Advertisements
Home

CDC warns of ‘large outbreak’ of measles

1 Comment

This is from The Hill.

How many more diseases will become epidemic or even pandemic?

Obama’s open borders are to blame for the rampant diseases.

 

http://media.thehill.com/services/player/bcpid2764968420001?bctid=4027374869001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEA-5AE~,7pYsU79IKz2CXW_BSQItHbG6JoyZCfQ5

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Tom Frieden on Sunday warned that the U.S. could see a “large outbreak” of measles.

“We are very concerned by the growing number of people who are susceptible to measles, and the possibility that we could have a large outbreak in this country as a result,” Frieden said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

There are at least 102 reported cases in 14 states, according to the CDC. Frieden said that the U.S. is “likely to see more cases.”

Frieden said there is “aggressive public health action” to identify those with measles, isolate those sick and quarantine those who have been exposed.

But he said the best way to prevent the spread of measles was vaccination.

Frieden said despite the U.S.’s 92 percent vaccination rate, there is growing evidence more parents are not vaccinating their children.

“What we’ve seen is, as over the last few years, a small but growing number of people, have not been vaccinated. That number is building up among young adults in society, and that makes us vulnerable,” he said.

Frieden acknowledged that some parents are concerned about the safety of vaccines, or think measles no longer exists.

“One in six kids could have a fever ten days after, but the vaccine is safe and effective. And for those parents that may think that measles is gone, it’s still here, and it can be quite serious,” he said.

Frieden also appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” urging parents to vaccinate their children.

“What you do for your own kids doesn’t just affect your family. It affects other families as well,” he said. “The more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.”

Advertisements

IF YOU WANT TO LIVE, IGNORE THE CDC

Leave a comment

This is from World Net Daily.

This is very frightening.

 

Exclusive: Dr. Richard Amerling warns government incapable of protecting citizenry.

fail

By Richard Amerling, M.D., of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

I almost feel sorry for Tom Frieden, director of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). So many of his pronouncements have been eviscerated by events within hours or days. He has become a punchline and should resign for the good of the country.

 

Unfortunately, the Ebola crisis is no joke. Two Dallas nurses (who are special people in my book) have now become infected after taking care of an Ebola-infected patient who illegally flew to the U.S. when he knew he had been heavily exposed to the deadly virus.

To maintain, as does Dr. Frieden, that stopping travel to the U.S. from the few countries where Ebola is running rampant would somehow harm us is illogical to the point of absurdity. And it is now clear to every other sentient being that Ebola is far more contagious, and deadly, than AIDS, to which Dr. Frieden compared Ebola. The latest nugget is that Amber Vinson, the second Dallas nurse diagnosed with Ebola, called the CDC numerous times before boarding her flight from Cleveland back to Dallas and was told it was OK for her to fly because her fever did not quite reach the protocolized threshold!

Michelle Malkin describes how the CDC has been diverted from its original role into one of political “transformation.” Rather than fight disease, the CDC now pushes for mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, and studies playground accidents, video games and violence, and “social norming” in schools! No wonder it can’t handle Ebola.

This perversion of an organization is par for the Obama golf course. It resembles the transformation of NASA into a Muslim outreach group, or sending our military men and women to fight Ebola in Liberia. This latter is an outrageous abuse of our already beaten-down military. There should be generals resigning over this suicide mission.

Last week, Dan Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal about “Killer Bureaucracies”: “Ebola, the Secret Service, Veterans Affairs, Obamacare’s rollout, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Behind all these names are federal bureaucracies that are supposed to protect people or help them. Instead they have been putting individuals at risk, or worse.”

It should be clear to all by now that federal bureaucracies are either too corrupt, politicized, or incompetent to fulfill their core missions. I recently learned a new acronym: POSIWID. The Purpose of Something Is What It Does. This is a useful heuristic to cut through the mission statements, and so-called good intentions of people and organizations. The purpose of bureaucracies is to continually expand their payroll, budgets, and missions to the point of becoming massive, inefficient, and deadly. The federal government is institutionally incapable of protecting the citizenry.

