Numa altura de grande contenção económica por toda a UE, eis que num país com pouco mais de 11 milhões de habitantes e uma área de 92090km2 começam reboliços populares (e não só) que visam a procura do conflito entre as regiões do Norte e as do Sul de Portugal.
À margem da Constituição Portuguesa um grupo de pessoas está a tentar formar um partido político para defender unica e exclusivamente os interesses de uma determinada região de um país: "O movimento Pró-Partido do Norte está a ser formado com o objectivo de formar um partido político do Norte através do qual a região tenha uma voz e uma representação a nível nacional" (in JN).
A Constituição é bem explícita quanto à formação deste tipo de partidos. Segundo o 4º parágrafo do Artigo 51 "Não podem constituir-se partidos que, pela sua designação ou pelos seus objectivos programáticos, tenham índole ou âmbito regional".
Passadas as questões legais que impedem tamanho disparate, não esqueçamos que vivemos num País em que toda e qualquer lei pode ser posta em causa sendo que os elementos que constituem este movimento ainda não partidário já apelaram à revisão e revogação deste Artigo de um dos únicos documentos oficiais que ainda dignificam Portugal.
Os nortenhos sentem-se discriminados em relação aos mouros! Nós todos que somos Portugueses, que deveríamos defender as mesmas causas, os meus objectivos, sempre com o fim de nos tornarmos um país mais competitivo, com maior voz de expressão.
Vejamos porquê:
O que salta já à vista são as SCUT que deixaram de as ser. É verdade que a maior parte destas auto-estradas localiza-se no norte do país. É também verdade que a Via do Infante no Algarve não tem alternativas viáveis e a implementação de portagens aqui significaria o regresso ao enorme tráfego numa estrada que já foi a mais mortífera do país (EN 125). O mesmo se aplica com a A23 que liga Torres Novas à Guarda e à A24 que liga Viseu a Chaves (curiosamente esta está situada no território norte do país e não se perspectiva a introdução de portagens).
É impensável a taxação destas últimas duas auto-estradas (A23 e A24) por fazerem a ligação ao interior do país. A introdução de portagens nestas vias significaria uma exclusão ainda maior destas áreas pobres do país que estão a recuperar alguma riqueza com o investimento e estabelecimento de muitas empresas que viram as potenciais vantagens oferecidas (menos impostos, auto-estradas sem custos adicionais).
Claro que ninguém deseja ver uma infra-estrutura nova, do Estado, tornar-se paga! Ainda para mais quando pertence ao Estado e a sua construção saiu do bolso de cada contribuinte. Estamos todos de acordo neste ponto mas temos formas diferentes de defender a não introdução das portagens. Os nortenhos decidiram que seria a altura ideal de se rebaixarem perante Lisboa e falar em palavras fortes como "discriminação".
Um país tão pequeno deveria estar de braços dados e não a separar-se ainda mais. Infelizmente em Portugal toda a gente fala no que lhe convém e interessa e não no bem comum para uma sociedade.
A reflexão sobre as portagens já vai longa.
Há dias, enquanto fazia zapping no leque de canais cada vez mais alargado oferecido pelas inúmeras empresas de televisão por cabo, parei uns minutos no Porto Canal, que nem sabia da sua existência. Estavam a transmitir a meteorologia para o próximo dia mas apenas na região norte do país, na Madeira, nos Açores e também nas principais cidades europeias. Sendo um canal privado, o conteúdo e escolha da transmissão é da inteira responsabilidade do próprio mas, porquê lançar mais combustível na fogueira?! Mais uma vez lembremo-nos que estamos na ponta mais ocidental da UE, um dos mais pequenos do mundo (109º maior país do mundo em termos de área geográfica), com uma população pequena e que deveria estar a juntar ideias e políticas de modo a tornar-se 'maior' e mais competitivo.
Num país com uma área tão pequena e uma economia tão mediana, fará sentido falar-se em regionalização? Em vez desta medida extrema o que deveria estar a ser mudado são o número e limites geográficos de freguesias e concelhos. Precisamos de uma reestruturação ao nível das autarquias. Temos sedes de concelho com menos habitantes do que vilas do mesmo concelho, temos populações separadas por limites de freguesias, freguesias sem ninguém e com uma área demasiado pequena, freguesias com muitos habitantes e áreas enormes...
