2010年11月15日月曜日

A flu season in this year is going to start soon. Be careful of Vaccine!!


 A flu season in this year is going to start soon...And it seems that their strategy in this year is "Being in silence to the flu." Coz they seem to have learned making a fuss excessively brings about doubt for the vaccine...


Btw In Japan, some people vaccinated against the flu, but caught the flu, and took dangerous "Tamiflu". But then, they died...





"Vaccination Link To H3N2 Death Cluster In Japan Hospital?"


Recombinomics Commentary 13:22
November 7, 2010
25 patients and 8 staffs are suffering from influenza now

29 Oct., vaccinated against the flu
31 Oct., a man died(eighties)
2 Nov., 2 men died(sixties, nineties) a woman died(seventies)
4 Nov., a woman died(eighties)
5 Nov., a man died(eighties)

The above comments provide more detail on the H3N2 outbreak in a hospital in Akita, Japan that killed six patients in six days.  These patients had been vaccinated days prior to the deaths raising concerns that the timing of the vaccinations may have contributed to the fatal outcomes.

(Read more)

http://www.recombinomics.com/News/11071001/H3N2_Akita_Vaccine.html


Well, Dr. Mercola warns people not to take a vaccine, even if doctor recommends it.


"Don't Give This to Your Daughter - Despite What Your Doctor Says"

Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 05 2010 | 210,758 views
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/05/gardasil-vaccine-is-a-flop-for-good-reasons.aspx

It's been four years since Gardasil debuted as a blockbuster vaccine with sales that rocketed to over $1.1 billion in its first nine months. Touted as a wonder vaccine that would end cervical cancer, it was supposed to be the savior of both mankind and Merck's Vioxx-damaged bottom line. But now, according to CNN Money, it's a dud.
It just posted $219 million in sales. But in the pharma world, that's a paltry pittance, nothing short of an in-flight explosion that's caused Merck stock to drop 3 percent, with analysts and investors scrambling to figure out what went wrong.


So what happened?
How did a vaccine that was supposed to be Merck's beacon for higher profits in the 21st Century go from flagship to flop?

The Science Speaks for Itself

CNN Money calls Gardasil's crash a "design flaw" and faults the economy, puritanical parents, bad press, and Merck itself for contributing to the fallout.
The article ends with the hypothesis: "Or, maybe people just aren't ready for a cancer vaccine when it's for a sexually transmitted disease."
I think they're way off the mark.
The real reason Gardasil is a flop is that people have become educated about this vaccine.
They've looked at the science and weighed the risks vs. the supposed benefits, and have made a choice not to get it for themselves or their children.
The word is out: despite what the CDC would have you believe, Gardasil's safety record is in serious question. As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths.
As a vaccine used in the developed world, the science speaks for itself: Gardasil can't – and never will -- replace Pap smears, which are the reason that the incidence of cervical cancer is so low in the United States after decades of including pap smears in routine medical care for women.
Today, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year.
As a vaccine for children, it doesn't make sense to vaccinate to try to prevent an infection that is cleared from your body without any negative effects within two years in most healthy persons, and is not transmitted in a school setting like other airborne diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded conditions.
Gardasil is designed to prevent only two of at least 15 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in those who do not clear the virus from their body within two years and become chronically infected.
There is also some evidence that Gardasil-induced immunity may wane after about five years. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to find out if the vaccine does, in fact, prevent cervical cancer.
What went wrong with Gardasil is that this may be a vaccine that set many more health care consumers on a course of self-education that helped them make an informed decision about whether or not to take it – and there are several good reasons why many are deciding NOT to take it.

Science vs. Politics

First, the science: Peer-reviewed journal articles widely available on the Internet show that Gardasil is not what it was made out to be in the "one-less" TV commercials that jumped into people's living rooms a few years ago.
Consumers now know that:
  • Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is simply a vaccine for two strains of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) that in some instances can lead to cancer in some women (Gardasil's other two HPV strains are for genital warts, which don't cause cancer).
  • Since there are at least 15 HPV strains that can lead to cancer, Gardasil-vaccinated girls can still get cervical cancer from other 13 HPV strains not contained in the vaccine.
  • The vaccine doesn't work if you've already been infected with the HPV strains in the vaccine.
But the politics of this information is that you won't hear it or read it in the mainstream press. Instead, what you get is a repetition of the politically charged mantra that parents don't want their young daughters or sons to get a vaccine associated with sexual behaviors, and complaints about the vaccine's high cost.
However, the real truth is that Gardasil's downfall has nothing to do with sex or money.