We will have to take care of ourselves if we want to survive. Waiting for more CDC directives and guidelines is worse than counterproductive. There were apparently many lapses in “protocol” in Dallas, including sending the infected patient’s blood samples to the lab through the hospital’s pneumatic tube system.

Individual hospitals must act now to train personnel to deal with Ebola patients. Specialized referral hospitals can and will be set up, but all hospitals must be prepared for an Ebola admission. Appropriate protective gear and respirators must be on hand, and staff trained in how to use them. The issue of waste disposal is critical and must be addressed now.

But we shouldn’t need to deal with Ebola in the U.S. The importation of this dread disease must be stopped at the border.

In the absence of a federal ban on travel from affected countries, airlines should independently refuse to fly anyone who recently visited a region where the disease is endemic. Airlines can and do perform separate screening prior to travel to the U.S. Failing to do this places their crew and passengers at risk of infection. British Airways and Air France have already instituted travel bans.

And we must insist on securing our southern border. This is perhaps the greatest failure of the federal government and places the entire country in jeopardy.


Richard Amerling, M.D., is an associate professor of clinical medicine and a renowned academic nephrologist at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City. Dr. Amerling studied medicine at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, graduating cum laude in 1981. He completed a medical residency at the New York Hospital Queens and a nephrology fellowship at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. He has written and lectured extensively on health-care issues and is president-elect of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Amerling is the author of the “Physicians’ Declaration of Independence” and is a seasoned speaker and on-air contributor
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/if-you-want-to-live-ignore-the-cdc/#4Fkf8mQLcTKucdGS.99

Ohio measles outbreak largest in USA since 1996

Leave a comment

This is from USA Today.

Just when you think you do not need one another thing to be worried about.

 

YL Measles virus

(Photo: CDC handout)

 

A measles outbreak in Ohio has reached 68 cases, giving the state the dubious distinction of having the most cases reported in any state since 1996, health officials say.

The Ohio outbreak is part of a larger worrisome picture: As of Friday, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had logged 187 cases nationwide in 2014, closing in on last year’s total of 189. CDC warned several weeks ago that the country could end up having the worst year for measles since home-grown outbreaks were eradicated in 2000.

The last time a state had more measles cases than Ohio has now was 1996, when Utah had 119, according to CDC.

The Ohio outbreak, like ongoing outbreaks in California and elsewhere, has been linked to unvaccinated travelers bringing the measles virus back from countries where the disease remains common. In Ohio, all of the cases have been among the Amish, health officials say. The outbreak began after Amish missionaries returned from the Philippines. The Philippines is experiencing a large, ongoing measles outbreak with more than 26,000 cases reported, according to CDC.

The California outbreak, also linked to the Philippines, had reached 59 cases as of Friday, according to the California Department of Public Health.

The center of the Ohio outbreak is Knox County, where 40 cases have been reported. Thousands of Amish in Knox and surrounding areas have lined up to be vaccinated, says Pam Palm, spokeswoman for the county health department. Though the Amish traditionally have low vaccination rates, “they have been very receptive to coming in and getting immunized,” to stem the outbreak, Palm says.

Some of the unvaccinated missionaries told local health officials they would have been vaccinated for measles before going to the Philippines if they had been told there was an outbreak there, Palm says: “One guy we spoke to feels just terrible that he brought the measles back and exposed his family.”

Ohio also is in the midst of a mumps outbreak of more than 300 cases. Given the outbreaks, state health officials are urging families to check vaccination records and get up to date before summer camps and gatherings begin. “Activities that bring large groups of people together can accelerate the spread of these diseases,” state epidemiologist Mary DiOrio said in a news release.

Before the measles vaccine became available in 1963, the virus infected about 500,000 Americans a year, causing 500 deaths and 48,000 hospitalizations. Case counts since 2000 have ranged from 37 in 2004 to a high of 220 in 2011, CDC says.

While most people recover from the fever, rash and other symptoms associated with measles after a few days, complications can occur, especially in children. Those complications can include ear infections and pneumonia or, more rarely, brain infection. One or two out of 1,000 children with measles will die, says CDC.

 

‘We need the iPhone of guns’: Will smart guns transform the gun industry?

1 Comment

This is from the Washington Post.

