This insidious epidemic must stop

There is a terrible disease racing across America, affecting liberals and Democrats. Can it be contained or is it yet another epidemic? Sanity is such a terrible thing to squander.

Unhinged: Liberals Suffering From Nightmares, Insomnia, Binge Eating Since Trump’s Victory

Derek Hunter — Daily Caller

Liberals across the country have been struck by nightmares and insomnia since Donald Trump won the presidency is November.

“I have not slept a full night since the election,” fashion designer Ariane Zurcher told Yahoo News, and she’s not alone.

President Trump is haunting the dreams of many Americans and is being blamed for lost sleep and weight gain.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/18/unhinged-liberals-suffering-nightmares-insomnia-binge-eating-since-trumps-victory/

 

It must be striking right at the heart of academia. What will they do? The diseease has been festering in certain populations for decades, in the margins. But now it’s gone mainstream. I don’t know which is worse the disease or all the related symptoms?

 

Advocacy for death

I’ll post this piece because I was so struck by it. I guess suicide advocacy is on the rise though it still sounds like a marginal idea to me. But what was marginal 50 years ago is not so much now. Wesley Smith does an excellent job explaining the ideas.

Family-Supported Suicide Harms Society

by Wesley J. Smith March 21, 2015 | National Review – The Corner

There was once a time when friends, family, and society worked to prevent suicides. Now, if the suicidal person is ill or disabled, there is support for self-killing, with friends and family members even attending the deed.

That–and what it may portend–is the subject of my biweekly First Things. From, “Family-Support Suicide and the Duty to Die:”

Is it right or wrong to support a loved one’s suicide? This seems to be one of those issues, increasingly prevalent in our society, about which debate is not possible: The answer depends on one’s overarching worldview.

Some will believe that their duty is to support their family member’s choice, come what may. Others, including this writer, believe that supporting suicide is an abandonment that validates loved ones’ worst fears about themselves—that they are a burden, unworthy of love, or truly better off dead.

What might this phenomenon portend?

Family backing for suicide furthers the normalization of hastened death as a proper response to human suffering. Such normalization, over time, will put increasing pressure on those coping with the infirmities of age and with the debilitations of serious illnesses and disabilities to view their suicides as not only a suitable approach, but perhaps even as an obligation to those they love.

This is known in bioethics as the “duty to die,” which has been debated for years in professional discourse.

I quote some advocacy material for a duty to die:

A duty to die becomes greater as you grow older. . . . To have reached the age of, say, seventy-five or eighty years without being ready to die is itself a moral failing, the sign of a life out of touch with life’s basic realities.

This isn’t a fringe idea. Books have been written on the topic. I conclude:

No, a day won’t come when the euthanasia police kick down doors and force unwanted lethal injections upon the sick and elderly. But legal compulsion isn’t the only way to push people out of the lifeboat. The more public support families and friends give their ill or debilitated loved ones’ suicides, the greater the prospect that a moral duty to die will become culturally legitimate.

Again, I don’t see how we debate this. Either we want such a society, or we don’t.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415774/family-supported-suicide-harms-society-wesley-j-smith

(Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patient’s Rights Council.)

Also see First Things article

He has a followup post “$200,000 per Year to Push Assisted Suicide

Seems to be two issues here, what they are doing — or is it we — and the industry it has become. Neither of which bodes well for society.

Science fiction meets current medical debate

This is a bizarre, ethically challenging subject from a Natural News article. Apparently the development is really under way.

No longer science fiction: Aborted human fetuses harvested to grow kidney organs in rats for transplantation into human patients

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048411_organ_harvesting_aborted_babies_biotech_medicine.html

I don’t know how to even talk about this, kidneys from abortion fetal matter, grown in rats. My head is spinning and then the thought of harvesting tissue from aborted fetuses. It’s called a breakthrough? Is it more like science fiction than wonders of science?

A giant leap for medicine ?

Research has possibly discovered the next antibiotic line. It claims a new antibiotic could hit the marker in around five years to treat various stubborn infections.

First new antibiotic in 30 years discovered in major breakthrough

The discovery of Teixobactin could pave the way for a new generation of antibiotics because of the way it was discovered.