The Truth about HPV and Cancer

It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.
HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.
Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:
  • Smoking
  • Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
  • Long term birth control use
  • Multiple births
In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.
The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.
Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.
Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.
Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to CervicalCancerCampaign.org:
"Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.
  • Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women".
These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.
Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.
About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.
According to the CDC's report on HPV to Congress in 2004:
"Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.
The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent."
A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.

The Truth About Gardasil

According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline's two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.
According to Merck's package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine's efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).
There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.
In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil's protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.
And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.
Additionally, according to the manufacturer's package insert:
  • Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening
  • It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers
  • And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees
An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on  other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.
The "replacement" effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.

The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials

Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine's series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a "reminder" program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.
CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine's high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.
But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions  girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.
In any drug trial, whether it's for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil's safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.
But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the "placebo."
Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing "placebo" to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.
Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.
When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the "placebo" results nearly the same as the vaccine's – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.
This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is "safe" because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing " placebo."
Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.
A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.
This could be critical information in determining the vaccine's true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.

The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths

The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.
Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Gardasil was a "fast tracked" vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.
These  tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn't right with this vaccine – and what isn't right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.
The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a "coincidence."
And now, since those adverse reactions aren't listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.
For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more "did not recover" reports; and 7 times more "disabled" reports.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.
What's disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can't follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.
As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!

Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?

An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck's marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:
"When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit," the JAMA author said.
"Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.
"The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly."
The commentary is so poignant that it's a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn't' picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.
The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?
It's apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.
What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.
And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

Don't sit this one out! We need to take action NOW.
Tell your friends and your family. Tell everyone. With a little bit of effort, we can make big strides toward preserving our freedom to make voluntary health decisions affecting our future, especially our children's future.
One of the top goals for NVIC is preserving your freedom of choice about when to use vaccines. This non-profit charity has been fighting for your right to make informed VOLUNTARY vaccine choices since 1982.
Mercola.com and NVIC are dedicating Nov. 1-6, 2010 Vaccine Awareness Week in a joint effort to raise public awareness about important vaccine issues.
Vaccine Awareness Week will feature a series of articles and interviews on vaccine topics of interest to Mercola.com newsletter subscribers and NVIC Vacine E-newsletter readers.
During this Vaccine Awareness Week, NVIC is also launching the online NVIC Advocacy Portal that will give you the tools you need to take action to protect legal medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination in YOUR state.
Please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at www.NVICadvocacy.org TODAY!
And while you are at it, please make a donation to NVIC so they can continue fighting on behalf of all Americans to make sure we don't lose our informed consent rights when it comes to vaccination.
Your Donations to the NVIC help fund efforts that raise vaccine awareness, including the following excellent vaccine resources:
For information about legally avoiding immunizations in Canada, please see the Canadian Vaccination Liberation website 
www.vaclib.org.

Stay tuned to this newsletter for more updates, or follow the National Vaccine Information Center on Facebook. Together we CAN make a difference!


2010年10月29日金曜日

ビンラディンおじさんも温暖化問題に参戦 !?

Osama bin Laden concerned about climate

OSAMA bin Laden believes climate change is more damaging than war.
An audio recording attributed to the al-Qaeda leader and broadcast on the internet yesterday expresses concern about the devastating floods in Pakistan and calls on Muslims to provide relief for the victims."The number of victims caused by climate change is very big... bigger than the victims of wars," says the recording.If genuine, the recording would be Bin Laden's first since March 25.
温暖化脅威論者がビンラディンにあやかって強硬手段にでたのかな??? ビンラディンでも駄目なら今度は宇宙人にでも協力してもらうのでしょうかね...。