Let me think I can buy a .22 cal pistol for  $1,798 dollars plus tax for a gun and watch or I can buy a Glock.40 cal. for $600.00.

The decision is a no brainer I would buy the Glock .40 cal.

Do not get me wrong I am not putting the .22 down but if I had a choice I want the fire power of the .40 cal.

They call this gun the iPhone of guns just look at how quickly the iPhone has been comprised.

I could what “IF” you to boredom with the list of things that could cause this gun to malfunction.

 

One of California’s largest firearm stores recently added a peculiar new gun to its shelves. It requires an accessory: a black waterproof watch.

The watch’s primary purpose is not to provide accurate time, though it does. The watch makes the gun think. Electronic chips inside the gun and the watch communicate with each other. If the watch is within close reach of the gun, a light on the grip turns green. Fire away. No watch means no green light. The gun becomes a paperweight.

A dream of gun-control advocates for decades, the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun. Its introduction is seen as a landmark in efforts to reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. Proponents compare smart guns to automobile air bags — a transformative add-on that gun owners will demand. But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.

James Mitchell, the “extremely pro-gun” owner of the Oak Tree Gun Club, north of Los Angeles, isn’t one of the skeptics. His club’s firearms shop is the only outlet in the country selling the iP1. “It could revolutionize the gun industry,” Mitchell declared.

The implications of the iP1’s introduction are potentially enormous, both politically and economically. (And culturally — the gun that reads James Bond’s palm print in “Skyfall ” is no longer a futuristic plot twist.)

Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year, and at the federal level, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) also has introduced a mandate.

Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”

Even so, smart guns are potentially more palatable than other technological mandates, such as placing GPS tracking chips in guns, a controversial concept floated this session in the Maryland General Assembly.

The arrival of smart-gun technology comes amid a flurry of interest in the concept from investors who think the country — after the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and the brutal legislative battles that followed — is ready for new, innovative gun-control ideas. Last month, Ron Conway , a Silicon Valley titan and early investor in Google and Facebook, launched a $1 million X Prize-like contest for smart-gun technology.

“We need the iPhone of guns,” Conway said, noting how the new iPhone 5s can be unlocked quickly with a fingerprint. “The entrepreneur who does this right could be the Mark Zuckerberg of guns. Then the venture capitalists like me will dive in, give them capital, and we will build a multibillion-dollar gun company that makes safe, smart guns.”

A variety of approaches are in development. Armatix, the German company behind the iP1, uses RFID chips, which can be found on anti-theft tags attached to expensive clothing. Trigger­Smart, an Irish company, also uses RFID chips, though with a ring instead of a watch. The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is using sensors to recognize users’ grips and grasping behaviors. Kodiak Arms, a Utah company, is taking ­pre-orders for its Intelligun, which is unlocked with fingerprints. Other companies are using voice recognition. Yardarm, a California start-up, uses a smartphone app to notify gun owners of a weapon’s movement. Users can even remotely disable their weapons.

Smart guns, advocates say, will have huge appeal to buyers. “If you have two cars, and one has an air bag and one doesn’t, are you going to buy the one without the air bag?” said Belinda Padilla, president of Armatix’s U.S. operation. “It’s your choice, but why would you do that?”

Return of a historical relic

Personalizing or modifying handguns for safety is actually an old idea. In 1886, after D.B. Wesson, a co-founder of Smith & Wesson, heard about a child injured with a gun, the company introduced a revolver with a special lever that made the gun operational. The product became nothing more than a historical relic.

Over the years, the idea of making guns smart waxed and waned, until a serious effort began in the early 1990s. Stephen Teret, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University, commissioned undergraduate engineering students to build what turned out to be a crude smart gun activated by a ring. Later in the decade, the federal government researched smart guns to protect police officers whose weapons were taken in struggles.

In 2000, after Colt quietly worked on smart-gun technology, Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) tried and failed to pass legislation mandating smart guns in the state. His effort was lauded by President Bill Clinton, whose administration struck a deal with Smith & Wesson to research the technology. But the backlash by gun owners and the NRA against the company was brutal, and Smith & Wesson’s business tanked.

