Bogus and heavily biased “scientific” studies are unfortunately, more common than we’d like to believe. But I have to say, if one were doling out awards for the most idiotic, astoundingly stupid interpretation of study data, then the award will have to go to Lindsay H. Allen, RD, PhD, who apparently masquerades as a professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. I say “masquerades” because it is impossible to believe that a real professor, one who is instructing students, could stand up and deliver the statements that she did.

In one of the most irresponsible and flat out ignorant statements of recent days, Allen, who also happens to be the Director, USDA ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center (mmm, do I sniff a bias lurking in the shadows?) actually stood up and announced at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that “There’s absolutely no question that it’s unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans.”

Okay, we already know that anything that emerges from Allen’s mouth is going to be heavily biased towards the meat and dairy industry, as the USDA has an extremely cozy relationship with the industries that it is supposed to be regulating (just like the FDA, in fact). Allen made her announcements regarding veganism following a presentation of a study that she recently completed, which supposedly supports her theories on veganism. According to the results of her research, she came to the conclusion that a vegan diet was highly detrimental to pregnant women, their unborn children, and children in general.

So now let us look at her study. Was it credible? Were these conclusions based on carefully conducted research? Was it based on a structured study with control groups and meticulous monitoring of what children ate, as in comparing vegan children who ate a well balanced diet and non-vegan children? Did she study pregnant vegan women with their non-vegan counterparts? Was it perhaps based on a large number of children eating a normal vegan diet who were found to have a greater than usual risk for illness?

The answer is NO to all questions. Surprised? The only thing I’m surprised about is that the AAAS actually accepted her study for presentation, allowed her to get up and speak, and that she wasn’t laughed out of the lecture hall.

Professor Allen’s Incredible Study

Allen’s basis for this unprecedented attack on veganism centers on a bizarre and highly unethical study that she did with very poor, malnourished children in Kenya. The children had been raised on diets primarily consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples. So Prof Allen gave 2oz supplements of meat each day to one group of children, a cup of milk a day to a second group, a third group received an oil supplement, and the fourth got nothing. Just their usual corn and beans.

Now…drum roll everyone…after two years, Allen found that the health in the children who received the meat had dramatically improved. To a lesser extent, so did the children who got a cup of milk. Wow! What a study. What earth shattering results. A second grader could have come up with the conclusion to that one. Give starving people a little food, and they will begin to feel better.

So how does Allen connect giving malnourished children in a poor nation a few bits of meat and milk, with condemning balanced vegan diets in industrialized nations? Well, she doesn’t exactly say. But as in the X-Files, the truth is out there and that apparently, is what Allen believes. Even if it isn’t apparent to the naked eye, or to the reasonably intelligent brain, the connection has been made.

You have to wonder, is she really that much of an imbecile that she really believes this? Or is she just a PR wind-up toy for the meat and dairy industry? Oh, did I forget to mention that her study was funded in part by the National Cattleman’s Beef Association? I wonder if Allen disclosed all of these juicy tidbits when she gave her little talk, that her study was bought and paid for by the USDA and the Cattleman’s Beef Association.

Now we’re not talking bias, are we.

If you also notice, Allen carefully omitted giving any group of the children a vegetarian protein supplement, such as tofu, soy milk, a mix of nuts and seeds, marmite/vegemite (high protein and nutrient yeast supplements), etc. Strange, isn’t it, if one wants to determine an optimal method of supplying high quality nutrition to children. But then, Allen didn’t want to know if the childrens’ health would improve by giving them vegemite or soy milk. Can you imagine if her research disclosed that the children showed the most improvement when they were given nuts and seeds? What would the Cattlemen think? Best just to pretend that those products don’t exist, and just ignore them in your research.

So judging from this highly flawed study, which completely omitted high quality and high protein vegetarian food sources, Allen has also concluded that we need to put more emphasis on animal food sources to combat global malnutrition. Of course, that would be the obvious conclusion since she didn’t experiment with anything else. Another pearl of wisdom from the tainted lips of Prof. Allen. But in her effort to promote the meat industry overseas, she has also ignored the logistics. It is a well known fact that farming animals requires more land than farming plant products, and require more resources, and create more waste. This would be an issue in a developing country, but Allen pays no attention to such semantics.

Give Them Their Milk!!!

Now I know that Allen stood up there on the podium, and blew off hot air. It was her job to play propaganda maestro in order to boost lagging sales of meat and milk, as people are getting crazy ideas that the stuff may not be good for you. Especially since those silly studies keep pouring in connecting red meat with colon cancer—why, those studies must be flawed. Surely they can’t be stellar works of science like Allen’s own scientific masterpiece. But you still have to wonder, wasn’t the woman still embarrassed by the gibberish coming out of her mouth?

This is supposed to be a highly credentialed scientist who knows nutrition. But yet, she doesn’t appear to have any knowledge of basic science. Allen actually said that animal source foods have some nutrients not found anywhere else. Does she really believe this, or was that fat grant from the Cattleman’s Association to fund her study enough to make her babble like a ignoramous? What nutrients, pray tell, cannot be found in plant foods?

All the required amino acids can be found in plant foods, as can every other nutrient we need. This includes B-12, which comes from bacteria, and DHA, which comes from algae. A spoon of vegemite, or other high quality yeast products, will give you B12 and a full array of B vitamins and high quality protein. If Lindsay Allen’s allegations are correct, then how is it that vegans are able to live long and very healthy lives, minus that “secret ingredient” found only in meat and milk?

On the other hand, a great many vitamins, minerals, fiber and trace nutrients can only be found in plant products. Perhaps Allen conveniently confused her statistics?

Shrunken Babies

According to the BBC, Allen also claims that “there have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently.”

Perhaps Allen would care to elaborate on what these studies are, where they were published, what kind of population did they look at (starving African women, perhaps?)and who funded them. It does seem at the moment, that only she and her friends at the Cattleman’s Club are aware of them. I did a search in Medline and couldn’t find anything. If these studies do exist, I wonder if they share the same stellar quality as Allen’s own study of African children. And again, Allen fails to note that there have been a number of “real” long term studies on vegan children in wealthy nations which have showed them to be perfectly healthy.

Ethics of a Mad Scientist

Allen seems very proud of calling parents who put their children on vegan diets “unethical.” Well, has she examined her own ethics?

Aside from the idiocy of her conclusion, or should I say, the conclusion that she dreamed up in her meat drenched fantasy, this study was one of the most highly unethical pieces of research that I have ever come across.

