Numb and Number

"Scientists have finally discovered the secret to...."

A doctor turned mathematician has spent much of his career exposing what has been called "medicine's dark secret". As the doctor puts it, "The problem is we don't know what we're doing." David Eddy, M.D., Ph.D. says further, "The practice of medicine is more guesswork than science."

Figures. But many people without Dr. Eddy's credentials have known this "secret" for some time.

The 2006 businessweek.com story in which Dr. Eddy's comments appeared contained confessions to other well known poorly kept dark secrets, including:
          - the high-tech health care system in the U.S. costs $2 trillion per year (2006) but there is no evidence to show that costlier treatments are more effective than cheaper ones;
          - only 15% of what doctors do is backed by evidence;
          - only 20% to 25% of medical treatments have been proven effective....

"...can't put my finger on it..."

 "The limitation is the human mind...", says Dr. Eddy and, therefore, we need a computer program to decide what treatments are the most effective and cost efficient given a specific diagnosis. His answer to the "limitation" is a computer program he calls "Archimedes". An official with the American Diabetes Association - and apparently a mathematician, too - said that it, Archimedes, "is better than thinking by at least 10 times."

Digital!

(Another problem, which we might add to Dr. Eddy's list, is that we, people, tend to accept without scrutiny pronouncements made by doctors and mathematicians.)


In his Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan proposes the following:

Just as writing is an extension and separation of our most neutral and objective sense, the sense of sight, number is an extension and separation of our most intimate and interrelating activity, our sense of touch.

The Greek Archimedes (290 B.C. to 210 B.C.) is famous for many things including defining the principle of levers ("...give me a place to stand on and I will move the earth...") and for inventing a method to determine the volume of an object with an irregular shape. Archimedes was profoundly influential in the evolution of science and mathematics in the Western world.

Galileo Galilei (1564 to 1642) was so inspired by Archimedes' work that he invented a balance for weighing metals in air and water. Galilei was the first to proclaim that the laws of nature and the universe are mathematical. But mathematician Galilei, referred to by some (Einstein, for example) as "the father of modern science", is most famous for his "affair" with the Catholic Church concerning the structure of the solar system.

("As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Einstein.)

 I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Although we have come to know the Galileo Affair as the unfair and unjust imprisonment of a great scientist by a narrow-minded and anti-science Catholic Church, there are other interpretations. For example, an ex-president of The Italian Institute of Nuclear Physics has explained it succinctly: "Galileo was not condemned for his scientific views but because he wanted to formulate theology."

Got his number.

In any case, Galilei represents the "moment" in Western history when mathematics began to dominate science.

This period in Western history, when the Medieval gave way to the Renaissance and priority was being given to manipulating and controlling nature by translating phenomena into mathematical "language", was one of great change:

• Speaking of Galilei, he was known also for his perfection of the telescope and microscope, optical devices which had been around for about 100 years and which had their first manifestation as spectacles to facilitate reading. (The telescope makes things that are far away appear close-up, and the microscope makes very small things look big.) (Ironically, Galilei had problems with his eyesight and was totally blind at age 73, four years before his death.)
• Literacy grew explosively in the 16th century due primarily to the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg (1398 to 1468). Gutenberg's Bible, printed in the mid 15th century, was the first book produced in the West on a printing press. The Gutenberg Bible was and still is considered a masterpiece of artistic achievement.
• Christopher Columbus' (1451-1506) explorations, including the one for which he is most famous in the late 15th century, and the explorations of many others in that time, created a demand for maps. As the stars were used in navigation, flaws in the Ptolemaic system were noticed, causing confidence in the old system to wane.
• Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) initiated his protest in 1517 with the publication of  95 Theses in which he questioned Church practices that included the sale of "indulgences", that is paying for the forgiveness of sin. (Ironically, one of the first profitable jobs undertaken by Gutenberg and his printing press was the printing of indulgences for the Church.) Luther was the figurehead of the so-called Reformation. His Lutheranism was a rejection of the schoolmen and their scholasticism whose reasoning, he believed, could not develop a theology better than what was contained in Scripture.

Give me your number - I'll be in touch.

Another prominent figure of Western science of this period is Isaac Newton (1643 to 1727), often identified as the most influential scientist of all time, including Einstein. His theory of color, laws of motion and gravitation, and his work with calculus, the telescope, and so on, have established his reputation even though he wrote more on (and was more interested in) metaphysics and the occult sciences such as alchemy. His theory of light and color, though controversial and not accepted universally in his day, and having been proven incorrect since, is still taught as fact in science classes.

Hands off!

The German Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) contradicted Newton's theory of color and, in general, opposed the trend in science that was moving to quantify all phenomena and nature. But Newton was beloved and revered and Goethe's holism was against the mode. Goethe is considered to have been a great writer and botanist but a confused scientist, though his theory of color has been validated.



