157 Peer Reviews Fail to Catch Fake Cancer Study

English: Open Access  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

By Dr. Mercola

The Internet has benefited you with vast access to information that was formerly difficult to come by. However, open access has also generated reduced quality control, sometimes turning the Information Age into the “Age of Misinformation”—especially when it comes to scientific research.

Fraud, propaganda, and misrepresentations are now commonplace, especially online, and some myths are repeated so often they eventually become accepted as fact.

Although the featured study and subsequent exposé seeks to discredit open access journals, it too has some very serious conflicting interests. Remember, traditional journals like Science are not immune to publishing flawed studies, and Open Access journals are a direct competition for them, which makes me question the motives of this Science “exposé.”

The featured “sting operation” was concocted by a Science editor who wanted to test how likely it would be for bad research to be published. But before we dig in, it is important to understand what is meant by the term “open access.”

21st Century Gives Birth to ‘Open Access Journals’

As the cost of accessing academic journal articles increases, a growing number of academic institutions are building publicly accessible databases of scholarly work. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ),1 Open Access (OA) journals are defined as journals that use a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access.2

There are no subscription fees to the readers. There are now some 8,250 open access scientific journals in operation worldwide.3 This is a phenomenally positive movement.

One of the major challenges with traditional journals is that they get all their content for free, most of their peer review editors are not paid as it is an honor to have that role. They typically charge hundreds of dollars a year for a subscription to 12 or fewer issues of their journal, and to top it all off, they charge you $20-$50 or more for just ONE full article.

This has always seemed to be extraordinarily unfair and like a racket. So just how do these new open access journals cover their expenses? After all, they are not a charitable organization and don’t take donations so they have to collect their fees from somewhere.

Approximately one-third of these journals charge the author a publication fee. But many times, private authors cannot afford these fees, so they are paid by grant money or other funding sources. Ideally, new papers undergo rigorous peer review before they are published, as described in an article by The Guardian:4

“A national government or a research council gives funds to a university that ultimately passes these monies along to a researcher. The researcher makes a discovery and writes an article about it. The article is then submitted to a journal.

The journal is responsible for rigorously studying the reported work to make sure it is reliable. This is the heart of quality control: peers – experts working in the same field – anonymously review the work; they challenge it, critique it, ask for new perspectives to be considered, and may even suggest changes in the analysis and presentation.”

If Open Access journals are being paid on a “per paper” basis, it is easy to see how the more articles an Open Access journal can publish, the greater their cash flow. To be clear, peer review problems are not limited to Open Access journals—there is failure with traditional journals as well. So the motivation is a bit precarious, but this does not mean it isn’t a better model that serves you and the community better. Some tweaks may need to be added to protect against these risks.

Harvard Journalist Devises Sting Operation

In an attempt to test this concern, a science journalist at Harvard University by the name of John Bohannon decided to devise a sting operation to test peer-review quality in the “open access media.”

He created a clever scientific paper riddled with clear scientific anomalies that rendered the study meaningless, and then submitted the paper to 304 open access journals over a period of 10 months. He even used fake names and fake universities, which would be caught by most good-quality peer reviewers.

The bogus paper described a simple experiment supposedly showing that lichens can slow cancer cell growth.5 With cancer being such a major concern, and many open access journals partial to natural therapies, there may have been a bias to accept this type of novel therapy. More than half the papers—157 of the 304—were accepted for publication. Public Library of Science (PLOS ONE) was the only journal that called attention to the paper's problems and immediately rejected it. Bohannon published the results of his “experiment” in Science Magazine.6

It is equally important to note that nearly half of the open access journals rejected this fake paper. Ideally, some type of certification agency should do random audits to motivate the half of the journals that weren’t as rigid as they needed to be. But make no mistake, Open Access journals are a massive move in the right direction. It is however a newborn and needs some mentoring. To me, this Science “exposé” was more of a hit piece to discredit their competition and increase their revenues, which would limit your access to this type of valuable information.