I suppose that Allen thought that malnourished African children were similar to microbes growing in Petri dishes. One blogger who commented on her study wrote, “And yet like the Nazis who experimented on human prisoners, these ‘researchers’ don’t feed the starving, they don’t give them enough food, they do some weird pro-animal food experiment to try to twist it into a political point that helps the meat industry. These are truly sick, ethically-challenged researchers.”

And I heartily agree. Allen kept those children hungry. She doled out a cup of milk a day, a few teaspoons of meat, or an oil supplement. And gave one group nothing. Why didn’t she try to do the study over in the US, with some hungry children here—oh, I forgot, she might have had a hard time getting approval for her work.

Allen used these children to come to a pre-planned conclusion. She offered them only two choices of food supplements, so that it would naturally seem to appear that eating meat improved health. It is unconscionable, inexcusable, and unethical how she manipulated diets to promote special interest groups. If she were truly interested in the health of those African children, she would have been experimenting with foods that are readily available locally, can be easily grown or produced, and are inexpensive.

What this boils down to is a pathetic and desperate attempt by the meat and dairy industry to bolster lagging sales. Allen has stepped up to the plate to try to “convince” the public that we need meat and milk to stay alive and healthy, and threaten the public with the inherent dangers of feeding their children a plant based diet. I noticed that most of the press—and fortunately, there wasn’t much interest in her “research”—came from the UK media. Hopefully, the US media won’t be picking up on it, because people tend to see only the sound bytes, without actually reading about her study. I would go so far as to say that Allen is an embarrassment to the scientific community, and certainly, to those involved in nutrition and who are interested in promoting good health, and not in lining the coffers of the meat and milk industry.

And to Summarize…

Am I being too hard on Lindsay Allen? I think not. She conducted a highly unethical study which I consider tantamount to abuse, using little African children as her private guinea pigs, and twisting research to prove her point. Her study design was poor at best, horrific at worst, in that she never attempted to add highly nutritious non-animal source foods to the childrens’ diets. Her results were as expected—malnourished children will do better when they are given more food. Plain and simple.

And how she took that grand leap of faith, from adding a bit of meat to an impoverished African child’s diet to concluding that vegan diets in industrialized nations are dangerous, unethical, and cause developmental delay in children remains unexplained. She also made completely untrue statements in saying that animal products contain nutrients that can’t be found in plant foods, and that if a pregnant woman eats a vegan diet, it damages the fetus.

Perhaps someone should have taped Prof. Allen’s mouth shut with duct tape, and booted her off the podium. I have no patience with those who try to use scare tactics to push across dubious agendas.

If you were a patient in a hospital, or your grandma had been admitted for pneumonia, would you want an obviously sick nurse coming into the room? A nurse who is coughing, sneezing, dripping and drooling, or perhaps, is doing her best not to vomit or poop all over the floor because of an intestinal bug? Does that sound good to you?

Sick nurses belong at home. They do not belong around already sick patients, and there are certainly enough pathogens floating around the hospital without a nurse adding to it. But, nurses are often told that they “have” to work when they’re sick. They got threatened, reprimanded, disciplined, and basically told that yes, we do offer sick days but you better not take them.

Does this make sense? I suppose if you’re a hospital administrator it does.

Here is what one nurse says:

A nearby hospital here only pays you 60% of your salary as sick pay. That just encourages people to come in sick and spread thair germs around, ( and probably not do their job well.)

When I was working at one LA hospital, nurses were not paid for the first day that they called in sick. In their usual money grubbing wisdom, the hospital thought that would discourage nurses from calling in sick. But as it turned out, most nurses would then call in sick two days in a row, in order to get their sick pay. So the hospital had to replace nurses for two days, rather than just one. Smart cookies, those administrators.

One of my friends who recently quit her nursing job at a large teaching facility, said that soon after she began working, the head nurse of the unit told all of the nurses that they were “not to use their sick time because they would not be replaced on the unit.” Aha, lay on the guilt. Poor patients will suffer and die because of your selfishness.

My friend, very outspoken, asked politely what one was supposed to do if they had the flu, or food poisoning, or broke their leg? Come to work? Infect already infirm patients? Hobble on crutches? The head nurse said something to the effect that “if you can breathe, you can work.” What a trooper. And as part of the employment package, nurses were allocated something like 13 sick days. But if they didn’t use them, they lost them. And they couldn’t use them as vacation time.

Another nurse on a board wrote (paraphrased and any identifying data removed):

I was running a fever of 102 and my doctor thought I had pneumonia. He had scheduled a chest x-ray for the next day. I called in sick that night, and then to my surprise, the nursing supervisor called me back, and told me that I “better come to work or else.” I told her I had pneumonia and she said that she didn’t care. Calling in sick was not acceptable.

The nurse had her physician call one of the suits at the top of the food chain, and the supervisor got a tap on the wrist. What kind of nonsense is this? A nurse with pneumonia should come to work, and especially, to work a floor that contained mostly elderly patients?

Behind the scenes in hospital life is quite shocking. Administrators prefer sick nurses to come to work so that they don’t have to be bothered replacing them, or paying someone else overtime. They couldn’t care less about the patient’s health, exposure to germs they don’t need, or the health of the nurse.

Last night I watched the movie “Coming Home” for the first time since it came out in 1978. Amazing how the movie has remained fresh and undated, and I think is still the best movie ever made about Vietnam, and one of the best movies ever made.

The story, as the name implies, is about coming home from Vietnam, and in particular, the physical and psychological havoc caused by war. Especially, a war which many soldiers soon learned was not glorious and seemingly had no purpose.

Part of the movie takes place in the VA hospital, as shattered bodies are cared for and an attempt made to rehabilitate both the mind, soul and body. When I first saw the movie, I wasn’t yet a nurse and in fact, hadn’t even begun training. But now, watching it again after having “been there, done that” I was astonished at how realistic it was. And it was shocking to see how short staffed and ill equipped the facility was to care for these men, and how no one outside of the hospital was really concerned about their fate.

The reason I am even writing this, is not to give a movie review, but just to compare it to the Bush administration’s complete disregard for the heath and well being of our nation’s veterans. Bush, having been shielded and protected from Vietnam by Daddy’s money and influence, and indeed, bailed out throughout life by Daddy, doesn’t need to worry about Veteran’s benefits. Indeed, his whole staff is filled with paper soldiers who think war is a numbers’ game, and doesn’t involve death, destruction, blood, or disability.

