Gloucester, VA Public School Officials Speak Out - Corruption At Highest Levels?

A Gloucester, Virginia Links and News Exclusive Report:

Greetings Board Members:

As many of you may know; I submitted the following FOIA request on January 21, 2014.

1)     Please provide all emails pertaining to GloucesterCounty, Gloucester County Public Schools and or PageMiddle School between Ben Kiser and RRMM Architects, their Principles, Officers representatives or employees for the period of April 11, 2011 thru May 31, 2011.  Please include messages stored in Mr. Kiser’skiserben@gmail.com account, hkiser1@cox.net account and any other private email accounts that Mr. Kiser may use.

2)     On June 28, 2011 at 4:43PM an email conversation from bkiser@gc.k12.va.us was sent tokiserben@gmail.com.  Subject of the email is Page Committee.  Please provide said email as received in thekiserben@gmail.com email account along with all sent, forwarded, carbon copied and received versions of said email.

3)     On July 17, 2011 at 9:49AM an email was sent fromdgamache@gc.k12.va.us to kiserben@gmail.com.  The subject of the email is Fw: committees & proposals. Please provide said email as received in thekiserben@gmail.com email account along with all sent, forwarded, carbon copied and received versions of said email.

4)     On July 17, 2011 at 10:02AM an email message frombkiser@gc.k12.va.us was sent to kiserben@gmail.comand to hkiser1@cox.net.  The subject is Fw: Powerpoint for Monday.  Please provide said email as received in thekiserben@gmail.com email account and thehkiser1@cox.net email account along with all sent, forwarded, carbon copied and received versions of said email.

On January 28, 2014 I received the following response.

I will be sending you a total of nine (9) emails in response to your FOIA request (as it appears below).

Specifically, I will send four (4) emails in response to Item # 1; one (1) email in response to Item #2; one (1) email in response to Item # 3; and three (3) emails in response to Item # 4; however, please be advised that I am unable to provide messages stored in kiserben@gmail.com or hkiser1@cox.net.

Diane Clements Gamache

Executive Associate to the Superintendent/

Clerk of the School Board

Gloucester County Public Schools

This response was followed by nine more emails.  The last of which arrived almost two hours later even though I did not ask for further clarification.

As a follow-up to my earlier email sent to you today regarding response to your 1-24-2014 FOIA request, here is additional clarification:

Please be advised that Dr. Kiser moved in the Spring of 2013, and subsequently closed his Cox email (hkiser1@cox.net) account.  He has reviewed that account and emails as requested were not available.

He also reviewed his gmail account (kiserben@gmail.com) and emails as requested were not available as well.

Thank you,

Diane Clements Gamache

Executive Associate to the Superintendent/

Clerk of the School Board

Gloucester County Public Schools

The response email attachments are all of emails stored within the school systems account.  Three of the emails are of a single email conversation with a power point presentation and are dated outside of the dates for which information was requested.  The bill for compiling this information was $80.00 which equates to four hours of processing time.  The specifics contained in my request narrowed the search parameters within limits that make this fee seem ridiculously elevated.  The same request was also sent to Christi Lewis, Gloucester Community Education Director, as item number one requested information from the County and the School System. Ms. Lewis responded within two days, provided four attachments to the single response email and made no mention of a fee for search time.  I received a total of 11 emails from Ms. Gamache. (All 13 email attachments received are attached to this email)  Nine emails contained one attachment each plus the two emails shown above.  Why is there such a difference?    

The email conversations I requested were all created prior to July 18, 2011 therefore they should have been retained until the end of year 2014.  On the other hand, it could be claimed the emails in question were courtesy or reference copies that Mr. Kiser sent to himself.  As you can see no such claim was made in either response.  Such a claim could be acceptable if there was only one private email account involved.  The fact that users of the school system’s email system are afforded continuous access just like private email accounts would make the courtesy or reference copies scenario hard to accept.  The inability to produce the requested emails further illuminates the apparent decisive efforts to control and limit involvement in the post tornado Page Middle School process.  This is one more element to add to the many other questionable occurrences during that process.

At this point, Gloucester County Public Schools does not appear to have control over security, accountability or use of information contained within or accessible by its email system.  The fact that the Schools Superintendent facilitates this lack of control through his own violations of record keeping laws and regulations is clearly confirmed by the responses to my FOIA request. Considering the apparent lack of control in this area; one cannot help but wonder how much confidential or proprietary information has been sent to private email accounts where the school system’s ability to control security, accountability and access is remarkably degraded or non-existent.

Taking time to review records management policies and practices and implementing necessary improvements will result in enhanced functionality, search ability, organization and less labor hours.  Establishment and implementation of responsible, ethical and transparency driven policies and guidelines that either incorporate or prohibit private email account use will enhance records management, security and accountability of government information.  It will also show the citizens of Gloucesterthat things are being done correctly.

I encourage each of you to review the supporting information below.