Most Research Claims Cannot Be Trusted

Download the Interview Transcript

As you can see above in my previous interview with Dr. Golomb, the non-Open Access conventional journals are no angels, and most are in bed with the drug companies. Our current medical system has been masterfully orchestrated by the drug industry to give the perception of science when it really is a heavily manipulated process designed to elevate their products and boost their profits.

Back in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.7 Interestingly, this is about the same ratio that the hit piece by the Science journalist found in the Open Access journals. But you sure didn’t see him quote this information. Within just a few years, one-third of the conclusions of all research will have been proved wrong by subsequent studies—even research that makes it into the top medical journals.8

There is a major bias toward publishing studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from “hot” competitive fields, and certainly studies that support their major advertisers, which are the drug companies. And it is much easier than you might think for unscrupulous researchers to massage and manipulate data in order to get the result they’re after.

Many drug studies published in leading journals are actually sponsored by drug makers and include deceptive statistical reporting and wording. Studies funded by drug companies favor drugs 80 percent of the time. The flu vaccine is a perfect example of medical manipulation, with research concluding the effectiveness of the vaccines to be as low as one percent. Yet, despite this, flu vaccines are still pushed by mainstream health officials as the “best” way to protect yourself against influenza. Valuable health care workers are even losing their jobs for refusing to accept the flu shot, despite the fact that the scientific basis for the flu vaccine is pathetically weak.

The Hijacking of Science by Industry Giants

In recent decades, scientific research has been undercut by decreased public funding and increased corporate funding of educational institutions. Not only does private industry write fat checks to universities in the form of research grants, but they make it even more lucrative for the schools when the research culminates in patentable products—such as genetically engineered seeds.

Chemical technology companies like Monsanto are “buying” increasingly more friends by funding colleges and universities, where they can gain control over research, science, policy and public opinion. Last year, Monsanto gave a $250,000 grant to the University of Illinois, creating an endowed chair for its Agricultural Communications Program, securing help in disseminating its pro-GMO message. This means that a good deal of science is now corrupt even before the study is performed, with only one goal in mind: the advancement of an agenda. Gone are the days where scientific studies coming from institutes of higher learning really meant something!

Just recently, a study was published that showed nearly ONE MILLION people were killed over five years in Europe through the inappropriate prescription of beta-blockers for non-cardiac surgery. The research serving as the basis for this deadly prescription guideline was published in prestigious peer reviewed journals, showing peer review flaws are not limited to Open Access journals.

It’s become quite clear that instead of evidence-based decision making, we now have decision-based evidence making... Scientific evidence appears to be largely concocted to support an already established corporate agenda, and any scientific investigation that refutes or questions it is squelched by virtually any means.

Science Is Further Perverted by the Media

The public is further deceived by clever and highly paid PR firms, disguised as scientific organizations but set up specifically for the purpose of controlling how the media reports new science and portrays industry. Two examples are Science Media Centre (SMC) and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), both of which are heavily funded by industry. The problem is made worse by the fact that many journalists today are not doing their due diligence in fact-checking their sources.

These organizations are anything but independent, from their scientists to their governing boards. SMC has branches all over the world, its primary purpose being to control the press using a team of not-so-independent scientists who spin science news in industry’s favor. SMC “experts” (physicians, research scientists, university professors, etc.) have undisclosed and far-reaching affiliations with biotech giants, including EFSA, Bayer, Pioneer-DuPont, Syngenta, and Monsanto. You’ve likely seen these so-called experts on the evening news spinning scientific information more times than you can count.

How to Get Solid Information in an Era of Confusion

What’s the bottom line? You should be highly skeptical of ANY published study, particularly if it comes from an obscure journal. But you can no longer completely trust even the most respected journals, for all of the reasons already discussed. Always consider the source of the information... Who funded the study and where was it published? Do not accept the findings of any single paper, as scientific results are only reliable after replication and the building of consensus through time. Always look for corroboration.