The debate then over whether the technology was ready and reliable, and whether it would actually make a difference, has turned into the current burst of interest. But some of the sharpest criticism comes from an unlikely corner — the Violence Policy Center, a staunch advocate of reducing gun violence.

Policy Center officials argue that the new technology is unlikely to stem gun homicides, which often occur between people who know each other, and that personalization will have no effect on the more than 300 million guns in circulation. The organization also questions whether the technology would deter the nearly 350,000 incidents of firearm theft per year, though some of the proposed technologies are add-ons that can be installed on existing guns.

And perhaps most important, the Violence Policy Center worries that smart guns will increase the number of firearm owners, because marketing that touts safety could sway those previously opposed to guns to make their first purchase.

“We are very skeptical of what this technology can accomplish,” said Josh Sugarmann, the organization’s executive director. “You’re really affecting a very small portion of the gun-buying public.”

Proponents of smart guns dispute the criticism. They point to studies that hint at potentially significant reductions in gun deaths, particularly high-profile ones among children. In 2010, children under 18 accounted for 98 of the 606 unintentional or accidental firearm deaths in the United States. A smart gun, proponents say, could prevent those deaths.

As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 school-related shootings found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative. A smart gun could prevent those deaths, too, advocates say.

“These guns are not going to rescue us from the 32,000 gun deaths a year,” Teret said, “but they are going to materially reduce gun deaths in the United States.”

Will they sell?

The question is: How many people will buy smart guns?

There are dueling statistics on the issue. Teret and other smart-gun proponents point to a 1997 survey showing that 71 percent of Americans — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns. Gun rights advocates, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, cite a survey the group commissioned last year showing that only 14 percent of Americans would consider buying a smart gun.

Statistics, of course, can be interpreted many ways, and at least one smart-gun entrepreneur saw the 14 percent as a positive sign. “I thought that was actually a huge number,” said Robert McNamara, co-founder of Trigger­Smart, the Irish company using RFID chips. “There is no doubt that a lot of people would buy these guns if they are available.”

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.

The chief concern for potential buyers is reliability, with 44 percent of those polled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation saying the technology would not be reliable at all. A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: “They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?”

Twenty minutes later someone responded: “You bet your life.”

Teret and others point to now-commonplace safety enhancements that Americans were skeptical about at first: air bags and smoke detectors. “They thought the air bag would kill them,” said Teret, who did early work on air-bag technology. “They thought it would shove them out the back window, that it would explode. It takes awhile to dispel these mythologies.”

Some gun rights champions are in surprising agreement with gun-control advocates on the technology’s future.

“We think the market should decide,” said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Conway, out in Silicon Valley, said: “You let the free enterprise system take over. Just like everyone opted into the iPhone and abandoned the flip phone and BlackBerry, consumers will vote with their feet. We want gun owners to feel like they are dinosaurs if they aren’t using smart guns.”

EDITORIAL: Notre Dame philosophy professor: ‘Most of us don’t have a good reason to keep guns in our homes’

Leave a comment

This is from Guns.com.

These are the types of liberal propagandist that are teaching

in our institutes of higher learning.

They have even infiltrated the elementary,junior and

senior high schools.

More reasons to homeschool your children.

 

“Should I own a gun?”

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (Photo Credit: NY Times)

                                                  Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (Photo Credit: NY Times)

 

That is the question that Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, asks in a recent New York Times opinion piece.

His conclusion to that question is, as one might expect from an academic at an elite university, pretty predictable. He writes, “Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us — including many current gun owners — don’t have a good reason to keep guns in their homes.”

He arrives at this conclusion after suggesting that “guns are dangerous” and that the net effect of owning one has the potential to create more harm than good, even if one has a firearm for the sole purpose of self-defense within the home.

“I may panic and shoot a family member coming home late, fumble around and allow an unarmed burglar to take my gun, have a cleaning or loading accident,” Gutting imagines.

He also dismisses the idea that firearms are needed to protect against a tyrannical government, noting that resistance against our military would be futile.

“Those who think there are current (or likely future) government actions in this country that would require armed resistance are living a paranoid fantasy,” he said. “The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy.”