Respectfully:

For clarification purposes I have included the following information which is provided on the Library ofVirginia’s website at:  http://www.lva.lib.va.us/

Under Code of Virginia § 42.1-85, the Library of Virginia (LVA) has the authority to issue regulations governing the retention and disposition of state and local public records. In keeping with the Code's mandate, LVA has developed Records Retention & Disposition Schedules outlining the disposition of public records.

Under this policy, the LVA issues two types of schedules. General Schedules apply to the records of common functions performed by or for all localities and state agencies. Specific Schedules apply to records that are unique to an individual state agency.

General Schedule # GS-19 covers administrative County and Municipal Government records.  Series 010037 applies to Department or Division Heads.   This series of records consists of incoming and outgoing letters, memoranda, faxes, notes, and their attachments, in any format including, but not limited to, paper and e-mail.  These records must be retained for 3 years after the end of the calendar year.

The Library of Virginia provides the following guidance:

E-mail messages—both sent and received—that provide evidence of a government transaction are considered public records and are subject to the same legal requirements regarding access as other government records. Some examples of e-mail that are considered public records are policies and directives; correspondence or memos pertaining to the organization’s business; work schedules and assignments; documents circulated for approval or comment; and any message that initiates, authorizes, or completes a business transaction, final report, or recommendation. Some examples of e-mail that are not considered public records are personal messages or announcements, courtesy or reference copies, phone message reminders, routine chat on e-mail listservs, and announcements of social events.

E-mail is not a records series. It is a format or manner of delivering content. The content of an e-mail determines the retention requirements. Since e-mail is usually considered correspondence, refer to General Schedule 101 for administrative records of state agencies and General Schedule 19 for localities.

Not all e-mail is plain correspondence. For instance, work orders must be retained for three years, regardless if they are sent through e-mail, form, or memo. If you have determined that an e-mail is something other than correspondence, review the appropriate retention schedule to determine the applicable retention period. Just as with all other public records, e-mail must be maintained and accessible throughout the life span of the record.

Many factors contribute to the determination that documentary materials are public records. If the answer to any of the following questions is “yes,” the document is a public record.

-Did the agency require creation or submission and maintenance of the document?

-Was the document used to conduct or facilitate agency business?

-If the document is a draft or preliminary document created for back- ground or a similar purpose, does it contain unique information that explains formulation of significant program policies and decisions?

-Was the document distributed to other offices or agencies for formal approval or clearance?

-Is the document part of an electronic information system used to conduct government business?

Megan Rhyne, Executive Director, Virginia Coalition for Open Government, provided the following thoughts on the last FOIA response email I received.

“FOIA is a snapshot of the records that exist at the time of the request. If the records do not exist at that time, then FOIA cannot compel the creation (or recreation) of them.

From a records management standpoint, it is irresponsible to let public officials unilaterally delete records about public business from their personal email accounts. Unfortunately, there is no enforcement for failure to follow guidelines under the Public Records Act.

From a FOIA perspective, though, it is not a violation to delete records/accounts, so long as the records were not deleted (or accounts closed) AFTER the request was made.

Further, though you are definitely not the first one to express well-founded skepticism over an individual's self-review of his/her private emails, that's also not prohibited by FOIA. All records request have an element of self-selection in their review procedures. It's a leap of faith in every FOIA request, though the implications are far more stark when it comes to the review of one's own email/correspondence.

I would encourage the school division to develop better records management policies for non-government account use for public business.

Hope this helps,

Megan

A few examples of limiting involvement and questionable occurrences during the post tornado Page process.  (Emails referenced herein were obtained from multiple FOIA requests)

An email conversation dated June 15, 2011 from School Board member Ann Burruss to Mr. Kiser, the School Board and others starts out with Ms. Burruss providing an update on the WHRO Committee meeting she attended.  Ms. Burruss then writes:

“After speaking to Anita today, I feel that I was in error in not “announcing” that I had spoken to Dr. Kiser about serving on this Ad Hoc committee for Page at the same time it was determined that there would be one, which I believe was at the meeting giving the update on Page.  I am reasonably sure that something can get worked out before any final committee membership is determined by Dr. Kiser, as we did foist upon him the task of deciding the make-up of this body.”  

School Board member Starr Belvin then writes:

“Does this mean that the board will now have 3 representatives on the committee (you, Anita and Jean)?” 

Mr. Kiser then writes:

“Only two board members can serve on this committee.  Ms. Parker and Dr. Pugh were the only ones to express their interest last night.  If the meetings are open to the public, then anyone can be in the audience.  If the Board wishes to give me further guidance on this matter then time can be set aside next week.  Thank you.” 

In an August 4, 2011 email from Mr. Kiser to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee; Mr. Kiser thanks the members for their two days hard work discussing ideas on what to do about Page Middle School.  Mr. Kiser goes on to say:

“Please consider this information confidential until it is presented to the School Board.  We will be saying to the School Board that the cost projections are still quite tentative.  I realize the danger in putting numbers out too soon, but Duane has done a good job in projecting costs based on general information, realizing that more refined projections will be made as we decide on the final solution.