In order to determine the best course of action in any situation, you've got to use all the resources available to you, including your own common sense and reason, true expert advice, and the experience of those you trust. Remain skeptical but open. Even if it is something I'm saying, you need to realize that YOU are responsible for your and your family's health, not me—and certainly not the biomedical and agriculture industries who will try to sell you their wares and seduce you with innovative (but often risky) “science-based solutions.”

If you're facing a health challenge, make sure your healthcare practitioners really understand health at a foundational level and have extensive experience helping others. In the meantime, be proactive! Making wise lifestyle choices will keep you healthy and decrease your odds of needing risky medical interventions in the future.

Related articles

• 157 Peer Reviews Fail to Catch Fake Cancer Study
• Future Shock - Disastrous Levels of Heart Disease and Cancer
• Unethical Journal Retraction Fuels Mistrust in GMO Science
• Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit
• Drug Emergencies For ADHD Quadrupled in 6 Years
• Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating

Free Mp3 Album Downloads, Color Wheel by Macroform

Color Wheel by Macroform is something a bit different.  It's hard to put one's finger on other than to say that the tracks are designed to be emotional and what one would expect to hear during a movie.  Dome is sort of a mellow jazz mix.  Sacred Clouds is more along the lines of a heavy old style rock mix from your neighbors garage.  Either way, take a listen.  Download tracks you like or download the entire album.  It's free as always.  

Federalist Papers No. 41. General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution

For the Independent Journal. Saturday, January 19, 1788

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

The powers falling within the FIRST class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an INDEFINITE POWER of raising TROOPS, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in PEACE, as well as in WAR?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions. The fifteenth century was the unhappy epoch of military establishments in the time of peace. They were introduced by Charles VII. of France. All Europe has followed, or been forced into, the example. Had the example not been followed by other nations, all Europe must long ago have worn the chains of a universal monarch. Were every nation except France now to disband its peace establishments, the same event might follow. The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valor of all other nations and rendered her the mistress of the world.

Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

The clearest marks of this prudence are stamped on the proposed Constitution. The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. It was remarked, on a former occasion, that the want of this pretext had saved the liberties of one nation in Europe. Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security. A dangerous establishment can never be necessary or plausible, so long as they continue a united people. But let it never, for a moment, be forgotten that they are indebted for this advantage to the Union alone. The moment of its dissolution will be the date of a new order of things. The fears of the weaker, or the ambition of the stronger States, or Confederacies, will set the same example in the New, as Charles VII. did in the Old World. The example will be followed here from the same motives which produced universal imitation there. Instead of deriving from our situation the precious advantage which Great Britain has derived from hers, the face of America will be but a copy of that of the continent of Europe. It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. The fortunes of disunited America will be even more disastrous than those of Europe. The sources of evil in the latter are confined to her own limits. No superior powers of another quarter of the globe intrigue among her rival nations, inflame their mutual animosities, and render them the instruments of foreign ambition, jealousy, and revenge. In America the miseries springing from her internal jealousies, contentions, and wars, would form a part only of her lot. A plentiful addition of evils would have their source in that relation in which Europe stands to this quarter of the earth, and which no other quarter of the earth bears to Europe.

This picture of the consequences of disunion cannot be too highly colored, or too often exhibited. Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it.

Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.

Had the argument from the British example been truly stated, it would have stood thus: The term for which supplies may be appropriated to the army establishment, though unlimited by the British Constitution, has nevertheless, in practice, been limited by parliamentary discretion to a single year. Now, if in Great Britain, where the House of Commons is elected for seven years; where so great a proportion of the members are elected by so small a proportion of the people; where the electors are so corrupted by the representatives, and the representatives so corrupted by the Crown, the representative body can possess a power to make appropriations to the army for an indefinite term, without desiring, or without daring, to extend the term beyond a single year, ought not suspicion herself to blush, in pretending that the representatives of the United States, elected FREELY by the WHOLE BODY of the people, every SECOND YEAR, cannot be safely intrusted with the discretion over such appropriations, expressly limited to the short period of TWO YEARS?

