Sunday, November 06, 2016

Congress Slips CISA Into a Budget Bill That’s Sure to Pass | WIRED

Congress Slips CISA Into a Budget Bill That’s Sure to Pass | WIRED

In a late-night session of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with much of the federal government’s funding. It now includes a version of CISA as well. Lumping CISA in with the omnibus bill further reduces any chance for debate over its surveillance-friendly provisions, or a White House veto. And the latest version actually chips away even further at the remaining personal information protections that privacy advocates had fought for in the version of the bill that passed the Senate.
“They took a bad bill, and they made it worse,” says Robyn Greene, policy counsel for the Open Technology Institute.
CISA had alarmed the privacy community by giving companies the ability to share cybersecurity information with federal agencies, including the NSA, “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” That means CISA’s information-sharing channel, ostensibly created for responding quickly to hacks and breaches, could also provide a loophole in privacy laws that enabled intelligence and law enforcement surveillance without a warrant.

H.R. 897, Zika Vector Control Act | Republican Policy Committee

H.R. 897, Zika Vector Control Act | Republican Policy Committee

The bill establishes exemptions for the following discharges containing a pesticide or pesticide residue: (1) a discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of FIFRA that is relevant to protecting water quality, if the discharge would not have occurred but for the violation or the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue contained in the discharge is greater than would have occurred without the violation; (2) storm water discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and (3) discharges regulated under NPDES of manufacturing or industrial effluent or treatment works effluent and discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including a discharge resulting from operations concerning ballast water held in ships to increase stability or vessel biofouling prevention.

Can We Trust the CDC? British Medical Journal Reveals CDC Lies About Ties to Big Pharma

Can We Trust the CDC? British Medical Journal Reveals CDC Lies About Ties to Big Pharma

Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, has published an investigative report showing how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not honest when publishing disclaimers in their studies stating that “they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”
This news does not come as a surprise to those of us in the alternative media, but it is significant that the report was published in one the world’s most respected medical journals, the British Medical Journal. Lenzer explains why this is so significant:
The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.
She goes on to quote Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:
The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.

CDC Receives Millions of Dollars in Industry Gifts and Funding

Lenzer goes on to document in her investigative report how the CDC has been receiving millions of dollars in “industry gifts and funding” since at least 1983.
Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.
Lenzer writes that in 1983 the CDC was “authorised” to accept this funding from pharmaceutical companies, and that in 1995 Congress actually passed legislation that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton “to encourage relationships between industry and the CDC.”

More Massive Conflict of Interest in Drug Industry

More Massive Conflict of Interest in Drug Industry

Former CDC Director Now President of Merck's Vaccine Unit

In the summer of 2011, Merck president Julie Gerberding said in a news interview1 that she's "very bullish on vaccines," as she recounted the various ways she helps Merck sell its products. What she didn't divulge was her motivation for leaving her job as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—an agency charged with overseeing vaccines and drug companies—and join Merck in the first place, back in January 2010.
If you don't see the enormity of the influence her former high-level ties to the CDC can have, just consider the fact that Merck makes 14 of the 17 pediatric vaccines recommended by the CDC, and 9 of the 10 recommended for adults, and while vaccine safety advocates are trying to rein in the number of vaccines given to babies, safety concerns keep falling on deaf ears. The vaccine industry is booming, and it's become quite clear that profit potential is the driving factor behind it.
One of the reasons for this is because vaccine patents do not expire like drugs do, so each vaccine adopted for widespread use has the potential to make enormous, continuous profits for decades to come. Vaccine makers also enjoy a high degree of immunity against lawsuits—and in the case of pandemic vaccines, absolute immunity—so the financial liability when something goes wrong is very low, compared to drugs.

CDC, WHO and Big Pharma: A Dangerous Network of Corruption | AntiCorruption Society

CDC, WHO and Big Pharma: A Dangerous Network of Corruption | AntiCorruption Society

CDC, WHO and Big Pharma: A Dangerous Network of Corruption

By AL Whitney © copyround 2015

Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines is acknowledged.
CorruptionUnfortunately it is very profitable for the drug industry to get the medical profession to promote vaccines to the general population. Drug companies are corporations and they do not have a duty to “do no harm”. Their only duty is to make money and “mitigate” any liability the company might be forced to deal with in a court of law. And since the Supreme Court decision in 2011, Bruecewitz versus Wyeth, they have been exempted from all liability regarding their vaccine products. It is important the public doesn’t forget this as it is very unlikely your physician or anyone who works for public health will remind you of this reality.