I will also forward to the School Board and the Board of Supervisors the proposals as soon as we refine this document.  It will be good for the two Boards to receive this information prior to the public during the open meeting on the 9^th.  Thanks again for your assistance.”

On August 9, 2011 at 10:44AM Mr. Kiser sent an email to the School Board members, school staff, the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator and one of his personal email addresses.  In this email he presents the Page Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations, complete with a Power Point presentation.  The School Board meeting was on this date at 7:00PM.  On August 4, 2011the agenda packet for the August 9, 2011 monthly School Board meeting was posted on the Schools’ website without the supporting documentation from the Committee.  The Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations and supporting Power Point presentation were not available for the public to review until arriving at the August 9^th meeting.

An email conversation between Mr. Kiser and Ad Hoc Committee member Mike Hagar, begins on June 30, 2011 with Mr. Hagar saying,

“Dr. Kiser, I received your voicemail request for volunteers to serve on a planning board that will address how best to recover from the destruction of Page Middle School.”

An email conversation between Mr. Kiser and Committee member Jay Napier begins with Mr. Napier’s request to be on the Committee and reminding Mr. Kiser of them previously playing golf at a Virginia Association of School Superintendents conference and of Mr. Kiser inviting him to the Abingdon Ruritan Club.

In an email conversation between Committee member Jennifer Latour and Mr. Kiser, Ms. Latour informs Mr. Kiser that she would be unable to attend the second of three meetings. Mr. Kiser responds:

“The second day will probably be a critical day in the committee’s deliberations but Mr. Daniel speaks highly of your involvement.   I am unsure at this point whether the third day will be needed but maybe we could communicate prior to the 27^th in order to get you up to speed.  I have a committee of 17 people and something may prevent any of them from attending on a given day.  With that said, I look forward to your participation on the 18^th and let’s see what will be needed from that point.  Take care.”  

Property records reflect that one day prior to the Gloucester School Board publicly voting to rebuild Page Middle School on property it received from the Pella P. Hundley Trust, Harry Corr purchased all 26.79 acres of Route 17 road frontage property that is connected to the Gloucester County property where the new school is being built.

An email conversation dated May 13, 2011 betweenGloucester’s Chief Purchasing Manager, Bill Lindsey and Ben Kiser pertaining to post tornado Page Middle Schoolcontains the following as written by Mr. Lindsey to Mr. Kiser:

“If I understand your needs, it appears that the resulting contract that you desire will encompass not only the development of a conceptual design and professional consulting services for your Board, but also a second phase that will include the development of plans and construction documents.

All of these services may be included in a proposal which I can develop for your review. For this development, I would need your staff to provide me with a Scope of Work and any other pertinent requirements that are envisioned for such an engagement. I must caution you that staff would need to be careful in establishing a business relationship with any engineering firm for the development of the work scope. I offer this caution because such a linkage could disqualify the firm from offering a proposal for the future services to rebuild the school. This prohibition is contained in §22-74 of the Code of Gloucester County.

Rather, I would encourage your staff to communicate with peers across the Commonwealth in the development of the work scope and requirements. Needless to say, I am available to work with your staff on this objective.”

In an email conversation between Mr. Kiser and Duane Harver with RRMM Architects dated June 29, 2011; Mr. Harver expresses concerns to Mr. Kiser about being able to participate in the bidding process to design the newPage Middle School if they commit to facilitating the Page Middle School Ad Hoc Committee.  Mr. Harver referenced a previous instance in which RRMM’s participation was excluded in Chesapeake because of their involvement in a study pertaining to the services contained in the Request for Proposals.  Mr. Kiser responded that RRMM’s work with the Committee would not preclude them from bidding and that he and Bill Lindsey, CPPO, CPM for the Gloucester Purchasing Office, had already spoken about it. 

Sec. 22-74. Participation in bid preparation; limitation on submitting bid for same procurement.

No person who, for compensation, prepares an invitation to bid or request for proposal for or on behalf of the county shall (i) submit a bid or proposal for that procurement or any portion thereof or (ii) disclose to any bidder or offeror information concerning the procurement which is not available to the public. However, the purchasing manager may permit such person to submit a bid or proposal for that procurement or any portion thereof if he/she determines that the exclusion of such a person would limit the number of potential qualified bidder or offerors in a manner contrary to the best interests of the county.

  It says no person shall (ii) disclose to any bidder or offeror information concerning the procurement which is not available to the public. 

From Mr. Kiser’s afore mentioned email dated August 4, 2011

“Please consider this information confidential until it is presented to the School Board”  “It will be good for the two Boards to receive this information prior to the public during the open meeting on the 9th.” 