The mathematician may be compared to a designer of garments, who is utterly oblivious of the creatures whom his garments may fit. ...a shape will occasionally appear which will fit the garment as if the garment had been made for it. Then there is no end of surprise and delight. Tobias Dantzig, Number: The Language of Science.

The goal of our official science is the mathematical quantification of nature, as Galilei proposed. However, the undertone of a more holistic, qualitative approach recently has emerged. "The laws of physics and chemistry," says Michael Polanyi, "are transcended by the morphology of living things."


 In the days when an idea could be silenced by showing that it was contrary to religion, theology was the greatest single source of fallacies. Today, when any human thought can be discredited by branding it as unscientific, the power exercised previously by theology has passed over to science; hence science has become in its turn the greatest single source of error. Polanyi, "Life's Irreducible Structure", 1968.

"I gotta hand it to ya..."

Morphology, the study of size, shape, and structure in living organisms, originated with Goethe, but Russian embryologist Alexander Gurwitsch (1874-1954) in the 20th century conceived a morphogenetic field theory. He believed that a holistic model was needed to understand the development of an organism from fertilized egg to mature form. In 1944 he wrote "...the field acts on molecules. It creates and supports in living systems a specific molecular orderliness."

Gurwitsch discovered the biophoton, light emitted from biological systems that appeared to be generated with electromagnetic radiation from living cells. He theorized that this mitogenic radiation guided embryonic development. He observed that "...the individual cell divisions appear to be related to each other more or less randomly and effect their full end result only in relation to a supra-cellular ordering or integrating factor." His work on biophotons was used in Russia to detect cancer.

Gurwitsch was criticized harshly for his work on biophotons and fields by an influential American industrial chemist who referred to Gurwitsch's work as "pathological science". 

Following Goethe and Gurwitsch, biologist Rupert Sheldrake proposed the existence of  "morphic fields" in his 1981 publication A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. Controversial, it was targeted by then editor of Nature John Maddox as "a book for burning".

From Sheldrake's website:


"This infuriating tract... is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." In an interview broadcast on BBC television in 1994, [Maddox] said: "Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy."

Reach out and touch someone.

Sheldrake explains that his morphic fields are similar to but more general than morphogenetic fields, and he suggests that they may help explain telepathy and other parapsychological phenomena.

Maddox's review of Sheldrake's Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home was equally hostile:


Rupert Sheldrake is steadfastly incorrigible in the particular sense that he persists in error. That is the chief import of his eighth and latest book. Its main message is that animals, especially dogs, use telepathy in routine communications. The interest of this case is that the author was a regular scientist, with a Cambridge PhD in biochemistry, until he chose pursuits that stand in relation to science as does alternative medicine to medicine proper.

Maddox's pronouncement that Sheldrake was a heretic, likening this event to the "Galileo affair", gives irony a new high point. And his analogy using alternative medicine, if Dr. Eddy's characterization of "medicine proper" is accurate, creates a very embarrassing moment for science, medicine and... Nature.

In his most recent book, The Science Delusion, Sheldrake suggests that taboos in science limit authentic scientific inquiry and that scientific dogma has made a religion of it. "Heretic" Sheldrake's reputation as a scientist was severely damaged by Maddox's comments and the piling-on of subsequent reviewers. Sheldrake has been conferred the status of "untouchable" though some think he is more a messenger than a heretic.

Nature, the journal, took its name from a line of poetry titled "A Volant Tribe of Bards on Earth Are [sic] Found" by William Wordsworth. The first article of the first issue of the journal published in 1869 featured "Nature: Aphorisms by Goethe". The first aphorism is as follows:

NATURE! We are surrounded and embraced by her: powerless to separate ourselves from her, and powerless to penetrate beyond her.

To some it appears that Nature, the journal, knows not what nature, the reality, is, even as doctors know not what health is. If science is in the state it's in, and medicine is more guesswork than science, then medicine is... out of touch. At least.

 Your number's up.

rhetoric, propaganda, marketing, spin, lies

"The total life of any culture tends to be 'propaganda'…. It blankets perception and suppresses awareness, making the counter environments created by the artist indispensable to survival and freedom."  Marshall McLuhan, 1970.


the sound of science

The co-incidental emergence of superbugs in hospitals and superweeds on factory farms is ominous, and each represents a challenge to human health.

The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by the overuse of antibiotics in humans and farm animals has been observed for at least 40 years in the West. Warnings by doctors, scientists, and government agencies in Europe were obscured in arguments and denial in the U.S. Congress. And the controversy still exists with each side citing sound science in support of its opinion.

