Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
September 11, 2011
April 13, 2011
December 20, 2009
Policing lately has been a brutal business. See for yourself but be warned, this is disturbing :
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=456210497&blogId=474666521 “The largest street gang in America”
The City of San Jose, CA is responding by testing the wearing of cameras by officers, presumably turned on and off by the officers themselves. They beat you up, Joe and Jane Public, and their punishment is to surveil you.
Calif. city’s police to wear head-mounted cameras
SAN JOSE, Calif. – San Jose police are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public.
The test using 18 patrol officers comes as citizens’ groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.
Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift.
The cameras are the size of a Bluetooth cell phone earpieces and attach by a headband above the ear.
San Jose is the first major American city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International. Taser is paying for the experiment, but the price could be high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers.
Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That’s $4 million department-wide each year.
Information from: San Jose Mercury News, http://www.sjmercury.com
Protocol No. 1
(3) It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorism…
Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could…
(4) What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?
(5) In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards, to LAW, which is the same force only disguised. I draw the conclusion that, by the law of nature, right lies in force.
MIGHT IS RIGHT
(12) Our right lies in force. The word ‘right’ is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have proof that I am stronger than you.
(14) In every State in which there is bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right –to attack by right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation…
(15) Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.
(16) Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good….The result justifies the means. Let us direct our attention to..not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.
(18) In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand…
(20) A people left to itself, i.e., to upstarts from its midst, brings itself to ruin…
WE ARE DESPOTS
(22) Behold the alcoholic animals, bemused with drink…
It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the GOYIM are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid…
(23) Our counter-sign is Force and Make-believe…
Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule…This evil is the one and only means to attain the end, the good.
Therefore, we must not stop…
(24) Our State…has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory sentences of death, necessary to maintain the terror which tends to produce blind submission….we must keep the program of violence and make-believe.
WE SHALL END LIBERTY
TASER INTERNATIONAL INC. www.taser.com ; http://www.answers.com/topic/taser-international-inc Scottsdale AZ
Richard H. Carmona (US Surgeon Gen.) http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-160485472.html , Board of Dir.
Mark W. Kroll http://people.forbes.com/profile/mark-w-kroll/39056, Board of Dir.
Judy Martz http://people.forbes.com/profile/judy-martz/76687 Board of Dir.
Bruce R. Culver http://people.forbes.com/profile/bruce-r-culver/76684 Board of Dir.
October 4, 2009
Quarantine is “old medicine” reinvigorated for our times because “novel pathogens, both deliberate and newly emerging, may not be amenable to existing modern countermeasures..” . According to this policy report created by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS, Homeland Security), we live in “a time that has witnessed almost twenty new diseases in two decades [1980-2000] and the deliberate release of Bacillus anthracis through the mail”. http://www.birdflumanual.com/resources/Official_Pandemic_Plans/files/Quarantine%20Guidelines%20CSIS%202Nov2005.pdf
In the history of the United States, public health measures were matters for individual states with the federal government adopting a support role by a formal request for assistance, codified in 1824 by a landmark Supreme Court case, Gibbons v. Ogden. “The Court held that ‘the completely internal commerce of a State..may be considered as reserved for the State itself’ [and] that under the Constitution ‘states are [therefore] able to pass inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state’.” In the decades that followed, however, new diseases like yellow fever and cholera strained at the meager resources of pioneer towns and unprepared officials.
In 1878, during a major spread of yellow fever up the Mississippi Valley that claimed 20,000 lives, Congress passed the National Quarantine Act that empowered the Marine Hospital Service (MHS) to dispatch health officers and materiel to any needed area. The Surgeon General of the time, John Maynard Woodworth, is described as having “ambitious goals for the MHS..to provide health services to the entire nation”. http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/525/vanderhook2.html The Marine Hospital Service had been chartered 80 years previously in 1798 as the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, funded by a tax on sailors’ salaries, long noted as vectors for the spread of illness dating back to the Black Plague of 1347 when the first quarantine was imposed on ships in Venice, Italy.
The National Quarantine Act of 1878 strengthened US government power to regulate immigration, granted in 1875, which was formerly a right of the states. (US Supreme Court, California case ‘Chy Lung v. Freeman et. al’). Over the next 22 years federal authority was bolstered by a series of legislation designed to exclude undesirable immigrants and impose interstate quarantines until a turning point was reached for the consolidation of federal public health powers in 1900 with a return of the Black Death. It was far from the first time that plague had circulated in America, but the difference was in newly acquired facilities and agencies developed in the intervening years since 1878.