Estará Portugal a tornar-se uma nova Bélgica, ainda que por motivos diferentes?
Encontrarão algum consenso os Portugueses do norte e os do sul?
quarta-feira, 23 de junho de 2010
domingo, 24 de janeiro de 2010
The society of numbers
"Conventions and traditions, I suppose, work blindly but surely for the preservation of the normal type, for the extinction of proud, resolute and unusual individuals... Society must go on, I suppose, and society can only exist if the normal, if the virtuous, and the slightly deceitful flourish, and if the passionate, the headstrong, and the too-truthful are condemned to suicide and madness. Yes, society must go on, it must breed, like rabbits. That is what we are here for... But, at any rate, there is always Leonora to cheer you up, I don't want to sadden you. Her husband is quite an economical person of so normal figure that he can get quite a large proportion of his clothes ready-made. That is the great desideratum of life..."
Ford Maddox Ford 1915 The Good Soldier
Ford Maddox Ford 1915 The Good Soldier
terça-feira, 15 de dezembro de 2009
quarta-feira, 2 de dezembro de 2009
The swine flu hoax II
Again and again... Flu here, flu there, diseased people here., diseased people there!
This is the approximate translation from a text I found quite interesting.
Written by Teresa Forcades i Vila on the 11th of October of 2009:
The 2 first cases of the new flu (virus A/H1N1, strain S-OIV) were diagnosed in California (USA) on the 17th of April of 2009 [1].
The new flu is not new because is of the type A, neither because the subtype is H1N1. The epidemic flu that occurred in 1918 was from this particular strain and since 1977 that H1N1 viruses belong to the annual flues [2]. The only thin new here is the strain S-OIV [3] [4].
About 66% of elderly people over 60 years of age appear to have immunity against this type of virus of the new flu [5].
Since it started till 15th of September of 2009, 137 people died from this disease in Europe and 3,559 in all over the world [6] [today this number ascends to 8000]. Note that between 40,000 and 220,000 people die every year in Europe due to the seasonal flu.
As many famous health professionals - Dr. Bernard Debré (member of the National Council of Ethics in France) and Dr. Juan José Rodriguez Sendim (president of the Association of Medical Colleges in Spain) - the data from this season, among which the countries from the South hemisphere are included, demonstrates that the mortality and complications rates of this new flu are lower than the ones of the seasonal flu [8].
Irregularities must be explained.
At the end of January 2009, the Austrian filial of the American pharmaceutical company Baxter, distributed to 16 laboratories in Austria, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovenia, 72kg of material to prepare the vaccines against the seasonal flu. The vaccines would have to be administered to the population of this countries between February and March. Before the administration of any of these vaccines, a technician from the BioTest laboratory in Czech Republic decided, by its own, to experiment these vaccines in Ferrets [Portuguese = Furões], which are the animals used since 1918 to study the flu vaccine. All of them died!
Further investigations to the material sent by Baxter, demonstrated that the contained live viruses from the avian flu (virus A/H5N1) combined with live viruses from the seasonal flu (A/H3N2). If this contamination would not be found in time, the pandemics that, without a true background, the WHO and other national entities are announcing, would be now an amazing reality! The combination of these live viruses could be particularly lethal because it combines a live virus with a mortality rate of 60% but not so contagious (the avian flu virus) with other highly contagious but with a mortality rate much lower (the seasonal flu virus) [9].
On the 29th of April of 2009, when only 12 days passed since the first cases of the new flu, Dr. Margaret Chan, general-director of WHO, declared that the alert level for a pandemic was in phase 5 and ordered to all governments, members of the WHO group, the activation of emergency plans and maximal level of alertness. A month later, Dr. Chan declared that in the world we had already a pandemic (phase 6) caused by the A/H1N1 S-OIV virus. How could she made such statements when, according to the scientific data above, the new flu is, in fact more benign than the seasonal flu, which is not a new virus and to which part of the population is immune?
