator in Gainesville, Florida; $18 million to extend a rail system in Charlotte, North Carolina. Each generated favorable coverage in local news outlets.

Those announcements were less common in states where Obama had no hope of winning over his Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Ohio, a key battleground state, won 10,232 grants in the fiscal year that ended in September 2012, just before the election - an increase of 21 percent over fiscal 2009. Ruby-red Texas saw the number of grants it was awarded over that period drop by 37 percent, to 10,775, according to Reuters figures.

In dollar terms, according to Reuters data, the difference was just as dramatic. Grant money for Texas dropped 43 percent, to $4.0 billion, over that time period. Dollars to Ohio declined 16.5 percent, to $2.0 billion.



EARMARK NOSTALGIA

The big problem for lawmakers? They lost their ability to influence the flow of that money. Before the earmark ban, states with elected officials who oversee spending on the Senate Appropriations Committee got about 7.6 percent more grant dollars than other states, Hudak found. After the 2011 earmark ban, evidence of clout disappeared.

Republican Representative John Culberson used to insert earmarks into spending bills to steer medical research and other projects to his Houston-area district. Since the ban took effect, he says he's had trouble getting the administration to pay for border control, harbor dredging and even send aid to mop up after a chemical plant explosion.

"The Obama administration approaches the federal government the same way the Chicago machine politicians approach the Chicago public treasury: it's to be used for their own benefit," he said.

Some Republicans worry they've handed too much control to the administration. But Congress, under the watch of Republican House Speaker John Boehner, isn't likely to lift the earmark ban any time soon.

"Speaker Boehner is proud of the reforms we have put in place," spokesman Michael Steel said, "and believes more should be done to ensure that Washington makes responsible decisions about taxpayers' money."





(Reporting by Andy Sullivan)

UK GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES PLAN TO REMOTELY CONTROL VEHICLES

http://www.infowars.com/uk-government-announces-plan-to-remotely-control-vehicles/

State to seize control of cars via wi-fi sensors to reduce "traffic congestion" & global warming

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | JANUARY 27, 2015

---

The UK government today announced a plan to remotely control vehicles on roads using wi-fi technology in order to reduce traffic and offset global warming, the latest manifestation of the ‘Internet of Things’ that will stir up concern amongst privacy advocates.

A report released today by Ofcom, the government-controlled body which regulates communications in the United Kingdom, lays out a blueprint that could be realized in as soon as 10 years where cars would communicate with each other to “reduce congestion”.

The proposals are being billed by some media outlets as a means of solving traffic jams and taking the stress out of finding a parking space, while also serving to reduce “greenhouse gases” and offset global warming.

However, buried in the report is a detail that will horrify many libertarians and privacy advocates. The state plans to achieve this new high-tech solution by fitting sensors in all cars that would wirelessly send information to a “central traffic control system”. The control system would then react by imposing remote speed limits on each vehicle, a “shockwave effect” which would cause each one to brake and accelerate in unison.

In other words, in the name of reducing traffic and helping the environment, the government could at any time seize control of your vehicle against your will.

Such a system would also obviously empower the government to keep a flawless and permanent database of the precise travel details of every single driver in the country, which would likely be utilized for criminal investigations.

“M2M sensors in cars and on the roads monitor the build up of congestion and wirelessly send this information to a central traffic control system, which automatically impose variable speed limits that smooth the flow of traffic,” states Ofcom. “This system could also communicate directly with cars, directing them along diverted routes to avoid the congestion and even managing their speed.”

“M2M sensors could also be attached to the mechanical parts of a car, such as ABS wheel rotation sensors to measure speed. This information could be wirelessly communicated to nearby cars, which have onboard computers that process and react to this information.”

Image: Ofcom

Car manufacturer Nissan is also developing a similar system to be implemented in Japan.