After seeing this movie, it just enraged me to no end that Bush thinks that it’s okay to cut benefits for veterans, and even for soldiers on active duty. Of course, what does a disabled veteran have to do with Bush? What does he care about about an old man in a wheelchair, living on limited funds, who got this way because of service to his country. To Bush, veterans are just numbers, the VA just another place for him to cut funding, in order to continue to cut taxes for the extremely wealthy.

Of all the things that Bush has done, this act is one of the most reprehensible. I find it astonishing that any veteran or anyone in the military would vote for someone who so gleefully cuts benefits, while at the same time sending soliders off to die in another Vietnamish fiasco. The VA should be getting more money, not less. Soliders benefits should be increasing, and not the other way around.

On 14 February, President George W. Bush formally nominated the acting commissioner of the FDA, Lester Crawford, for the permanent job.

“Dr. Lester Crawford is an outstanding choice for Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration,” said newly-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt in a statement. “With Dr. Crawford’s leadership, FDA will provide the world’s safest drugs and empower citizens with the tools they need to make to make informed choices about their health.”

And so far, Dr. Crawford has done just a stellar job at that (please note, my voice is dripping with sarcasm). Is Mike Leavitt blind or deaf or what?

Under Crawford’s short time as acting commissioner, the FDA has been enmeshed in some of its worst scandals of all time. First, there came Vioxx, when whistle-blower David Graham announced that the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) had tried to prevent him from disseminating information about the danger of the drug. The allegations that the FDA suppressed results about the safety of COX-2 inhibitors all occured under Crawford’s leadership. And then there was the refusal to allow Plan B to come on the market over the counter. The FDA has been accused, in that case, of bowing to political pressure rather than making decisions based on science and public health.

It is also interesting to note that Crawfor was originally considered for the job and then rejected in 2001.

Dr. Crawford’s leadership has come under fierce criticism. When British health authorities condemned more than 40 million doses of flu vaccine from a plant in England and left the United States critically short of the medicine, Dr. Crawford said he was shocked by the news, a comment that led some critics to ask why his agency was surprised by problems that its inspectors had identified.

The agency was slow to acknowledge that antidepressants can cause depressed children and teenagers to be suicidal, even though one of its top safety officials was the first to confirm the link. And when Merck withdrew Vioxx in September because of data showing that it hurt the heart, the agency was criticized for failing to warn more strongly about the drug’s dangers years earlier.

So certainly, Lester Crawford has not led the FDA during its finest hour. In fact, the agency seems to have gone to complete hell since he stepped in. His nomination has gotten mixed support from Dems and Repubs, and he has been widely condemned by consumer advocacy organizations and womens’ groups. You have to wonder why the permanent position would be offered to someone who so clearly screwed up during his temporary appointment. He’s had his chance, he blew it big time. Give him his pink slip and send him packing, for heaven’s sake.

What is needed is someone fresh, an academic or public health official without ties to the drug industry, and a person who can stand up to political pressure. But I kinda doubt that is going to happen.

So we heard, Vioxx is deadly. Is it off the market? Well, yes, but maybe not for the long. Even though this drug is responsible for heart attacks and stroke in the range of 88,000 to 40,000 people, the FDA has not banned it.

You read correctly. Vioxx has been “temporarily” removed from the marketplace, but its manufacturer, is quite anxious to see it returned. And so, the pharm industry’s lapdog, aka the FDA, is barking to their tune.

The popular painkillers Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx all pose a risk of heart trouble, but should be available to those who need them, advisers to the Food and Drug Administration said Friday.

The panel strongly favored keeping Celebrex on the market, split over Bextra and favored Vioxx — which is currently not on sale — by a vote of just 17-16.

Of course the FDA is not obligated to follow the advice of their panel, which they ceremoniously ignored when it unanimously voted to make the morning after pill available over the counter. But why do I suspect that Vioxx will be back on the market, and this whole affair will be much ado about nothing?

Merck, who manufactures Vioxx, had their stock shoot up by 12% as soon as the announcement was made. Pfizer shares rose as well. Let’s face it, taking drugs off the market is bad business.

What is interesting is that if this had been a vitamin, an herb, or something related to the health food and alternative medicine industry, you better believe that the FDA would have spun its wheels and pulled that sucker off the shelves faster than a speeding bullit. A prime example is the case of tryptophan, a naturally occurring amino acid.

During the 1980’s, tryptophan was widely available as a supplement in health food stores and other major retail outlets such as supermarkets and drug stores. Individuals used it for sleeping difficulties, premenstrual syndrome, stress, depression, etc. In 1990 a single batch, from a single company, used an untested genetic engineering procedure which began to produce highly toxic contaminants. It caused a rare disease called Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), which is characterized by severe muscle pain and a dramatic increase in the number of eosinophils, a type of white blood cell. About 1500 cases of EMS were reported, with 27 deaths.

Tryptophan was yanked from the market, and has never been allowed back, except by doctor’s prescription. It has been 15 years since the incident, tryptophan caused no problems before this, and has caused none since (it is available elsewhere and used in hospitals). But the FDA says no can do, tryptophan is gone for good. Now, strangely enough, right about this time Prozac came on the market. What a surprise, that the FDA was trying to keep people from using a very effective, very inexpensive substance, which had virtually no side effects. The SSRI anti-depressants were slated to make a fortune, and the FDA made sure to keep tryptophan out of the way.

Of course, this is a conspiracy theory, but is there any other explanation? Why they continue to prohibit the sale of tryptophan, but yet allow items like trans fats, which kill maybe 100,000 people a year, to flourish? And have been diddling around with the Cox-2 inhibitors, which have clearly been shown to be very dangerous? Isn’t the FDA supposed to be protecting consumer health, and not trying to raise stock prices at Merck?

The advisers did suggest putting restrictions on the drugs, such as the dreaded “black box” warning (aka the kiss of death for a drug), and including more patient information and perhaps even resistricting who can even get them. They also suggested–horror-of -horrors–banning direct-to-consumer advertising for the products. No more “celebrate with Celebrex.”

It should be interesting to see the next move. Vioxx should be banned, no question. It has already proven itself, and how do you really restrict which patients get what drug. If a patient wants a drug and a doctor prescribes it, they will get it, dangerous or not. The other Cox-2 inhibitors may be open to more debate, but definitely, we need to see what’s going on with them, and get rid of the advertising. As for now, they should not be prescribed to any patient who can do well with a different drug.

I go this as a forwarded email from my SIL, and it’s so funny, I really have to share. Perhaps it turned up in your box as well?