She could do it because during May, the WHO changed the definition of Pandemic: before May 2009 a pandemic to be declared would have to involve and infectious agent that caused a significant proportion of deaths among the population. This requirement - which is the unique giving a clinical concept to the associated political measures - was eliminated from the new definition on May 2009 [11], after the USA declared themselves in a "national emergency status", when in the whole country there were only 20 people infected, among each none death [12].
Polical consequences of the statement of pandemics:
In the context of a pandemics, it is possible to declare the vaccination obligatory to certain groups of professionals or even some group of citizens [13].
What can happen if a person refuses to be vaccinated? Until it is not declared obligatory, nothing can happen. But if we arrive to a situation in which the vaccination would be obligatory, the governments would have to make the people to comply with the law. Who would refuse would have to pay a fine or go to prison (in Massachussetts the fine can reach 1000€ per each day that passes without the individual being vaccinated)[14].
According to this, some people might decide "ok... i will vaccinated myself when it is compulsory". The problem is, like the seasonal vaccines, there are no shots for everyone.
We must know that there are 3 differences comparing the new vaccine with the seasonal flu vaccine. The first is that the majority of the laboratories are designing the vaccine in order to one injection will be not enough and we will need 2 doses. The WHO also recommends that who takes the new vaccine should not take the seasonal flu one because it increases by 3 times the risk of adverse effects, which are not even known yet since there were no trials. The second news is that the responsible labs for the fabrication of the vaccine, added 2 co-adjuvants that are stronger than the ones used nowadays for the seasonal flu. Co-adjuvants are substances added to stimulate the immune system. For example the vaccine being produced by Glaxo-Smith-Kline, has an adjuvant, AS03, a combination that multiplies by 10 the immune response. The problem is that no one can ensure that the usage of these substances will not cause, on a long-term basis, autoimmune diseases such as the Guillain-Barré syndrome [15]. The third innovation is that the pharmaceutical companies that are producing the vaccine are requiring/demanding that the countries sign agreements that confer impunity to the companies, in case there are further adverse effects than the expected ones (for example, it is predicted that Guillain-Barré syndrome will develop in 10 people among 1 million of vaccinations. The USA already sign such an agreement that guarantee to the pharmaceuticals and also to the politicians, full immunity (no responsibility) for the possible adverse effects of the vaccine [16].
References:
[1] Zimmer SM, Burke, DS. Historical Perspective: Emergence of Influenza A (H1N1) viruses.. NEJM, Julio 16, 2009. p. 279
[2] 'The reemergence was probably an accidental release from a laboratory source in the setting of waning population immunity to H1 and N1 antigens', Zimmer, Burke, op. cit., p. 282
[3] Zimmer, Bunker, op. cit., p. 279
[4] Doshi, Peter. Calibrated response to emerging infections. BMJ 2009;339:b3471
[5] US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Serum cross-reactive antibody response to a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus after vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine. MMWR 2009; 58: 521-4.
[6] Dados oficiais do Centro Europeu para o controlo e prevenção de doenças (www.ecdc.europa.eu).
[7] Dados oficiais do Centro Europeu para o controlo e prevenção de doenças (www.ecdc.europa.eu)
[8] Cf. Le Journal du Dimanche (25 juliol '09): Debré: 'Cette grippe n'est pas dangereuse'; cf. La Razón (4 septiembre '09): Rodríguez Sendín: Cordura frente el alarmismo en la prevención de la gripe A
[9] Cf. Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic. The Times of India, sección de ciencia, 6 marzo 2009.
[10] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009
[11] Cohen E. When a pandemic isn't a pandemic. CNN, 4 de mayo'09. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/04/swine.flu.pandemic/index.html
[12] Doshi Peter Calibrated response to emerging infections VMJ 2009;339:b3471
[13] Falkiner, Keith. Get the rushed flu jab or be jailed. Irish Star Sunday, 13 septiembre '09.
[14] Senate Bill n. 2028: An act relative to pandemic and disaster preparation and response in the commonwealth. 4 agosto '09. Cf. Moore, RT. Critics rage as state prepares for flu pandemic. 11 septiembre '09. WBUR Boston.