そういえばイラン大統領が先日の国連会議でまたしても911はアメリカ政府の関与があったと発言していましたが...。




以前は911テロはアフガニスタンに侵攻し対テロ戦争のためのセットアップ(ヤラセ)であるとも言っている...。




アメリカの911truther(真実探求者)の間ではアフマデネジャド大統領はヒーローのような存在になっているようです。

またアメリカでは毎年911真実探求会議や催しが開かれているようです。建築家なども参加し、WTCの奇妙な崩壊の原因を建築学的に解明したりと様々な分野の専門家も疑問を投げかけています。

911真相究明会議の様子


今年の911 inside job movement



あのハリウッドスターチャーリーシーンも疑問を投げかけています。



ハリウッド映画プロディーサーで有名だった故アーロン・ルッソは911が起きることを事前にニック・ロックフェラーから聞いていたようです。
またウーマン・リブ(女性の社会進出)や民主主義の目的なども語っています。





またデンマークのニュースでも911の政府による公式見解の疑いを報道している。


911、WTCの粉塵の中に大量の爆破物質を発見


<動画情報より>

911のWTC崩壊から発生した粉塵を科学者グループが分析したところ、アメリカの軍­でしか作れないハイテクである「ナノ・テルミット」が大量に含まれていることが判明。­この物質は鋼鉄を簡単に溶かすほどの高温を出せるだけでなく、ダイナマイト以上の爆破­力を持っているとのこと。このナノ・テルミットが、まだ未反応の状態で粉塵の中に大量­に含まれていることなどを、コペンハーゲン大学のニールス・ハリト (化学)がデンマー­クのテレビニュースで説明します。
911公式見解に異議。ニールス氏が国営テレビ番組に出演


日本で言われるように一部の頭のおかしいキチガイ陰謀論者だけがそういうことを言っているのではないことがこれで分かります。お上の言うことは絶対思想であり、「常識」やら社会的「コンセンサス」を自分の頭で考えず、調べもせず、疑いもせず、メディアの言うことを蓄音機のように連呼し、声を上げない「社畜」、「sheeple」が多い日本に比べ、「個」というものをしっかり持ち、自ら考え主張する欧米人との差がこのような911inside job運動といった形で現れるているのだと思います。常識的に考えて911は当方も明らかにおかしいと思います。政府や軍事レベルの関与がなければできない事件だと思います。第7ビルは飛行機が衝突してもいないのに火災で自由落下するかのゆにぶっ壊れる。さらに第7ビルは崩壊していないのにBBCの記者が崩壊したというフライング報道を行ったり、航空関連株プットオプションが事前にあったりとあらかじめテロの犯行を知っていなければ物理的に不可能な現象が多く起きている。


さらにブッシュ政権時代の広報官であるダナ・ペリーノ女史は911の首謀者はビンラディンではないと公言しています。


911の首謀者はもう逮捕していると...。こんなビックニュースですら日本では全く報道されていないわけです。日本人の常識は世界の非常識であることがこういったことからでも分かるわけですし、日本で多数であり常識が必ずしも正しくはなく、さらに彼らは言う常識以外の見解は陰謀論と言いラベリングして排除していますが、世界では逆で、日本人の常識こそ陰謀論なわけです。


また仮に全くの不意打ちで、予想外の出来事で、ハイジャック機も空軍が打ち落とせないほどの速さで自爆テロを行ったとしたら、日本は即刻「日米同盟」を破棄して自国で安全保障を行わなければなりません。なぜなら米軍や国防総省、NSA、CIAなどは自国であれほどの大規模で組織的であり、ペンタゴンへの攻撃も全く防ぐことができないくらい貧弱な機関であり、貧弱な警備体制であることが証明されたからです。ですから仮に日本が北朝鮮や中国などによってミサイルなどで攻撃されても、日本に駐留している米軍は「不意打ちであり、全く予想外の出来事であった」の一言で全て終わりです。ですからアメリカがいざとなったら助けてくれるという理屈はすでに崩壊しています。

みなさんはどうおもわれますか?