A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself. Of this truth, the management of the opposition to the federal government is an unvaried exemplification. But among all the blunders which have been committed, none is more striking than the attempt to enlist on that side the prudent jealousy entertained by the people, of standing armies. The attempt has awakened fully the public attention to that important subject; and has led to investigations which must terminate in a thorough and universal conviction, not only that the constitution has provided the most effectual guards against danger from that quarter, but that nothing short of a Constitution fully adequate to the national defense and the preservation of the Union, can save America from as many standing armies as it may be split into States or Confederacies, and from such a progressive augmentation, of these establishments in each, as will render them as burdensome to the properties and ominous to the liberties of the people, as any establishment that can become necessary, under a united and efficient government, must be tolerable to the former and safe to the latter.

The palpable necessity of the power to provide and maintain a navy has protected that part of the Constitution against a spirit of censure, which has spared few other parts. It must, indeed, be numbered among the greatest blessings of America, that as her Union will be the only source of her maritime strength, so this will be a principal source of her security against danger from abroad. In this respect our situation bears another likeness to the insular advantage of Great Britain. The batteries most capable of repelling foreign enterprises on our safety, are happily such as can never be turned by a perfidious government against our liberties.

The inhabitants of the Atlantic frontier are all of them deeply interested in this provision for naval protection, and if they have hitherto been suffered to sleep quietly in their beds; if their property has remained safe against the predatory spirit of licentious adventurers; if their maritime towns have not yet been compelled to ransom themselves from the terrors of a conflagration, by yielding to the exactions of daring and sudden invaders, these instances of good fortune are not to be ascribed to the capacity of the existing government for the protection of those from whom it claims allegiance, but to causes that are fugitive and fallacious. If we except perhaps Virginia and Maryland, which are peculiarly vulnerable on their eastern frontiers, no part of the Union ought to feel more anxiety on this subject than New York. Her seacoast is extensive. A very important district of the State is an island. The State itself is penetrated by a large navigable river for more than fifty leagues. The great emporium of its commerce, the great reservoir of its wealth, lies every moment at the mercy of events, and may almost be regarded as a hostage for ignominious compliances with the dictates of a foreign enemy, or even with the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians. Should a war be the result of the precarious situation of European affairs, and all the unruly passions attending it be let loose on the ocean, our escape from insults and depredations, not only on that element, but every part of the other bordering on it, will be truly miraculous. In the present condition of America, the States more immediately exposed to these calamities have nothing to hope from the phantom of a general government which now exists; and if their single resources were equal to the task of fortifying themselves against the danger, the object to be protected would be almost consumed by the means of protecting them.

The power of regulating and calling forth the militia has been already sufficiently vindicated and explained.

The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. I will address one additional reflection only to those who contend that the power ought to have been restrained to external—taxation by which they mean, taxes on articles imported from other countries. It cannot be doubted that this will always be a valuable source of revenue; that for a considerable time it must be a principal source; that at this moment it is an essential one. But we may form very mistaken ideas on this subject, if we do not call to mind in our calculations, that the extent of revenue drawn from foreign commerce must vary with the variations, both in the extent and the kind of imports; and that these variations do not correspond with the progress of population, which must be the general measure of the public wants. As long as agriculture continues the sole field of labor, the importation of manufactures must increase as the consumers multiply. As soon as domestic manufactures are begun by the hands not called for by agriculture, the imported manufactures will decrease as the numbers of people increase. In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them.

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS

Gloucester, VA School Board's Appalling Pleas For Additional Funding - Video

This is the video from the March 24th, 2014 budget meeting.  Right around 36 minutes, after Brenda Garton, County Administrator, gave her presentation for the 2014 - 2015 budget, a student comes up and gives an absolutely appalling speech requesting additional money from the taxpayers, claiming old outdated textbooks, and a lack of paper for copying as some of the claims as well as teacher raises are much needed.  Though the student was well spoken, he was very poorly educated in the area of economics and it was a disgusting display of pure ignorance in our view.