To this day, antibiotics are prescribed by doctors for patients with respiratory symptoms caused by viruses or mold, microorganisms which are not affected by antibiotics; and some farmers continue to give sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to cows, pigs, and chickens to fatten them.

Herbicide-resistant superweeds have evolved in fields sprayed with Monsanto’s Round-Up, a glyphosphate herbicide Monsanto’s genetically modified crops have been “engineered” to resist. According to some biologists, this practice, and in general the farming practice promoted by Monsanto, is the perfect way to create plants that herbicides can’t kill. Yet, in January 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Tom Vilsack, under pressure from government and industry, deregulated without restriction Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa seed. Then, a week or so later, USDA deregulated genetically modified sugar beet.

Prior to deregulation, as a result of legal proceedings against the deregulation, the USDA was ordered to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS). As a part of performing the EIS, USDA held a public comment period during which concerns about deregulating GM alfalfa could be expressed. The USDA’s final 2300 pages-long EIS document contained many statements of significant concern against deregulation, concerns which the USDA itself acknowledged as valid.

Consequently Secretary Vilsack, though a proponent of biotechnology and a “friend” of Monsanto, sought to mitigate concern by proposing restrictions on the deregulation of GM alfalfa. However, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, complaining that “restrictions” would require oversight and oversight would cost money and more taxes, and so on, pressured Vilsack to deregulate without restrictions. Led by committee chairman Frank Lucas, the House Agriculture Committee challenged Vilsack saying that GM alfalfa repeatedly had been found safe. In a public statement after genetically modified alfalfa’s deregulation, Lucas said, “I am pleased the USDA used sound science in making the decision to deregulate GM alfalfa.”

Monsanto, by the way, was a major contributor to Lucas’ 2010 election; it was listed as a “Top Five Contributor” by opensecrets.org, having given Lucas $11,000 for the 2009-2010 election. On top of that, agribusiness political action committees contributed over $5 million to members of the House Agriculture Committee for the 2010 election cycle. But these figures represent a drop in the bucket, as it were. The practice of special interest groups donating money to support the election of politicians who will carry-out their wishes, of course, is not just commonplace but the way business is done in American politics and governments. Please see opensecrets.org.

Recall that “sound science” was invoked in May 2010 by the President of the Wisconsin Medical Society in support of then Governor Doyle’s rejection of a bill that temporarily would have legalized raw milk sales in the state. He said, in part, “…the governor acted on behalf of sound science…” in refusing to sign the bill.

In the last few years the phrases “sound science” and “junk science” have been used increasingly by industry propagandists to criticize research that supports environmental concerns and that is critical of irresponsible industry practices. Neither term has technical relevance or true critical value, however. They are rhetorical devices and are rarely – if ever – used by scientists.

The term “sound science”, though it seems to have been in the vernacular forever, dates to the 1980’s and the tobacco industry’s attempts to discredit research that revealed the harmful effects of cigaret smoke. A shill for the tobacco industry and proponent of tobacco’s “sound science” was Steven Milloy, Fox News commentator, president of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC, a defunct lobby group), and propagandist for various industry concerns. On its inoperable website this “Coalition” says that it advocates “the use of sound science in public policy decision making.”

In a press release in February 1994, TASSC criticized scientists who warned against the use of Monsanto’s rBGH saying "This is a prime example of a special interest group using its own political agenda to drive policy. It has nothing to do with the valid information that sound science has provided." Again, this comment is from a pro rBGH lobby group criticizing scientists who warned against the unwanted side-effects of using the hormone in milk cows – and a demonstration of the power of rhetoric.

In 1937 the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) began discussing rhetorical devices and techniques that were used in political and commercial promotions. The IPA believed that the increasing amounts of propaganda in media at that time decreased a person’s critical thinking ability. According to Sourcewatch, IPA wanted “to teach people how to think rather than what to think.” Initially successful, the group folded in 1942, however, probably under pressure from the proponents of United States’ propaganda aimed at its war enemies.

Among other things, the IPA developed a list of rhetorical or propaganda techniques with which one could familiarize oneself to aid in identifying and deconstructing the propaganda environment. The original 7 techniques, and a few more recent additions, include: name-calling, smear, glittering generalities, transfer, testimonials, plain folks, card-stacking, bandwagon, fear, double-speak, and junk science.

From the website propagandacritic.com:

With the growth of communication tools like the Internet, the flow of persuasive messages has been dramatically accelerated. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This is a wonderful development, but there is a cost.

The information revolution has led to information overload, and people are confronted with hundreds of messages each day. Although few studies have looked at this topic, it seems fair to suggest that many people respond to this pressure by processing messages more quickly and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts.

Propagandists love short-cuts -- particularly those which short-circuit rational thought. They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, they can be quite successful.