話を911に戻すが、当方が思うにこの911insde jobe運動自体「彼ら」が実は仕掛けている(もしくは利用しているので沈黙している)のではないかと思います。アメリカ国内のTurther系のブログや掲示板を観察すると、どうやら911はシオニストの仕業という風潮が出てきています。メインストリームではアル カイダですが、ネット界ではシオニストと一部の米国政府内の反逆者連中が勝手に行ったことだと...。つまり一部の反逆者、犯罪組織が行ったから米国民は悪くないといっているように聞こえてきます。恐らくそういう魂胆なのでしょう。

仮にinside jobでありシオニスと反逆者が行ったと判明した場合、アメリカの一般国民は彼らに騙された被害者だから悪くないし、一部の反逆者連中の組織的な内部犯行と 訴え続けていた米国民は沢山いるから国際世論から同情を得られる。
つまりこの運動の目的は、真相がバレた時、もしくは何らかの形でバラすときの「保険」としての役割を持たせているのではないかと。 911暴露の黙認も何か意図があって行っており、そしてそれに反応した市民運動も良いように利用されているのかもしれません。このように分析すると、これはまさに社会工学が駆使されている可能性があります。

いずれにしてもアメリカとしては嘘がばれても100兆円の鉱山資源と麻薬利権、イラクの石油決済通貨の利権を手放すなど決してしないと思います。

Minerals in Afghanistan worth $1 trillion, U.S. says


「 偶 然 」 見つかったそうです...。

仕掛ける連中は相当賢い連中なのでデメリットもいいようにメリットに変えてしまうアイデアも思いつけるのだろう...。

オマケ。

UPDATE 3 過激で画期的な「二酸化炭素削減方法」のプロモーションCMが英国で話題に!!

英国で地球温暖化防止のための二酸化炭素削減方法のプロモーション映画が話題になっているようです。

その過激で画期的な削減方法とは...。(全編英語ですが映像だけで十分分かります!!





だそうです。これは異常。「温暖化懐疑論者は殺してしまえ!!」という現代の「魔女狩り」。

CO2地球温暖化問題は「クライメートゲート事件」で風前の灯感がただより、温暖化脅威論者は血迷ったか過激な手段を取り始めたのかもしれませんね。かえってこれは自分たちが「優生学主義者」であることを表明し、地雷を踏んだとしか思えないですね。
こちらがちなみに10:10のキャンペーンサイト。サイトが良くできていてグラフィカルでフレンドリーな感じですが、実態は優生学主義であり新興宗教集団に近い存在なので、くれぐれも "JoyUs" のところでサインなどしないように...。
しかし自分の会社のプロジェクトのクライアントやスポンサーとして支援をした団体が、実はこういった狂気の思想をもつ集団であったことが分かったらかなりショックだと思いますね...。クライアントや顧客の実態をよく調べてから契約しないと、あの会社はあの団体のスポンサーだったんだとネットですぐさま噂になるから慎重に行わなくてはいけないですね...。




UPDATE 1 05/10/2010

プロモーションを行った英カーディアン誌は謝罪文を掲載したようですが...。

There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign's 'No Pressure' film

Sorry.
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure'.


With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website.

We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

「多くの視聴者は面白がってくれたが、一部の視聴者はそう思わなかったので、そのような方には謝罪する」と...。こんな程度の謝罪なので悪いと思っていない心境が透けて見える。やはり温暖化脅威論軍団は宗教化してきており、「魔女狩り」の様相を為していることが分かる。



ところで最近日本でも「Global warming:地球温暖化」と言わず、「Climate change:気候変動」とネーミングが変化してきているが、上手く問題のフォーカスを自分たちに都合が良くなるようにズラしてきていますね。
最初は「Green house effect:温室効果ガス」とを使っていましたが、Co2による温室効果はほぼ飽和状態であり、


気温が先に上昇し、その後800年(±200年)ずれてCO2濃度が上昇することも判明すると(実際は昔から分かっていたが都合が悪いことは陰謀論といったり、見ざる、言わざる、聞かざるを決め込む温暖化脅威論者によって伏せられていたが、陰謀論者と揶揄された懐疑論者が調べたら発覚!!)、

ブルーライン:温度 グリーンライン:CO2
拡大版



今度は「地球温暖化」に変化したが、北米の気温が低下していたり、



過去10年間地球の気温変化がなくなると、


気候変動(クライメイトチェンジ)」に変化。温暖化脅威終末論者が問題にしていたことが次々に覆されるたびに華麗なる変身を遂げてきています。しかしハリケーンは数や規模は対して変化もしておらず、