During an outbreak of smallpox in 1895 in Eagle Pass, Texas, MHS physician Milton J. Rosenau was appointed by the Surgeon General to manage a ‘sanitary cordon’ with 20 guardsmen to prevent a group of 300 itinerants from infecting the townspeople. Milton Rosenau was soon appointed as the chief of the new U.S. Hygienic Laboratory, becoming its second director in 1899. The initial director appointed in 1898, Joseph Kinyoun, was the first responder to an outbreak of plague in San Francisco’s Chinatown. He called upon his associate Milton Rosenau*, to bring a 2-man team to manage the crisis; Simon Flexner** and Llewelys Barker. The entire event was fiercely controversial and lasted for several years. The city of S.F. was undergoing intense political turmoil at the onset and the threat of plague, spread widely by stories in national newspapers, dealt a devastating blow to the state’s economy, eventually unseating its governor who claimed all along that the proofs of plague were unfounded.
Two years before the outbreak in 1898, the Marine Hospital Service and its reigning Surgeon General Wyman, had lost a major bid for federalization at the hands of states-rights defenders, but from 1901 onward the federal government had the power to “enforce quarantines without deference to state health laws”. The record of dissent against this power remains in the arguments raised in 1878: “that such power would interfere with fundamental states’ rights…the power to control quarantine is, in essence, the ability to control the threats visited upon one’s own body…[and] would remove from cities and states the ability to protect themselves..as they saw fit and give the MHS [todays NIH] undue power: Is the General Government preparing for the mustering and maintenance of an expensive local health police –an army of sanitarians that, like locusts in the field, eat up our substance and usurp our liberties?”
*Milton J. Rosenau
-served the MHS as SanFrancisco’s quarantine officer from 1895-1898 and would have been well familiar with the socio-political climate in the years before the plague outbreak! Prior to his service in San Francisco, Rosenau was in Europe attending courses in Berlin and Vienna and advising the US consulars in Hamburg and Antwerp. During his years as the chief of the Hygienic Laboratory (1899-1909) he transformed the agency from a ‘one-man-show’ into a campus-based research facility, and continued his career (1909-1935) at Harvard where he became the chair of the new Dept. of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, Harvard’s School of Public Health.
During the Spanish Flu of 1918, Rosenau was a Navy chief supervising Boston’s Chelsea Naval Hospital, where he famously attempted to infect ‘volunteer’ sailors, released from detention, with the mucous of flu victims. Despite direct spraying in the face/nose/throat and subjecting the men to continual exposure in the sick wards, they did not contract the Spanish Flu. Boston was a notorious hotspot for the contagion, and the most frightful accounts emanate from the Army’s Fort Devens.
In addition to his quarantine and Naval duites, Milton Rosenau became an expert on polio and milk-pasteurization, writing “The Milk Question” in 1912. He served the Massachusetts State Board of Health from 1913 to 1922, after which he traveled to Russia and Palestine on fact-finding missions. After 1935 and his term at Harvard, Rosenau moved to the University of North Carolina where he established the School of Public Health, its dean until his death in 1946.
-previously at Johns Hopkins working with William Welch (1895-1898) and also traveling abroad on investigative medical missions, accepted a post at the University of Pennsylvania until his appointment as Director of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (RIMR) in 1903, where he served until his retirement in 1936. His most enduring medical legacy is the development of a meningitis vaccine, presumed to have been the test vaccine given to soldiers at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918 by Rockefeller administrator Frederick Gates.
On page 11 of the CSIS/bird flu manual linked above, the claim is made that “The Influenza Pandemic of 1918-19..infected a fifth of the world’s population, killing an estimated 675,000 Americans…Many of those suffering from the Spanish Flu were subjected to quarantine and isolation,…existing local quarantine stations were gradually turned over to federal control. By 1921, all quarantine stations were transferred to the federal government.” What had been a national ‘stealth’ power of public health in 1901 was functionally manifest in the aftermath of the Great Influenza and defined again in 1944 with the passage of the Public Health Services Act, passed in wartime under the administration of FDR. The US Army documents that the greatest number of influenza cases ever on record occurred in 1943-44, albeit less fatal.