[15] Cf. Vaccination H1N1: méfiance des infirmières. www.syndicat-infirmier.com/Vaccination-H1N1-mefiance-des.htlm
[16] Stobbe, Mark. Legal immunity set for swine flu vaccine makers. Associated Press, 17 Julio '09.
Teresa Forcades i Vila is a Benedict monk in the San Benedict Monastaire in Montserrat, Barcelona; she has doctorate in Public Health and specialization in Internal Medicine from New York University. She is the writer of many books among which "Los crimines de las grandes companias farmaceuticas" [the crimes of the big pharmaceutical companies].
Comment please!
This is the approximate translation from a text I found quite interesting.
Written by Teresa Forcades i Vila on the 11th of October of 2009:
The 2 first cases of the new flu (virus A/H1N1, strain S-OIV) were diagnosed in California (USA) on the 17th of April of 2009 [1].
The new flu is not new because is of the type A, neither because the subtype is H1N1. The epidemic flu that occurred in 1918 was from this particular strain and since 1977 that H1N1 viruses belong to the annual flues [2]. The only thin new here is the strain S-OIV [3] [4].
About 66% of elderly people over 60 years of age appear to have immunity against this type of virus of the new flu [5].
Since it started till 15th of September of 2009, 137 people died from this disease in Europe and 3,559 in all over the world [6] [today this number ascends to 8000]. Note that between 40,000 and 220,000 people die every year in Europe due to the seasonal flu.
As many famous health professionals - Dr. Bernard Debré (member of the National Council of Ethics in France) and Dr. Juan José Rodriguez Sendim (president of the Association of Medical Colleges in Spain) - the data from this season, among which the countries from the South hemisphere are included, demonstrates that the mortality and complications rates of this new flu are lower than the ones of the seasonal flu [8].
Irregularities must be explained.
At the end of January 2009, the Austrian filial of the American pharmaceutical company Baxter, distributed to 16 laboratories in Austria, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovenia, 72kg of material to prepare the vaccines against the seasonal flu. The vaccines would have to be administered to the population of this countries between February and March. Before the administration of any of these vaccines, a technician from the BioTest laboratory in Czech Republic decided, by its own, to experiment these vaccines in Ferrets [Portuguese = Furões], which are the animals used since 1918 to study the flu vaccine. All of them died!
Further investigations to the material sent by Baxter, demonstrated that the contained live viruses from the avian flu (virus A/H5N1) combined with live viruses from the seasonal flu (A/H3N2). If this contamination would not be found in time, the pandemics that, without a true background, the WHO and other national entities are announcing, would be now an amazing reality! The combination of these live viruses could be particularly lethal because it combines a live virus with a mortality rate of 60% but not so contagious (the avian flu virus) with other highly contagious but with a mortality rate much lower (the seasonal flu virus) [9].
On the 29th of April of 2009, when only 12 days passed since the first cases of the new flu, Dr. Margaret Chan, general-director of WHO, declared that the alert level for a pandemic was in phase 5 and ordered to all governments, members of the WHO group, the activation of emergency plans and maximal level of alertness. A month later, Dr. Chan declared that in the world we had already a pandemic (phase 6) caused by the A/H1N1 S-OIV virus. How could she made such statements when, according to the scientific data above, the new flu is, in fact more benign than the seasonal flu, which is not a new virus and to which part of the population is immune?
She could do it because during May, the WHO changed the definition of Pandemic: before May 2009 a pandemic to be declared would have to involve and infectious agent that caused a significant proportion of deaths among the population. This requirement - which is the unique giving a clinical concept to the associated political measures - was eliminated from the new definition on May 2009 [11], after the USA declared themselves in a "national emergency status", when in the whole country there were only 20 people infected, among each none death [12].
Polical consequences of the statement of pandemics:
In the context of a pandemics, it is possible to declare the vaccination obligatory to certain groups of professionals or even some group of citizens [13].