世界各地のハリケーンの発生変化


太平洋におけるハリケーンの数()と規模の大きいもの()の変化
SOURCE:Atlantic Hurricanes

化石燃料(Co2)の大量消費以前の1900年~1949年の50年間と
大量消費開始後の1956年~2005の50年間で米国に上陸した嵐やハリケーンの数の比較
SOURCE:EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF

気候変動による世界的な災害被害者は減少傾向であり、




そして2009年11月に世紀の大スキャンダル「クライメートゲート」事件(今後解説予定)が発覚し、この名前が使えなくなりつつある時に、ロシアから日本に掛けて起きたジェット気流の蛇行とラニーニャによる今年の高温の真夏(実はこの高温現象は局所的であり、温暖化とは関係がないです。今後解説予定。)がタイミングよく?到来し、ネーミングを変更せずに済んで一安心な状態なのでしょうかね、温暖化脅威終末論者やIPCC、環境省、金融界、中国など新興国の連中は...。一応次のネーミングはすでに決まっているようで「climate science気候科学」となっているらしく気候と環境と人間とエネルギー問題に変化したらしいです。要するに 全 部 です。もはや人間の活動を制御するためならネーミングや問題の焦点はなんて何だっていいことになっている...。もう無茶苦茶です。
そしてこの問題の解決策が上記の10:10のプロモーションによる「殺してしまえ!」が解決方法なのでしょう。
しかしよくよく考えますと、日本は実際に10:10が提案する環境のための人口削減政策を実質的に実行しているようなものです。700万人の過労死予備軍自殺者毎年3万人×10年連続実際は10万人近くいると言われています。これは異常!!)、104万人もいるうつ病患者などの対策や環境改善に税金を使わず、数百億円使い意味のない「空気利用券(排出権)」を買ったり、数千億使い意味のないリサイクルをおこなったりCDMで中国や発展途上国に無償で省エネ環境技術を渡しているわけですから。これシャレにならないですね。

こんな馬鹿げたことを必死にやっていたら
日本は確実に潰れます。


京都議定書(90年比6%削減)で、日本が排出権売買契約している事例(自民党政権時)


ウクライナ・・・3,000万トン:200億円×2=400億円?
ハンガリー・・・1,000万トンの一部 : ?円
チェコ・・・・・4,000万トン:500億円
ラトビア・・・150万トン  : ?円
ポーランド・・・ ?トン  : 36億4,000万円




ウクライナで260億円余りの地球温暖化詐欺が発覚





環境問題のウラ 1/20 (長いですが必見です!!)






今頃環境伝道師詐欺師アル・ゴアこんな様子でしょうか?



UPDATE 2 06/10/2010

英国で話題になった過激なCO2削減「10:10」プロモーション映画が米国のメインストリームでも報道され、FOXニュースはプロモーション政策には税金も使われていると怒りを表している。


UPDATE 3 07/10/2010

スポンサーとして支援する団体や組織の実態を調べて慎重にならないといけないと書いたら、支援していたSONYが支援を打ち切ったようです。やはり騒げば効果があることが伺える。
Sony is pulling its support of the climate change campaign 10:10 after slamming the video that showed school children being blown up as “ill-conceived and tasteless”.


Breaking news !! Fed To Disclose Emergency Lending Details By December 1!!

The end of FED is in the final stage?



Well, Will the Americans and the world be able to wake up, escape from the American dream( The world by manufacturing money out of nothing ) by FED like Cobb of the movie "Inception" and come back to the real world?




By the way, Who does implant the idea of "End the FED"( Inception ) in our mind?



