Soon the leaders of the WHO, CDC, and Health Canada will be resigning. And I'm not surprised. The evidence they have been ignoring from the scientific community for over a year should be causing them great unrest. The public has only been told half-truths and have not been given all of the information you deserve. Now, in a move I deem as unacceptable as the WHO partnering with the IOC, the CDC is throwing almost a million dollars at PBS to produce just one episode about Zika for kids. Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, Zika is spreading unabated; a likely reservoir host (which could be amplifying the virus) is a pet, being played with by children.
It's infuriating to know that for a year, the WHO has known that Culex mosquitoes are vectors of the Zika virus. Even worse: a study by Guo et al. in September has been completely ignored. The citizens of southeast Asia should have been informed so that they could modify their mosquito eradication efforts. However, Dr. Margaret Chan has proclaimed her decisions to be right all along. She even wrote: "Like every other explosive outbreak, Zika revealed fault lines in the world's collective preparedness." But, rather than rely on scientific data, she even entertained conspiracies (like a chemical). Wolbachia is responsible for the most widespread pandemics in the animal kingdom (LePage and Bordenstein, 2013). Bill Gates and four governments are funding Wolbachia-infected mosquito releases and the WHO endorses it. We must find a way to stop more releases and allow independent researchers to investigate (before it's too late). Wolbachia can never be taken back.
If a vaccine - over 20 years in the making - had the potential to cause a deadly cross-enhancement of the Zika virus whenever the Culex species of mosquitoes transmitted it, would the WHO and CDC try to keep that a secret? What if billions of dollars were at stake? I am completely unnerved by the actions of the CDC, WHO, and Health Canada. And I can't help shake this feeling there is more we are not being told. I walk you through some hunches and provide you with proof that (I hope) will cause you to ask more questions of our public health authorities.
Are early projections in the media during political elections ethical? Many people consider this practice to be questionable at best, believing there are many problems that come from it.
Why would a group of people refuse to exercise their right to vote and choose either Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or a third party candidate? There are a few reasons why many people refused to vote, and while the reasons were different, most of them likely were rooted in frustration over U.S. politics.
After compiling months of research, I have grown completely disgusted with how our public health authorities (the WHO, CDC, and Health Canada) have been addressing the Zika crisis. They are employed by us, taxpayers, to protect all citizens (including pregnant women and their babies) from diseases. In the very least (without a cure or vaccine in sight) they should be mitigating the spread of disease. What that means is: travel restrictions, prophylactic spraying of aircraft and shipping containers, and screening large groups of people coming from Zika-endemic areas (such as prisoners from Puerto Rico). What's more, since the spring, crucial research has been completely ignored by public health authorities. I firmly believe that both Aedes aegypti and Culex mosquitoes (which are prevalent almost everywhere in the world) can transmit the Zika virus to humans.
Election Day is an important day, no doubt about it, but should it be designated as a federal holiday in the United States?
Once upon a time politicians were able to basically do whatever they wanted with unused campaign fund, even use it as a personal retirement fund. This is not the case anymore as the rules were changed in the 1970s to restrict what they could do with the cash. Where does it go?
The religious right, a general term for the voting bloc which focuses on combining Christian values with conservative policies, is a mainstay in American politics. The movement is often defined by the fight over abortion, private schools, and resistance to civil rights for LBGTQ individuals. However, what lots of people have forgotten, is that this movement didn't spring out of the churches. It sprang out of the South's resistance to ending racial segregation.
America has entered a new age, where voting is more streamline and more accessible than ever. Unfortunately the voting population is lacking in both numbers and in diversity. Those who either do not vote at all, or vote without educating themselves are causing our democracy to loose credibility. It is time to take information out of the hands of media, money driven campaigns, and bias propaganda and create an empowered and educated voting population.
Twenty-four million viewers tuned in to watch the 2015 Republican Primary Debate. If you weren't one of them, read the top quotes and find out what you missed.
The U.S. President and Congress want to stop ISIS/ISIL from spreading out and, more so, push them out of being a viable threat to the region, U.S. allies and friends. U.S. Politicians are afraid that by putting boots on the ground, it could hurt them in future elections; therefore, they have opted for the bombing option; and now, by deploying military members as trainers.
In part 1 of 3 we covered the legal definition and the way it affects the Veterans Administration of veterans' benefits, as well as how a person is labeled a Veteran. For this next section, Part 2 of the 3, we focused on the Active Guard Reservists; now in part 3 we will finish with a word on State veterans status and a final thought on veterans qualification and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In part 1 of 3 we covered the legal definition and the way it affects the Veterans Administration of veterans' benefits, as well as how a person is labeled a Veteran. For this next section, Part 2 of the 3, we will focus on the Active Guard Reservists; those individuals that serve on active duty, and yet, their status as veterans is dependent of special stipulations in federal law and in the interpretations of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This discussion is in regards to U.S. Military Veteran status. Although you may have served in the military or currently serve in the military, you still may not be a veteran from a legal standpoint. The legal definition of a military veteran and the definition from a practical sense of who is or is not a veteran are two different things depending on why you are asking.