Furthermore, he argues that hunting is now largely recreational, no longer the primary means by which a family sources food. As such, firearms don’t need to be kept at home, but can be secured elsewhere.

“Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition were securely stored away from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season,” he states. “Target shooting, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home.”

Ultimately Gutting hinges one’s Second Amendment right not on the premise of personal choice of a citizen living in a free society, but on need. Do you actually need a firearm?

He writes, “It’s easier to get people to see that they don’t want something than that they don’t have a right to it. Focusing on the need rather than the right to own a gun, many may well conclude that for them a gun is more a danger than a protection. Those fewer guns will make for a safer country.”

It’s a very seductive rhetorical approach to the debate. And quite truthfully, it’s effective. When one thinks about it, and theoretically speaking, no one really needs a gun. On a day to day basis in most parts of the country, one can function just fine without a firearm.

However, just because I don’t need a firearm, doesn’t mean I don’t want one. I want a firearm because I don’t want to be a victim. I don’t want to get mugged, raped or murdered. It’s that simple. I can live day-to-day without a gun, but should I ever find myself in a life-threatening situation, I want a firearm handy so that I stand a chance at defending myself, my family and my property.

Sure, I can carry other arms (such as knives) for self-defense, but I want the most effective tool available, which happens to be a firearm.

It should also be said that one can play the ‘need’ game with any right or privilege. I don’t really need a car, do I? After all, it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which causes global warming (allegedly), which is a threat to humanity, I can find other modes of transportation that would reduce my carbon footprint, public and private sources (metros). I can also carpool with someone else, purchase a bike or walk to where I need to go.

Likewise, people really don’t need free speech. Do we? The government can pretty much can tell us all we need to know, can’t it? People in North Korea live under a regime that imposes censorship and they’re surviving, aren’t they (a perfect example of what happens when a government determines the needs of the people vs. the people determining the needs of the government)?

Anyways, you see where I’m going with that line of reasoning. Aside from food, shelter, clothing, there’s not much a human being really ‘needs’ to live on planet earth.

I should also note that statistically speaking, guns are used more by law-abiding citizens in self-defense situations than they are used by criminals or mentally-deranged sociopaths. So, the notion that owning a firearm is a net danger or threat to the average, responsible individual is untenable.

As a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released back in June found, “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed.

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” it stated.

So, there you go. Do you need a gun? No. Should you have one? Yeah, I think so. But then again, it’s up to you to deicide, something I suppose both Gutting and I agree on.

Your thoughts?

 

CDC Data Refutes New Anti-Gun Study’s Claims

1 Comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

Facts never get in the way of the anti gun crowd.

Gun owners need to remain vigilant. 

 

Firearm-related deaths among children have decreased since the mid-1990s, but new research heralded by gun control supporters claims the opposite. A research abstract entitled United States Childhood Gun-Violence – Disturbing Trends, presented during the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference & Exhibitions by physicians Arin L. Madenci and Christopher B. Weldon, claims that from 1997 to 2009, in-hospital deaths of children resulting from gunshot wounds increased nearly 60 percent, and hospitalizations of children for gunshot wounds increased 80 percent.

Predictably, gun control advocates and their allies in the media have taken the researchers’ claims as the gospel. With its usual degree of precision, MSNBC reported that the “[n]umber of American children who have died from guns has spiked 60% in a decade.”

The study in question uses data from several editions of the Kids’ Inpatient Database(KID), which contains information on only pediatric hospitalizations. However, data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that firearm-related deaths among persons aged 0-14 years actually decreased 39 percent from 1997 to 2009, and decreased 45 percent if the trend is carried through 2010, the most recent year for which data are available.

One glaring mistake in the study’s abstract, is that it fails to stipulate what ages it includes in its definition of “children.” As longtime readers of the Alert well know, anti-gun advocates have often exaggerated the number of firearm-related deaths among children by counting deaths among juveniles and young adults ages 15-19 along with those among children. However, firearm-related deaths among all persons ages 0-19 decreased 33 percent through 2009 and 37 percent through 2010.