"Mark Pittman Wins: Fed To Disclose Emergency Lending Details By December 1"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/29/2010 15:49 -0500

Mark Pittman's last valiant effort to bring some transparency to the most destructive organization in the history of mankind has succeeded. According to testimony to be delivered to the House tomorrow, "under a framework established by the act, the Federal Reserve will, by December 1, provide detailed information regarding individual transactions conducted across a range of credit and liquidity programs over the period from December 1, 2007, to July 20, 2010. This information will include the names of counterparties, the date and dollar value of individual transactions, the terms of repayment, and other relevant information. On an ongoing basis, subject to lags specified by the Congress to protect the efficacy of the programs, the Federal Reserve also will routinely provide information regarding the identities of counterparties, amounts financed or purchased and collateral pledged for transactions under the discount window, open market operations, and emergency lending facilities." Luckily this action by Bernanke will prevent the rioting that would have followed an appeal to the Supreme court, which would have certainly sided with the secretive group of Keynesian priests. If nothing else, the plethora of data will keep the blogosphere preoccupied for days upon days, rummaging through millions of pages of explicit corruption.

Let's see now if December 2nd leads to the end of the world destruction that the Clearing House Association threatened would happen should the Fed disclose these details, as we reported a year ago. To wit:

The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court's Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed's Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed's Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank's financial condition - even completely unfounded rumors - have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank's customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls - which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds - has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution's customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Or maybe, just maybe, the banks will survive, and all their bullshit will be exposed for the hollow threats it has always been, very much like the end of the world that would have occured had Goldman and AIG been, gasp, allowed to fail.

Below is the relevant section from the Bernanke testimony to be given tomorrow before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

A final element of the Federal Reserve's efforts to implement the Dodd-Frank Act relates to the transparency of our balance sheet and liquidity programs. Well before enactment, we were providing a great deal of relevant information on our website, in statistical releases, and in regular reports to the Congress. Under a framework established by the act, the Federal Reserve will, by December 1, provide detailed information regarding individual transactions conducted across a range of credit and liquidity programs over the period from December 1, 2007, to July 20, 2010. This information will include the names of counterparties, the date and dollar value of individual transactions, the terms of repayment, and other relevant information. On an ongoing basis, subject to lags specified by the Congress to protect the efficacy of the programs, the Federal Reserve also will routinely provide information regarding the identities of counterparties, amounts financed or purchased and collateral pledged for transactions under the discount window, open market operations, and emergency lending facilities.
Full testimony can be found here. We really do hope at least one Congressman will have the guts tomorrow to ask just how it is that the Clearing House Association allowed this act, which will inevitably lead to the collapse of the banking system, to proceed?


And FED seems to have already announced the statement for the reform.



Chairman Ben S. Bernanke "Regulatory Reform Implementation"

Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
September 30, 2010

Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Federal Reserve's implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act).

In the years leading up to the recent financial crisis, the global regulatory framework did not effectively keep pace with the profound changes in the financial system. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses critical gaps and weaknesses of the U.S. regulatory framework, many of which were revealed by the crisis. The Federal Reserve is committed to working with the other financial regulatory agencies to effectively implement and execute the act, while also developing complementary improvements to the financial regulatory framework.

The act gives the Federal Reserve several crucial new responsibilities. These responsibilities include being part of the new Financial Stability Oversight Council, supervision of nonbank financial firms that are designated as systemically important by the council, supervision of thrift holding companies, and the development of enhanced prudential standards for large bank holding companies and systemically important nonbank financial firms designated by the council (including capital, liquidity, stress test, and living will requirements). In addition, the Federal Reserve has or shares important rulemaking authority for implementing the so-called Volcker Rule restrictions on proprietary trading and private fund activities of banking firms, credit risk retention requirements for securitizations, and restrictions on interchange fees for debit cards, among other provisions.

All told, the act requires the Federal Reserve to complete more than 50 rulemakings and sets of formal guidelines, as well as a number of studies and reports, many within a relatively short period. We have also been assigned formal responsibilities to consult and collaborate with other agencies on a substantial number of additional rules, provisions, and studies. Overall, we have identified approximately 250 projects associated with implementing the act. To ensure that we meet our obligations in a timely manner, we are drawing on expertise and resources from across the Federal Reserve System in areas such as banking supervision, economic research, financial markets, consumer protection, payments, and legal analysis. We have created a senior staff position to coordinate our efforts and have developed project-reporting and tracking tools to facilitate management and oversight of all of our implementation responsibilities.

The Federal Reserve is committed to its long-standing practice of ensuring that all its rulemakings be conducted in a fair, open, and transparent manner. Accordingly, we are disclosing on our public website summaries of all communications with members of the public--including banks, trade associations, consumer groups, and academics--regarding matters subject to a proposed or potential future rulemaking under the act.