But, for modern purposes, health authorities look to tuberculosis in bringing definition of the challenges inherent in disease control. “TB was once the leading cause of death in the United States…Globally, in 2003, an estimated 8.8 million people were infected and 1.75 million deaths occurred due to all forms of the disease.” Why choose TB for an example and not HIV/AIDS? The true answer may be a complex confrontation between the ‘overlapping’ definitions of “contagious” and “infectious”. TB is an aerosolized pathogen like influenza with the property of having developed multi-drug-resistant forms (MDR-TB) which “requires a minimum regimen of six months of daily drugs..[if] treatment is completed”. It has a long history of being fearful and fatal to the public resulting in quarantines, and the creation of an early NGO, the National Tuberculosis Association, which changed its name to the American Lung Association and came under the political control of the Laskers***. Modern TB patients who do not finish the entire course of drug treatment as prescribed are considered “noncompliant” and “In 1992, the US CDC found that 25 percent of all TB patients were noncompliant [and] recommended the use of quarantines to ensure treatment”.
The CDC’s euphemistic ‘guidelines’ were applied in New York City to “detained noninfectious TB patients in the Goldwater Hospital until they were cured…median length of confinement was 168 days; one patient was detained for an unprecedented 654 days [22 months]. Patients in other hospitals were only held an average for half that time” [10 or 11 months?]. Somehow and at some time, quarantine has become synonymous with forced treatment in lieu of a public perception to the contrary. Seemingly, forced treatment was not the case in the recent SARS outbreak of 2003, but forced quarantine with accompanying violence was a part of the larger picture of SARS.
Albert D. Lasker (1880-1952), considered the founder of modern advertising, was the CEO of ‘Lord and Thomas’ company for 40 years, specializing in the promotion of liquor, tobacco and food products. Lasker’s family roots in Galveston,TX and Germany generated wealth through the cotton exchange and flour-milling. Albert got a jump on a political career as well in 1917 as an assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture. Under FDR, he became an Asst. Sec. of the Navy. His friends, William ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan (OSS) and Lewis L. Strauss (Navy Admiral and chief of the Atomic Energy Commission), introduced him to his future wife Mary Woodard, a daughter of a banker who worked as a New York art buyer. The Laskers are noted for taking control of the American Cancer Society in 1944 and using a power base that included the American Heart Assoc., the American Lung Assoc. and the American Public Health Assoc. to drive national health policy. The 1946 National Mental Health Act was a key piece of legislation for the Lasker agenda, enabled by high-powered friends and insiders like Clark M. Clifford and Paul G. Hoffman. Mary Lasker worked together with Florence Mahoney and Anna Rosenberg lobbying privately in Wash,DC. The Lasker Award in medicine is presented by the foundation they established in 1942.
In the section “Quarantines Post 9/11” on page 12 (birdflumanual/CSIS) it’s stated that “most US states are ill prepared to undertake a large-scale quarantine…no large-scale quarantine has been implemented within US borders in modern day”. This is one of the many reasons, along with uncontrollable international travel and commerce, that the federal government has instead funded “international disease prevention”. Federal authority at home, however, is poised to override the actions of any state “if it is believed that a state’s actions are inadequate” and the CSIS evidently found this to be so, writing “most –if not all– states today lack operational plans”.
“Through a combination of vigilance and pure luck, the United States was able to elude a large-scale SARS outbreak” notes CSIS. What happened with SARS? Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome was an emerging infection that started in November of 2002 in Guangdong Province, China –the same region that saw China’s first influenza over a century ago. What began as a local outbreak was ‘carried’ to Hong Kong by a medical doctor who reportedly infected 12 people in his hotel who then further carried the infection into Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and Toronto, Canada. The outbreak spread to Taiwan where the highest recorded number of people were affected; 150,000 ordered into quarantine, bringing the global total near to 200,000. The undeniable element in the SARS outbreak was that medical personnel became the VECTOR.
“In Hong Kong, over 22% of those hospitalized for SARS were medical workers; in areas of Taiwan the number reached 33%; and in Toronto, 46%”!! Only in an upside-down, inside-out reality does it seem as if exposed medical workers were victims of the public, and yet sick medical workers were allowed to continue and interact with “proper equipment”. Is it not curious, with known and documented associations of vaccines causing illness, that 46% of the Toronto health workers who were hospitalized corresponds very closely to western statistics of health workers who receive regular vaccinations? Sick medical workers who were able to perform did so because “almost all response teams were severely overburdened and understaffed”, an echo of the state of stress in US Public Health labs during the 2009 spring H1N1 episode. Field tactics used during the SARS epidemic included “phone calls, house visits, electronic picture monitoring and electronic tagging of noncompliant detainees” in a variety of settings from family homes to detention camps; the same techniques being broadcast as applicable to today’s pandemic, minus other measures forecast to ensure compliance such as road-block dragnets. What is the likelihood that these measures will be used? On a return to this subject, I’ll post some examples from the news.