President Bush was invited to address a major gathering of
the American Indian Nation last weekend in Arizona. He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every Native American’s present standard of living. He referred to his career as Governor of Texas, how he had signed “YES” 1,237 times – for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the President was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his “red brothers”. At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the President with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name – Walking Eagle. The proud President then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they come to select the new name given to the President. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.

While I will refrain from commenting on Bush’s foreign policy, I will say that it describes his plans for dismantling our already broken healthcare system. And his treatment of minorities in general, ie, as in telling black people that since it’s a given that they die younger (and boy, just accept your fate!), they’re being ripped off by paying into Social Security. Not that he proposed anything to stop the trend of black Americans dying at a young age…heaven forbid!

But anyway, Walking Eagle, who is so full of merde that he can barely waddle, is facing some stiff opposition from state governors, both Dems and Repubs. They just don’t think it’s cute that Walking Eagle wants to slice and dice Medicaid

Governors of both parties are uniting to oppose President Bush’s proposed cuts to Medicaid while also pushing for much larger changes, arguing that soaring costs have forced a fundamental re-examination of the program that provides health care to 52 million poor, elderly and disabled.

Advocates warn that the changes will drive many of the poor and elderly out of health care and will force care to emergency rooms, which wind up driving up all health care costs.

Tha natives are getting restless, Walking Eagle. I guess some people are just getting tired of the crap that you’re unloading on them.

For anyone who thinks George W. Bush is as low as it gets, at least when it involves playing Robin Hood for the extremely wealthy and shafting everyone else, take a look at this. From BoingBoing:

Swaziland’s King Mswati, the only absolute monarch in sub-Saharan Africa, has issued a royal edict banning photos of his many luxury cars. In December he bought a $500,000 DaimlerChrysler Maybach 62, and BMWs all around for his 10 wives. He issued the edict after buying a more expensive car on Friday — a stretch Mercedes S600 limousine — in order to drive up to the newly opened parliament last week.

Mswati was forced to shelve plans three years ago to spend $45 million on a new royal jet, but has shown little inclination to rein in other royal spending projects which include a $15 million project to build individual new palaces for his growing retinue of wives.

Swaziland, in case you weren’t aware, is a tiny, impoverished kingdom which borders on South Africa. It suffers from frequent food shortages and one of the world’s highest AIDS infection rates. So as the king buys his luxury cars and builds his opulent palaces, his people slow die of starvation and AIDS. What a guy. Maybe he ought to consider curtailing his hunger for fancy cars and put a moratorium on new wives, and do something constructive like provide food for the population. And healthcare. He’s got more than enough cash to pay to treat every single person in that country who has AIDS. Shame on him.

But if this man continues robbing the Swazi people of what few resources they have left, my guess is that regime change isn’t too far in the future.

If you’ve been reading my blog, then you that I have an interest in polio, and especially, people who are still using iron lungs. There is a great article in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press about Marilyn Rogers, a girl who dreamed of becoming a dancer but instead, ended up in an iron lung after being infected with polio at age 9. It is an interesting account of her life–she has spent 55 years inside of an iron lung. For the past decade, due to post polio syndrome, she has had to stay in her iron lung around the clock.

You’ve probably heard of the book A Year in Provence. There is even an offshoot of it called A Year in Van Nuys. But how about A Year in Kaiser, as in Kaiser Permenente healthcare.

A woman in Marin County has spent the last year at Kaiser’s facility in San Rafael, CA. She is not sick, there is nothing medically wrong with her, and she refuses to leave because she claims she has nowhere to go.

Okay….

According to the story, she is bedridden, having broke both legs in 2002–and they apparently never healed properly. For that reason, she was moved to a nursing home. Now she is suing the nursing home because they sent her to the hospital in the first place, for a weeklong psychiatric evaluation (does that tell you something about this woman?), and she just has never left.

The nursing home won’t take her back because of the lawsuit, which they say is ridiculous, and the woman refuses to go to another nursing home because that would entail her leaving Marin County. The woman also has a daughter who doesn’t seem to be doing a whole lot to get her mother out of the hospital, and in fact, is also playing this game of Mom-must-stay-in-Marin.

Confused? Bewildered? Utterly exasperated? Well, I am assuming that there is more to this than meets the naked eye, and more than what’s included in a sketchy AP report. But still, who would want to stay in a hospital? If she wasn’t bedridden (she can’t walk) I’m sure they would have booted her out the door. But that’s bad PR, to put an 82 year old woman in a wheelchair and show her the curb.

Now the question of the daughter, why can’t she take her mother home with her, at least until she finds a space for her in a nursing home? Or just tell her mother that she needs to go to an “alien” home, until space can be found in another Marin County facility–I’m assuming there’s more than one nursing home in the county?

She has run up a hospital bill of $1 million. I certainly hope that staff doesn’t have to waste their time doing any care for her.

I have to repeat, that there must be much more to this story. That the woman was sent for a psychiatric evaluation says something, but it seems a little odd that an entire year has passed with the hospital being unable to move her out. There has to be some type of law against squatters, because otherwise the entire homeless population would be planting themselves on those nice, clean white sheets and expect to get three squares a day. That this woman can decide to stay in a hospital because she doesn’t want to leave Marin County is just a little too bizarre.

Maybe she is writing her memoirs, A Year in Kaiser, San Rafael…

It is comforting to know that I am not the only person who is thoroughly disgusted with the food industry, as well as that unnamed three letter agency (hint: first letter is F, second one is D”) that pretends all is well at the dinner table.

In the NY Times today, there was a barrage of angry letters, in response to an article about the continuing saga of trans fats. As though it should even be a dilemma.

One person wrote: We the people need to begin to understand the unhealthy state of interdependency among the food industry, industrial farming and the health care industry (which should be more properly called the illness care industry).

Aha, must be a nurse. Only an insider can see the healthcare (aka illness industrial complex) for what it is.

Most of the foods in our spectacularly stocked supermarkets are so dangerous that they should be against the law…

I love this person! Most of the foods that are stashed in the center aisles of an average supermarket bear little resemblance to anything that may grow in the ground or in the sea. If you removed the laboratory made chemicals and synthetics, there wouldn’t be much left.

Here’s another letter, from a person even more fanatical then me:

I have been avoiding hydrogenated fats since the 1960’s, a task now made easier by the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement that trans fat amounts must be disclosed on food labels by January 2006. It pays to take the magnifying glass when going shopping for groceries.