The blueprint was revealed at the same time it emerged that the U.S. Justice Department had built a national database for real-time tracking of vehicles, “a secret domestic intelligence-gathering program that scans and stores hundreds of millions of records about motorists,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

The proposal serves to underscore the privacy and civil liberties threat posed by so-called “smart technology” and the ‘Internet of Things’.

In a 2012 Wired Magazine interview, former CIA director David Petraeus hailed the advent of every device being connected to the Internet as a transformational boon for “clandestine tradecraft”.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

» Double Standard: CIA Leaks and Planted News Stories Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» Double Standard: CIA Leaks and Planted News Stories Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | JANUARY 27, 2015

On Monday, a former CIA employee, Jeffrey Sterling, was convicted of giving classified information to a New York Times reporter.



The leak concerned an effort by the CIA to sabotage plans for an Iranian nuclear reactor.



“The disclosures placed lives at risk,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “And they constituted an egregious breach of the public trust by someone who had sworn to uphold it.”





Meanwhile, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says the CIA routinely plants stories in the establishment media, including stories that are not only untrue, but resulted in the death of thousands of people.



Ralph Lopez writes for Digital Journal:





Among the stories Ulfkotte says he was ordered to plant in his newspaper over the years was a story that Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011.



Bogus chemical weapons stories appeared in the media prior to the invasion of Libya that ultimately resulted in the death of 30,000 people.



Similar fake stories used as war propaganda in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq were summarily dismissed as “intelligence failures.”



While Holder and the U.S. justice system claim Mr. Sterling’s leak to the media constitutes “an egregious breach of the public trust,” no such criticism is directed at the CIA, which has controlled the corporate media for decades.



In fact, CIA control of the media is viewed as perfectly normal.



“From the Agency’s perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community,” renowned journalistCarl Bernstein wrote in the late 1970s after revelations by the Church Committee.

The actual scope and severity of CIA control of the corporate media, however, will never be known, as Bernstein wrote:



During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

A 5-Year-Old Girl Just Died of the Very Strain of Flu She Was Vaccinated Against

 

Melissa Melton
Activist Post
Cue the pro-vaccine crowd’s b.s. arguments as to why this is doesn’t matter and we should all keep taking the risk shooting up our children in the hopes this won’t happen to us.
Via Daily Mail:

A five-year-old girl has died in hospital three days after developing a strain of the flu that she was vaccinated against – as a deadly outbreak of the virus continues to sweep across the country.
Keira Driscoll was prescribed steroids and a nebulizer at a Quick Care clinic after she started feeling unwell with a cough and a fever at her home in Clark County, Las Vegas, last Sunday.
But just hours later, she collapsed. Her mother, Tiffany Driscoll, frantically performed CPR on her small body, before she was rushed to hospital. There, she was found to have influenza A.
Despite medics’ best efforts, Keira could not be resuscitated and she was placed on life support. On Tuesday, her parents made the heartbreaking decision to turn off the machine the next day.

The vaccine… didn’t magically save her. Why? Because vaccines are not magical saviors (despite what Big Pharma and its biggest customer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, would have people believe).
The CDC just got done admitting last week that more than 3/4ths of the people who take the shot this year are going to get the flu anyway but the agency stupidly continues to tell people to get the shot they admit probably won’t protect them from diddly squat!

Why? Someone has money to make, obviously.
That’s after the CDC admitted this year’s flu vaccine is the wrong strain. They’re saying it’s maybe 23% effective. Not very good odds and, yet again, like we live in crazy land, they’re still telling people to get the shot anyway even though they know it’s ineffective.
The seasonal flu isn’t supposed to be “deadly” anyway, just by the way. The reason so many things like the flu or even measles are deadly these days is because so many people are nutritionally deficient. Maybe if our food wasn’t junk, and our water and air weren’t poisoned, we’d be hearing a lot less of these stories in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, even the studies that have come out to compare vaccinated with unvaccinated people have shown that the flu vaccine is not nearly as effective in people who have received previous flu vaccines! This study, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, looked at 7,315 enrollments during eight seasons and ultimately found:

Vaccine-induced protection was greatest for individuals not vaccinated during the prior 5 years.