More importantly, the per capita rate of such deaths has decreased to an even greater extent. Among persons ages 0-14, it dropped 44 percent from 1997 to 2009, and 48 percent from 1997 to 2010, while among all persons ages 0-19 it dropped 42 percent through 2009 and 45 percent through 2010.

Some of the media coverage of Madenci and Weldon’s presentation gives the impression that accidental firearm deaths among children are a growing problem. NBC’s coverage was typical, highlighting the case of a three-year-old who died tragically after finding an unsecured firearm under his parents’ bed.

In reality, from 1997 to 2010, the rate of firearm accident deaths decreased 62 percent among children (ages 0-14), 69 percent among ages 15-17, and 62 percent among ages 18-19.

The CDC’s data show that the country is trending in the right direction and has been for some time. The fact that this trend is occurring alongside an increase in the number of privately owned firearms should help to divorce some from the notion that more guns inherently mean more gun deaths. Further, we hope that in the future, the media will be more critical when reporting research findings that conflict so profoundly with the other available data on the subject. But we won’t hold our breath.

© 2013 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

 

Wayne LaPierre: Junk science drives administration’s gun policies

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Here are more attempts to gut The Second Amendment.

There are many gun rights organisations Please  if you

are not a member become a member today.

I am providing links to some of them.  

JPFO,NRA.SAF,GOA,CCRKBA .

 

With the stroke of his royal pen, President Barack Obama declared that federal law in the form of a 17-year congressional funding ban on gun-control “research” at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was trumped by his personal decree through an executive order restoring the CDC’s junk-science agenda.

Were I to choose a single word to define this action, it would be “outlaw.” The law forbidding expenditures by CDC to promote gun control still stands. It cannot be erased by an executive order. But this is President Obama, his rule and his rules.

As with so many other Obama executive actions disregarding federal law or ignoring Congress or the courts, this one has born poisonous fruit in the form of a voluminous manifesto. In this case, it’s entitled, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearms-Related Violence.

 

Produced by the National Academy of Sciences (for the CDC), the research agenda was “supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the CDC Foundation, the California Endowment, the Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, one anonymous donor …”

Anonymous donor? New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or George Soros perhaps? After all, the deep-pocket largesse of the Joyce Foundation is the only reason the Violence Policy Center can keep its doors open.

To give you an idea of what is coming as a result of massive financial commingling of federal tax dollars, hidden billionaire donors and gun-ban foundations, let me give you a taste of the “Alice in Wonderland” world to come.

Under the heading, “Firearms-Related Violence as a Public Health Issue,” the report demands that “a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious. Recognizing this, the academic community has suggested that research examine violence much like is done for contagious diseases.”

How twisted is that? Gun ownership treated as a contagious disease.

The central purpose of the proposed “research” should be intensely alarming for all Americans who believe in the Second Amendment.

The single most dangerous “research” among the CDC findings is a demand for collection of personal, private information on all law-abiding firearm owners and our guns. In the vision of the gun control researchers, such data would form the basis of the projected “science.” Throughout the document—no, it’s a manifesto—are references to the creation of this centralized database on the “scope and motivations for gun acquisition ownership and use and how they are distributed across subpopulations.” Subpopulations? Criminals, youth and “the general population.”

Of course, the only information that can be collected and centralized will be data on the law abiding. Criminals are, after all, in the shadows.

This notion of an all-invasive, all-seeing federal database is the core of every subset of research proposed. The agenda is spiked with similar references seeking “the exact number and distribution of guns currently in homes … Basic information about gun possession, acquisition, and storage is lacking. No single database captures the total number, locations, and types of firearms and firearms owners in the United States.”

“The exact number and distribution of guns and gun types in the United States are unknown, but for each of these populations, it would be valuable to have counts of total guns owned, their attributes [i.e., general type, caliber, firing mechanism], how the guns were acquired [i.e., purchased, received as a gift, traded for, stolen, etc.] and information on the sources of the guns [i.e., licensed gun dealers, friends or relatives, gun traffickers, owners of stolen guns, and so on].”

This is the worldview of gun ownership as a “public health” disease.

Want more proof of the direction of this illegal Obama effort?

If you want a simple summation of what that the new CDC “public health” newspeak means, look to the past, because when it comes to the CDC, the past is the future.