Well I didn’t avoid hydrogenated fats since the 1960s because I was too busy learning how to read and write, and do multiplication tables. But I did learn at an early age to pour my whole fat milk down the drain when my mother turned her back–not because it was chock full of saturated fat, but because the taste made me want to throw up.

Here’s another one, speaking of the great cover-up, ie, read my lips, a cover-up by the FDA and the food industry.

The knowledge that trans fats are bad is not new. The information was out there 35 years ago.
Question: Why does it take 35 years for this information to become mainstream?

That is way before my microbiology teacher told us about trans fats. Since I learned it in school, I knew that the dangers of trans fats were known at least since the 1980s. This person is saying that it dates back to about 1970! So now how many have died of heart disease, due in part to trans fats? Why wasn’t our watchdog, the FDA, making this public and demanding that these fats be removed from food?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one.

It occurred to me that if companies are having so much trouble trying to find ways to make snacks without trans fat, they should just stop making them.

Naw, never. They make too much money on snacks. And they can easily find a substitute, but not one as cheap, or one which allows a shelf life that will take us into the third millenium.

Of course, reducing the amount of these fatty, unhealthy snacks would probably do wonders for the waistline of millions of people. But that’s not what people want to hear.

Here’s another good letter, one which reflects on the millions of dollars being spent in the quest for the “perfect fat” in order to make the perfect junk food.

I found your article a fascinating testimonial to the hazardous American addiction to convenience food. One wonders whether we’d be better off spending money on teaching people to eat locally grown food rather than throwing millions of dollars at research on trans fat replacements.

And a response to the makers of Oreo cookies, who keep whining that they just can’t replace the gooey center without it losing its taste. As if there is only one kind of goo in the world.

The suggestion that a good-tasting Oreo cookie cannot be made without trans fat is pure hokum. There are a number of cream-filled cookies on the market not made with trans fats that taste great. It is not the taste that is lost but the loss of a cheap filler with the added benefit of increasing shelf life.

The New York Times has so many intelligent readers. I’ve bought cream filled cookies in the “healthy” section, cookies made with organic ingredients, no unreadable item listed in the ingredients, and no trans fats. And they tasted, ahem, much better than Oreos. One reason may be that the ingredients were higher quality, and the cookie was a lot fresher, since it didn’t contain the trans fats that are designed to make it outlive me and my great-grandchildren.

And finally:

Trans fats should be banned.

I guess the pressure was getting too intense, the air too hot, too many ordinary people yelping in protest. Who knows what happened, or what convinced the governor to change his tune, but Ahnold has decided not to ditch the 88 regulatory panels and boards.

If you haven’t kept up with this story, or read my previous post on it, just to recap; Governor Arnold’s brainstorm was to eliminate the California Medical Board, the Board of Registered Nursing and the Board of Accountancy, and 85 more just like it. His idea would not only make it harder for consumers to get grievances investigated, but without governing boards, who on earth would be keeping track of negligence, abuse, incompetence, etc, which occur in every profession? And who would be removing or suspending the licenses of these people?

At the time of his proposal, he was quoted as saying:

“Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government,” Schwarzenegger said at the time. “I don’t want to move boxes around; I want to blow them up.” …

Now does that sound like the Terminator talking or what? Good to see Arnold back in form.

Anyway, an article in the Sacramento Bee also points out that Arnold may be spreading himself too thin, and that he needs to choose his battles. Doesn’t do one much good if everyone in the state hates you and that you would terminate yourself.

Holober of the Consumer Federation said he is convinced that Schwarzenegger retreated in the face of criticism because he is already embroiled in controversy over his proposals to revamp education funding, overhaul employee pensions, redraw legislative districts and impose new spending controls.

“He doesn’t want to get into all those fights over boards and commissions at the same time he’s taking on a fight with organized labor, teachers, schoolchildren, retirees and others,” he said. “I guess he’s making a tactical retreat in hopes of restricting the numbers of enemies he has to make at one time.”

Nope, you don’t want to be around the pneunonic plague. It is the worst form of the bubonic plague (aka black death), and it is highly fatal without immediate treatment.

It may be surprising to some to read that that plague is still alive and kicking. Isn’t that something that happened way back in the Middle Ages, when the people were busy burning witches at the stake and heading off on crusades to slaughte the heathens?

That’s what we’d like to believe, but the plague bugs have survived quite nicely over the centuries (hey, thanks for asking about us!), and outbreaks continue on a regular basis. In fact, in the Congo alone, there are about 1,000 cases of plague a year. While it’s more common to find plague cases in Africa and Asia, plague is also found in North America. That’s right, you can get a case of the plague right here at home. The upside is that cases of plague contracted in the US are quite rare. The downside is that because of the rarity, you’re quite likely to be misdiagnosed. In fact, you may have a better chance of survival if you picked up the plague in Vietnam and went to a local hospital, because the doctors there are very familiar with it, and will have you on the right antibiotic in no time. But in the U.S., that is likely not to be the case. What a conundrum of modern medicine.

Anyway, plague is easily treated with antibiotics–most of the time, I should add. A few years ago French researchers uncovered highly resistant plague isolates in Madagascar–yikes! Antibiotic resistant plague. That’s all the world needs. But it doesn’t seem to be widespread.

Bubonic plague is spread by the bites of rat-borne fleas, so it is not a highly contagious disease. The pneumonic plague, however, is the most virulent form, and is airborne. That means it spreads from person to person, with the little critters flying through the air–same way you spread a cold or the flu. Cough a few times, and your germs spread around the world. There is now a large outbreak of pneumonic plague in the Congo, with an estimated 400 people who are now sick, and 61 have died. The epicenter of the outbreak is an open pit diamond mine, and naturally, the majority of miners have fled the scene, about 7,000. Of course, it is quite likely that many of them have already been infected, and now will be bringing the pneumonic plague to whevever they end up.

The last thing that the Congo needs right now is a major outbreak of the pneumonic plague. A prolonged Civil War killed over 3 million people, and even though it is officially over, there is still unrest and instability, and has destroyed the infrastructure. Health care is poor to begin with….

Anyway, just keep it in mind. If you’ve been hanging out in the southwest of the US, and you come down with a strange disease, remind the doctors to test you for the plague.

It is so frustrating being the self-appointed guardian of everything that is wrong with healthcare. Especially, the mindless “solutions” to our current crisis in nursing.