Wait … WHAT?
Here are the details:

In the analysis using 5 years of historical vaccination data, current season vaccine effectiveness (VE) against H3N2 was significantly higher among vaccinated individuals with no prior vaccination history (65%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36%–80%) compared with vaccinated individuals with a frequent vaccination history (24%; 95% CI, 3%–41%; P = .01). VE against B was 75% (95% CI, 50%–87%) and 48% (95% CI, 29%–62%), respectively (P = .05). Similar findings were observed when analysis was restricted to adults 18–49 years.

Let’s just take that first number against H3N2. Sixty-five percent? That’s the general rate of vaccine effectiveness? Well WOO HOO. What about the other 45%???
Sixty-five percent isn’t even that high anyway considering these people are taking a shot filled with chemicals and heavy metals that bypasses their natural immune systems and all the risks that go along with that. But that 65% protection is for unvaccinated people.
Check out the protection for the good little citizens who take their government-recommended flu cocktail every year: 24%.
ONLY TWENTY-FOUR PERCENT.
Even against flu strain B, those same vaccinated people only get 48% protection.
How well does that bode for people running around like chickens with their heads cut off shrieking, “Don’t forget to get your flu vaccine every year or you’ll die THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING AHHHHHH!!!”
Think about if you bought anything and it only worked 24% or 48% of the time…? Wouldn’t you throw that piece of crap in the garbage or return it to the store for a refund? Or would you just dutifully keep buying pieces of crap that suck?
Well, too late with a vaccine; you already shot yourself up with heavy metals, antibiotics, genetically modified viruses, preservatives like formaldehyde and emulsifiers like polysorbate 80 — which has been linked to gastrointestinal problems, heart attacks, strokes, impaired immunity and tumor growth for starters — and which studies have shown helps all the other chemicals in said shot more easily bypass your blood brain barrier and permeate your gut.
In fact, this whole situation has caused a flu vaccine “paradox”:

Pharmaceutical companies and the larger medical community absolutely don’t want studies conducted that compare the health of unvaccinated individuals to those who get regular vaccines – even when they find a troubling “paradox.” Yet, this story showing the results of seasonal flu vaccines can already show a link to unintended consequences.
They say since building more sensitive immune testing equipment, that they haven’t seen increase in (seasonal?) flu illnesses among vaccine recipients versus unvaccinated individuals. They are dubbing it a “blunted protection to seasonal flu.” From CBC:

But researchers in several countries have found a blunting or “interference” effect between previous seasonal vaccines and reduced levels of vaccine protection in later years for some strains.

What?? If vaccines are supposed to “immunize” or give the immune system a boost, and the CDC in the U.S. is telling everyone to go ahead and get ineffective flu vaccines for added protection – then how can past vaccines run “interference” and knock out the effects of future vaccines? This attempt at damage control doesn’t make any sense…. [emphasis added]

No, it doesn’t make any sense. It never did. It never will.
Even though this little girl died from the very strain of flu the people who sold her parents the vaccination promised it would protect their baby from, the establishment media is pathetically still trying to twist this in a pro-vaccaination agenda light, calling this year’s flu season a “deadly epidemic” and scaremongering just like they always do every single year per the script.
You know how many kids have died of the flu (children who likely already had compromised immune systems and other health issues to begin with) this year? Fifty-six.
You want to know what a real “deadly epidemic” is?
Try 100,000 people dying EVERY YEAR after taking pharmaceutical drugs AS PRESCRIBED. (That doesn’t even begin to count the thousands who die from abusing their prescriptions or we’d be here all day.)
Every time someone dies it’s sad, especially when a child passes away who was just starting to live her life, but ask yourself, “Which of these things is a real deadly epidemic?” (Hint: It’s not the flu.)
But hey, go get your vaccines because the government, which was forced to admit the vaccines don’t even work this year, said so.
Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