On June 15, 2011 a Request for Professional Services to “review the potential for reconstructing Page Middle School” was advertised.  Proposals for the June 15^thRFP were received by July 11, 2011.  On August 9, 2011Duane Harver with RRMM presented the Ad Hoc committee’s recommendations to the School Board. Until August 9, 2011 RRMM possessed concerning information that was not available to the public, the School Board or to bidders competing for the June 15^thRFP contract. 

Our Notes:  We will be posting PDF files in the very near future showing all of these communications in full detail.  What has been hidden from public view is slowly coming to light.  

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA A Letter From The Kiser, School Board Superintendant
• Gloucester, VA Officials Circumvent Discovery Throughout The County
• Government Officials And Employees Use of Personal Emails Updated
• Gloucester, VA - FOIA and Private Email Accounts In Virginia
• Gloucester, VA Public Schools 10 Years Ago, The Story Of The "Kiser"
• Gloucester, VA School Officials Respond To Use Of Private Email Accounts

Bill Gates’ Project Tycho and Vaccine Voodo

Infectious Disease Research Gets a Boost from Websites, Blogs, and Social Media (Photo credit: pennstatenews)

Richard Gale and Gary Null

Progressive Radio Network, December 16, 2013



Population cohort and ecologic studies have become today’s norm for determining vaccine efficacy and support the belief that vaccination has safely reduced the spread of infectious diseases and saved millions of lives. Never a gold standard for scientific inquiry, population studies now make up the bulk of vaccine advocates’ clinical arsenal to discredit more factual biological research favoring the arguments of vaccine opponents. A recent paper published in the November 2013 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, “Contagious Diseases in the United States from 1988 to the Present,” is the first of what will inevitably turn into a flurry of future studies to persuade legislators and the public that vaccination should be mandatory for assuring the health of the nation.[1] The study was spawned from a new project launched at the University of Pittsburgh, Project Tycho, named after the renowned 16th century astronomer and mathematician Tycho Brahe and mentor of Johannes Kepler. Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, the Project is an enormous multi-tiered undertaking to store mortality data for 56 infectious diseases between 1888 and the present for future data-mining and analysis, and to strategize future policies to increase vaccination rates.



The paper’s authors make the extraordinary claim that “103 million cases of childhood diseases (95% of those that would otherwise have occurred) have been prevented since 1924; in the past decade alone, 26 million cases (99% of those that would otherwise occurred) were prevented” from vaccination. Always the obedient slave to CDC and Big Pharm demands, the New York Times chimed in, stating that this is “one of the kind of analysis that can be done when enormous data sets are built and mined.”[2] If this analysis is factual, it can be heralded as one of the most significant achievements to support the miracles and benefits of vaccines. On the other hand, if the University of Pittsburgh researchers’ analysis is scientifically unreliable and perhaps even found deceptive under sound empirical review, then the paper is one of the most misleading propaganda scams published in a peer-reviewed medical literature in recent years. This wouldn’t be the first time the NEJM failed to perform diligent and satisfactory peer-review of papers submitted for publication. In the past, the prestigious journal has been rife with publishing duplicitous science articles that are best described as medical racketeering.



What is most important is to review the data that the Pittsburgh scientists depended upon in order to reach their conclusions. A review of the Project Tycho website and its database reveals an absence of the most critical information necessary for making any historical determination about a vaccine’s effectiveness let alone how many deaths were prevented.[3] The Projects sole accomplishment is to store vast amounts of data (200 million keystrokes) of mortality statistics, including time and location, for 56 infectious diseases over a 125 year period. Scientific data pertaining to vaccination statistics for eight vaccine-specific contagious diseases noted in the NEJM paper is nonexistent. There is no record for the number of people vaccinated for any of the targeted diseases in any given year or location. There are no records for the number of deaths among unvaccinated persons. Nor are there any records of deaths caused by an infectious disease that may have been caused by a vaccine’s infectious agent or in a data set of the population where the vaccine was ineffective and did not provide protection. In fact, the Project contains no data regarding vaccination data at all!!



In addition, the data makes the a priori assumption that the cause of reported deaths due to the infectious diseases that are tracked over the course of 125 years is accurate. Of course, for the majority of this period accurate biological diagnostic technologies to determine an infectious cause of death were either not in existence or were not routinely performed.



So how did the Pittsburgh scientists derive their conclusions? To understand their modus operandi, the reader is asked to lay aside the most basic principles of the scientific method and critical thought. Rather it would be better to cast our minds back 500 years and adopt an irrational bias that finds more in common with alchemical and magical beliefs than modern science.



Without the crucial data for making even rough estimates for the number of vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals for any given year in order to make an appropriate calculation, the study’s method is really quite simple. “We estimated the numbers of cases of polio, measles, rubella, mumps, hepatitis A, diphtheria and pertussis that were prevented by vaccines,” the paper states, “by subtracting the reported number of weekly cases after the introduction of vaccines from a simulated counterfactual number of cases that would have occurred in the absence of vaccination” (italics our emphasis). A dictionary’s definition for “counterfactual numbers” would be a number that relates to something that has not happened or a case that doesn’t exist. In other words, it is a magically conjured number relying upon mathematical algorithms with no genuine correspondence to the reality of infection rates. Moreover, the paper states it relies on a “quantitative history,” which translates merely into simple plain numbers of death counts without qualifying what those numbers actually represent in any significant, qualitative way (eg., vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated, margin of errors for misdiagnosing causes of death, the rising number of cases of people contracting infections they have been vaccinated against, etc).