A few weeks ago I read that a school hoped to help “solve” the shortage by shortening its nursing program. Right on, sister, that’s just what we need. Less training for increasingly complex medical problems. Now here’s another good one:

The state of Illinois expects the shortage of registered nurses to increase to 8,000 in five years, so the governor is planning to ask the General Assembly to eliminate part of a licensing requirement for foreign educated nurses. Right now foreign nurses must pass the standard nursing board exam and an independent commission’s test.

Campbell says eliminating the commission test, which is only offered three times a year, would lower the hurdle and allow more foreign nurses to enter the American healthcare system.

So according to this article, they want to eliminate this terrible “hurdle” in order to expedite nurses into the U.S. Cool, don’t you think? That hurdle is there for a reason, as an extra safeguard.

How about this, Campbell, whoever you are (I think he’s the governor but the article doesn’t specifically say). Pass a law in your state outlawing mandatory overtime, and pass a mandatory nurse:patient ratio. Make sure there’s whistleblower protection, and force every hospital in the state to institute a zero tolerance policy towards physical and verbal abuse towards any employee. And then see if American nurses don’t start coming out of the woodwork.

The FDA still has not granted over-the-counter status for Plan B, better known as the “morning after pill.” I’m too busy this morning to get into another one of my “slash ‘n burn” the FDA moods, but this is getting ridiculous. What are they waiting for, approval from George Bush and the far far far neocon pseudo-Christian right wingers?

Anyway, here’s a press release from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), who has been a staunch advocate for getting the FDA to behave like a federal agency enshrined with protecting the health of the public, and not a political mouthpiece.

FDA Violating Law by Stalling on Morning-After Pill, Says “Sound Science” Amendment Author

WASHINGTON, DC – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is violating the law by delaying its decision on granting over-the-counter (OTC) status for the morning-after pill, says the law’s author. A rider attached to the FY05 Agriculture Appropriations bill prohibits the FDA from actions that run counter to its obligation to make decisions based on sound science, not political or ideological considerations (http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/choice/SoundScience.pdf – see Sec. 774). However, by extending its timeline and continuing deliberation on whether to grant OTC for the Plan B ® contraceptive, the FDA is ignoring the intent of Congress and the overwhelming recommendation of its own scientific panel.

“The FDA’s stall tactics are in clear violation of the law,” said Maloney. “Last year, they said they objected because they were worried about girls 16 and under. That issue has been taken care of with Barr’s new application, so they’re looking for a new excuse to mask their ideological opposition. They’re ignoring the scientific evidence, and that’s harming women’s health.”

Reps. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) and Henry Waxman (CA-30) successfully offered the “FDA Sound-Science Amendment,” which was introduced after the FDA denied OTC status for Plan B ®, despite the 23-4 recommendation of its expert panel to the contrary. Barr Pharmacies, the maker of Plan B ®, has since reapplied for OTC status only for women over 16, but the FDA announced late last week that it is delaying its decision on that application

I think I’m going to start a new category called the Annals of Healthcare Horrors. While I’ve been tagging things nursing related under the category of Nursing Shortage, some of these stories really deserve their own place in the sun. You see, despite the much hyped nursing shortage, not much has changed in many facilities. It has been my battle cry all along, and now here are stories to back it up.

Here’s a great one. This is from a brand new nurse, fresh out of school, and on the job for six weeks. I have condensed it down, and omitted any identifying facts.

I’ve been on the job a month and a half, and while I’m supposed to be working 8 hour shifts, for the last two nights I worked 12 hours.

Last night I had 7 patients to care for alone, and I can’t even begin to tell you what hell that was. Tonight I had “only” 6, but 3 of them were unstable. Five were also on insulin, with one of them getting a dose every hour. I had dressing changes, blood glucose checks, every patient had several meds to be given…

I coudn’t handle it and asked for help, but all of the other nurses had more patients than I did–some had 9 or 10. I started crying. I just can’t do this.

Nursing orientation is supposed to be three months for a new grad. A brand new RN, unless she previously worked as an LPN, should not be expected to take on a full load of patients this soon, and all by herself without a preceptor. I suppose that they thought they were given her a “lighter” load since the other nurses had at least three more patients apiece to care for. There was no one available to back her up, to help her, to give her guidance.

Would you want to be a patient in this hospital? I surely wouldn’t. Especially, I would not want to be under the care of this scared, overwhelmed and severely under-experienced new nurse. And guess what? If she makes an error, and that may be quite likely, considering how sick her patients are and how much overtime she’s doing, then she will be blamed. The hospital will wash its hands of such an incompetent nurse.

For every story like this one, there are hundreds more happening at the same time. Now this particular nurse said that she is actively looking for a new job. So she’ll quit this dump, and then the hospital will whine about the “shortage” and how they can’t get anyone to work for them. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

And if this nurse is lucky, she will find a better job. But if her new job turns out to be much of the same, then she may end up leaving nursing completely, or at least, moving out of direct patient care. And so the world turns.

Sometimes you just don’t know what you’re getting. Three patients in Germany who thought they were going to get a new lease on life via an organ transplant now are struggling with rabies.

Bizarre as it may seem, these three patients received organs that were infected with rabies. The organs all came from the same donor, a woman who died of a heart attack, and who showed on symptoms of the disease.

Okay, I know, most people reading this will think–”well couldn’t they test for it? Couldn’t they see that she was sick?”

You can only find what you are looking for. As of this moment in medicine, we do not have a “universal” test which can identify every microbe, pathogen, disease state, and trauma lurking within the human body. There is no test for rabies other than examination of the brain, and that is not something routinely done for organ donors. And to actually test the organs for the presence of rabies is impossible in the very short time frame between death and transplantation.

Rabies, I should add, is extremely rare in developed nations, so there would hardly be reason to suspect it in anyone–unless it was known they had been bitten by an animal that could not be identified or that had rabies. While there have been cases of negligence in organ transplantation, there really was no way that the medical team coordinating the transplants could have known. Germany has had only 5 cases of human rabies in the past 20 years, so it really isn’t at the top of the list of possible infections that might be harboring into potential organ donors.

The horror in all this is that rabies is invariably fatal, and it is not likely that these patients, who were ill and weakened to begin with, will survive. On a more positive note, three other patients who also received organs from this woman are doing fine. Those who received her lungs, kidneys and pancreas also got what they didn’t want–rabies. But the patients who received her liver and corneas are alive and doing well.

The exact same thing happened last year in the U.S. Four people died of rabies after receiving infected organs from a donor in Arkansas. Like this German woman, he showed no signs of the disease, and no one would have ever suspected he was infected with rabies.

I wonder if Mary said anything about the fate of spammers, when she revealed the prophecy to the children at Fatima. Especially, do the people at Texas hold ‘em and online poker enter a special hell, where they will be thrown into hot pickled acid, then filleted with burning spikes, and their computers hacked to smithereens and recycled into toilet bowls?

I had about 35 spams from online poker and Texas hold ‘em, and they are going through my blog, entry by entry, and trying to attach a “comment.” My delete key is getting a fierce work-out, but this is a waste of my time.

I am seriously considering turning off access to comments, because this spam is driving me up the wall. It seems to come in waves. Are the people running these websites that stupid to think that if they bombard a site with their garbage, that it’s going to get posted?

Please spammers, pretty please with sugar on top….go bother someone else. You are not wanted here, your trash will not be posted here, and you have made me into a lifelong enemy of online poker.

An addendum to my lengthy post about Lucia of Fatima…

It is interesting to debate why 1960 was chosen as the date to reveal the third prophecy. Why 1960? Well, in retrospect, it was a very important date, the real beginning of the second half of the 20th century, the end of the post-war era, when we (as a planet) had important choices to make. Unfortunately, as it turne out, most of our choices were disastrous ones.

The year 1960 was the beginning of a decade of unusual turmoil and change. There was much that did need changing, such as the racism still so prevalent, the rights of women, and so on, but the decade was also violent–both in the US and overseas. The 44 years which have passed have been filled with war, death, torture, genocide, alarming environmental degradation, destruction of wildlife, natural disasters of almost Biblical magnitude, the emergence of new and highly lethal diseases, blinding poverty and hunger affecting a huge portion of the earth’s population, modern day slavery still going strong–and there is no end in sight.

Did Mary wish her prophecy known to perhaps warn us of what lay ahead? To warn us to change our ways before we reached a point of no return?

Ike’s Farewell

Another very interesting point to consider, is the very prophetic farewell speech of outgoing president Dwight D. Eisenhower. It really does seem to tie into the Fatima final prophecy.

Eisenhower finished up his second term in office in 1960, and on July 17, 1961, as the new president, John F. Kennedy, prepared to take up his post, he delivered a farewell speech. I imagine most Americans must have been startled by what he had to say, undoubtedly expecting the usual stuff about how great it was to serve, best wishes to the incumbent, and so on. Instead, Eisenhower delivered a lightly veiled warning. Here are a few excerpts:

“Together we must learn to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment.”

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. ”

1960? Just an arbitrary date in the annals of time? I think not. Even good old Ike sensed it, that we had the ability to either destroy or build, to do evil or good. Which would we choose?

You can hear his speech on the History Channel.

Or read the text.

It is coincidence to be writing about two of the most famous “Mary sightings” so close together, considering that this is not what you’d call a religious blog. But as I have said before, I am fascinated by stories of Marian apparitions, and especially, healing which cannot be explained by modern science.

The attitude of many is that if it can’t be explained in a rational and scientific manner, then it didn’t happen. Even if a person has obviously been cured of an incurable disease, or has had vision restored, and so on.

The last surviving witness to whom Mary (as in Mary the mother of Jesus) appeared in a series of apparitions in Portugal in 1917 has died.
Lucia dos Santos was 97 years old. While she certainly lived a long life, and one might say, a rather special and contemplative life, her death means that the secret of Fatima is gone forever.

What did she really see and hear?

The Prophecies

Lucia and her cousins, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, were just three poor, barely literate shepherd children who witnessed a series of “visits” from Mary in 1917. Lucia was 10, the oldest of the group, and the only one that Mary actually spoke to–even though Francisco and Jacinta were able to see her.

The messages they received from Mary were quite extraordinary, and given the circumstances of these children, it is difficult to believe that they could have just made them up.

The first secret shown to them by Mary began with a terrifying vision of hell. In reading the description of it, to me, it sounds much like the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Perhaps it wasn’t hell after death that she was revealing, but the hell that humans were quite capable of reproducing right here and now.

Mary then indicated that the war would soon end, and World War I did end the following year. The children only had the vaguest idea of a war that was raging somewhere far away. Portugal was not involved in WW I, nor was its only European neighbor, Spain. Plus, these children lived in a rural area, didn’t have much education, so it is doubtful that they were up to date with current events. It would seem to be impossible that these children would be able to predict the end of WW I on their own.

Mary also indicated that both Francisco and Jacinta would not be alive for very much longer, and about two years after the last apparition appeared, both children died during the Spanish Flu pandemic which swept around the world.

Next, Mary also warned (to summarize) that if we didn’t change our ways, there would be second war. But Mary foresaw that a “night illuminated by an unknown light” would precede a “worse war” in which “The good will be martyred” and “The Holy Father will have much to suffer.” She also stated that the war would begin under the reign of Pope Pius XI. This I also find rather extraordinary as in 1917, Benedict XV was Pope. Pius XI didn’t become Pope until 1922.

On January 25, 1938, a remarkable display of aurora borealis was visible across almost all of Europe, the year before World War II began. Lucia said that when she saw the Northern lights, so rarely seen in Portugal, she knew that the prophecy was being fulfilled.

The apparition also had much to say about Russia, and not in a very complimentary manner. According to Lucia, Mary revealed that Russia would “spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars,” and that “Various nations will be annihilated.” Many believe this is a direct prophecy of the rise and spread of communism.

She also said that “I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart,” and “If people attend to My requests, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace.”

The Russian Revolution had not yet taken place, and the horrors of Stalinism, the Cold War and the subsequent arms race, were years in the future. At the time of the apparition, Russia was largely a backwards and agrarian society, with peasants living in an almost medieval-type style of landowners and serfs. To single out Russia at that time was highly unusual, considering their overall status in the world. And besides, it is safe to guess that these children had probably never even heard of Russia, or knew anything about it.

Performance of the Sun

For most Marian sightings, the vision remains invisible to the public at large, and only designated seers can view and hear the vision. But another remarkable thing about Fatima, was the “performance,” if you will, that was presented to the public at large.

On October 13, 1917, a crowd of about 70,000 witnessed a remarkable phenomenon in the sky above Fatima. According to eyewitness accounts, which included politicians, journalists, scientists, and a great many skeptics, a strange pale light like a silvery disc darted around the sky in all directions, illuminating the ground below with a pulsating rainbow of colors. Some thought the object was the sun itself, miraculously dislodged from its fixed position, which is how the event became known as “the dance of the sun.” The spectacular sight was shared by all of the thousands present, even the naysayers.