A 5-Year-Old Girl Just Died of the Very Strain of Flu She Was Vaccinated Against
Activist
Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:06:00 GMT

» Greek Anti-EU Party Wins Election Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» Greek Anti-EU Party Wins Election Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Greek people vote to throw out the banksters
by INFOWARS.COM | JANUARY 25, 2015

A coalition party comprised of independent politicians, including democratic socialists, left-wing populist and green left groups, in addition to Maoist, Trotskyist, eurocommunist and eurosceptic elements has won the general election in Greece.

Business Insider        ✔ @businessinsider

Follow

Radical leftist are about to take control of Greece http://read.bi/1yZ7zIi 

9:53 AM - 25 Jan 2015

“It is a historic victory, we still have to see if it will be a big historic victory,” Syriza spokesman Panos Skourletis told Greece’s Mega TV.

“It sends a message against austerity and in favor of dignity and democracy.”

“Bluntly rejecting the punishing economics of austerity, Greece on Sunday appeared poised to send a warning signal to the rest of Europe as exit polls showed the left-wing, anti-austerity Syriza party with a strong lead in national elections as the party’s tough-talking, charismatic leader, Alexis Tsipras, seemed certain to become the country’s next prime minister,” The New York Times reports.

RT        ✔ @RT_com

Follow

#GREECE ELECTIONS: Radical-leftist #Syriza party 35,5-39,5%, ruling center-right New Democracy 23-24% - exit polls http://on.rt.com/5fdiqa 

9:06 AM - 25 Jan 2015

Greeks elect new parliament amid EU withdrawal concerns

Greeks are going to polling stations on Sunday to elect a new parliament. The populist radical-leftist party Syriza has won the hearts of many austerity-ridden people with its message of reverting...

RT @RT_com

The so-called “troika,” the tripartite committee led by the European Commission with the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, bailed out the Greek government in 2010 and 2012 to the tune of 240 billion euros (or $283 billion).

Austerity measures included in the bailout include wage cuts for public sector employees, cuts to monthly pensions, cuts to health and education spending, and increased taxes across the board, including a value-added tax increase.

Additionally, the Greek government promised to sell off its Hellenic Telecom to Deutsche Telekom for 400 million euros and selling stakes in various banks, utilities, ports, airports and land holdings.

The austerity measures led to widespread demonstrations in Greece, including 100,000 peaceful protesters gathering before the Greek parliament in 2011.

CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Link | GreenMedInfo | Blog Entry

CDC's Own Data: Vaccine-Infant Death Link | GreenMedInfo | Blog Entry
Posted on: Friday, January 23rd 2015 at 1:45 pm
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder

The CDC's own research has found that the long denied vaccine-SIDS link is real.

If you believe the official pronouncements of top governmental health agencies like the CDC and FDA, all the vaccines in the present day schedule are a priori safe and effective.

Not only are you told that they can't harm you, but that not taking them can kill you.

Parents are under even more pressure. They are told that refraining from vaccinating their infants or children will greatly increase their risk of dying or being disabled. Worse, they are increasingly labeled as 'crazy' and 'irresponsible' anti-vaccine zealots who are putting the lives of others in danger.

But what happens when the actual evidence from the scientific and clinical literature produced by these very agencies contradicts their own vaccine policies?

This is exactly what has happened with the publication of a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics titled ,"Adverse Events following Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines in the Vaccine Adverse Event ReportingSystem, 1990-2013," wherein CDC and FDA researchers identify 749 deaths linked to the administration of the Hib vaccine, 51% of which were sudden infant death linked to the administration of Hib vaccine.

The CDC has boldly denied that there is any evidence supporting a causal link between vaccines and infant death, despite the fact that their own webpage on the topic acknowledges that "From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." Written off as coincidence, the CDC suggests that stomach sleeping is the primary modifiable risk factor.

