Monday, April 21, 2008
[epidemics] useful things in some hands
Only once was I gulled into having flu shots. That winter I had two bouts of severe flu, the second almost knocking the Higham into the Choir Invisible [or Furnace Stokers as the case may be.] From then on, avoiding these shots like the plague, major bouts of illness were avoided.
Interesting to see flu vaccine questioned here as well:
Might be worth looking at the great epidemics:
Concerning the current Moscow epidemic:
Inevitably, in discussing flu epidemics, the name of Heinrich Muller and the book Gestapo Chief : The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Muller, Volume 3 comes up. Here is a comment which accepts Mueller's doings as authentic and here is one which rejects them.
The book includes:
The book states he also said:
So we're left with the usual dilemma - whether to believe the sceptics or those who are convinced it is genuine. Just hearsay or genuine evidence?
Wiki says, about biological warfare:
Influenza does not appear there and the history of viral research is not clear. While it was 1939 before microscopy saw the virus, it's introduction to bacteria was known of before the 1918 cut off date, in fact since the turn of the century.
My own feeling is that it is scarcely necessary to "introduce" a virus. One only needs to create the social preconditions for it to develop. For example, the movement of Russian prisoners was sufficient for typhus to spread during the war.
From my reading, [of which a certain amount appears as blogposts], there are certain recognizable characteristics to Them. One is the fixation with untraceability, which in itself presupposes a concern for "official" innocence.
Now this has always puzzled me. Great lengths are gone to to appear legitimate, when one wonders why they'd bother - if they hold all the cards, to whom must they appear legitimate?
Reports on possible terrorists got lost in the works or rejected and this terrorist later turned up at 911. Who was culpable? No one. It was a stuff up, that's all - official incompetence. The powers that be were as pure as the driven snow.
And even if my contention were accepted, there'd not be a lot which could be done.
Interesting to see flu vaccine questioned here as well:
What’s gone wrong with the vaccine then? According to the times, what makes it so hard for a vaccine to effectively prevent the flu is that the virus changes from year to year and experts would have to GUESS what forms of virus will be circulating for the next flu season based on the current year. Based on the guesstimation, experts formulate a vaccine to protect against those targeted strains. The newspaper goes on to explain usually the experts' guess work is pretty good and make the vaccine's efficacy at 70 to 90 percent in healthy adults. But this year they guessed it wrong and made many recipients miserable.
Might be worth looking at the great epidemics:
World War I claimed an estimated 16 million lives. The influenza epidemic that swept the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. One fifth of the world's population was attacked by this deadly virus. Within months, it had killed more people than any other illness in recorded history.
Concerning the current Moscow epidemic:
Doctors consider vaccination to be the most effective means of fighting flu, and schools regularly run vaccination programs. Adults can be inoculated year round at GPs' clinics or polikliniky. Modern vaccines contain no live viruses and so are considered safe but are only effective if boosted annually.
Inevitably, in discussing flu epidemics, the name of Heinrich Muller and the book Gestapo Chief : The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Muller, Volume 3 comes up. Here is a comment which accepts Mueller's doings as authentic and here is one which rejects them.
The book includes:
The interrogator, James Kronthal, the CIA Bern Station Chief asked Mueller to explain "double blow virus."
Mueller: "I am not a doctor, you understand, but the 'double-blow' referred to a virus, or actually a pair of them that worked like a prize fighter. The first blow attacked the immune system and made the victim susceptible, fatally so, to the second blow which was a form of pneumonia...[Schreiber told me] a British scientist actually developed it...Now you see why such things are insanity. These things can alter themselves and what starts out as a limited thing can change into something really terrible." [p106]
The book states he also said:
"If Stalin invades Europe...a little disease here and there would wipe out Stalin's hoards and leave everything intact. Besides, a small bottle of germs is so much cheaper than an atom bomb, isn't it? Why you could hold more soldiers in your hand than Stalin could possibly command and you don’t have to feed them clothes them or supply them with munitions. On the other hand, the threat of war...does wonders... for the economy." [p108]
So we're left with the usual dilemma - whether to believe the sceptics or those who are convinced it is genuine. Just hearsay or genuine evidence?