What can happen if a person refuses to be vaccinated? Until it is not declared obligatory, nothing can happen. But if we arrive to a situation in which the vaccination would be obligatory, the governments would have to make the people to comply with the law. Who would refuse would have to pay a fine or go to prison (in Massachussetts the fine can reach 1000€ per each day that passes without the individual being vaccinated)[14].
According to this, some people might decide "ok... i will vaccinated myself when it is compulsory". The problem is, like the seasonal vaccines, there are no shots for everyone.
We must know that there are 3 differences comparing the new vaccine with the seasonal flu vaccine. The first is that the majority of the laboratories are designing the vaccine in order to one injection will be not enough and we will need 2 doses. The WHO also recommends that who takes the new vaccine should not take the seasonal flu one because it increases by 3 times the risk of adverse effects, which are not even known yet since there were no trials. The second news is that the responsible labs for the fabrication of the vaccine, added 2 co-adjuvants that are stronger than the ones used nowadays for the seasonal flu. Co-adjuvants are substances added to stimulate the immune system. For example the vaccine being produced by Glaxo-Smith-Kline, has an adjuvant, AS03, a combination that multiplies by 10 the immune response. The problem is that no one can ensure that the usage of these substances will not cause, on a long-term basis, autoimmune diseases such as the Guillain-Barré syndrome [15]. The third innovation is that the pharmaceutical companies that are producing the vaccine are requiring/demanding that the countries sign agreements that confer impunity to the companies, in case there are further adverse effects than the expected ones (for example, it is predicted that Guillain-Barré syndrome will develop in 10 people among 1 million of vaccinations. The USA already sign such an agreement that guarantee to the pharmaceuticals and also to the politicians, full immunity (no responsibility) for the possible adverse effects of the vaccine [16].
References:
[1] Zimmer SM, Burke, DS. Historical Perspective: Emergence of Influenza A (H1N1) viruses.. NEJM, Julio 16, 2009. p. 279
[2] 'The reemergence was probably an accidental release from a laboratory source in the setting of waning population immunity to H1 and N1 antigens', Zimmer, Burke, op. cit., p. 282
[3] Zimmer, Bunker, op. cit., p. 279
[4] Doshi, Peter. Calibrated response to emerging infections. BMJ 2009;339:b3471
[5] US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Serum cross-reactive antibody response to a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus after vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine. MMWR 2009; 58: 521-4.
[6] Dados oficiais do Centro Europeu para o controlo e prevenção de doenças (www.ecdc.europa.eu).
[7] Dados oficiais do Centro Europeu para o controlo e prevenção de doenças (www.ecdc.europa.eu)
[8] Cf. Le Journal du Dimanche (25 juliol '09): Debré: 'Cette grippe n'est pas dangereuse'; cf. La Razón (4 septiembre '09): Rodríguez Sendín: Cordura frente el alarmismo en la prevención de la gripe A
[9] Cf. Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic. The Times of India, sección de ciencia, 6 marzo 2009.
[10] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009
[11] Cohen E. When a pandemic isn't a pandemic. CNN, 4 de mayo'09. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/04/swine.flu.pandemic/index.html
[12] Doshi Peter Calibrated response to emerging infections VMJ 2009;339:b3471
[13] Falkiner, Keith. Get the rushed flu jab or be jailed. Irish Star Sunday, 13 septiembre '09.
[14] Senate Bill n. 2028: An act relative to pandemic and disaster preparation and response in the commonwealth. 4 agosto '09. Cf. Moore, RT. Critics rage as state prepares for flu pandemic. 11 septiembre '09. WBUR Boston.
[15] Cf. Vaccination H1N1: méfiance des infirmières. www.syndicat-infirmier.com/Vaccination-H1N1-mefiance-des.htlm
[16] Stobbe, Mark. Legal immunity set for swine flu vaccine makers. Associated Press, 17 Julio '09.
Teresa Forcades i Vila is a Benedict monk in the San Benedict Monastaire in Montserrat, Barcelona; she has doctorate in Public Health and specialization in Internal Medicine from New York University. She is the writer of many books among which "Los crimines de las grandes companias farmaceuticas" [the crimes of the big pharmaceutical companies].