In The Fine Art of Propaganda, the IPA stated that "It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together."


rhetorical questions and trivium pursuit

Rhetoric, with grammar and logic, comprise the trivium, the foundation of a liberal arts education in Medieval Europe.

Historically the trivium is traced to the Classical Period of Ancient Greece, to Socrates, his disciple Plato, and Plato’s student Aristotle. Plato and Socrates insisted that rhetoric should be guided by logic and dialog. Aristotle had a lot to say about it in his Art of Rhetoric including how to use emotion, assumptions, and strategy to improve one’s capacity to persuade.

Plato was a strong proponent of literacy, the acquired ability to read and write, even though his dialog Phaedrus displays Socrates’ criticism of it. But Socrates, as the story goes, capitulated after Plato’s rhetorical argument that literacy would not have the unwanted side effects, of which Socrates warned, if a system like the trivium were used in education.

A basic definition of rhetoric, in keeping with Aristotle, is “how to say what one has to say, elegantly, effectively, persuasively, and based on good logic”. “Rhetoric” may refer to the skill, the study, or the language.

Our word “trivial” (meaning “of little importance or significance; ordinary, commonplace”) comes from the point-of-view of those who moved on to the study of the quadrivium (mathematics, natural science, astronomy, and theology) for which the trivium was the foundation. That is, from the point-of-view of high school, grammar school is trivial. However, as the basis for using humanity’s greatest technology - the one that underlies all communication technologies - the trivium should not be trivialized.


“A point-of-view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding.” Marshall McLuhan, 1962.


propagate The faith

A strategy of propaganda is to appeal to emotion. This bastard of rhetoric, found most commonly in political, commercial, and religious endeavors, dates to the 16th century and the Catholic Church.

In Medieval Europe (5th to 15th century) education was rooted in the trivium: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. As the primary cultural influence at that time, the Catholic Church used the trivium to teach and preserve the art of writing.

In the early 17th century, the Church, in reaction to the Reformation and to take advantage of explorations around the world, installed the “Sacred Congregation of Propaganda” to propagate the faith – de propaganda fide. In this endeavor, the Church established its college in Rome and printed many books and other materials to support and promote its efforts. In that same period Ignatius formed the Jesuit order, which was dedicated to the propagation of the Church and its ideas. Although known for its scholastic system of education, the Jesuits were vilified in that period for casuistry, the selective application of laws on a case-by-case basis, for example, in allowing priests to defrock themselves temporarily so they could go to a brothel.

Casuistry, in its pejorative sense, refers to a specious argument or one that is intended to deceive, but it also is a branch of ethics that studies the relationship of general principles to particular cases.

The “Sacred Congregation of Propaganda” was renamed “Congregation for the Evangelization of People” in 1982 by the Pope. Its purpose and function has remained the same throughout its history, however.


disinfomashin’

Chemical Industry Archives notes that in 2002 a jury in Alabama found Monsanto guilty on all six counts it considered including negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage in the operation of its PCB plant in Anniston. According to a February 2002 Washington Post article “Under Alabama law, the rare claim of ‘outrage’ requires conduct ‘so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society’.” That is a legal definition, not rhetoric.

In roughly the same time period that the outrage was coming to light - and to court - Monsanto agents, disguised as “food safety experts”, infiltrated FDA and USDA and railroaded through FDA’s approval process Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone, threatening scientists in the agency who protested the approval.

Currently Monsanto’s “America’s Farmers” website lists the following “pledges”:

Integrity

Integrity is the foundation for all that we do. Integrity includes honesty, decency, consistency, and courage. Building on those values, we are committed to:

Dialogue

We will listen carefully to diverse points of view and engage in thoughtful dialogue. We will broaden our understanding of issues in order to better address the needs and concerns of society and each other.

Transparency

We will ensure that information is available, accessible, and understandable.

Again from www.chemicalindustryarchives.org:

[As] the company's own documents show, Monsanto went to extraordinary efforts to keep the public in the dark about PCBs, and even manipulated scientific studies by urging scientists to change their conclusions to downplay the risks of PCB exposure. Monsanto's conduct, throughout the entire period that the company made PCBs, was less than commendable. Their attempts today to backpedal on the science and shirk responsibility for the global saturation of PCBs is equally discouraging, as are their repeated attempts to "green" their image with flashy, expensive PR campaigns.

In 2001 an attorney for Monsanto in the Anniston trial is recorded as saying, “The truth is that PCB’s are everywhere...” in an attempt to demonstrate that PCB contamination causes no significant health problems. Paraphrasing his rhetoric, “Look: We’ve all got PCB’s in us and we’re o.k., right? So what’s the big deal?” And he tried to convince the jury that Monsanto didn’t know its PCB’s were toxic.