Because SIDS is the 3rd leading cause of death in infants, and because the U.S. has one of thehighest infant mortality rates in the developed world, one would think that more progress would have been made toward understanding its causes. Perhaps, as explored in this past article, the signal of harm is being ignored. Neglect and suppression of available data has recently been exposed with the confession of a top CDC vaccine scientist who was compelled to covered up data revealing an autism-MMR link in African-American boys.

In the new study, the CDC and FDA researchers themselves acknowledge "the scarcity" of postlicensure safety data on HiB vaccines in today's vaccination schedule. They evaluated reports involving the currently licensed Hib vaccines received from January 1, 1990, through December 1, 2013 available on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Presently, the CDC recommends 4 doses of the HiB vaccine at the following ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months through 15 months.

The HiB vaccine is described on the CDC website as "very safe" and "effective" at preventing HiB disease, which it states can be deadly. They list "most common side effects as usually mild and last 2 or 3 days," including "redness, swelling, and warmth where the child got the shot" and "fever". Nowhere is there listed death or disability as a possible side effect.

In stark contrast to these statements the study uncovered the following highly concerning results:

VAERS received 29,747 reports after Hib vaccines; 5179 (17%) were serious, including 896 reports of deaths. Median age was 6 months (range 0-10.22 months). Sudden infant death syndrome was the stated cause of death in 384 (51%) of 749 death reports with autopsy/death certificate records. The most common nondeath serious AE categories were neurologic (80; 37%), other noninfectious (46; 22%) (comprising mainly constitutional signs and symptoms); and gastrointestinal (39; 18%) conditions. No new safety concerns were identified after clinical review of reports of AEs that exceeded the data mining statistical threshold.

Consider also that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which suffers from profound underreporting. According to the VAERS site's own disclaimer:

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report.

According to Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccination Information Center, underreporting may result in overlooking 99% or higher of all vaccine associated injuries:

"Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that fewer than 1 percent of all doctors report injuries and deaths following the administration of prescription drugs. This estimate may be even lower for vaccines. In one survey that our organization conducted in New York in 1994, only 1 doctor in 40 reported to VAERS."

Considering the influence of underreporting, these deaths represent only the tip of the iceberg of vaccine-induced infant morbidity and mortality caused by HiB vaccines. The study also mentioned an earlier analysis which found that infant death is the most common cause of death reported by all vaccine linked reports on VAERS, "accounting for almost one-half of all deaths reported."

Obviously, this is an appalling study. The death of even 1 child for a potentially ineffective medical intervention designed to prevent a rarely fatal illness is a tragedy. Nor can any single vaccine be proven to have prevented any single case of disease because the clinical outcome (end point) is a non-event. This is not the case, however, for vaccine side effects which can be linked directly to the vaccination event with plausible scientific mechanisms.

What is perhaps most astounding is the researcher's conclusion:

"Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns for Hib vaccines."

This callous disregard for the evidence -- evidence that clearly shows the CDC misrepresents the safety of the HiB vaccine -- speaks to the blind investment in vaccine policy decisions over human wellbeing. Millions of parents have listened to the CDC and FDA and believed that these vaccines not only work but are safe. Informed consent requires those undergoing a quasi-mandatory medical intervention like vaccination to know the true risks associated with it. Failing to do so is clearly a violation of this medical ethical protection against being abused, and in some cases disabled and even killed.





Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), and an advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is widely recognized as the most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Ebola has now killed a third of the world’s gorilla and chimpanzee populations – ‘This epidemic has reduced the population to a point where it can no longer sustain itself in the face of poaching and other pressures’ | Environment

Ebola has now killed a third of the world’s gorilla and chimpanzee populations – ‘This epidemic has reduced the population to a point where it can no longer sustain itself in the face of poaching and other pressures’ | Environment

Ebola has now killed a third of the world’s gorilla and chimpanzee populations – ‘This epidemic has reduced the population to a point where it can no longer sustain itself in the face of poaching and other pressures’
Sunday, January 25, 2015 15:29



By Allison Jackson
22 January 2015

(Global Post) – The human tragedy caused by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa has been well documented. […]

But humans are not the only victims of this horrible disease, which is spread through contact with the blood, sweat and other bodily fluids of an infected person.

