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.
Do we owe our African American citizens from all the crimes committed against them in the past? What about the present? What would their lives be like here in America, if they had come here of their own accord, as free men and women, just as white people did? What would their lives have been like then and even today, if they had been given the same set of rules and laws to follow, as white people? How would their lives be different now, if more of their families had been able to stay together, if they had more ancestors who were able to pass down land and homes and businesses? How do we fix this?
It has long been believed that the pursuit of the American Dream is the very fuel that keeps society progressing, but to some, progress is considerably slower or even non-existent. This article attempts to examine discrepancies in wealth distribution as they relate to the American Dream: can anyone really find success through hard work and determination as this fantasy so vividly states?
What sort of effect does exposure to a political caricature have on your cognitive processes and how you perceive related media messages? A cognitive theory called priming helps to explain the short-term impact of exposure on subsequent judgments or behaviors, using the example of Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin on the tv show "Saturday Night Live."
For a long time, I've been trying to decide if the American political environment has always been as aggressive or if this is a new wave of American politics. Of course, I've had AP US History in school but when you're growing up it's hard to put things into perspective. As I have gone through college and entered the adult world, the far reaching effects of political polarization have become apparent to me- and seem to be getting worse.