The fact that mortality rates for most of the eight “preventable” infectious diseases under investigation were already declining rapidly before the introduction of vaccines is also ignored categorically. What the Pittsburgh team overlooks is the rapid declining numbers of deaths before the release of specific vaccines.



An excellent example is the mortality rates due to measles. Before the advent of the measles vaccine in 1963, death rates had already dropped 98.6 percent for the period while mortality records were kept. This steady decline started to plateau to less than 1 per 100,000 in 1944 and gradually diminished during the remaining years, aside from an abnormal spike in 1990 after the measles vaccine became part of the standard vaccination schedule. In 1959, the rate was approximately 1 in half a million, approaching zero, before the vaccine’s 1963 release.[4] Since the study ignores any potential reason for the 98.6 percent drop in measles mortality before 1963, there is no rationale to conclude the measles vaccine prevented any deaths whatsoever. Given the many decades of decline prior to the vaccine, whatever the cause(s) for this downward movement, it very likely would have continued to where measles mortality rates are today without a vaccine ever being developed. For example, there was never a vaccine developed for Scarlet Fever, however, in the UK it declined from being one of the more deadly infectious diseases with a mortality rate of 160 per 100,000 around 1860 to almost zero by 1940. Likewise, pertussis was already rapidly declining before the vaccine became widely used in the late 1940s.[5]



In what has now become a standardized assault against parents who either delay or withhold vaccinating their children, the Pittsburgh authors want us to believe that non-vaccinated children were responsible for the recent increase in pertussis cases. However, putting aside the pertussis vaccine’s litany of serious and life-threatening risks, data regarding its efficacy is gradually revealing this vaccine as one medicine’s major debacles. What the authors fail to question is whether the vaccine itself might be responsible for this escalation. Dr. Ruiting Lan and his colleagues at the University of New South Wales have identified a new vaccine-resistant genotype of pertussis (ptxP3) that has increased dramatically. It was responsible for about 30 percent of whooping cough cases before the 2008 epidemic to 84 percent of whooping cough cases in Australia today.[6,7] This new and more deadly strain according to the CDC is now being reported in the US and there is a growing body of research pointing to recent whooping cough outbreaks being directly linked to the vaccine.[8,9] This alone may account for the increase of whooping cough cases being referred to in the NEJM paper and a reason why vaccinated children are coming down with the infection as well. The foremost question scientists should be concerning themselves, rather than investing millions of dollars to play computer games with Magical Numbers, is to determine whether the DPT vaccine is responsible for the emergence of a vaccine-resistant pertussis outbreaks.



Yet there is even more damning research against the pertussis vaccine and its failures. In 2009, the CDC determined that 99.94 percent of American children were vaccinated against pertussis; therefore, the herd immunity threshold was surpassed and according to this unproven theory there should be no transmission. A recent FDA biological study performed on young baboons discovered that the pertussis vaccine, while possibly protecting against wild infection, in fact doesn’t eliminate infection; rather, the study found, that vaccinated baboons are colonizing the virus and transmitting it to others.[10] If this research holds up, it debunks any credibility that may be given to the belief in herd immunity.



The article also makes reference to the large 2010 pertussis outbreak but fails to mention that according to a study published in the December 2012 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics, among the 9000-plus cases in California (the largest among the states), 91 percent were fully “vaccinated according to national recommendations.”[11] During the 1986 pertussis outbreak in Kansas, 90 percent of the confirmed cases were vaccinated. This high percentage of outbreaks among vaccinated children is common during recent pertussis spikes in different locations. So who is truly endangering society? The pertussis vaccine is one instance where widespread vaccination is backfiring and increasing the incidences of infection, hospitalization and death. However, none of these hard historical and qualitative statistics are factored into the Project Tychos calculations.



The University of Pittsburgh’ NEJM article is a grand alchemical illusion of misinformation. The researchers either lack or ignore the most critical data and statistics necessary to arrive at medically valid conclusions about the causes behind deaths attributed to viral and bacterial infectious disease. Therefore, the report is best viewed as an archaic and pseudo-scientific attempt to discredit vaccine opponents and advance Bill Gates’ and his cohorts’ ambitions to legally mandate vaccination and decimate health freedom for individuals and parents to make their own decisions regarding medical interventions for themselves and their children. Wherever Bill Gates’ funding footprint is found in vaccine-related endeavors, we can be certain it is to advance his departing legacy as the foremost leader to vaccinate every infant and child on the planet irrespective of vaccines’ dangers and whether or not they are as effective as the CDC and vaccine makers allege.