  There is nothing complicated about budgets, economics and or government until bureaucrats decide to make it so.  The nihilistic socialist agenda spewing from the mouth of the student shows clearly that we have seriously digressed in the areas of economics and government oversight.  The Kiser has put this county into higher economic burdens and now we get to see with great delight, the horrible outcome of his oversight in the extraordinary appalling speech from the young man whom has no idea what he is talking about as he lacks the education to understand and we can not blame this young man for such.  We must look at those in charge of education.

  Let's be specific with his complaints.  He states what he claims are facts and figures that DO NOT ACCOUNT for areas such as shrinking enrollments, higher expenditures at the school board level that have little or nothing to do with the education of the students, subsidized lunches for school administration as well as higher levels of security for school board administration than they are willing to provide students with.  Bloated areas of expenditures in the school board that have little or nothing to do with education.

  Let's address the textbook issues.  Children are not coming home with textbooks.  If the textbooks are outdated in the school, direct the questions to the school board and NOT the board of supervisors.  The school board budget never uses it's full amount in any given year for textbooks that is allocated from what we have seen.  We are mortified here with this.  We can all thank The Kiser and the school board.  And this kid wants to become a teacher?  Says he won't come back here to teach?  Thank God.  He already lacks the education and shame on the school system for producing such a disgusting product of pure nihilistic filth.

  The folks that continued to come up, kept overlooking all of the above issues.  Lower enrollments.  No increases within the community showing expected increases in enrollments.  The Kiser closed one school when he could have used that school for relocating students from the old Page school.  The money wasted building the new Page Middle school instead of rebuilding the old Page site.  That was millions of dollars that were left on the table.  Does anyone understand simple economics or are we looking at the continued product of The Kisers really nihilistic socialist schooling. platform?

  At least the second speaker pointed out flaws in Brenda Garton's bloated budget which needs some very serious adjustments as well on the downward trend.  If anything, these meetings showed a need to get back to basics in education for everyone.  Simple economics is step one.  Let's look at the works of one of the first and real economists, Adam Smith.



 

Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith from Chuck Thompson

That's 667 pages of back to basics.  You can download this book for free from our slideshare site.  It's all very simple and easy to understand.  If the school board needs more money, let them take it out of the extra money they have cost us all building a new school in the swamp the county didn't need.

  Way to much oh poor me.  Guess what, the taxpayers are also saying poor me.  These folks are failing to realize who they must get their money from.  The taxpayers, not the board of supervisors.  The taxpayers DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY folks.  Did you hear that?  the taxpayers DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY.  YOU ARE NOT ASKING THE BOARD FOR MONEY.  You are asking the county taxpayers for money.  Hello!!!!!!  Anyone home?

  We just could not stand to listen to anyone else wine about how they want the Board of Supervisors to give them taxpayer money.  It's not their money school board.  It's the people of the county's money.  It's just infuriating.  

On a final note, we really want to thank the Board of Supervisors for recording and producing these videos so we can see what kind of outrageous nagging they must sit through from very ignorant people.  Our hats off to the Board of Supervisors for having to deal with such nonsense and still try and maintain decorum.   

Public Safety Officials Support Swift Passage of Governor McAuliffe’s Budget

Leaders in Virginia’s public safety community announced their support today for Governor McAuliffe’s proposal to invest $17 million in savings from closing the coverage gap to support the Line of Duty program. The Line of Duty Act provides state-funded disability and death benefits for state and local public safety officers or their beneficiaries due to disability or death resulting from the performance of duties.