September 19, 2009
[The defendant, Mr. Jacobson, refused to be vaccinated (for smallpox) by the local Massachusetts authorities in 1902, offering to] “prove that vaccination ‘quite often’ caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the operation ‘occasionally’ resulted in death; that it was ‘impossible’ to tell ‘in any particular case’ what the results of vaccination would be or whther it would injure the health or result in death; that ‘quite often’ one’s blood is in a certain condition of impurity when it is not prudent or safe to vaccinate him; that there is no practical test by which to determine..whether one’s blood is in such a condition; that vaccine matter is ‘quite often’ impure and dangerous..; that the defendant refused to submit to vaccination for the reason that he had ‘when a child’ been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period of time by a disease produced by vaccination, and that he had witnessed a similar result of vaccination not only in the case of his son, but in the cases of others.”
The previous decision made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that Jacobson had not proved these offers and “the defendant did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was in fact not a fit subject of vaccination at the time he was informed of the requirement of the regulation adopted by the Board of Health”. The new decision before the U.S. Supreme Court was neither to prove or disprove the efficacy of vaccination, but to determine the right of the State to pass its own statutes of public health.
The document webpage above from Jacobson’s case records that, in the lower court trial, the “defendant refused to be vaccinated…the defendant made numerous offers of proof. But the trial court ruled that each and all of the facts offered to be proved by the defendant were immaterial, and excluded all proof of them. The defendant..asked numerous instructions to the jury, among which were the following: That ..of the Revised Law(s) of Massachusetts was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States…That the section referred to was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment…especially..of the clauses of that amendment providing that no state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens..nor deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process…nor deny to any person..equal protection of the laws…”. A verdict of guilty was returned…The case was then continued for the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. That court..sustained the action of the trial court.
[the Mass. Supreme Court..delivered the opinion]..Although the Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments…The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said in the present case: “Let us consider the offer of evidence which was made by the defendant Jacobson…which he offered to prove as to what a vaccine consists of, is nothing more than a fact of common knowledge upon which the statute is founded and proof of it was unnecessary and immaterial…his personal opinion, which could not be taken as correct..[and] could not affect the validity of the statute nor entitle him to be excepted…
The other eleven propositions all relate to alleged injurious or dangerous effects of vaccination. The defendant offered to prove or show by competent evidence these so-called facts. Each of them in its nature, is such that it cannot be stated as a truth, otherwise than as a matter of opinion. The only ‘competent evidence’ that could presented to the court..was the testimony of experts giving their opinions. It would not have been competent to introduce the medical history of individual cases. [The judges] would have considered this testimony of experts in connection with the facts, that for nearly a century most of the members of the medical profession have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive..while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual…risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits…If the defendant had been permitted to introduce such expert testimnoy as he had in support of these several propositions, it could have changed the result.. [but] would not have justified the court in holding that the legislature had transcended its power in enacting this statute.
The authority of the State to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power –a power which the State did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Consitution. [This court]..has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and “health laws of every description”… The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and therefore hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such a way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law…is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution..to every person..does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety for its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy…This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that “persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the State…”
Applying these principles to the present case…[the] authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency..was appropriate for the legislature [and] a Board of Health..because of their fitness to determine such questions…[A] community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members..[and] to affirm..the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease…[This] court recognized the right of a State to pass sanitary laws, laws for the protection of life, liberty, health or property within its limits, laws to prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, from coming within its borders….[It] was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.
An American citizen..may..be held in quarantine against his will…he may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes,..pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense..
[The vaccination] statute..makes no exception in the case of adults..[and] is equally applicable to all…The latest case upon the subject of which we are aware is Viemeister v. White, President & c., decided very recently by the Court of Appeals of New York…That case involved the validity of a statute excluding from the public schools all children who had not been vaccinated…[text 1=”judgement” 2=”included” language=”of”][/text][/text] “It must be conceded that some layman..and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive…The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of..fearful disease…While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people as well as by most members of the medical profession. It is generally accepted in theory and generally applied in practice..like common knowledge [and] does not require evidence..but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts”…The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive, for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases…practical legislation admits to no other standard…
While we do not decide and cannot decide that vaccination is a preventive.., we take judicial notice of the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the State [and] hold that the statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power.
[Justices Brewer and Peckham, dissent]
August 19, 2009
from the New York Times:
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”
Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.
(read the rest of the story) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=2