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor | The Telegraph — Jan 07, 2015

The first new antibiotic to be discovered in nearly 30 years has been hailed as a ‘paradigm shift’ in the fight against the growing resistance to drugs.

Teixobactin has been found to treat many common bacterial infections such as tuberculosis, septicaemia and C. diff, and could be available within five years.

But more importantly it could pave the way for a new generation of antibiotics because of the way it was discovered.

Continue reading: The Telegraph

 
Anyone who has had the pleasure of taking Vancomycin(derived in ’53 from soil in Borneo jungle) knows the scary part of antibiotics. What if it doesn’t work? Well, then you have a problem. So this gives a lot of new hope for new antibiotics.

Access denied: cancer care on chopping block

Nation’s elite cancer hospitals off-limits under Obamacare

By Associated Press – March 19, 2014 | NY Post

WASHINGTON — Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some of the nation’s best cancer hospitals are off-limits.

An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington state’s insurance exchange. MD Anderson Cancer Center says it’s in less than half of the plans in the Houston area. Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.

Doctors and administrators say they’re concerned. So are some state insurance regulators.

“This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans,”  said Dan Mendelson, CEO market research firm Avalere Health.

More: http://nypost.com/2014/03/19/nations-elite-cancer-hospitals-off-limits-under-obamacare/

It is getting very interesting, as those three thousand pages start to speak.

Ebola incompetency

Ebola: it’s the risk, stupid.

So what is it about us our feckless administration doesn’t understand? For starters, they don’t understand the paramount responsibility to protect the citizenry. That is bad enough.

When it comes to Ebola, they fought the whole notion of banning travel, or even mandatory quarantines, like it was the problem not a solution. They told us that the real problem was getting the pandemic under control in West Africa. Given that, I’m sure part of their protocol in dealing with the epidemic IN Africa would be restricting movement and travel of people — known risks. That would be only natural and understandable.

However, here they take the reverse strategy. They want the people to mingle and travel about without restriction until some magical point where their temperature passes some arbitrary threshold. In this case its a temperature reading. Now anyone who has had a fever or kids knows how fast a temperature can spike. Sometimes minutes. Having had a bone infection myself I know how critical and fast this can occur. As for the exhaustion, the same infection taught me a lot about that. I also know a little about treating symptoms without treating the underlined problem.

As much as I hate repeating myself, this whole process is akin to treating symptoms not the disease. It is reactionary instead of pro-active. You could make the same case about ISIS terrorists and Ebola. I could make the case about many of their responsibilities in protecting the people.

Judge Jeanine Pirro said the CDC officials seem to be “using the body-count method of decision making” in their protocol. Now the real problem here is the risk. Who puts themselves at an unnecessary risk, voluntarily? But we have an administration making the decisions putting us at unnecessary risk.

When it is Ebola, they take the simple approach that it is not easily contracted. Okay, then two people got it from one patient while taking precautions. (following CDC protocol) They finally changed the protocol. Presumably, they will change it until they get it right. They still refuse to say travel is a problem. They instituted temperature checks. Finally, another Ebola case of another medical professional traveling from Guinea. Then, in the fallout, even the governor of NY is forced to admit the voluntary self-check system doesn’t work.

Why would you want to expose people to more risk than they have to be? In ObamaCare we heard the lectures about risk. It was all about reducing risk, they claimed. Here we have a disease with an incubation window of 21 days. The idea is to let people with a high risk of incubation run rampant until that trigger is tripped. Even then they relied on the person reporting. And if the person doesn’t report, they are going to go find them? Right.

And if a person traveling from West Africa shows up here and does become symptomatic, then what? Well, they will shuttle them off to medical treatment of course. Does that not make the case for them coming here, especially if they know they’ve been infected? Then leave it to us to give them the best supportive care they could get in the world.

Meanwhile, we the people are put at risk so they can freely intermingle. When the light, or symptoms, go off then we have a great problem: “who, what, where?” But why take the unnecessary risks? Indeed, why intentionally expose all of Americans to those risks? I was at a lab facility years ago. looking through a window, through a clean room and another glass, into the room where a tech was working with meningitis. That glass was the only thing between me and it. Ebola is on another continent with nothing but miles of ocean between us and the virus. And apparently they want nothing between us and the epidemic.