However, because of its toxicity PCB production was banned in the U.S. in 1979. Its toxicity was recognized in the 1930’s. A report in 1947 in a chemical industry journal described chlorinated biphenyls, the class of chemicals to which PCB’s belong, as “objectionably toxic”. Internal confidential documents from Monsanto brought forward in the Anniston trial revealed that it knew for decades that its PCB’s were dangerous and toxic to humans and wildlife.

 Until it was banned, Monsanto was the only North American producer of PCB’s.

PCB toxicity is similar to that of other dioxins, which the Environmental Protection Agency identifies as “likely carcinogenic”. Dioxins were a component of Agent Orange, the herbicide made by Monsanto for the U.S. Defense Department during the Viet Nam war. Currently, Monsanto’s glyphosphate herbicide Round-Up and Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready crops are viewed by some in agriculture as responsible for the latest emergence of superweeds.


off the grass!

Grassroots organizations are local, community-based groups that form spontaneously in support of a political issue or politician. Obviously a metaphor, it implies a relationship with the soil, and that which is naturally rooted in the earth and grounded.

Astroturfing is a propaganda technique that a company uses to give support for a cause without revealing its identity. It is a fake grassroots movement that may use a website, or comments on articles or weblogs, or communicates via conversations in social media networks.

Wikipedia makes this distinction between grassroots and astroturfing:

Faking a grassroots movement is known as astroturfing. Astroturfing, as the name suggests, is named after Astroturf, a brand of artificial grass. Astroturfing means pretending to be a grassroots movement, when in reality the agenda and strategy is controlled by a hidden non-grassroots organization. A show is made of individuals pretending to be voicing their own opinions.

The anonymity of the web gives companies and governments the perfect opportunity to run astroturf operations: fake grassroots campaigns that create the impression that large numbers of people are demanding or opposing particular policies. This deception is most likely to occur where the interests of companies or governments come into conflict with the interests of the public.

Astroturf, a brand of synthetic carpeting made to look like natural grass, is installed in sports stadiums all over the country. It was invented in the 1960’s by chemists at… Monsanto. Honest.

Captain Cosmonaut's Journal

Captain Cosmonaut's Journal by William Conder

Make Your Own Book

Principles of Health

Principles of Health by Dr. William Conder

Make Your Own Book

Peek-a-book

All Medicine Is Energy Medicine by William Conder, D.C.

Resist it, it persists

At a news conference in October 2010, FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, citing the "distressingly low" number of new antibiotics in development, proposed providing a "financial incentive" to drug companies to increase their research and development of such substances. She said that this action is important and necessary in view of the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant strains of "superbugs" that have evolved from harmless, as well as infectious, strains of bacteria.

In other words, Dr. Hamburg of the FDA wants to pay, or otherwise financially compensate, the wealthiest (and arguably the most ethically-challenged) companies in the world to invent more antibiotic drugs to kill bacteria that have evolved into drug-resistant "superbugs" due to abuse of the drugs these companies have made already to kill less deadly "bugs". Apparently, when Dr. Hamburg's political appointment expires, she will be looking for a really good-paying job in the pharmaceutical industry.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified antibiotic resistance as "one of the world's most pressing health problems". The World Health Organization says that the main causes of the emergence of the resistant bacteria are the overuse of antibiotics in feed animals for non-therapeutic reasons and indiscriminant prescribing of these drugs by doctors.

So, let's have more antibiotics?

It is common practice on large factory farms to add antibiotics to livestock's feed to promote growth and protect against infection. The prophylactic use is necessary due to changes in the bacterial species in the digestive tract of livestock fed mostly grains instead of grasses, and to control mastitis, udder inflammation.

In June 2010, the FDA issued a recommendation to farmers to abandon the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. The problem was identified, however, as early as 1969 in the UK by a group whose "Swann Report" stated:

It is clear that there has been a dramatic increase over the years in the numbers of strains of enteric bacteria of animal origin which show resistance to one or more antibiotics. This resistance has resulted from the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and other purposes in farm livestock.

Why did FDA drag its feet for 40 years? A reason may be found in this example: recall that Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of New Animal Drugs at FDA in the early '90's, approved a report from Monsanto attesting to the safety of Monsanto's growth hormone for cows, rBGH. (rBGH, by the way, is known to increase the incidence of mastitis in milk cows.) Later, Miller approved increasing by 100 times the legal limit of antibiotics that could be given to cows. And, by the way, the aforementioned report verifying the safety of rBGH was written by Miller, herself, when she was a researcher at Monsanto, before she worked at FDA.

The following is a summary of legislation that has been proposed in congress every year (with minor additions) since 2003. It hasn't passed yet.

Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for a phased elimination of the nontherapeutic use in food-producing animals of critical antimicrobial animal drugs. Defines "critical antimicrobial animal drug" and "nontherapeutic use." Requires manufacturers of a critical antimicrobial animal drug or an animal feed for food-producing animals containing such a drug to report annual sales information.

In addition to 55 congressional supporters, a 2003 report by the "Keep Antibiotics Working"" campaign listed over 300 endorsements for "The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2003" including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, dozens of health and consumer groups, animal protection organizations, religious groups, and sustainable farming and agriculture organizations. The American Farm Bureau was conspicuous in its absence from that list.

See the list here http://www.acpm.org/2003051H.pdf

The Department of Health and Human Services' National Institutes of Health's website lists the following about antibiotic resistant micro-organisms:

Quick Facts

•Increasing use of antimicrobials in humans, animals, and agriculture has resulted in many microbes developing resistance to these powerful drugs.
•Many infectious diseases are increasingly difficult to treat because of antimicrobial-resistant organisms, including HIV infection, staphylococcal infection, tuberculosis, influenza, gonorrhea, candida infection, and malaria.
•Between 5 and 10 percent of all hospital patients develop an infection, leading to an increase of about $5 billion in annual U.S. healthcare costs.
•About 90,000 of these patients die each year as a result of their infection, up from 13,300 patient deaths in 1992.
•People infected with antimicrobial-resistant organisms are more likely to have longer hospital stays and may require more complicated treatment.

Ninety thousand hospital patients die each year from superbug infections developed while in the hospital, compared to 13,300 in 1992. Remember, Monsanto researcher Margaret Miller, at FDA, approved increasing the legal limit of antibiotic use in cows by 100 times in the early 1990's.

Robert Cohen, who petitioned FDA to reconsider its approval of rBGH, wrote in May 2000:

The consequences of her [Margaret Miller]  action were that new strains of bacteria developed in dairy cows that were immune to existing antibiotics, which no longer worked when they were needed. People drank milk containing increased amounts of antibiotics and new species of bacteria with immunities to those antimicrobials.

On its website, Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology follows-up Cohen's article with this comment:

Leading experts have emphasized that powerful measures are required to reduce the use of antibiotics. There are clear evidence linking antibiotics resistance in salmonella and other bacteria to the use of antibiotics in farm animals. In a situation, feared to cause the resurgence of intractable lethal infectious diseases, an FDA official, Margret Miller, has acted so as to further increase the risk of the emergence of dangerous bacteria all over the USA by allowing a considerable increase of antibiotics use on cows. The only obvious reason for such a decision appears to have been to promote the use of rBGH.

If we connect all the dots....we find that industrialized farming practices....which have persisted for several generations in spite of evidence indicating it's harmfulness to humans and farm animals....(because of  short-sighted objectives and intentional ignorance with regard to environmental considerations on the part of proponents of these practices)....have caused the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria....which find their way into food....and wind up in the bodies of people....causing illness and death.

What is referred to here by the phrase "industrialized farming practices" includes: administering recombinant bovine growth hormone to cows to make them produce more milk than their bodies want to; giving feed animals antibiotics to fatten them and to combat infection caused as unwanted side-effects of rBGH; grain feeding instead of grass grazing; fertilizing vegetable crops with manure from cows that harbor antibiotic resistant bacteria having emerged due to their being subjected to abuse of antibiotics.

Presently, controversial Senate Bill 510 is being considered by our lawmakers. The bill would grant FDA considerable power to regulate the production and processing of food. With Monsanto operative, lobbyist, and lawyer Michael Taylor acting as "food safety expert" within FDA at this time, one can imagine in whose favor FDA food safety policy will be placed. Meanwhile, the bill to control use of antibiotics in feed animals, first proposed in 2003 and well-supported throughout the health community, can't get out of committee.

Senate Bill 510, if passed into law, would jeopardize small farms' ability to sell directly to consumers. A paragraph added to the bill in the interest of protecting small farmers from the burden of federal regulations  was received with protest from big agriculture lobbyists. Following is an excerpt from their letter to Senators Reid, Harkin, McConnell, and Enzi concerning the amendment proposed by Montana Senator Tester:

...we are writing to express our opposition to latest “compromise” on Senator Tester’s amendment to exempt small farms and business operations from basic federal food safety requirements.

Comments from Senator Tester and supporters are now making it abundantly clear that their cause is not to argue that small farms pose less risk, but to wage an ideological war against the vast majority of American farmers that seeks to feed 300 million Americans. We are appalled at statements by Senator Tester reported today in the Capital Press that “Small producers are not raising a commodity, but are raising food. Industrial agriculture, he said, takes the people out of the equation."

The undersigned produce organizations strongly oppose inclusion of the Tester amendment in S. 510. If this language is included in the bill, we will be forced to oppose final passage of the bill.