Wiki says, about biological warfare:
Diseases considered for weaponization, or known to be weaponized include anthrax (TR), ebola, Marburg virus, plague (LE), cholera (HO), tularemia (SR & JT), brucellosis (US, AB, & AM), Q fever (OU), machupo, Coccidioides mycosis (OC), Glanders (LA), Melioidosis (HI), Shigella (Y), Rocky Mountain spotted fever(UY), typhus (YE), Psittacosis(SI), yellow fever (UT), Japanese B encephalitis (AN), Rift Valley fever (FA), and smallpox (ZL)[13]. Naturally-occurring toxins that can be used as weapons include ricin (WA), SEB (UC), botulism toxin (XR), saxitoxin (TZ), and many mycotoxins.
Influenza does not appear there and the history of viral research is not clear. While it was 1939 before microscopy saw the virus, it's introduction to bacteria was known of before the 1918 cut off date, in fact since the turn of the century.
My own feeling is that it is scarcely necessary to "introduce" a virus. One only needs to create the social preconditions for it to develop. For example, the movement of Russian prisoners was sufficient for typhus to spread during the war.
From my reading, [of which a certain amount appears as blogposts], there are certain recognizable characteristics to Them. One is the fixation with untraceability, which in itself presupposes a concern for "official" innocence.
Now this has always puzzled me. Great lengths are gone to to appear legitimate, when one wonders why they'd bother - if they hold all the cards, to whom must they appear legitimate?
Reports on possible terrorists got lost in the works or rejected and this terrorist later turned up at 911. Who was culpable? No one. It was a stuff up, that's all - official incompetence. The powers that be were as pure as the driven snow.
And even if my contention were accepted, there'd not be a lot which could be done.
[apostasy] mortal or venial sin?
The question of becoming Muslim has been on my mind recently for personal reasons but there is the huge barrier of "apostasy" to overcome.
The Muslim idea is that Islam is the next step after Christianity and so to then revert, once there, is a backward step. They are true to their faith, the Muslims, so I have no problem with this view.
The more I read and learn about Islam, the more I realize the extremists are unjustified.
Just as the Crusades had about as much to do with Christianity as Beelzebub - what, they wore a big red cross, did they - so 911, Bali and Beslan also had about as much to do with the way the faith should be followed as Beelzebub.
Interesting article on Muslim apostasy:
So what about the other way - the Christian who reverts once he's accepted the redeeming power of Jesus of Nazareth?
Here we get into the area of the Holy Spirit. The theory is that you become Christian the moment you do two things - believe in that redeeming power [which entails accepting the Trinity] and then live a life as close to that expressed in the Sermon on the Mount as well as you can.
That's basically it.
The Trinity is the Father, the Logos [or Word] and the Spirit - the latter the least understood of them all. Without getting bogged down in theology, this is the day-to-day "force" which enters you at the point of acceptance and then directs your conscience, provides protection and comfort and generally does cool things inside you.
So what happens if you go back on this force and do dirt on it?
Well, the Catholics [of which I am not one, as I don't accept the middle-man status of the priest between my Maker and me and don't elevate Mary to a status of worship*] probably put it the most clearly:
So, what is a "grave" matter? One of these is blasphemy against the spirit, a troubling passage in Christian scripture. Again the Catholics say of this:
So, in a nutshell, the whole point of this is to once accept the "grace of G-d" but then to deliberately reject it at a later time. Whether you could then turn around once again and accept it a second time I have absolutely no idea.
Also, what of the atheist?
Well, though he's not going to share in any "heaven" by virtue of his non-belief, he still has every chance of redemption until the point of death. And my reading of this theology would put the ordinary agnostic or atheist in one category but Richard Dawkins, who goes out of his way to prevent people finding the connection with their Maker, would be in the mortal sin category and heading for a warm reception once he karks it.
Saul is an interesting point of discussion on this. He was clearly out to destroy on the road to Damascus but then seemingly still managed to come back from that.
An apostate though is another matter.
He is one who has deliberately turned his back on the redemptive power and therefore the connection with his Maker, once he has actually experienced it. Once you've actually experienced this high, you'd know what I mean when I say to then turn your back on this would not endear you.
An analogy would be anyone who accepts you as his/her life partner but then "trades you in" for another. Bit difficult to forgive, that would be.
A more spurious analogy is that of the PC user with Windows XP who sees the light and converts to MacOSX, experiences the superior technology and sheer elegance of the Mac, then turns round and goes back to bl--dy Vista or some such.
What an apostate. :)
So where does becoming a Muslim fit into this? If Islam is truly an extension of Christianity, then there is no conflict. But if it is not so, then the apostate ex-Christian is in trouble.
And the ex-Muslim?
