Mercury And Autism

It has just recently come out that the CDC may have possibly been involved in helping certain pharmaceutical companies hide the effect of mercury in childhood vaccines. There has recently been a stir caused by rumors that the effects of Mercury may in fact be a contributing factor, possibly the chief if not the only one, in the sudden increase of autism among children, by some estimates as many as one out of every one hundred sixty six children born in the U.S. Also scrambling to protect the pharmaceuticals from any future potential lawsuits is U.S. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee).

Environmental Attorney Robert F.Kennedy Jr. has been advocating research into this potential, and encouraging further investigations, and has given interviews to Rolling Stone and to Salon.com, which are now available on the Internet. He has run into a string of bad luck, however, in getting any air time on the major media outlets. Appearances by him to discuss this subject have been canceled, by The Today Show, Good Morning America, and others. Equally disturbing is the lack of attention shown to David Kirby, author of the book Evidence Of Harm, which chronicles the use of mercury in vaccines and aerosols, and points to the potential that this may indeed be a contributing factor to a problem that is approaching epidemic proportions. It is as though Kirby and Kennedy both are persona non-gratis. But perhaps the scariest episode involves radio talk show host Don Imus, of Imus In The Morning (WFAN).

He has been pushing this issue, and an investigation of it, whereupon he himself recently became the subject of an investigation by The Wall Street Journal for allegedly misuse of donor funds to The Imus Ranch, a charitable endeavor run by him and his wife Deirdre for the purpose of providing a positive experience for children afflicted with cancer. There proved to be no substance to the allegations, and the investigation was therefore terminated, but the Wall Street Journal refused to print a retraction on it's front pages, where it first ran the story. Imus has intimated, in fact insisted, the entire episode was a sham, and was meant to be a warning to him. Don't mess with the pharmaceutical industry, or else.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a paranoid rant, if it were not for the cancellations of Kennedy's appearances, and the shunning of author David Kirby. Then, there is Chris Matthews who, on an appearance on Imus's show this morning, which is simulcast on MSNBC from 6 a.m. to 9: a.m.,brushed aside any suggestion that he himself might want to cover the promising scandal. And it is easy to see why, when you consider the amount of advertising money invested by the pharmaceutical companies in the television media, that a member of that media might be wary of tackling the issue, fearful of displeasing his corporate bosses. In fact, one wonders if perhaps the word might have all ready been put out. Don't touch this issue.

And, of course, we all know how close the pharmaceutical industry is to the Bush administration. But have they gone so far as to turn the CDC from watch dog to lap dog? It's a scary thought.

Third World Debt Relief

I know that Bono means well, and I am aware that what I am about to say is probably going to sound harsh, and a little cruel. By the time I am finished, it will probably still sound harsh and cruel, and maybe even a little selfish, and possibly a trifle paranoid. But I think America and the EU might possibly be jumping the gun here, just a little bit. When you stop to think about it, just who are the Third World nations in debt to. I know that it sounds all good and altruistic, relieving these nations of the crushing burden of debt, and therefore helping them to pull themselves out of poverty. But will that really be the result? Shouldn't there be some insistence on some hard changes in return? When you consider the history of the process, it is true that they have been put into this position by years of abuse by the "civilized" nations of the world, with all their machinations and manipulations. They have been used, in some cases raped for all practical purposes, and then, like some worn out whore that has been all used up, just left by the side of the road, abandoned, to fend for themselves. They have been pimped, used up. But in a good many cases the "leaders" of the Third World have been the worse offenders. To an extent they have been the pimps, the civilized nations have merely been the johns. In the worse cases, the Third World Thugs, as I like to call them, have been blood thirsty tyrants, who have raped their nations treasuries, to the tune of millons, and even billiuons, of dollars, and left their own people destitute, and we have allowed it, on one pretext or another, usually for our own national security interests. In by-gone days it was to form bulwarks against the encroachment of communism. Partly as a result of the poverty and destitution of illiterracy and hopelessness that has ensued due to this, we have fostered the encouragemnt of terrorist enclaves.

It is good, and well past time, that we have acted in this small manner to address this. But there are still potential downsides, even in this best intentioned undertaking. For one thing, it could cause an explosion of pent-up hostility, once the masses see it is now safer to vent. Their demands could well exceed any sense of reasonable accommodation. There could be sudden uprisings, and potential blood baths, directed at those perceived to be the offenders, yes, but in the meantime there could be a loss of much inncent life, and mass destruction of property.

Finally, in the event that big business, and multi-national corporations, have to as a result of this relief, take a loss of any prior investments, who is going to make up that loss? The American and European consumer would seem to be the obvious answer. I will readily admit I am unaware of what role, if any, they play in this process, or what they stand to lose if they do. But shouldn't this be an issue that should have to be addressed? Otherwise, the price of goods could rise in unexpected ways, and the increase could be considerable. It would obviously cause quite a bit of grumbling. Look at how just the recent increase in the price of oil has affected the American economy, for just an example.

It is unfair, of course. The American and European consumer had little, very lttle, if any, say in foreign investments vis-a-vis America and Europe into the Third World. Yet, it will be they, doubtless, who will be expected to bear the brunt of it. It shouldn't be that way. The politicians and the multi-national corporations should have to take it on the chin. After all, it was their little chess game. We were all just strung along, spectators in a sport we had no role in, and little if any say, and what say there was was maniplated by emotional appeals to patriotism, God, and our basest fears. So they should bear the burden.

But don't expect it to be settled quite that way. Not when the debt, like the buck, is all so easy to pass.