There was no plausible explanation for this, no scientific dissertation–not then, and not now.

The Final Prophecy

The last prophecy of Fatima, also known as the “third secret,” was written down by Lucia and handed over to Portugal’s Bishop of Leiria. The specific instructions were that it was not to be revealed until 1960. The Bishop turned it over to the Vatican, but when 1960 arrived, Pope John XXIII refused to divulge its contents. In fact, every subsequent Pope also refused to announce the “third secret,” until the year 2000, when the Pope John Paul II broke the silence.

Personally, I think it was pretty contentious of them to ignore instructions which came from the Blessed Mother herself! I mean, you either believe or not, and the prophecy of Fatima was on the Church’s list of “approved apparitions.” A shrine had been built, pilgrim flocked by the millions, miracle cures and healing were reported. And since Mary is considered to be a higher power in the Catholic Church than the Pope or anyone other mortal, then they had no business disobeying.

The last prophecy, or at least, the part that was revealed, is a rather prophetic text, not unlike that which you find in the Book of Revelation. A lot of symbolism, some disturbing images, and certainly, something which is wide open to interpretation. Much to the dismay of many believers, the Church announced that the third “secret”, unveiled in 2000, foretold the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul on 13 May 1981, the 64th anniversary of one of the 1917 apparitions.

The passage that the Vatican says refers to the Pope’s attempted assassination reads as follows:

“Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

This scenario hardly describes the attack on John Paul by a lone gunman, Mehmet Ali Agca, right in St. Peter’s Square in May, 1981. You don’t need to be a Biblical scholar to know that this text says something quite a bit different, and indeed, is speaking of a much more traumatic and disastrous scenario.

Certainly, the assassination of the spiritual leader of any religion is a tragic affair, but in lieu of the circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that it was the final prophecy. Basically, it’s not that big of a deal, compared to the other visions–that of WW II, hell (or the development of nuclear weapons), and of Russia causing massive unrest and despair. The circumstances leading up to its final announcement also tell a completely different story.

This recount of the events is from Fatima.org:

In June 1943 Sister Lucia came down with pleurisy, which caused Bishop José da Silva of Leiria to fear that she would die without having revealed the final Secret. Canon José Galamba de Oliveira later convinced Bishop da Silva to suggest to Sister Lucia that she write down the Third Secret. However, Sister Lucia refused to comply with this suggestion because she did not want to take responsibility for such an initiative on her own, but she stated that she would obey an express command from the bishop to write it down. Agonizing over this expressed suggestion, Sister Lucia was concerned that, without that formal command from her bishop, she did not yet have Our Lord’s permission to reveal the Third Secret.

In mid-October 1943, Bishop da Silva finally gave Sister Lucia the formal order to write down the Third Secret. Sister Lucia then set out to obey the bishop’s command, but was unable to do so for the next two and a half months. It was only after the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Sister Lucia on January 2, 1944 to confirm to her that it was indeed God’s will that she write the words of the Third Secret, that Sister Lucia finally was able to overcome these difficulties and write down the Secret. Sister Lucia committed the Third Secret to paper between the second and ninth of January 1944. On January 9, 1944 Sister Lucia wrote to Bishop da Silva, informing him that the Secret was finally written down.

So now, would she have that much trouble if it was just a prophecy of an assassination or an attempted assassination? I don’t think so. In addition, a letter that Lucia wrote to the Pope in 1982, a full year after the assassination attempt, does not mention anything about the fulfillment of the prophecy. In fact, it appears that it indicates just the opposite. In the letter, she warns that, “we are going towards [the fulfillment of the final part of the Fatima Secret] with great strides,” thus indicating that rather than the third secret predicting the assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II, which had taken place the previous year, she is pointing to the yet unfulfilled part of the prophecy of the great worldwide punishment which has yet to occur.

Also, another point to ponder–if the prophecy was about the assassination attempt, then why wait another 20 years to “reveal it?” Afterall, what’s done is done, so why wasn’t it revealed back in the early 1980s? The Vatican does not seem to have any answer for that.

The Pope Connection

Even though many believe that the Vatican whitewashed this, by trying to say that the porphecy is about past events and doesn’t have anything to do with the future, there still is a strange connection to the Pope’s assassination.

In a statement which shocked the socks off of everyone, Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman, stated during his 1985 trial that his attempted assassination was “connected to the third secret of the Madonna of Fatima.” Considering that no one outside of Lucia, the Pope, and a very few of the highest Papal Cardinals, knew the what the third prophecy was about, it would mean that Agca must have been inspired to make that claim through supernatural means. Any other explanation is highly implausible.

The Vatican is quite insistent that the prophecy refers to the past, and that the assassination attempt is the only explanation–and Agca’s testimony adds strength to it. However, there is far too much that conflicts with this simple explanation, and the assassination may well just be one piece of the puzzle. Many believe that the Vatican has altered the contents, or has not revealed the full message.

I would guess that the real message has a lot more to it, and since the Church has gone through great pains to keep it from public knowledge, it may well contain information quite damning to the Church. It is difficult to say.

But with the death of Lucia dos Santos, the truth will never be known.

Don’t like getting shots? Eat a potato instead, although fries just aren’t going to cut it.

Scientists have done the weird and wacky and grown genetically modified potatoes which can do double duty and also deliver a dose of Hepatitis B vaccine. I suppose that I would rather eat a potato than get a shot, but for right now, these results are a little premature.

The positives about this is that it would lower the cost of the vaccine, and make it easier to create, ship, store, and dispense–especially in the more undeveloped regions of the world where Hep B infection is a major problem. The downside is that they tested the potato vaccine in people who had already received the traditional “jab” so they haven’t a clue how this works in an unvaccinated population. Eating the altered potato gave the immune system a boost against Hep B, but then, these were immune systems that are already protected. It is exciting news, but the problem is that the public often tends to view this kind of thing as “just around the corner,” and some of the PR hype is to blame for that.

Which is why, perhaps, the news should not be released haphazardly until it is much closer to being a reality.

The other problem is containment. There has already been one episode of spores from genetically engineered vegetables–that were also being made for pharmaceutical purposes–escaping into the environment. The methodology of growing and containing these highly toxic vegetables (would you want to mistakenly serve carrots that are actually chemotherapy agents to your children!) needs to be addressed while the industry is in its infancy. They cannot be grown outdoors, they cannot come into any contact with the environment, and regulations must the strictest ever.

Read the whole story on the BBC.