The "undersigned" is a list of groups represented by The Produce Marketers Association and United Fresh Produce Association. Regarding the latter, its board of directors lists representatives from Dole, Kroger, McDonalds, Dupont, and Bayer, among others. (Noteworthy in this letter is the use of the phrase "wage an ideological war": where do these small farmers get off bucking the system by wanting to control their own farming methods and by selling directly to consumers?! The nerve!)

To reiterate, the primary causes of the evolution of antibiotic resistant superbug microorganisms, according to researchers and public health officials, are 1) the over-use and abuse of antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes in food animals, and 2) over-use and abuse of antibiotics, for health problems not affected by antibiotics, in humans. And it is widely acknowledged that the "food contamination problem" is inherent in industrialized food production.

When used appropriately, antibiotics are very important drugs and can save lives. In any case, however, they cause unwanted side-effects in the human body. Still, these side-effects are considered a fair and necessary trade-off for stopping a dangerous bacterial infection.

An analogous situation has emerged in agriculture: "superweeds" resistant to conventional herbicides, especially Monsanto's glyphosphate Roundup, are appearing as another sign that Nature is pushing back.

A December 2008 report in "The Delta Farm Press" exposed the following:

The epicenter of glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed is Macon County, Ga. That site is now 70 percent to 80 percent resistant and over 10,000 acres were abandoned in 2007.

Palmer amaranth is suspected to be resistant on 300,000 acres in 20 counties in Georgia; 130,000 acres in nine counties in South Carolina; 200,000 acres in 22 counties in North Carolina.

The same online newsletter posted the following article on November 2010:

Are we running out of herbicides? The answer, I believe, is yes — for three reasons.

The first is the continued development of herbicide-resistant weeds. We have no less than seven glyphosate-resistant weeds in the Mid-South now. They include giant ragweed, common ragweed, johnsongrass, Italian ryegrass, Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp.

Many folks tend to forget that in the early 1990s, we were beginning to have major issues with herbicide resistance with these same weeds. Roundup Ready crops came on in the mid- to late-1990s and bailed us out of that mess.

...out of the frying-pan "mess" into the fire "mess".... The Roundup Ready bail-out was temporary. (The other 2 reasons indicated by the article's author had to do with pressure from environmental groups and diminished development of herbicides from chemical companies.)

And now we need more herbicides?

"Roundup Ready" is Monsanto's name for its genetically engineered crop seeds modified to resist its glyphosphate herbicide, "Roundup". The idea is that if farmers plant Roundup Ready seeds they can spray their fields with the herbicide Roundup and not worry that the herbicide will kill Roundup Ready plants - it kills only the nasty, unwanted weeds.

Monsanto's response to the emergence of superweeds to farmers, as early as 1997, was to recommend more glyphosphate, more Roundup Ready seeds, and avoid crop rotation using traditional crops and methods. Meanwhile it worked internally to maintain its position: by 2001 Monsanto obtained a patent on mixtures of its glyphosphate and other herbicides to target resistant weeds.

From Iowa State University's Department of Agronomy in May 2003, the following summarizes what weed scientists knew, and about which Monsanto lied:

Almost all weed scientists agree that the evolution of resistant biotypes is inevitable with the current use pattern of glyphosate. Increased adoption of rotations relying solely on RR crops will greatly enhance the rate that resistance evolves. Because of this, we feel it is best to develop long-term weed management plans that reduce the selection pressure placed on weeds by any single herbicide, including Roundup.

An October 2010 report published on the website of the Organic Consumers Association says:

Environmental scientists warned even before Monsanto's "herbicide tolerant" GMO crops were approved that they would hasten the evolution of resistant weeds. For these scientists, the issue was obvious: introduction of high doses of a single chemical year after year would result in the exact conditions needed to breed resistance: weeds with resistance genes would be the only weeds that could survive and breed, leading to superweeds that are unaffected even by massive herbicide spraying.

As the industrial model of farming and the industrial model of conventional medical practice fail, the people suffer the fallout. The solution that arises from within these industries is to "just keep doing more of the same". With  minds set this way, breakthrough is not likely. And, unfortunately, the  "...government by the people, for the people..." has become "...the government by the corporations, for the corporations..."

Intentional ignoring of adequate warning because commerce was the priority, a blind faith in the infallibility of the technology, and silly human error caused the unsinkable Titanic to sink, too.

A definition of insanity, attributed by different sources to the likes of Gandhi or Einstein or Twain or Socrates, goes something like "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results". A variation of this is the observation that "you can't solve a problem using the same logic that created the problem in the first place".