As the good Judge said, maybe theirs is the body-count methodology? After all, they can always say in a country of 325 million people, we only had X numbers of Ebola. Next to 325 million almost anything is a small number. But what is the acceptable number, that’s the question? Ours is zero but that is not theirs. Their acceptable risk appears limitless.

RightRing | Bullright

Stop the BS…

Obama: ‘a travel ban is less effective’ than asking people if they have Ebola taking their temperature

Pat Dollard | Oct 17, 2014

AFRICAN OBAMA: I don’t have a philosophical objection, necessarily, to a travel ban if that is the thing that is going to keep the American people safe. The problem is that ? in all the discussions that I’ve had thus far with experts in the field, experts in infectious disease… a travel ban is less effective than the measures that we are currently instituting…

If we institute a travel ban instead of the protocols that we’ve put in place now, history shows that there is a likelihood of increased avoidance. People do not readily disclose their information. They may engage in something called broken travel – essentially breaking up their trip so they can hide the fact that they have been to one of these countries where there is a disease in place. As a result we may end up getting less information about who has the disease, they are less likely to get treated properly, screened properly, quarantined properly and as a consequence we could end up having more cases rather than less.

The lame campaign of excuses continues.

So how bad is Ebola really?
It’s so toxic that Obama cannot even handle the issue himself. He needs an Ebola handler.

Amid Assurances on Ebola, Obama Is Said to Seethe

WASHINGTON — Beneath the calming reassurance that President Obama has repeatedly offered during the Ebola crisis, there is a deepening frustration, even anger, with how the government has handled key elements of the response.

Those frustrations spilled over when Mr. Obama convened his top aides in the Cabinet room after canceling his schedule on Wednesday. Medical officials were providing information that later turned out to be wrong. Guidance to local health teams was not adequate. It was unclear which Ebola patients belonged in which threat categories.

“It’s not tight,” a visibly angry Mr. Obama said of the response, according to people briefed on the meeting. He told aides they needed to get ahead of events and demanded a more hands-on approach, particularly from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “He was not satisfied with the response,” a senior official said.

Continue reading >

President Obama Names “Political Operative” as “Ebola Czar”

“Done…there, it is officially politicized — hope the entire country is happy now.” The T-times and fundraisers shall resume immediately.

Peace and Freedom

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Responding to growing calls to appoint an “Ebola czar” to lead America’s battle against the deadly virus, sources confirm to Fox News that President Obama plans to name Ron Klain, a longtime political hand with no apparent medical or health care background.

He did, however, serve as chief of staff to Al Gore and later Vice President Biden.

In making the appointment, Obama will effectively bypass another official, Dr. Nicole Lurie, who has served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR) at the Department of Health and Human Services since July 2009.

Congress, nearly a decade ago, created that post, which would seem to fit the bill for Ebola coordinator — at least on paper.

Yet, as Obama prepares to name Klain, the senior official currently filling that health job has been virtually absent from the public eye. She’s on the team, the Obama…

View original post 948 more words

Ebola censorship and famine

NY Post reports that NYC 911 dispatchers are forbidden from saying the E-word, Ebola over the radio transmissions.

“Just like you can’t say bomb on an airplane, we can’t say ‘Ebola.’ ”

Nothing I can add.

Ebola outbreak: Famine approaches to add to West Africa’s torment

World according to WH Baghdad Josh

According to Josh Earnest:

People can be confident of the tenacity of government’s response to be able to deal with evolving situations, on the Ebola crisis.

Asked about a Ebola or disease czar, Earnest said that they are continually monitoring the situation and, if needed. they would “not hesitate” to install one.

Here’s a simple analogy of our current Ebola situation
Suppose you have a ship and it somehow gets a hole in the midsection. The captain immediately puts an alert to keep an eye out for any new cracks or holes in the bow. Then the captain says we are not going to repair that hole because we don’t think that is productive to dealing with the problem… in the water where it originated.

Also for perspective from a nurse about Ebola, see here.