Finally, there is a telling aftermath to the NEJM article and the New York Time’s introducing Project Tycho to the public. Why would a project, aimed at increasing vaccination rates, name their initiative after an astronomer credited with laying out the foundation for the Keplerian laws of planetary motion?



There is a perfectly good motive to name the Project after the famous 16th century Danish astronomer but it is not one that Gates nor the university want to acknowledge. Tycho’s significance for a vaccine initiative has nothing to do with the formidable scientist’s observation of the movements of celestial bodies. Rather it is Tycho the notorious alchemist we need to turn to in order to understand the Project’s patron saint. And here we find Tycho’s alchemy mirroring Bill Gate’s financial support for scientists to summon the ghosts of fallacious magical statistics conjured through algorithms to mislead the media and public.



One of the greatest fears parents express against vaccinating their children concerns vaccine’s many toxic chemicals and ingredients and vaccines’ serious and life-threatening adverse effects. For many decades, the scientific literature has documented a wide variety of neurological and physical disorders attributed to vaccines. Many of these long term reactions (development and neurological impairment, asthma and allergies, type-1 diabetes, GI disorders, etc.) are and being observed in epidemic proportions in children. As we have noted, the University of Pittsburgh researchers completely disregarded the questions concerning vaccine efficacy and safety in their study. Their methodology resides strictly in the abstract world of mathematical make-believe, removed from the hard sciences of immunology and molecular biology. Their conclusions to seduce a correspondence between infectious disease mortality rates and voodoo math in order resurrect millions of imaginary saved lives due to a “what if” vaccination has as much credibility as Tycho’s own belief that there was a direct correspondence between the individual planets, certain metals in the earth, and different bodily organs.



In 1901, and again in 2010, Tycho’s body was exhumed for medical analysis. The discoveries and causes of death uncovered the presence of severe toxic poisoning. The skull of his naval cavity was tainted green from excessive copper exposure, and high levels of mercury were detected, likely due to his extensive alchemical experiments to transform base metals into gold and silver and his life’s second endeavor to discover a universal medicine to cure all illnesses.[12]



Bill Gates and the University of Pittsburgh couldn’t have found a more fitting historical personage to honor their multi-million dollar disease surveillance and data mining project to convince legislators to make the vaccination of all Americans mandatory. Tycho’s hubris, in both of his alchemical endeavors, seems certain to have killed him. The alchemist’s drives correspond nicely with the dangers of vaccines, their dozens of toxic chemicals, and the rising epidemic of medical conditions and developmental disorders in children leading to lives of suffering and early death. Therefore dedicating this extraordinary data collection Project after Tycho is perhaps the only thing Gates and the university got correct.



NOTES



[1] Van Panhuis WG, Greenfenstette J, Jung SY, Chok NS, Cross A, Eng H, Lee BY, Zdorozhny V, Brown S, Cummings D, Burke DS. “Contagious Diseases in the United States from 1888 to the Present.” New England Journal of Medicine November 28, 2013, 369; 22.

[2] Lohr S. “The Vaccination Effect: 100 Million Cases of Contagious Disease Prevented,” New York Times. November 27, 2013 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/the-vaccination-effect-100-million-cases-of-contagious-disease-prevented/?_r=0

[3] Project Tycho, University of Pittsburgh. http://www.tycho.pitt.edu

[4] Humphries, S, Bystrianyk R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History. Self-published. www.dissolvingillusions.com

[5] Humphries, S. Ibid.

[6] Lam, C., Octavia, S., Bahrame, Z., Sintchenko, V., Gilbert, G.L., & Lan, R. (2012) 
Selection and emergence of pertussis toxin promoter ptxP3 allele in the evolution of Bordetella Pertussis.
Infection Genetics and Evolution. 12(2): 492-495; Octavia, S., Sintchenko, V., Gilbert, G.L., Lawrence, A.L., Keil, A.D., Hogg, G., & Lan, R. (2012) 
”Newly emerging clones of bordetella Pertussis carrying prn2 and ptxP3 alleles implicated in australian pertussis epidemic in 2008-2010”.
Journal of Infectious Diseases. 205(8): 1220-1224

[7] Norrie J. “Vaccine Resistant Whooping Cough Takes Epidemic to New Level,” The Conversation, March 21, 2012

[8] “New Wooping Cough Strain in US Raises Questions” Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/07/new-whooping-cough-strain-in-us-raises-questions/

[9] Mooi FR, van Loo I, van Gent M, He Q, Bart MJ, Heuvelman KJ, de Greeff S, Diavatopoulos D, Teunis P, Nagelkerke N, and Mertsola J, “Bordetella pertussis Strains with Increased Toxin Production Associated with Pertussis Resurgence” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/8/08-1511_article.htm



[10] Mercola J. “FDA Pertussis Vaccine Study Shatters Illusions of Vaccine-Induced Immunity.” Mercola.com December 10, 2013.