Obesity is recognized as a predisposing factor in heart disease, type II diabetes, and cancer - the top three health problems in America. Farmers know that feeding antibiotics and grains to livestock fattens them quickly and shortens their lives. Choose your doctor and your food carefully. And, if at all possible, stay out of the hospital.

December1, 2010

Pasteurized Milk, or, "Hey, Dude, Where's My Cow?"

In May 2010, saying that he "...must side with the interests of public health and the dairy industry..." Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle vetoed a bill that would have allowed the sale of raw milk under specific conditions for a year and a half. Many observers thought the bill, already passed in the Wisconsin legislature by a wide margin, would be signed by Doyle.

In other words, according to what Doyle himself said, he caved-in to the lobbying of special interests: "... side with interests of public health and the dairy industry..." He probably was not aware of what it was to which he was admitting, which makes the problem even worse.

"Public health" doesn't refer to the health of each individual of "the public", whatever that is. It refers to the officiants of government agencies whose opinions of what should and should not be done is dictated by corporate entities that have a special interest in outcomes.

Even though there is enough support from the people in Wisconsin for the "legalization" of raw milk, even though there is enough support from the group of elected state representatives for the "legalization" of raw milk, even though raw milk is "legal" in other states including Illinois and Minnesota, even though (in recent history) pasteurized milk caused more serious illness than raw milk, Doyle vetoed the bill under the lobbying influence of apparently powerful non-governmental agencies.

Statistically, raw spinach and canteloupe are more dangerous than raw milk. Recently, the Departmment of Agriculture announced another "ground beef" recall due to E. coli 0157:H7 contamination, this time 1,000,000 pounds of the mystery meat. The mid-sized Modesto, California, meat processing company in question says it takes food safety very seriously and, of course, it must. But with so many hands in this kind of operation, contamination is inevitable.

Approving of the governor's veto, the President of the Wisconsin Medical Society issued a statement on May 19, 2010 saying, in part, that "...the governor acted on behalf of sound science and in defense of children who may not understand the hazards of a glass of raw milk..."

It's no secret that people can be controlled with fear.

One would ask, "To what 'sound science' does the Wisconsin Medical society refer?" Is it the "sound science" perpetrated by the American Medical Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration? One does not find a convincing reason anywhere in the documentation to outlaw raw milk that is produced for raw consumption. In California, where raw milk is "legal", we do not hear of people dropping dead from its consumption the way we hear of people dropping dead from FDA approved drugs prescribed by doctors. What is found, over and over again, is that the dangers lurking in the food supply, including milk, are caused by the over-processing and adulteration of food materials by an impatiently greedy food industry that has influence in government.

Other groups that lobbyed Doyle included the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association, the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association, and the Wisconsin Farm Bureau.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau said that their opposition to legalizing raw milk has to do with

our overall concern for the State’s $26 billion dairy industry. If a person becomes ill from drinking raw milk, it is not only unpasteurized milk that gets a bad image, but all milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers have invested millions of dollars promoting milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers cannot afford to have an incident adversely affect consumption.

Raw milk dairy farmers can make 3 times as much money selling raw milk to people than they make selling to a processor, and they can do it with smaller herds and healthier cows.

The Wisconsin Dairy Business Association website lists as "sponsors" many farming industry companies including those involved in banking, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and "genetic improvement", and the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association.

This is not to say that there's something wrong with participating in big business and associating with others in big business. But, as in the case of the Wisconsin Dairy Business Association, when their "sponsors" page lists Cargill, Pioneer, Pfizer, Purina, BASF, and many other national and multinational companies, one may assume that their influence probably will not come down in favor of the small, independent farmer who prefers not to have ties to agri-business and biotech.

Small, independent farmers who don't want to play the game, who believe in the importance of thoughtful, even loving, farming practice, who simply want to provide people with wholesome, nutritious food, are being harrassed by government officials, extensions of the food and agriculture industries. This makes government and governmental agencies unrepresentative and untrustworthy in the eyes of people who expect fairness from their representatives.

Food pathogens in milk for which pasteurization was found necessary over 100 years ago account for 0.01% of food-borne illness today. Food pathogens found most commonly today have emerged only in the past 30 years. Between 1990 and 2004, all milk, raw and pasteurized, accounted for less than 1% of all reported food-borne illness.

Antibiotic-resistant Salmonella in pasteurized milk caused 200,000 illnesses and 18 deaths in 1984-1985. After 40 years of controversy, only this year the FDA only recommended that the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals be reduced.

You don't have to drink raw milk if you don't want to. But if you do want to, you can't because that choice is not available. Sushi? Pack of cigarets, bottle of whiskey, .38 special, roulette...? Yes. Raw milk directly from the farmer? No.

We have many strange incongruities in our society that we don't question because our perception has been trained to accept them. On closer inspection, some are funny, some are not.