Well, as a Muslim is one who submits to the one G-d and as Christians accept the one G-d, is the Muslim-Christian apostate or not? What if his motivation was a genuine desire to get closer to his G-d?
I'm personally in no position to give you any answers on these matters, still being a student at the University of Life.
* The point above about Catholics elevating Mary to "worship" status. Of course Catholics say they don't do this - they simply "venerate" Mary and if this were so, then there is really little between Catholic and Protestant theologically, except on the middle-man status of the confessional.
The Muslim idea is that Islam is the next step after Christianity and so to then revert, once there, is a backward step. They are true to their faith, the Muslims, so I have no problem with this view.
The more I read and learn about Islam, the more I realize the extremists are unjustified.
Just as the Crusades had about as much to do with Christianity as Beelzebub - what, they wore a big red cross, did they - so 911, Bali and Beslan also had about as much to do with the way the faith should be followed as Beelzebub.
Interesting article on Muslim apostasy:
Last week, British teacher Daud Hassan Ali, 64, was shot dead in Somalia. His widow, Margaret Ali, said her husband was targeted by Islamists who "believe it is ok to kill any man who was born into Islam and left the faith".Those renouncing their faith for atheism or agnosticism are viewed in a similar way to those who adopt another faith.
A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy. Until recently, I would have shared that view, but since personally rejecting extremism myself, I've been re-examining the issues which I once regarded as conclusive.
I was staggered to learn that the Quran does not say anything about punishing apostates and that its proponents use two hadiths instead to support their view. Hadiths are the recorded traditions and sayings of the Prophet which, in addition to the Quran, provide an additional source of Islamic law.
The hadiths which relate to apostasy are linguistically ambiguous and open to interpretation. Distinguished scholars told me that the hadiths actually speak about a death penalty for treason, not apostasy. And even then, they stressed the punishment is discretionary.
Dr Hisham Hellyer is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies at University of Oxford, and has researched classical Islamic law. He believes the death penalty punishment is no longer applicable and should be suspended under certain circumstances.
Usama Hassan, a Cambridge-educated scientist and an imam, goes further and says the classical scholars were wrong in how they interpreted the Quran. He is unequivocal in denouncing those who advocate the death penalty.
So what about the other way - the Christian who reverts once he's accepted the redeeming power of Jesus of Nazareth?
Here we get into the area of the Holy Spirit. The theory is that you become Christian the moment you do two things - believe in that redeeming power [which entails accepting the Trinity] and then live a life as close to that expressed in the Sermon on the Mount as well as you can.
That's basically it.
The Trinity is the Father, the Logos [or Word] and the Spirit - the latter the least understood of them all. Without getting bogged down in theology, this is the day-to-day "force" which enters you at the point of acceptance and then directs your conscience, provides protection and comfort and generally does cool things inside you.
So what happens if you go back on this force and do dirt on it?
Well, the Catholics [of which I am not one, as I don't accept the middle-man status of the priest between my Maker and me and don't elevate Mary to a status of worship*] probably put it the most clearly:
Q. What is the difference between a mortal sin and a venial sin?A. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must exist at the same time.
1. It must be of a grave matter;
2. It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin;
3. It must be committed with full consent.
So, what is a "grave" matter? One of these is blasphemy against the spirit, a troubling passage in Christian scripture. Again the Catholics say of this:
"Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss." (C.C.C. # 1864)
So, in a nutshell, the whole point of this is to once accept the "grace of G-d" but then to deliberately reject it at a later time. Whether you could then turn around once again and accept it a second time I have absolutely no idea.
Also, what of the atheist?
Well, though he's not going to share in any "heaven" by virtue of his non-belief, he still has every chance of redemption until the point of death. And my reading of this theology would put the ordinary agnostic or atheist in one category but Richard Dawkins, who goes out of his way to prevent people finding the connection with their Maker, would be in the mortal sin category and heading for a warm reception once he karks it.
Saul is an interesting point of discussion on this. He was clearly out to destroy on the road to Damascus but then seemingly still managed to come back from that.
An apostate though is another matter.
He is one who has deliberately turned his back on the redemptive power and therefore the connection with his Maker, once he has actually experienced it. Once you've actually experienced this high, you'd know what I mean when I say to then turn your back on this would not endear you.
An analogy would be anyone who accepts you as his/her life partner but then "trades you in" for another. Bit difficult to forgive, that would be.