[11] California Pertussis Epidemic 2010, Journal of Pediatrics 2012 Dec; 161 (6): 1091http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22819634

[12] Tycho Brahe Biography. Alchemy and Alchemists. http://alchemy-and-alchemists.blogspot.com/2010/07/tycho-brahe-biography.html; Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

http://prn.fm/bill-gates-project-tycho-vaccine-voodoo/

Related articles

• Why Widespread Nutritional Deficiencies Are a Reality
• One in Five American Deaths Now Associated with Obesity
• Vitamin D - One of the Simplest Solutions to Wide-Ranging Health Problems
• Unethical Journal Retraction Fuels Mistrust in GMO Science
• A Psychiatrist's Perspective on Using Drugs
• Is Monsanto Using 4-H to Brainwash Your Children About GMOs?

What the U.S. Can Learn From Britain’s Decline

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Britain began its slow descent into oblivion in the late 19th century. Britain believed in the innate goodness of man which was its undoing. We examine the stages and mistakes culminating in the ultimate disappearance of the empire in 20 years from 1947 to 1967. Remarkable similarities accompany America’s own decline although, of course, it has never had an empire. Stock market comment du jour. Wal-Mart is feeling the pinch of reduced spending as are cut-price stores like Family Dollar and 99-cent Stores. How can they still talk up a ‘recovery’ with a straight face? More on the ‘real’ unemployment figures. The fate of incomes in this depression. The meaning of retirement in America. More and more people will be depending on social security to fund it.

http://prn.fm/wake-call-u-s-can-learn-britains-decline-020314/

Link back to the original story.  Podcast of the Richard Martin Show.

Related articles

• Let's Talk Bitcoin, Movers and Shakers, Podcast E-13
• The Forces behind America's Economic Destruction
• Federalist Papers No. 34. The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation)
• Federalist Papers No. 37. Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government.
• Why Widespread Nutritional Deficiencies Are a Reality
• Governor McDonnell Announces Lumber Liquidators to Expand Presence in Virginia

An Academic View Of The Global Money Scam

I.O.U. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For all those that are still new to the global money scam, here is a simple entry level explanation from a slightly different perspective - an academic perspective.

Banks don’t lend money

Written by Michael Reiss (guest author) .
Posted in Economic Analysis, Theory, Understanding Money & Debt

Professor Hyman Minsky once wrote “Banking is not money lending; to lend, a money lender must have money. The fundamental banking activity is accepting, that is, guaranteeing that some party is creditworthy. A bank, by accepting a debt instrument, agrees to make specified payments if the debtor will not or cannot”.

“Banking is not money lending”? Surely some mistake! Why would an economist as famous as Professor Minsky make such an outrageous sounding statement?… Well the answer is that its perfectly true. Crazy though it sounds, banks don’t lend money at all. To understand why this is the case we must understand some technicalities about money.

Most people imagine that money is simply a system of government-created tokens (physical or electronic) that get passed form person to person as trade is carried out. Money of this kind does indeed exist, so called “central bank money” is of this type. However the vast majority of the money we spend day today is a second type, technically known as “broad money” or “cheque book money” which can best be described as “spendable bank IOUs”. The concept of a spendable IOU may sound rather strange, and in order to explain it, we must first consider some characteristics of an ordinary IOU, the kind you or I might use…

Say that Mick wanted to borrow £10 from Jim. Jim could give Mick a £10 note in return for a piece of paper with “I.O.U. £10, signed.. Mick” written on it. The IOU would then have some value to Jim as a legal record of the loan. At some later time Mick would repay the loan. At this point Jim should no longer keep the IOU because Mick would no longer owe Jim any money. The IOU has now done its job and may be disposed of. To summarise, the lifecycle of an ordinary IOU is as follows:

Creation (out of nothing. It did not exist previously)
It now has value as a legal record of the loan.
It expires (back out of existence) when the loan is repaid.

Note that even though the IOU has value during stage 2, it is not easily spendable. If Jim went into a grocery shop and said “I’d like to have £10 worth of food, here’s an IOU from Mick, he’ll pay you back later”, the shopkeeper would almost certainly refuse. This is because the shopkeeper has no idea if Mick is creditworthy, the shopkeeper would be worried he may never receive £10 from Mick. Now imagine for a moment that it could somehow be arranged to have a guarantee from a famous high street bank, that Mick would indeed pay £10 to the holder of the IOU. Then the shopkeepers fears would be allayed and he would have no reason not to accept Mick’s IOU as payment for food. To summarise, a bank guarantee could convert a non-spendable IOU into a spendable IOU.