In addition to our own rulemakings and studies, we have been providing technical and policy advice to the Treasury Department as it works to establish the oversight council and the related Office of Financial Research. We are working with the Treasury to develop the council's organizational documents and structure. We are also assisting the council with the construction of its framework for identifying systemically important nonbank financial firms and financial market utilities, as well as with its required studies on the proprietary trading and private fund activities of banking firms and on financial-sector concentration limits.

Additionally, work is well under way to transfer the Federal Reserve's consumer protection responsibilities specified in the act to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. A transition team at the Board, headed by Governor Duke, is working closely with Treasury staff responsible for setting up the new agency. We have established the operating accounts and initial funding for the bureau, and we have provided the Treasury detailed information about our programs and staffing in the areas of rulemaking, compliance examinations, policy analysis, complaint handling, and consumer education. We are also providing advice and information about supporting infrastructure that the Bureau will need to carry out its responsibilities, such as human resource systems and information technology.

Well before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve was working with other regulatory agencies here and abroad to design and implement a stronger set of prudential requirements for internationally active banking firms. The governing body for the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reached an agreement a few weeks ago on the major elements of a new financial regulatory architecture, commonly known as Basel III. By increasing the quantity and quality of capital that banking firms must hold and by strengthening liquidity requirements, Basel III aims to constrain bank risk-taking, reduce the incidence and severity of future financial crises, and produce a more resilient financial system. The key elements of this framework are due to be finalized by the end of this year.

In concordance with the letter and the spirit of the act, the Federal Reserve is also continuing its work to strengthen its supervision of the largest, most complex financial firms and to incorporate macroprudential considerations into supervision. As the act recognizes, the Federal Reserve and other financial regulatory agencies must supervise financial institutions and critical infrastructures with an eye toward not only the safety and soundness of each individual firm, but also overall financial stability. Indeed, the crisis demonstrated that a too narrow focus on the safety and soundness of individual firms can result in a failure to detect and thwart emerging threats to financial stability that cut across many firms.

A critical feature of a successful systemic or macroprudential approach to supervision is a multidisciplinary perspective. Our experience in 2009 with the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (popularly known as the bank stress tests) demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of employing such a perspective.1 The stress tests also showed how much the supervision of systemically important institutions can benefit from simultaneous horizontal evaluations of the practices and portfolios of a number of individual firms and from employment of robust quantitative assessment tools. Building on that experience, we have reoriented our supervision of the largest, most complex banking firms to include a quantitative surveillance mechanism and to make greater use of the broad range of skills of the Federal Reserve staff.

A final element of the Federal Reserve's efforts to implement the Dodd-Frank Act relates to the transparency of our balance sheet and liquidity programs. Well before enactment, we were providing a great deal of relevant information on our website, in statistical releases, and in regular reports to the Congress. Under a framework established by the act, the Federal Reserve will, by December 1, provide detailed information regarding individual transactions conducted across a range of credit and liquidity programs over the period from December 1, 2007, to July 20, 2010. This information will include the names of counterparties, the date and dollar value of individual transactions, the terms of repayment, and other relevant information. On an ongoing basis, subject to lags specified by the Congress to protect the efficacy of the programs, the Federal Reserve also will routinely provide information regarding the identities of counterparties, amounts financed or purchased and collateral pledged for transactions under the discount window, open market operations, and emergency lending facilities.

To conclude, the Dodd-Frank Act is an important step forward for financial regulation in the United States, and it is essential that the act be carried out expeditiously and effectively. The Federal Reserve will work closely with our fellow regulators, the Congress, and the Administration to ensure that the law is implemented in a manner that best protects the stability of our financial system and strengthens the U.S. economy.

1. See Ben S. Bernanke (2010), "The Supervisory Capital Assessment Program--One Year Later," speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 46th Annual Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, held in Chicago, Ill., May 6; and Daniel K. Tarullo (2010), "Lessons from the Crisis Stress Tests," speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Board International Research Forum on Monetary Policy, Washington, March 26. Return to text




At last, we may be able to watch this on December 2nd!!