Since the 1990s, Ebola has devastated the great ape population in Africa. It is estimated that one-thirdof the world’s gorillas and chimpanzees have been lost to the virus, which was discovered in 1976.

The WWF estimates there are around 100,000 gorillas left in the wild, while there are between 150,000 and 250,000 chimpanzees.

Scientists say Ebola has now joined poaching and deforestation as a “major threat to African apes” and it has been confirmed as one of the “important sources of mortality in wild gorillas and chimpanzees.” […]

“While the Ebola virus alone does not threaten apes and chimpanzees with extinction, this epidemic has reduced the population to a point where it can no longer sustain itself in the face of poaching and other pressures,” according to a report on AnimalResearch.Info. [more]

Ebola has now killed a third of the world’s gorilla and chimpanzee populations
Technorati Tags: mammal decline,poaching,epidemic,Africa,deforestation,habitat loss,primate decline,endangered species,extinction

Source: http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2015/01/ebola-has-now-killed-third-of-worlds.html

MILLIONS OF GMO INSECTS COULD BE RELEASED IN FLORIDA KEYS

News from The Associated Press

BY JENNIFER KAY

ASSOCIATED PRESS



KEY WEST, Fla. (AP) -- Millions of genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the Florida Keys if British researchers win approval to use the bugs against two extremely painful viral diseases.



Never before have insects with modified DNA come so close to being set loose in a residential U.S. neighborhood.



"This is essentially using a mosquito as a drug to cure disease," said Michael Doyle, executive director of the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, which is waiting to hear if the Food and Drug Administration will allow the experiment.



Dengue and chikungunya are growing threats in the U.S., but some people are more frightened at the thought of being bitten by a genetically modified organism. More than 130,000 people signed a Change.org petition against the experiment.



Even potential boosters say those responsible must do more to show that benefits outweigh the risks of breeding modified insects that could bite people.



"I think the science is fine, they definitely can kill mosquitoes, but the GMO issue still sticks as something of a thorny issue for the general public," said Phil Lounibos, who studies mosquito control at the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory.



Mosquito controllers say they're running out of options. With climate change and globalization spreading tropical diseases farther from the equator, storm winds, cargo ships and humans carry these viruses to places like Key West, the southernmost U.S. city.



There are no vaccines or cures for dengue, known as "break-bone fever," or chikungunya, so painful it causes contortions. U.S. cases remain rare.



Insecticides are sprayed year-round in the Keys' charming and crowded neighborhoods. But Aedes aegypti, whose biting females spread these diseases, have evolved to resist four of the six insecticides used to kill them.



Enter Oxitec, a British biotech firm that patented a method of breeding Aedes aegypti with fragments of genes from the herpes simplex virus and E. coli bacteria as well as coral and cabbage. This synthetic DNA is commonly used in laboratory science and is thought to pose no significant risks to other animals, but it kills mosquito larvae.



Oxitec's lab workers manually remove modified females, aiming to release only males, which don't bite for blood like females do. The modified males then mate with wild females whose offspring die, reducing the population.



Oxitec has built a breeding lab in Marathon and hopes to release its mosquitoes in a Key West neighborhood this spring.



FDA spokeswoman Theresa Eisenman said no field tests will be allowed until the agency has "thoroughly reviewed all the necessary information."



Company spokeswoman Chris Creese said the test will be similar in size to Oxitec's 2012 experiment in the Cayman Islands, where 3.3 million modified mosquitoes were released over six months, suppressing 96 percent of the targeted bugs. Oxitec says a later test in Brazil also was successful, and both countries now want larger-scale projects.