So far this has all been hypothetical, but to see a non-spendable IOU get converted into a spendable one in the real world, look no further than the process of getting a “bank loan”. The term “bank loan” is in fact highly misleading. What is actually going on is not lending at all, it is in fact an IOU swapping arrangement. If Mick went to borrow £1000 from a bank, the first thing that would happen is that the bank would asses Mick’s creditworthiness. Assuming it was good enough, then the bank would ask Mick to sign a “loan agreement” which is essentially an IOU from Mick to the bank. What the bank would give Mick would generally not be “central bank money”, but instead its own IOUs (i.e. cheque book money). And just like ordinary IOUs, bank IOUs do not have to be obtained from anybody else. They are just created on the spot. No “lending” is going on. In order to “lend”, the bank would have had to have been in possession of the money beforehand, and they were not.

So there you have the layman’s explanation. But some people are still not convinced. Many people have heard a different explanation of the money creation process at university or from textbooks and so assume that this explanation is somehow wrong. But let me assure you that it is the textbook explanation that is wrong. I do realize that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. So here goes…

The first thing to say is that the explanation given here is indeed a simplification of the money creation process as it occurs in the real world. The full details of which are so complex and so frequently changing that they are not taught to undergraduate students as part of economics degrees. What students are often taught instead is a toy model of reality. A not-actually-true teaching aid. The idea of using a not-actually-true teaching aid is not unique to economics, in the field of chemistry a similar thing occurs with regard the behavior of electrons around atomic nuclei. The real world behavior is too complex for undergraduate students, so they are taught a not-actually-true story of “electron shells”. Its in virtually all the textbooks.

The standard not-actually-true method for teaching students about the workings of our monetary system is an explanation called the “money multiplier model” in which banks appear to lend out money that has been deposited with them. When some economists finish their degrees and subsequently go on to specialize in the monetary system and finally learn the full details of the process, they occasionally have some choice words to say about the undergraduate textbook model:

“The way monetary economics and banking is taught in many, maybe most, universities is very misleading”. Professor David Miles, Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England.
“The old pedagogical analytical approach that centred around the money multiplier was misleading, atheoretical and has recently been shown to be without predictive value. It should be discarded immediately.” Professor Charles Goodhart CBE, FBA, ex Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England.
“The textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected”. Michael Kumhof, Deputy Division Chief, Modelling Unit, Research Department, International Monetary Fund.
“Textbooks assume that money is exogenous.” … “In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous” Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England.

Notice the extremely high calibre of the economists being quoted. These are all economists that specialise in the workings of our monetary system.

Is this issue controversial? Well yes and no (but mainly no)… let me explain. the issue is only controversial in as much as non-experts (that have just learned the textbook story) may say things that contradict the experts that have a detailed knowledge of the system in reality. But amongst the experts, it is not controversial at all.

I shall finish with a quote form Professor Victoria Chick, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University College London: “Banks do not lend money. It may feel like it when you get a ‘loan’, but that’s not what they are doing. They don’t have a pot of money which they are passing on. What they are doing is accepting your IOU… they simply write up your account”.

So there you have it, banks do not lend money. And if you want to argue against this on academic grounds, please only quote economists that specialise in the monetary system.

Related articles

• The Forces behind America's Economic Destruction
• Gerald Celente -- Alex Jones Show -- Part 2 -- January 29, 2014
• Governor Terry McAuliffe Executive Order Number 2
• Four Horsemen - Feature Documentary - How The WOrld Really Works
• The New Bitcoin Revolution
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 1)

Michael Tellinger - The Ubuntu Liberation Movement

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first section of this video is weird and off the hook for most people.  One has to look at history as well as present economic conditions to see where we should be leaning for economic survival.

http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/  

Link to the main website for the Ubuntu Liberation Movement.  For all intents and purposes of argument, we are talking about pure communism.  Not socialist communism, but pure communism.  The question has always stood however can pure communism work?  It sounds good and always has.  That is the allure of communism.  No country has ever experimented with pure communism.  There have been small experiments with pure communism all around the world and also right here in the US.  None of the communities ever lasted.  Oneida was one such community here in the US.  If you are familiar with the name, it's because it's a major brand corporate name for the famous silverware makers.  They started as a pure communist community.  It didn't work.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community

The link above shows what we are talking about is not at all made up.  The story can be found right on wiki.  If you actually take the time to read the full story, you will find that pure communism does not seem to work either.  It's a nice pipe dream, but someone always figures they have to be in charge and leadership is always needed when dealing with groups.  At least it's a bit more sound than the Zeitgeist Movement that also shreds down religion.  Now if you could start taking the best from Zeitgeist, Thrive and the Ubuntu movements, maybe we could start having a more sound idea to work from?  Maybe we should consider going back to the principle of how the United States was created and once again look at the works of Adam Smith.  

Related articles

• Chemicals in Your Drinking Water That Could Be Wrecking Your Health
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 37 - Factions And The Constitution
• This Tiny Sliver Has HUGE Implications For How The World Works
• Governor McAuliffe Announces 135 New Jobs for Northampton County
• Revealing Look at the Sourcing of Our Food Supply
• Merck Promoting Zilmax, Despite Cattle Losing Their Hooves