A more spurious analogy is that of the PC user with Windows XP who sees the light and converts to MacOSX, experiences the superior technology and sheer elegance of the Mac, then turns round and goes back to bl--dy Vista or some such.
What an apostate. :)
So where does becoming a Muslim fit into this? If Islam is truly an extension of Christianity, then there is no conflict. But if it is not so, then the apostate ex-Christian is in trouble.
And the ex-Muslim?
Well, as a Muslim is one who submits to the one G-d and as Christians accept the one G-d, is the Muslim-Christian apostate or not? What if his motivation was a genuine desire to get closer to his G-d?
I'm personally in no position to give you any answers on these matters, still being a student at the University of Life.
* The point above about Catholics elevating Mary to "worship" status. Of course Catholics say they don't do this - they simply "venerate" Mary and if this were so, then there is really little between Catholic and Protestant theologically, except on the middle-man status of the confessional.
[daniel morecambe] another sad case
Sunday, April 20, 2008
[thought for the day] sunday evening
Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's awfully hard to get it back in.
[H.R. Haldeman - philanthropist]
Thought for the day is a bit earlier today as the Higham has a little meeting later.
[politics 101] a glance at egypt
Egypt and Saudi are key players in the Middle-East, of that there is no doubt. Mubarak in Egypt is now 80 and can't go on forever, let alone the troubles he is facing.
Egypt is one of few reasonably secular regimes, i.e. ones the west can deal with, in the ME, American trade stands at $US8bn and the regime, as with Anwar Sadat in latter years, has not been violently anti-west. The Egyptians see the U.S. aid, not as aid but as payback for what they themselves have suffered:
So American insistence on "human rights" and democracy as tied to an earmarked aid package receives a cool reception in Cairo. Truth is that Egypt has real problems at grass roots level with the huge under 25 male population. Not to put too fine a point on it, radical Islam appeals to youth:
So it's a juggling act all round and with Mubarak not so far from departure. A fundamentalist regime in Cairo would be a major turning point in the delicate balance which has so far averted all out conflagration in the region.
This blogger believes there are cogent reasons why the power behind the western regimes, far from being averse to conflagration, is either courting it through its policies or is sadly inept. A closer look at Blackwater's operations certainly raises eyebrows, although perhaps Adriana Huffington is not the most reliable source.
Egypt is one of few reasonably secular regimes, i.e. ones the west can deal with, in the ME, American trade stands at $US8bn and the regime, as with Anwar Sadat in latter years, has not been violently anti-west. The Egyptians see the U.S. aid, not as aid but as payback for what they themselves have suffered:
Mubarak complains that this aid is not benevolence on behalf of the Americans; it is living up to commitments made to his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, during the era of president Jimmy Carter. When Egypt signed the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978, it got expelled from the Arab League (which it had co-founded during World War II) and was completely isolated within the Arab world.
It then stuck out its neck for the Americans - again - during the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 and after the September 11, 2001, attacks when it shared intelligence on al-Qaeda, and suppressed Egyptian Islamists. And what do they get instead? Israeli espionage on Egyptian territory, where in 2007, a man was accused of stealing documents from the Egyptian Atomic Energy Agency and passing them on to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence.
So American insistence on "human rights" and democracy as tied to an earmarked aid package receives a cool reception in Cairo. Truth is that Egypt has real problems at grass roots level with the huge under 25 male population. Not to put too fine a point on it, radical Islam appeals to youth:
Previously, it was popular only with the urban poor. It has now infiltrated high society and is equally popular with the Egyptian rich. Although outlawed, the Muslim Brotherhood is well-grounded at a grassroot level and is manipulating the increase in the price of bread, which has captured nearly 30 million Egyptians by the throat. To avert a showdown and fearing the wrath both of the Brotherhood and labor unions, the government continues to subsidize food with $13.7 billion.
Greater democracy after all would only empower the Islamists, as it did with Hamas (a branch of the Egyptian Brotherhood)in Palestine. They argue that the money going to Cairo is not spent on strangers, since most of it goes to buying arms and technology from the United States.
So it's a juggling act all round and with Mubarak not so far from departure. A fundamentalist regime in Cairo would be a major turning point in the delicate balance which has so far averted all out conflagration in the region.
This blogger believes there are cogent reasons why the power behind the western regimes, far from being averse to conflagration, is either courting it through its policies or is sadly inept. A closer look at Blackwater's operations certainly raises eyebrows, although perhaps Adriana Huffington is not the most reliable source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)