Comment please!
sexta-feira, 20 de novembro de 2009
Wake up call for Cholera
A better video can be seen here
People depend on water for living! what is the other option of these people other than risk drinking water from contaminated wells?! One fast measure to try to implement would be the simple acidification of water with some local acidic product (some vegetable or fruit). Vibrio cholerae, the causative agent does not tolerate acidified water for example with lemon (easy accessible in Europe).
I keep pick on swine flu and i will keep being astonished about the amounts of money spent to eliminate a barely lethal disease of the developed countries while people are dying within 24h (of uncontrolled diarrhea) when the most vulgar acidifying agents could be used as prevention of Cholera in the developing countries.
"Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing", too often in my view... Actions are simple, they just need some strength of willing.
segunda-feira, 2 de novembro de 2009
Swine flu vaccination II
News from Sweden:
"There are reports from Sweden of possible deaths linked to the H1N1 vaccine";
"An unconfirmed source says Swedish news sources are reporting at least 350 adverse reactions to the vaccine";
"Hungary has reported one death associated with the H1N1 vaccine";
"Glaxo-Smith-Kline (...) expects to make one billion pounds from the H1N1 vaccine alone"
And news from Ireland:
"The teenager fell seriously ill after receiving the injection, along with thousands of other pupils across Northern Ireland last Friday".
Whether or not these are just some sporadic cases of adverse reactions of this new vaccine, as expected (because it did not followed the normal clinical trials), one fact is pure true: pharmaceutical companies are going to become, not just richer, they are going to be even more powerful entities achieving a dangerous position on the health system that will end up to limit the action of the other professional health staff.
Hopefully we will eradicate this new strain of virus but is it worthful? Do the expenses compensate the results? What about the other more epidemic diseases that do not affect the small minority of developed nations?
What about on the future? Are people going to have to take the vaccine even against their willing?! After all this is a rapid contagious disease despite the mild symptoms associated with it on the normal healthy population. And, who says H1N1 vaccine says also any other vaccination... How are the legal rights of a mother to deny the vaccination of her son because of the fear of adverse reactions?!
We are focusing on the wrong problems and because of that a group of few companies will become so rich but so rich that negligent judicial processes will be covered really easy and the company will proceed as richer as never on the detriment of the health conditions and the patient's rights.
"There are reports from Sweden of possible deaths linked to the H1N1 vaccine";
"An unconfirmed source says Swedish news sources are reporting at least 350 adverse reactions to the vaccine";
"Hungary has reported one death associated with the H1N1 vaccine";
"Glaxo-Smith-Kline (...) expects to make one billion pounds from the H1N1 vaccine alone"
And news from Ireland:
"The teenager fell seriously ill after receiving the injection, along with thousands of other pupils across Northern Ireland last Friday".
Whether or not these are just some sporadic cases of adverse reactions of this new vaccine, as expected (because it did not followed the normal clinical trials), one fact is pure true: pharmaceutical companies are going to become, not just richer, they are going to be even more powerful entities achieving a dangerous position on the health system that will end up to limit the action of the other professional health staff.
Hopefully we will eradicate this new strain of virus but is it worthful? Do the expenses compensate the results? What about the other more epidemic diseases that do not affect the small minority of developed nations?
What about on the future? Are people going to have to take the vaccine even against their willing?! After all this is a rapid contagious disease despite the mild symptoms associated with it on the normal healthy population. And, who says H1N1 vaccine says also any other vaccination... How are the legal rights of a mother to deny the vaccination of her son because of the fear of adverse reactions?!
We are focusing on the wrong problems and because of that a group of few companies will become so rich but so rich that negligent judicial processes will be covered really easy and the company will proceed as richer as never on the detriment of the health conditions and the patient's rights.
quinta-feira, 29 de outubro de 2009
The swine flu hoax
Conspiracy theory for the swine flu!
Let the discussion begin!
Produced by Dr. Ron Paul, an American physician and a Republican Congressman for the state of Texas.
You can watch one more interesting video by clicking here
Dr. Rauni_Lenna Luukanen-Kilde is the former chief of medical officer of the Lappland province in Finland and she is known by trying to take a deeper look in some questions by exposing her conspiracy theories.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