Statement from the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters:

“The Virginia Professional Fire Fighters (VPFF) urge members of the General Assembly to pass Governor McAuliffe’s budget as quickly as possible. Governor McAuliffe’s budget is balanced, responsible, and provides critical funding for the Line of Duty Act, which supports firefighters, first responders, and others who put their lives on the line every day to protect Virginia’s communities.

“As primary emergency medical services (EMS) providers for many of our fellow citizens, VPFF members are all-too-familiar with the negative impacts of the coverage gap. By also including a 2 year pilot of accepting federal dollars to expand healthcare coverage to up to 400,000 Virginians, Governor McAuliffe’s budget will keep our citizens healthier, our neighborhoods safer, and our economy growing.

“It is imperative that members of the General Assembly come together to pass this budget, which our public safety officials depend on to ensure strong, safe, and healthy futures for all Virginians.”

Statement from Paula Miller, President, Virginia Public Safety Foundation:

“Governor McAuliffe has sought to engage Virginians in a necessary conversation that is central to our society: how will we care for our first responders and their families when they are injured or killed in service to our communities? His proposal to invest $17 million in the Line of Duty Act Fund and re-engage the Line of Duty Act work group to update state policies and funding mechanisms to provide for our public safety officers and their families is welcome news. I applaud Governor McAuliffe for his leadership on this important issue. I look forward to working with him to ensure that this conversation results in reforms that reflect our commitment to providing for those who face danger every day to keep us safe and contribute so much to making this the best state in which to live, raise a family, and do business."

Governor McAuliffe Announces 25th Anniversary of Virginia’s Finest®

~Long-Standing, Well-Known Program Identifies Highest Quality Virginia Agriculture and Specialty Food, Beverage Products~

Governor Terry McAuliffe today announced that this year marks the 25^th anniversary of the Virginia’s Finest^® program.  Developed in 1989 by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the program identifies, differentiates and promotes top-quality agriculture and specialty food and beverage products.  Buyers and consumers recognize the familiar blue and red “VA check mark” logo and know they are purchasing top quality Virginia-produced and processed products.  Today’s announcement kicks off a series of events in 2014 that will highlight the silver anniversary of the program. 

Speaking about the silver anniversary recognition, Governor McAuliffe stated, “The Virginia’s Finest^®program has enhanced the economic opportunities and success of Virginia’s specialty food companies, processors, and agriculture producers.  Agriculture is Virginia’s largest industry and the Virginia’s Finest^® program has helped play a key role in that success by raising the profile of the high quality food and beverage products that are made from the Commonwealth’s diverse agricultural bounty.  I am excited to recognize and celebrate the 25^th anniversary of this innovative program, which contributes to the Commonwealth’s reputation for being the best state in the nation for doing business, agricultural excellence, entrepreneurialism, and promoting small businesses.”

Governor McAuliffe also issued a proclamation recognizing 2014 as the 25^th anniversary of the Virginia’s Finest^® program in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  First Lady Dorothy McAuliffe and Secretary of Agriculture & Forestry Todd Haymore will present today the proclamation to Steven Lynch of Montebello Kitchens, Chair of Virginia’s Specialty Food Advisory Committee, at the Virginia Food and Beverage Expo at the Greater Richmond Convention Center.  This popular tradeshow connects buyers representing grocery stores, restaurants and gift shops directly with Virginia small businesses that produce specialty food and beverage products.  Almost all of the products at the Virginia Food and Beverage Expo have earned the Virginia’s Finest^® designation.

Today, the Virginia’s Finest^® program boasts more than 400 participating businesses representing a diverse assortment of specialty food products, including meats, cheeses, peanuts, condiments, confections, baked goods, beverages, sauces, soups and seafood.  To discover Virginia’s Finest^®offerings, explore a complete list at www.vafinest.com.  Participation in the quality-based trademark program is by application and open to all Virginia agricultural producers and food processors who consistently meet specific quality standards.  Only Virginia products that meet or exceed quality standards are part of the Virginia’s Finest^® program. All authorized Virginia’s Finest^® products must be approved by the Virginia’s Finest^® Review Committee, which consists of food safety officials and product marketing specialists. The Committee reviews product packaging and labels to ensure products meet state and federal regulations. In the case of most products, the producer must provide proof of its current and valid food safety inspection certificate.