Now apply either of the above talking points to the Islamic State, or ISIS’ black-flag death cult. Does Obama say “we are monitoring the situation and tenacious on responding to it…and if troops or more response is needed we will “not hesitate” to provide it”? No, of course not. But on the contrary, Obama absolutely rules it out. I’m sure that if more troops or something is needed for Africa, he will “not hesitate” to act accordingly.

However, when it comes to closing the border and travel from the infected areas, well, he refuses to do that. In fact, he declares it the wrong thing to do. (notice the pattern) Since when did Obama “NOT HESITATE” about any crisis? Worse, Obama’s first line of defense to a crisis is not even to hesitate, but actually ignore or deny it.

Now if, according to the talking points on Ebola so far, the chief “symptom” of someone causing them to be contagious is a fever, then you could say they’re acting by checking temps of passengers in selected airports. But that “symptom” check only suggests whether the person is contagious at that moment. (going by what they told us). That means that truly the only people they are protecting are supposedly other passengers and airline staff. So a person can show up somewhere like Thomas Duncan did, or travel to a destination in the middle of America, and become contagious.

The only thing it does is help insure he isn’t infectious in travel or at airport. That’s like a suicide bomber making it all the way through the checkpoints without being detected only to blow himself up later at some destination. And if we should have such an incident, we will not hesitate to respond in our tenacious government.

Make sense? I thought so. Thanks, Obama, or maybe that is the strategy to allow someone to pass through undetected. Why would you not place travel restrictions, especially after the exact scenario already happened? Now we have the fallout from the initial patient. The irony now is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

More toxic fallout — or symotoms:

State attorney general wants to stop ashes of Ebola victim’s belongings from being brought to Louisiana

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said late Sunday that he will seek a temporary restraining order to stop the incinerated belongings of Dallas Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan from being brought to a Louisiana landfill.

However, there is no evidence that this would spread the dreaded disease.

Another unforeseen problem. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Guess who’s words these are?

“failure to prepare for emergencies can have devastating consequences.”

“We learned that lesson the hard way after Hurricane Katrina,”

“This nation must not be caught off-guard when faced with the prospect of an avian flu pandemic. The consequences are too high. … The question is will we be ready when that happens? Let’s make sure that answer is yes. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House to push this administration to take the action needed to prevent a catastrophe that we have not seen during our lifetimes.”

Bingo, it’s the One and Only, Barack Obama — Senate floor 2005, on his favorite topic.

Read more at WND — Obama accused of facilitating terrorism

Hat/tip to Lafayette Angel

Ebola ISIS threats – ground zero

On Ebola virus, the strategy is to treat it in Africa so it doesn’t come here. They claim the risk in the US will not be lowered until it is controlled over there. The latest talking point is we cannot eliminate our risk till we contain it there, that’s the only remedy.

On ISIS and terrorism, the philosophy is there’s no threat here so it is not a problem. Don’t worry about it.

Those two contrasts make a huge difference in policy terms. No attention given to the time factor. A failure to act can make a problem incrementally worse. Samantha Powers, who authored “The Problem from Hell” wrote about exactly that problem. In Bosnia she cried for intervention to combat or stop cleansing and genocide, but was summarily ignored. Then along came Bill Clinton’s delayed response, when he finally took action.

A problem from hell could be an incurable virus spreading, or an Islamic terror network raging across the countryside or borders. The existential threat of either is now seen only as a political issue, and responded to by that dictum. The people at risk are held hostage to politics and terrorists’ whims.

This is the type of treatment Obama has given ISIS. First it was a jay-vee team. Then it was a regional problem that didn’t involve us. Then when he does act he does so cosmetically in what I call dud strikes. Just enough to meet the perception of responding to a very real threat he previously ignored.

However, quite a different reaction to Ebola now. He wants all hands on deck but the same underlining problem exists even there. He denied it was a problem, and refused to take precautions. Then he does take precautions here but not banning travel. Let’s not go overboard in response. So he doesn’t cut off travel arguing it is doubtful that it will come here.

Of course that was the liberal talking point all along, even before his reaction. They claimed it did not pose a threat to us. Now he claims he is considering some tougher screening standards. Ya think? More dud strikes? Travel ban, not so much.

Remember when Captain Zero said he was pretty good at killing people? Like everything else he says that ends up on the trash heap of lies. Oh, he might be pretty good at lowering the defenses in this country which will lead to people getting hurt or killed, or sick. But as to preemptively killing people plotting to kill us, he’s on the golf course and at fundraisers talking up his game. Not so much on the battlefield where Islamic terrorists are running wild and free. Don’t try too hard to knockout the real threat, unless it is some obscure virus you need for a diversion of ‘saving lives’. Even that he is not very good at.

So now we have the FBI scanning the homeland for terrorists radicalized here or returning from the IS. We have CDC running around after the fact trying to contain a situation here. But we have everything under control. What is it about both issues that makes one very suspicious?

RightRing | Bullright

Ebola epidemic: serious global threat

Obama: Ebola outbreak a threat to global security

By JIM KUHNHENN | Sep 16th 2014

ATLANTA (AP) – Calling the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a potential threat to global security, President Barack Obama is ordering 3,000 U.S. military personnel to the stricken region amid worries that both the financial and human cost of the outbreak is spiraling out of control.

Obama also called on other countries to quickly supply more helpers, supplies and money.

“If the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people affected, with profound economic, political and security implications for all of us,” Obama said Tuesday after briefings at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“It’s a potential threat to global security if these countries break down,” Obama saietd, speaking of the hardest-hit countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. At least 2,400 people have died, with Liberia bearing the brunt.

Continue reading>

It’s like I said earlier here.

So basically everything he said there could also apply to the ‘black-flag’ death plague raging across the Mid East, and soon to be exported to a country near you.

But no, he doesn’t seem to use that same language or sense of urgency about that epidemic. Then, on terrorism, the words are couched in politically correct terms.

Notice how the same basic idea applies though. We must “contain it”, must get many other countries involved, must have joint cooperation. Can you say coalition? But on Ebola it’s all hands on deck. Now its a billion-dollar problem, upgraded from the earlier 500 million one.

Ebola and ISIS: a chronic comparison

What does Ebola have in common with ISIS?

The simple answer is Obama. But that is where the commonality ends. Both represent threats and catastrophic circumstances.

The talk about Ebola is the call and challenge to scale up the treatment of Ebola. In fact, from the Center for Disease control, they say it is not just a problem for African areas but a problem for the whole world. It demands a world-wide response. The World Health Organization is telling everyone it demands our response. See WHO video here.

CDC: “I wish every world leader could see what I have seen. Stopping this outbreak is more than any one nation can do,” Dr. Frieden says. “The sooner the world comes together to help West Africans the safer we all will be.”

“The window of opportunity to stop Ebola from spreading widely throughout Africa and becoming a global threat for years to come is closing, but it is not yet closed,” Dr. Frieden continued. “If the world takes the immediate steps– which are direct requests from the front lines of the outbreak and the Presidents of each country – we can still turn this around.”

Now even Obama is well out front recording a message to Africa about the severe threat of Ebola. “Stopping this disease won’t be easy but we know how to do it,” Obama said.
Washington Post reported:

The decision to involve the military in providing equipment and other assistance for international health workers in Africa comes after mounting calls from some unlikely groups — most prominently the international medical organization Doctors Without Borders — demonstrating to the White House the urgency of the issue. “And then it could be a serious danger to the United States,” Obama said.

“We’re going to have to get U.S. military assets just to set up, for example, isolation units and equipment there,” he said, “to provide security for public health workers surging from around the world.”

From Anthony Fauci, dir. of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIHealth: “We’re left with a situation where if, in fact, this thing smolders on and on, we know mutations will accumulate,” he said. “And that has its own set of problems. We’ve really got to get this thing shut off.”

However, why is it he cannot talk about ISIS or the spreading Islamic State the same way? They can ban or restrict travel in areas affected by Ebola, but not so much on those traveling to and from the Islamic State with the potential to spread this poisonous ideology. Don’t rush to rash decisions on traveling to and from Syria.

Of course, comparing one severe threat to another draws criticism, but why should it? They are similar in nature and affects. Both are a disease.

When you hear these officials run to the microphone announcing Ebola is a serious world problem demanding an immediate reaction, it is chilling. What about ISIS? A response to Ebola cannot come fast enough, on a scale large enough to suit the need. They say the Ebola outbreak is vastly underestimated, an “International public health emergency” and an “urgent” matter of international concern. It is “critical” that it receive labels, they say, so that we provide resources.

Can they even say genocide?

What about ISIS, is there not an equal responsibility there? On ISIS and their ‘black-flag plague’ consuming the Middle East, Obama said:

“People like this [ISIS] ultimately fail,” … “They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.”

Try that with Ebola.

That a way to rally them to the cause, Obama. Imagine he said the exact thing about Ebola, paraphrasing: “These diseases ultimately fail, sooner or later.” There would be outrage about any passively dismissive statement to real immediate results of a disease spiraling out of control, which knows no borders or boundaries. Yet here we are watching a 1400 yr-old campaign being revived, kick started, and growing rapidly.

All the officials compete demanding action against the Ebola outbreak, epidemic. Maybe Ebola is a diversion from another plague spreading globally? (a genocide) More hypocrisy? One demands immediate condemnation, resources and all our efforts. The other is just a “regional problem”. Try that with Ebola, they’d laugh you right out of the UN.

But there is anther big contrast. While the headchopper plague meanders through the Mid East under Islamic ideology, Christianity is working to feed the poor, purify drinking water, and treat the sick. The biggest enemies of Islamists are, you guessed it, Christians. Christians are trying to help a sick world, Islamists have a passion for slaughter and an agenda against Christians. They are executing people from the tip of Africa to Iran. Christians are trying to save peoples lives, even from Ebola.

In Gaza, Muslim terrorists indiscriminately fire missiles into Israel hoping to kill and injure as many as possible, saying ‘God willing’. It’s an industry. Israel defends its modest homeland and they cry “human rights abuses” by Israel, calling it heavy-handed. Ever tell a headchopper that? Ever tell Hamas that? Has humanity ever witnessed such twisted rationalizations under a guise of humanitarianism?. Yet ISIS cutting out giant swaths of land across borders makes no difference. Then they all lecture America that we must show restraint in the face of evil. Obama tells Israel to show restraint. Indeed, at home Obama complains it takes time, criticizing people for being too far ahead of where they are at.

Now could you apply that to the Ebola outbreak? I think not. Speed, responsibility, and resources are the watchwords for Ebola. Though I get a sick feeling the black-flag death cult could come right in behind Ebola killing thousands as brutally as they can. Or killing people the world is trying to save, from a threat it is trying to eradicate. Still we have this epidemic of compassion for a disease and what it is doing in countries most of us will never see. It causes people to be working non-stop on a vaccine to stop or prevent the carnage — plans being put in place, policies implemented.Time is of the essence to prevent the spread of death. On ISIS not so much. I hear advisers say take your time to come up with a plan.

The real problem of Obama on ISIS is also the extreme irony. What Obama has done thus far is barely equivalent to treating the symptoms rather than the disease. They want to treat the Ebola disease by a goal to eradicate it. Obama’s stated goal on ISIS is to shrink it to a “manageable problem”. The goal against Ebola is to eliminate the threat and disease – presumably kill it and prevent its return. It’s ironic that Christians and missionaries work toward eliminating the spread of Ebola. When it comes to ISIS, Obama sat on his hands observing its spread and now said he wants to shrink it into “a manageable problem”.(shrink the death toll?) After the Foley beheading, he lectured it was a political problem. True to form, he now is looking blame Congress for his policy on ISIS, in effect making it a political problem.

So I haven’t heard anyone make the case that Ebola is strictly a political problem, requiring a political solution. That would sound ridiculous. And apply all his other excuses on ISIS to Ebola and you come up with the same notion.

Could it be that the world is both not a large enough nor a small enough place to deal with either threat? Not large enough to have the resources to deal with such a heinous problem; not small enough to be able contain and mitigate them.

 

Today starts the official BS campaign on ISIS, speech to follow. The campaign on Ebola is under way. Maybe it’s easier to talk about a terrible disease ravaging borders in Africa, threatening the world. Much harder to talk about a plague of anti-human ideology spreading across borders like wildfire. I doubt he’ll discuss Ebola from the golf course.

“Major Garrett Asks Why Anyone Should Watch Obama’s ISIS Speech”

RightRing | Bullright

Euthanasia expanded to children in Belgium

Belgium’s parliament votes through child euthanasia

BBC.com

Parliament in Belgium has passed a bill allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children without any age limit, by 86 votes to 44, with 12 abstentions.

When, as expected, the bill is signed by the king, Belgium will become the first country in the world to remove any age limit on the practice.

It may be requested by terminally ill children who are in great pain and also have parental consent.

Opponents argue children cannot make such a difficult decision.

It is 12 years since Belgium legalised euthanasia for adults.

In the Netherlands, Belgium’s northern neighbour, euthanasia is legal for children over the age of 12, if there is parental consent.

Conditions for child euthanasia

  • Patient must be conscious of their decision
  • Request must be approved by parents and medical team
  • Illness must be terminal
  • Patient must be in great pain with no treatment available to alleviate their distress

Under the Dutch conditions, a patient’s request for euthanasia can be fulfilled by a doctor if the request is “voluntary and well-considered” and the patient is suffering unbearably, with no prospect of improvement.

‘Immoral’ law

One man in the public gallery of Belgium’s parliament shouted “murderers” in French when the vote was passed, Reuters news agency reports.

Supporters of the legislation argue that in practice the law will affect an extremely small number of children, who would probably be in their teens, the BBC’s Duncan Crawford reports from Brussels.

The law states a child would have to be terminally ill, face “unbearable physical suffering” and make repeated requests to die – before euthanasia is considered.

Parents, doctors and psychiatrists would have to agree before a decision is made.

Protesters have lobbied politicians against the changes.

Church leaders argued the law is immoral.

“The law says adolescents cannot make important decisions on economic or emotional issues, but suddenly they’ve become able to decide that someone should make them die,” Brussels Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, said at a prayer vigil last week.

Some pediatricians have warned vulnerable children could be put at risk and have questioned whether a child can really be expected to make such a difficult choice.

Last week 160 Belgian pediatricians signed an open letter against the law, claiming that there was no urgent need for it and that modern medicine is capable of alleviating pain.

But opinion polls have suggested broad support for the changes in Belgium, which is mostly Catholic.

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26181615

————-

Other sources reported a condition that the child understand the decision is final.

Say it ain’t so… ‘cup of Joe’

According to a study, they now find 4-cups of coffee or more per day is harmful to your health. Heck, it could actually kill you. So says the report.

If that is the case, this may be my last post. Wait, I probably shouldn’t be here now. I might as well go check into the nearest hospital and wait because 4 cups wouldn’t wake me up in the morning.

Now I know I’m in big trouble.

More than 4 cups of coffee a day increases the risk of an early death, says study

More than four cups of coffee a day could send you to an early grave, according to a study.

Researchers found that people under 55 who drank more than 28 cups of coffee a week were at an increased risk of early death from all causes, with a more than 50 per cent increase in mortality.
No adverse effects were found in heavy coffee drinkers aged over 55, according to the findings published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
In America, more than 60 per cent of adults drink coffee every day, with an average consumption of three cups.
But it has long been suspected to be linked to a number of health conditions, with studies suggesting it could contribute to cardiovascular disease.
For the research, nearly 45,000 people were studied between 1979 and 1998.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10246709/More-than-four-cups-of-coffee-a-day-increases-the-risk-of-an-early-death-says-study.html

Hold that coffee thought

According to WebMD:

Coffee may taste good and get you going in the morning, but what will it do for your health?
A growing body of research shows that coffee drinkers, compared to nondrinkers, are:
  • less likely to have type 2 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia
  • have fewer cases of certain cancers, heart rhythm problems, and strokes
“There is certainly much more good news than bad news, in terms of coffee and health,” says Frank Hu, MD, MPH, PhD, nutrition and epidemiology professor at the Harvard School of Public Health.
But (you knew there would be a “but,” didn’t you?) coffee isn’t proven to prevent those conditions.
More:  http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/coffee-new-health-food

But I was SO… going by that WebMD report, dang.
So I have to have a cup of coffee and think about it.

Any chance that they could want to off us early per Obamacare and socialized medicine?
Take away my coffee and I’ll start mixing metaphors and all kinds of crap – and that’s another point of contention. Ah, I’ll take the WebMD report.