But critics accused Oxitec of failing to obtain informed consent in the Caymans, saying residents weren't told they could be bitten by a few stray females overlooked in the lab.



Instead, Oxitec said only non-biting males would be released, and that even if humans were somehow bitten, no genetically modified DNA would enter their bloodstream.



Neither claim is entirely true, outside observers say.



"I'm on their side, in that consequences are highly unlikely. But to say that there's no genetically modified DNA that might get into a human, that's kind of a gray matter," said Lounibos.



Creese says Oxitec has now released 70 million of its mosquitoes in several countries and received no reports of human impacts caused by bites or from the synthetic DNA, despite regulatory oversight that encourages people to report any problems. "We are confident of the safety of our mosquito, as there's no mechanism for any adverse effect on human health. The proteins are non-toxic and non-allergenic," she said.



Oxitec should still do more to show that the synthetic DNA causes no harm when transferred into humans by its mosquitoes, said Guy Reeves, a molecular geneticist at Germany's Max Planck Institute.



Key West resident Marilyn Smith wasn't persuaded after Oxitec's presentation at a public meeting. She says neither disease has had a major outbreak yet in Florida, so "why are we being used as the experiment, the guinea pigs, just to see what happens?"



---



Follow Jennifer Kay on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/jnkay .

Obama’s “Robin Hood” Plan to Collect $320 Billion in New Taxes | Ben Swann Truth In Media

Obama’s “Robin Hood” Plan to Collect $320 Billion in New Taxes | Ben Swann Truth In Media
By: Rachel Blevins Jan 19, 2015


On Saturday, White House officials announced that President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address will include a plan to increase tax credits for the middle class, with $320 billion in revenue obtained by increasing taxes on the wealthy over the next ten years.

Americans for Tax Reform reported that Obama’s budget will include five major tax increases: a capital gains rate hike, an increase in the death tax rate, an increased tax on banks, a tax increase on families saving for college, and a tax increase in retirement plans.

According to the Associated Press, the capital gains rate hike would “increase the total top capital gains rate on couples with incomes above $500,000 to 28 percent,” which has “already been raised from 15 percent to 23.8 percent” during Obama’s presidency.

Obama’s changes in the death tax rate would eliminate a tax break on inheritances, where individuals pay both income and estate taxes on the same dollars. This would close a “loophole” that Obama has suggested is a “huge scam that wealthy people exploit,” according to Forbes.

The Guardian reported that Obama’s proposed “Bank Tax” will put a new 0.07% tax on the liabilities of U.S. financial firms with assets of more than $50 billion, “making it more costly for them to borrow heavily.”

Obama’s plan also includes increased taxes on families saving for college. While the current law lets money put in 529 plans, or college savings accounts, grow tax-free, Obama’s proposal would require that earnings “face taxation upon withdrawal, even if the withdrawal is to pay for college,” according to Americans for Tax Reform.

Politico reported that Obama plans to increase taxes on retirement plans such as the IRA and 401(k), by capping the amount an individual can accumulate in the account at $3.4 million, giving retirees a limit of $210,000 in annual income.

Once accumulating the money from the wealthy, the Associated Press reported that Obama plans to give a “new $500 ‘second earner’ tax credit for families where both spouses work,” and an expanded child care tax credit of up to “$3,000 per child under age 5.”

According to Politico, Obama also plans to “expand tax breaks for small businesses that automatically enroll their employees in retirement savings accounts.”

NPR reported that Obama’s plans have been met with criticism from Republicans in Congress, such as a spokesperson for Representative Paul Ryan who said that the plan was “not a serious proposal.”

The Senate’s top tax law writer, Senator Orrin Hatch, told Reuters that Obama “needs to stop listening to his liberal allies who want to raise taxes at all costs and start working with Congress to fix our broken tax code.“