The specialty food industry is a growing sector of the nation’s economy.  According to the Specialty Food Association, specialty food is among the fastest-growing industries in the United States, with sales skyrocketing by 22.1 percent between 2010 and 2012.  Total U.S. specialty food sales in 2012 topped $85.87 billion.

Established in 1877, VDACS is responsible for more than 60 laws and 70 regulations relating to consumer protection and the promotion of agriculture. According to a 2013 economic impact study conducted by Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, agriculture is Virginia’s largest industry, generating more than $52 billion per annum. The industry also provides more than 310,000 jobs in the Commonwealth.

Governor McAuliffe Announces Four Virginia Businesses Receive Awards for Research in Offshore Wind Power Development

RICHMOND, Va. - Governor Terry McAuliffe announced that four Virginia businesses have been selected for awards totaling $860,000 for research having a total value of more than $3 million that will give the Commonwealth a competitive advantage and accelerate the development of offshore wind power and its associated industry supply chain. 

·       Alstom Power Inc, a global industrial manufacturer with its North American Wind Power business headquartered in the metro Richmond area, offered $10,000 in contributed cost share and was selected for a $40,000 award to develop advanced controls that adjust ocean wind turbines to respond in real time to incoming waves, reducing wear and tear on the rotor and generator.

·       CoastalObsTechServices LLC of Virginia Beach offered $310,000 in cost share contributions and was selected for a $260,000 award to perform a 12-month wave measurement project and wave forecast modeling and validation to help mitigate the risk of construction delays and service vessel inaccessibility.

·       Timmons Group, a Richmond-based engineering and technology firm, offered to contribute $345,000 in cost share and was selected for a $250,000 award to develop a proof of concept for a commercial wide-area metocean and environmental monitoring program.

·       Virginia Electric Power Company, dba Dominion Virginia Power, offered $2 million in cost share contribution and was selected for a $310,000 award to advance geotechnical studies, including deep borings, which are essential to early project engineering analysis and currently lacking on the Outer Continental Shelf in the vicinity of the Virginia Wind Energy Area.

The four proposals were selected for first-round awards under a request for proposals that generated 20 responses for projects requesting a total of $4.83 million in DMME funding and which offered a total of $5.38 million in matching funds. The results from these research and development activities are expected to help lower costs and risks for commercial offshore wind power development.

In September 2013, Dominion Virginia Power won the commercial auction conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to develop wind power on just over 112,000 acres approximately 24 miles off Virginia’s coast. Wind power development in this area has the potential to produce enough electricity to power about 700,000 homes. 

Governor McAuliffe said that the gradual slope of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off of Virginia, with relatively shallow water at offshore distances sufficient to minimize conflicts with commercial shipping and military training, and an excellent wind resource make the area ideal for wind power development. In addition, the Governor stated that Virginia is well positioned along the Atlantic coast to become the central hub to support wind power development planned in other states to the north and south. “Virginia is blessed to have a skilled work force, a heavy manufacturing and ship building base in Hampton Roads, and world-class port facilities that are second to none.”

BOEM characterizes Virginia’s planned wind energy development area on the OCS as a “frontier area.” Much data still needs to be gathered, such as information on sub-sea geology, waves and currents, and marine and avian species, before commercial development can begin.  Governor McAuliffe said “the projects selected for award today will help to fill some of these gaps. This research will build on past efforts and investments and is a key part of a broader strategy to ensure that the Commonwealth continues to be well poised and highly regarded by an industry and supply chain that can bring quality jobs and other benefits to Commonwealth citizens and businesses. Today’s awards are the latest examples of the Commonwealth encouraging and supporting private sector investments in offshore wind development. There is more to come. We’re ready for business.”