Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
The hoax has been revealed, no warming has taken place for 15 years, in fact, it’s been getting cooler…
Still, it will not go away, they have too much invested in it. It is the major driver in UN Agenda 21, the tool with which they are stealing the earth’s real estate! Who are they? You know who they are, there are many names, but put simply, they’re the people behind the new world order!
Anchorage sets record for longest snow season...
Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely'
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News
The impacts of rising temperature are being felt particularly keenly in the polar regions
Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.
Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.
But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
End Quote Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford
The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before”
But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.
An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response.
Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.
Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).
But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.
The report suggests that warming in the near term will be less than forecast
"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.
"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before."
The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.
But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.
This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.
"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."
The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world's oceans.
Not everyone agrees with this perspective.
Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.
"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Friday, May 17, 2013
This is scandalous for sure but ask yourselves why they put this out when they did. The news world was consumed with Benghazi, finally, after all it happened over 8 months ago, and the questions were piling up. They needed to change the subject.
It’s a well know ploy to get out of big trouble, confess to a lesser transgression. So, just how bad is Benghazi? Chances are we will not find out in our lifetimes now that the magnifying glass has been focused somewhere else!
Agency stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation...
- Lesser transgression confessed to, however, the assertion that it was absolutely not illegal may not pan out!
This woman, the person in charge when these conservative groups were targeted, is now in charge of the IRS enforcement arm of Obamacare!
If this doesn’t scare you you are obviously not a conservative!
News Anchor Who Complained of IRS Harassment 'Off the Air'...
How You Can Tell If the IRS Is Eyeing You...
Second 'house of horrors' abortion clinic where doctor 'twisted heads off fetus' necks with his bare hands' is investigated in Texas
- Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live babies during third-trimester abortions and killing them
- Witnesses said he would either snip their spinal cords, stab a surgical instrument into their heads or twist their heads off with his hands
- Texas Department of State Health Services is using in its investigating of the doctor
- Accusations come days after Dr Kermit Gosnells was found guilty of murdering newborns at his Philadelphia abortion clinic
By Helen Pow PUBLISHED: 17:24 EST, 16 May 2013 | UPDATED: 11:54 EST, 17 May 2013
A second 'house of horrors' abortion clinic is being investigated in Texas, just days after Dr Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of murdering newborns at his Philadelphia termination center.
Dr. Douglas Karpen, seen here in court, is accused of killing babies aborted in their third trimester
Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live fetuses during third-trimester abortions and killing them by either snipping their spinal cord, stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or 'twisting their heads off their necks with his own bare hands'.
Other times the fetus was so big he would have to pull it out of the womb in pieces, Karpen's ex-assistant, Deborah Edge, said in an Operation Rescue video, which has prompted a criminal investigation into the doctor.
'Sometimes he couldn't get the fetus out... he would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize,' Edge explained.
'And I'm talking about the whole floor dirty. I'm talking about me drenched in blood.'
Two of Edge's colleagues, Gigi Aguliar, and Krystal Rodriguez, also described the hellish scenes which took place at the Aaron Women's Clinic in Houston in 2011, and possibly two other abortion clinics run by Karpen in Texas.
Another staffer, who remains anonymous, filed an affidavit with her account of events, which the Texas Department of State Health Services is using in its investigation.
'We have several people looking into the allegations,' Harris County District Attorney spokesman Sara Marie Kinney told Chron.com.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he had read the allegations 'with disgust' before calling for a full investigation into Karpen and his clinics.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO - WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Speaking out: Krystal Rodriguez, left, Deborah Edge, center, and Gigi Aguliar, right, have all come forward to talk about their former boss Karpan
Anti-abortion film claims doctor killed fetuses outside womb
Anti-abortion film claims doctor killed fetuses outside womb
Edge said fetuses were killed well after 24 weeks gestation at the Houston clinic, which resulted in a sweat-inducing job that took about an hour per procedure. She said every morning on multiple occasions she would see fetuses born alive and then quickly killed by the doctor.
'When he did an abortion, especially an over 20 week abortion, most of the time the fetus would come completely out before he either cut the spinal cord or he introduced one of the instruments into the soft spot of the fetus in order to kill it.... or actually twisting the head off the neck with his own bare hands,' she explained.
'It was still alive because it was still moving and you could see the stomach breathing.'
The women described one occasion where a fetus that Karpen thought was dead suddenly 'opened its eyes and grabbed (the doctor's) finger' after he wrenched it from the womb. However, it met a similar fate to the other fetuses at the clinic, the women said.
'He thought it was dead but the fetus actually opened its eyes and grabbed his finger,' Aguliar said. 'He was alive. He thought it was deceased already. He was getting ready to put it in the back.'
Crime scene: The hellish scenes allegedly took place at the Aaron Women's Clinic, pictured, in Houston in 2011, and possibly two other abortion clinics run by Karpen in Texas
They also recounted occasions when women were so far along with their pregnancy they were actually induced into labor and in two cases their fetus' came out while they were in the bathroom.
Rodriguez described another incident where a patient's fetus fell from her and onto the floor in the clinic's waiting room.
'(Karpen) just picked it up with a Chux and put it in the trash bag,' she said.
According to Rodriguez, as long as patients had the cash, Karpen would perform an abortion well past 24 weeks. A late-term procedure cost between $4,000 and $5,000 at the clinic, they said in the video which was filmed as the clinic was still operating and released on Wednesday.
Edge said she regularly got upset during her work and couldn't watch when Karpen allegedly killed the newborns. But she said she didn't know that what he was doing was illegal.
'We used to look at each other and sometimes our tears would come out with the other assistants,' Edge said. 'We would always think "he's so greedy."'
How much time do we have folks, days, weeks, months, a year or two? If we don’t do something every bit of freedom we were given by our forefathers will be taken away by a government that has become more tyrannical than the one they broke away from!
[Video] Welcome to NJ, Pro Gun Citizen Forcefully Removed From Hearing in the Middle of His Testimony
May 17 2013
So, this is NJ huh?
Second Amendment activist, James Kaleda, was forcefully removed from a hearing on a new gun control bill in NJ during his testimony.
Yes, James’ testimony got a little heated, but he was still making an intelligent argument.
Notice in the video the legislators laugh as they have their security (armed with guns of course) remove Kaleda before he finished his testimony.
Kaleda receives a standing ovation from the gallery during his ejection.
From the Youtube description of the video:
James Kaleda explains that the proposed NJ Gun Bills will not save any lives but will endanger them. He is ejected by Committee Chair Senator Norcross. This took place at the NJ Senate gun control hearings in Trenton on April 30, 2013.
I guess this is how they handle dissent in NJ, remove it from the building with armed guards.
DID YOU NOTICE WHO OBAMA THREATENED?!!
It's incredible that 42% of Americans think that this unqualified, incompetent, dishonorable, ego-driven fraud is doing a good job.
Take a moment. Admit it to yourself.
You know who his supporters are.
They are the people that YOU support -- FINANCIALLY!!
Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising the debt ceiling? He threatened to not pay:
- Social Security Retirees
- Military Retirees
- Social Security
- Now let this sink in really good...
- He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens.
- He did not threatened to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates.
- He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hired.
- He did not offer to cut down on his or his wife's frivolous gallivanting around. $20 Million already spent on family vacations. (One Million on a FL golf outing). All our money...why not?
- He did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staff.
- He did not threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipients or to stop the free cell phones they get.
- He did not threaten the food stamp programs.
- He did not threaten to reduce payments in foreign aid.
- He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters.
- The list could go on and on. He is in full political mode!
Why are we allowing this person to destroy this wonderful country with his selfishness and his lies? Have WE lost our blooming minds!!!!!!!!
His type of change is killing our country. He needs to be stopped.
Do not forget about his tactics when it's election time 2014.
Get out and Vote in the mid-term election - 2014.
Support the people in the House and Senate that are willing to cut taxes and spending.
LET'S MAKE 2014 - THE Beginning of a turn around.
Forget change! We want our $$$$$$$$$ back and we want to take our country back NOW!!
We the people are coming.
That’s also one of the the reasons the feral government won’t seal the border.
Why the government won't seal the southern border
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
Recently, I heard more false claims that the US stole much of the land that is now the southwestern states from Mexico. It’s TOTAL BUNK!
The mainstream media continues to publish those claims without counterbalancing them with the truth. That does two things. It emboldens those perpetrating those false claims against the US – and -- it is accepted as truth by our woefully undereducated citizenry.
Over three years ago we attempted to bring truth to the discussion by explaining that the US did, in fact, purchase that land. It is a matter of historical fact.
As the months have gone by, I have seen no attempt to set the record straight. This, dear reader, is how revisionist history becomes so successful. No one refutes it. It is the first rule of propaganda: tell the lie long enough and loud enough and it will eventually be accepted as truth.
It would seem that is what those groups in the United States, whose aim it is to push AMNESTY for Illegal Aliens legislation through the Congress and onto Obama’s desk for his signature, are endeavoring to do. We refer, of course, to the new Immigration Reform Bill. I mean, how can we insist that those people abide by the law and apply for citizenship in the US legally, because, after all, IT IS THEIR LAND.
OK, let’s take another shot at setting the record straight and look at some facts.
First, The Mexican War:
The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican War, was signed on February 2, 1848, by Nicholas P. Trist, for the United States, and by a special commission representing the collapsed government of Mexico.
Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary. The United States in turn paid Mexico $15,000,000, assumed the claims of American citizens against Mexico, ($3.25 Million) recognized prior land grants in the Southwest, and offered citizenship to any Mexicans residing in the area. Then a few years later, the US bought the land that is now Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico for another 6 million dollars.
Why did we need that additional land?
After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, border disputes between the United States and Mexico remained unsettled. Land that now comprises lower Arizona and New Mexico was part of a proposed southern route for a transcontinental railroad. US President Franklin Pierce was convinced by Jefferson Davis, (Later the First President of the Confederate States of America) then the US Secretary of War, to send James Gadsden (who had personal interests in the rail route) to negotiate the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico. Under the resulting agreement, the U.S. paid Mexico $10 million. There was a problem with the money, however: Even though the agreement specified $10 million, the US Congress only agreed to pay $7 million. When the money finally arrived, in Mexico City, $1 million was found to be lost, thus making $6 million the amount Mexico actually got for the sale of that land. Hey, they set the price… we paid it!
Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24,250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US which many claim, today, we (The US) stole!
You know, I get a bit tired, and even short-tempered, with folks who attempt to perpetuate an untruth by the act of sheer omission. As a Southerner, I know how that can hurt. To say the US stole all that land in the Southwest is a flat-out lie. So, 24 and-a-quarter-million isn’t much money? Not by today’s standards perhaps, but back in the mid 1800’s we’re talking about somewhere in the area of $600,000,000.00! Now that IS big bucks!
So, next time you hear someone prattling on about how the US stole all the southwestern United States from Mexico, set them straight. Tell them we bought it and paid for it. If they refuse to believe you refer them to the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty and the Gadsden’s Purchase a few years later. It’s all there. It’s a part of history -- a part of history students in the American government schools apparently never hear about.
Of course, the claims that we stole the land from Mexico is all a part of the propaganda being employed to saddle Americans with more undeserved guilt. People who feel guilty will ofttimes respond in the way those prodding them wish them to respond. That is what is hoped for with all the unmitigated garbage heaped on America today.
Actually, as I view the relationship between the US and Mexico today, I have to wonder if there really is a move afoot to combine the three nations of the North American Continent into one nation, or one entity as in, say, the European Union.
Some form of union of America, Mexico, and Canada has been discussed or proposed in academic, business, and political circles for decades now. The NAU (North American Union) is a theoretical economic and political union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The concept is loosely based, as we said, on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the "Amero" or the North American Dollar. You may read more about this NAU at: SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
Before you brush this aside (As I did years ago!), ask yourself why, exactly, is the US government refusing to seal the southern border with Mexico? Why?
I'm tired of supporting the country of Mexico with the billions of US dollars a year pouring into Mexico from Mexican citizens who have burglarized the US. The total amount is staggering.
The US has a huge number of problems these days that must be dealt with. But we must not let our guard down for one minute else an amnesty bill for illegal aliens (The New Immigration Reform Bill) will be passed by the Congress and signed by the President into law.
Eternal vigilance truly is the price of freedom.
© J. D. Longstreet
Thursday, May 16, 2013
IRS to enforce Obamacare, same IRS that targeted conservatives: patriots, tea party, constitutionalists
Remember all the talk about repealing Obamacare, defunding it, etc.. Seems like it was all talk and no action. What does that tell you about those talkers?
Never forget the one man that could have stopped it, Chief Justice John Roberts. What does that tell you about him?
They are owned by the occult bankster cabal!
Good to see the story hasn’t been derailed by everyone, it needs to stay front and center ‘above the fold’ the ‘lead story’…
Stephen F. Hayes May 16, 2013 12:09 AM
The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.
Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.
Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”
When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.
The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.
And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”
I don’t think she would sell her breast and ovaries for money but I think greedy b@stards would lie to her and use her to line their pockets with gold!
I’m not doubting her good intentions but I remember the good intentioned liberal idea to ban the highly effective insecticide DDT. It resulted in the deaths of millions in Africa due to malaria.
I doubt she had any idea of the core issues involved here, the patenting of our genes. This is a long read for a blog but well worth the few minutes…
EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)
Thursday, May 16, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it's all part of well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.
This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one, you find far more than an innocent looking woman exercising a "choice." This is about protecting trillions in profits through the deployment of carefully-crafted public relations campaigns designed to manipulate the public opinion of women.
The signs were all there from the beginning of the scheme: Angelina Jolie's highly polished and obviously corporate-written op-ed piece at the New York Times, the carefully-crafted talking points invoking "choice" as a politically-charged keyword, and the obvious coaching of even her husband Brad Pitt who carefully describes the entire experience using words like "stronger" and "pride" and "family."
But the smoking gun is the fact that Angelina Jolie's seemingly spontaneous announcement magically appeared on the cover of People Magazine this week -- a magazine that is usually finalized for publication three weeks before it appears on newsstands. That cover, not surprisingly, uses the same language found in the NYT op-ed piece: "HER BRAVE CHOICE" and "This was the right thing to do." The flowery, pro-choice language is not a coincidence.
What this proves is that Angelina's Jolie's announcement was a well-planned corporate P.R. campaign with carefully-crafted messages designed to influence public opinion. But what could Jolie be seeking to influence?
...how about trillions of dollars in corporate profits?
Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule on patent viability for BRCA1 gene
Angelina Jolie's announcement and all its carefully-crafted language had four notable immediate impacts:
- It caused women everywhere to be terrified of breast cancer through the publishing of false statistics that drove fear into the hearts of anyone with breasts. (See below for explanation.)
- It caused women to rush out and seek BRCA1 gene testing procedures. These tests just happen to be patented by a for-profit corporation called "Myriad Genetics." Because of this patent, BRCA1 tests can cost $3,000 - $4,000 each. The testing alone is a multi-billion-dollar market, but only if the patent is upheld in an upcoming Supreme Court decision (see below).
- It caused the stock price of Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to skyrocket to a 52-week high. "Myriad's stock closed up 3% Tuesday, following the publication of the New York Times op-ed," wrote Marketwatch.com.
- It drove public opinion to influence the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of corporate ownership of human genes (see more below).
Women all over the world are being duped into supporting Angeline Jolie, having no idea that what she's really doing is selling out women to the for-profit cancer industry. But to fully understand what's happening, you have to dig deeper...
Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and Obamacare will funnel billions their way
"Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics (MYGN) holds the patent on the test that determined the actress had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as the genes themselves," wrote MarketWatch.com.
And that's only the beginning. If the U.S. Supreme Court can be influenced to uphold Myriad's patent, it could mean a trillion-dollar industry over just the next few years. Even more, Myriad Genetics is reportedly "ripe for mergers" according to the financial press, because it's part of the super-hot human genome industry.
"The world's largest maker of DNA testing and analysis tools, Life Technologies Corp. said that it is set to be acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific for a record $13.6 billion," writes MarketWatch.com. "A race that kicked into high gear more than 26 years ago is heating up, with foreign governments and corporations joining the U.S. in funding the quest to map all the human genomes. And even as the recent flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the genomics space has spurred returns, investors still have opportunities to profit from this multibillion-dollar industry."
The higher Myriad's stock price goes, the more profitable a merger becomes for its current owners. So Jolie's P.R. stunt just happened to generate unknown millions of dollars in value for the very people who claim a patent monopoly over the breast cancer genes residing in the bodies of women. Coincidence? Hardly.
Obamacare mandates taxpayers pay for BRCA gene testing: yet another government handout to wealthy corporations
But here's what's even more crooked about all this: You know how Obama likes to talk "free market" but actually engages in so-called "crony capitalism" by handing out money to all his corporate buddies, Wall Street insiders and deep-pocketed campaign donors? Part of Obamacare -- the "Affordable Care Act" -- mandates that taxpayers pay for BRCA1 genetic testing!
Myriad Genetics, in other words, stands to receive a full-scale windfall of profits mandated by government and pushed into mainstream consciousness through a campaign of "medical terror" fronted by Angelina Jolie and the New York Times. Are you starting to see how this all fits together yet?
This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it's all being hidden by playing the "women's power" card and using "choice" language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn't engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women's bodies into profits.
Here's why the Supreme Court decision puts trillions of dollars at stake...
Details on the upcoming Supreme Court decision
The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2009, challenging the corporate ownership of human genes. Anyone who believes in women's rights, human rights, civil rights or even the right to eat non-GMO foods should immediately agree that corporations should NOT be able to patent human genes and then use those patents to rake in billions of dollars in profits while stifling scientific research into those genes.
A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie's P.R. campaign because although she's running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.
The ACLU explains the basics of its lawsuit against Myriad Genetics as follows:
On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are unconstitutional and invalid. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the patentability of human genes. The ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2013. We expect a decision this summer.
On behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, we have argued that human genes cannot be patented because they are classic products of nature. The suit charges that the gene patents violate the First Amendment and stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care.
Got that? If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad Genetics, it will cause a multi-billion-dollar breast cancer genetic testing industry to collapse virtually overnight. This means a huge loss for not just Myriad, but also many other human gene corporations that wish to exploit the human body -- including the bodies of women -- for monopolistic profits. (All patents are government-granted monopolies.) Ultimately, trillions of dollars in corporate gene patents are at stake here.
Patenting human genes is huge business
Today, about 20 percent of your genes are already patented by corporations and universities. As the ACLU explains, "A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."
This means that when corporations own patents on human genes, it stifles scientific research while granting that corporation a monopoly over the "intellectual property" encoded in your own DNA! (How criminal is that? You decide...)
What this means is that if the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, it would set a precedent that would dismantle the entire human gene patenting industry, affecting trillions of dollars in future profits.
This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie's announcement. It seems designed to invoke women's emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It's a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today.
While most media outlets have no clue about the patent issues at stake here, the Detroit Free Press took notice, saying:
"The Hollywood star's decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court. The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics' patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company's monopoly leaves them as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman's risk."
Lying with statistics: Jolie's 87% risk fraud
There's more to this story than just the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Angelina Jolie is also using blatantly misleading statistics to terrify women into thinking their breasts might kill them.
In the NYT op-ed piece, Jolie claims her doctor told her she has an "87% risk" of developing breast cancer. But what she didn't tell you is that this number doesn't apply to the entire population: it's actually old data derived almost exclusively from families that were previously documented to have very high risks of breast cancer to begin with.
A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what's being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.
In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.
And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.
So what we're really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this. Yet thanks to people like Jolie and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!
This, my friends, is the essence of doomsday fear mongering. This issue affects less than one-tenth of one percent of women but is being riled up into a nationwide fear campaign that just happens to feed profits into the for-profit cancer diagnosis and treatment industry, not to mention the monopolistic human gene patenting cartels.
That's the real story of what's happening here. Don't expect to read this in the New York Times.
Corporate media refuses to mention real prevention and treatment options
As part of the breast cancer fear mongering and treatment scam now being run across the mainstream media, nearly all media sources are prohibiting any mention of holistic or natural options for treatment or prevention.
Sure, the media talks about "options," but all those options just happen to lead back to the for-profit cancer industry. As an example, read this story by ABC News, part of the lying mainstream media that misinforms women and pushes a corporate agenda:
If you do test positive for BRCA, you have options, and you don't necessarily have to go the Jolie route. Some women choose not to have surgery. Instead, they increase cancer surveillance with imaging tests. These include regular mammograms to test for breast cancer, and regular pelvic sonograms and blood-tests to watch for ovarian cancer.
Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.
Nope, the "options" being pushed by mainstream media are nothing more than mammograms, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy -- all owned and run by the for-profit cancer industry that feeds on women and exploits their bodies for profit.
Nor is their any discussion of the total scam of the "pink ribbons" cancer cure industry which is primarily focused on giving women cancer through "free mammograms." As any scientist or physicist already knows, mammograms cause cancer because they emit ionizing radiation directly into the breast and heart tissues. Get enough mammograms done and sooner or later they will detect breast cancer because they caused it! To date, 1.3 million women have been harmed by mammography.
Thanks, Angelina, for keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of women everywhere while selling out to for-profit, monopolistic, corporate interests that incessantly seek to exploit women for profit.
Photo credit: PEOPLE Magazine cover, used under Fair Use for public commentary and education.