In the Jan. 4, 1994, American Medical News, Dr. Katherine Christhoff, who headed a lobbying group established by the Joyce Foundation to support and disseminate the 1990s CDC agenda, wrote:

“Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”

And at the beginning of the assault on the Second Amendment, Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the agency’s firearm guru, summed up the mindset of most CDC “firearms violence” scientists in an interview with theWashington Post saying:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes … dirty, deadly, and banned.”

Dr. Rosenberg recently lauded the president’s executive order and said that because of NRA’s long-standing support for congressional restrictions, “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.”

The CDC’s “revolutionary” mindset marked much of the so-called “research” produced by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. It was purely bogus science providing political and media fodder for promoting a whole host of gun control schemes, all under the rubric of “public health.”

Dr. Miguel Faria, a distinguished professor and neurosurgeon who served on CDC’s Injury Research Grant Review Committee from 2002 through 2005, described that “revolutionary” climate inside the CDC in a January 20, 2013, interview in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

“Suffice to say, that the work of gun control researchers in public health had a proclivity toward reaching preordained conclusions, results-oriented research that was tainted, and based on what can only be characterized as junk science. What was always the preordained conclusion? That guns were bad and had no benefits, that guns and bullets were pathogens that needed to be eradicated, or at least severely restricted from the civilian population.”

Virtually all of the “gun violence” product of the Center was so dishonest, so politically skewed, that Congress in 1997 enshrined into law a prohibition on CDC funding: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Until January 2013—and the Obama diktat—the CDC mostly obeyed that law and the restriction held.

But on the 16th of January, President Barack Obama, with his executive order, put the CDC, with its history of rabid anti-gun “research,” back in the “junk science” business. Congress be damned.

The press announcement covering the Obama decree called gun violence “a serious public health issue” saying that “a broader public health perspective is imperative,” and demanded, “continued development of gun violence prevention strategies.”

Everything in this unlawful action—in clear contravention of the congressional ban—will require older gun owners to dust off their newspeak dictionaries, and younger gun owners to learn the real and hidden meanings of this “public health” gun-ban vocabulary.

We will be hearing a lot about “intervention” and “intervention strategies.”

Think of it as Obama’s scheme to intervene in the Second Amendment. Intervene in your private possession of firearms. Intervene in your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Again, to understand where this is headed, you have to go back to the origins of the funding cutoff. Here are more bits of “scientific” medical wisdom on gun ownership by prominent public health thinkers:

Patrick O’Carroll, a CDC official involved in the “research,” wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association: “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.”

The CDC’s Rosenberg—again, the physician spearheading the guns as a public health menace effort—co-authored the agency’s Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence which recommended two public health strategies: “…allowing only police, guards, and the military to have guns, or the outright prohibition of gun ownership.”

Furthermore, he was quoted in a December 9, 1993, Rolling Stone interview explaining the goals of the CDC effort which he said, “… envisions a long term campaign … to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

From this past, expect the future to be worse. The ultimate goal of the gun ban “scientific community” is to make the “gun ownership is a disease” mantra into politically settled science.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/18/wayne-lapierre-junk-science-drives-administrations-gun-policies/#ixzz2iTLzGdLX

 

 

California: Soon to be First State to Impose Full Ban on Lead Bullets

1 Comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

How long before the EPA pushes for a nation wide lead ban?

In Kalifornia the inmates are running the asylum.

 

 

California is on the verge of becoming the first state to impose a full ban on hunting with lead bullets — with environmentalists and gun-rights advocates squaring off as Gov. Jerry Brown decides whether to sign the legislation.

The state already has a ban on lead-bullet hunting in eight counties with an endangered condor population. But the new proposal, overwhelmingly approved this month by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, would impose a statewide ban on all hunting. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has until Oct. 12 to decide whether to sign the legislation, which would not be fully implemented for at least several years.

Environmentalists and other supporters have broadened their argument beyond protecting the prehistoric condor bird, saying the lead bullets, and the left-behind lead fragments on which animals feed, are making their way into the country’s edible meat supply. And they point to a 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and the North Dakota Department of Public Health that concluded lead is so prevalent in meat harvested through hunting that pregnant women and children should never eat it.

“There is no safe level of lead for human consumption,” said bill sponsor and state Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, a Los Angeles-area Democrat. READ MORE HERE
Read more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/09/california-soon-first-state-impose-full-ban-lead-bullets/#zQIXk0Iuib7FXUTV.99

 

Huff Po: More People Die From Drug Overdoses Than From Guns, Cars

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Why is the Huffing and Puffington Post printing this?

 

Another issue no one seems to be talking about (via the Huffington Post):

According to the latest available data from the Centers for Disease Controldrug overdoses were responsible for 38,329 deaths in 201030,006 of which were unintentional.That’s a rate of 105 every day, and that number doesn’t take into account the 6,748 people treated every day for the misuse or abuse of drugs.

In comparison, traffic accidents were responsible for 33,687 deaths in 2010. Firearms killed 31,672 people, and 26,852 died as a result of falling.

The overdose epidemic is not a new phenomenon. The CDC reports that drug overdose death rates have risen steadily since 1992, seeing a 102 percent increase from 1999 to 2010. Drug overdose deaths first overtook traffic deaths in 2009 and continued to grow the subsequent year. Preliminary CDC estimates for 2011 suggest the trend has continued, though the report notes that the final number of overdose deaths may well be higher than the initial reported numbers, due to delays pending investigation of the cause of death.

Be sure to read the whole thing here.

 

Obama’s Executive Ordered Study Report On Gun Violence Slaps Him In The Face

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

The Obama regime will ignore this study.

The data in this study does not fit the template of  the regimes

gun grabbing agenda.

This study will see little or no coverage by the Obama Media.

 

By Tim Brown, July 5, 2013
Article Source

 

If you recall, back on January 16, 2013, standing with little children, Barack Hussein Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people and issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. Among those was number 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Well friends, that study did happen and it destroyed Obama’s position on guns and gun violence.

Well like all things in government, the people tasked with the study simply directed the study to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. However, many people have not heard about the report. Could it be that much of the information in the report didn’t quite “jive” with Obama and the anti-gun crowd?

Actually, that’s exactly what it did. In fact, not only did they not hold any water for Obama’s claims regarding gun violence, it poured it on him, pretty much backing every Second Amendment lover’s argument that has been made.

The report, titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence, which identifies the particular topics of gun violence to be researched over the next few years, made the point that the majority of deaths that take place annually by the use of a firearm are not related to crime, but to suicide.

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States,” reads the study.

That’s obviously not a good thing. However, it indicates that many Americans suffer from both a spiritual and mental health issue. With that said, let’s not then run to government to deal with mental health issues. I’ve warned before and I’ll warn you now: That would be a very bad move.

Here’s the great news in the report though. It points out that virtually every study which “assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” discovered the same thing. Those using their guns for self-defense “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Oh and remember how we’ve been told by the Obama administration and the socialist gun grabbers that guns aren’t used that often in self-defense? Well, the report shows that isn’t true either.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”

Yeah, not as uncommon as the propagandists would have us believe.

In all fairness, the report does point out that “some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).”

July 2013

While the report does maintain that this will always be a controversy in the field, the study does state that “the estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys,” while the “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim,” reads the report.

The report does have a downside. It indicates that we have the most firearm related deaths of any western nation. However, the good news is that the study claims that is rapidly declining.

“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” However, “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.”

Additionally, the report goes on to inform about other declines. “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report continues, adding that accidental shootings were declining as well.

The report also states that “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

While everyone recognizes that there will always be crime and violence and yes, even gun violence, the fact of the matter is that gun control is not the answer, except to make sure you control your own gun and hit your target. For sure there will be more data added as the study continues, but already what they do have from the past indicates something that is completely opposite from what this administration has presented and there is no doubt that any information that comes out of the study will be thoroughly scrutinized.

The report also referenced video game violence to see how it might contribute to gun violence, but said that more research would need to be done and no research to the present has been conclusive.

Anyone wondering why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein aren’t running to the state run media to air out this little report? It’s because they have egg on their face.

One last question that is on my mind is, how much did will this study end up costing the American taxpayer?

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: