Monday, May 15, 2017

Miss USA Kara McCullough Triggers Liberals With Her Health Care and Feminism Answers (REACTION)

Editor's Note: My answer is that average to sub-par health care is a human right. Excellent health care is a personal responsibility and a privilege. The adages have this figured out. You get what you pay for and beggars can't be choosers. Also, I identify as Miss USA, so my answer is the correct one! :)

Miss District of Columbia 2017 and now Miss USA 2017 Kara McCullough has angered many liberals and self-proclaimed feminists online due to her answers posed to her during the Miss USA beauty pageant. First, she was asked if she describes herself as a feminist and she said that she would rather substitute the word “feminist” for “equalist” and that everyone has a fair shake and no one person is better than the other. She was then asked if health care for all US citizens is a right or a privilege. Her answer was that it is not a right, but a privilege, and our focus as a country should be on providing jobs so people are better able to afford the things they need, such as health care. Beautiful answers from a beautiful brilliant woman (she is a nuclear scientist!)... but apparently not so good for the angry feminist detractors online.

Twitter nearly exploded when she read the answers to the questions and at this point she was participating in the competition to become Miss USA like everyone else. When she won the crown of Miss USA 2017, another wave of vitriol came in her direction from some of the aforementioned people plus a whole lot more. They were wondering how she was able to win with such “non-progressive” views on health care and feminism. At the same time, however, she got a lot of support, including Miss Massachusetts (of Miss America) who said that she shouldn’t be getting so much grief for simply not expressing a socialist viewpoint. 

A take away from the whole kerfuffle here is that not everyone is a walking dead zombie hooked on liberalism, socialism, and/or communism. Some people are able to think for themselves and develop their own sense of self rather than a toxic form of tribalism. Another thing to think about is that you cannot judge a book by it’s cover. Or location for that matter. Just because Kara McCullough lives in Washington DC and is a woman does not mean she has to be a liberal or a feminist. She does not have to be masculine just because she is in a male dominated profession of a nuclear scientist. At the end of the day, those characteristics she possess, along with her striking beauty, appear to be why she won Miss USA 2017.


Sunday, May 14, 2017

New National ‘Ratios’ Bills Set Safety Limits on Number of Patients Assigned to Nurses

Editor's Note: My wife is an RN and I can attest that this is very much needed. Please contact  your representatives and ask that they support these bills...
New National ‘Ratios’ Bills Set Safety Limits on Number of Patients Assigned to Nurses

Bonnie Castillo, NNU Director of Health & Safety
, 5/5/17


With the boom in assembly lines during the industrial revolution, employers were able to move products faster, using less staff, padding their bottom line. As I’ve written before, we’ve all seen pop culture comedy examples of what happens next, when profit-driven corporations speed up the pace faster and faster — until a character like Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times works so frantically that he falls right into the machine, getting ground up in the gears.
Our patients are not products, and nurses are not assembly line workers — but you would not know that by the frantic pace at which our hospital employers, who currently have no repercussions for saving money by cutting corners on safe staffing, expect nurses to provide care. When we are saddled with 9 or 10 patients at once, we are not practicing at our full capacity, and the repercussions for our patients, who come to us with illnesses and injuries where every moment of attention counts, include loss of life.
This is unacceptable. Nurses across the U.S. — where 49 out of 50 states currently have no limit on the number of patients nurses can be assigned — are standing up to say the focus on profit over patients must end. Nurses demand safe staffing now.
To that end, National Nurses United (NNU) — the largest union of registered nurses in the country — is proud to announce the introduction today in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Sherrod Brown (S.1063) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (H.R. 2392) NNU-sponsored legislation setting specific safety limits on the numbers of patients each RN can care for in hospitals throughout the U.S.
The bills, both known as the Nurse Staffing Standards for Hospital Patient Safety and Quality Care Act, establish minimum RN-to-patient ratios for every hospital unit at all times. They also provide whistleblower protection to assure that nurses are free to speak out for enforcement of safe staffing standards.
The bills are modeled on a California law, fought for and won by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU), that has saved patient lives, improved the quality of care, and reduced nurse burnout keeping experienced RNs at the patient bedside.
Nurses applaud Sen. Brown and Rep. Schakowsky for doing the right thing by our patients, and we hope other elected officials will do the same. After all, the benefit to enacting these protections at the national level would be immense. Studies have shown again and again that mandatory safe staffing ratios save lives.
A 2010 study (Aiken et. al), for example, found that compared to California, New Jersey hospitals would have 13.9 percent fewer patient deaths and Pennsylvania 10.6 percent fewer deaths if they matched California’s ratios in medical-surgical units.
Safe staffing is also critical for the health and safety of nurses. A 2015 study in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health showed that the California safe staffing law was associated with 55.57 fewer occupational injuries and illnesses per 10,000 RNs per year, a value 31.6 % lower than the expected rate without the law.
Sometimes change is a long game (California’s regulations were enacted in 2004, after nurses with CNA/NNU, fought for 13 years to achieve them), but nurses never give up on our patients. That’s why we will never give up in our fight to ensure nurses across America have safe staffing protections. It’s a two-fold fight, as we push for legislation at the national level, and also at the state level.
On February 14, for example, NNU registered nurses in Ohio and elected officials gathered at the Ohio Statehouse, in Columbus, to mark the reintroduction by Senator Michael Skindell of the Ohio Patient Protection Act — a bill which sets specific limits on how many patients nurses can care for at once in hospitals throughout Ohio. NNU is also sponsoring safe staffing legislation in Florida and fighting for safe patient ratios legislation in other states.
Hospital corporations have a lot of money to fight against safe staffing legislation. But the evidence, and morality, is on nurses’ side. Nurses will never accept that the fragile lives entrusted to our care are a means of increased profit for corporate employers. Patients are not products, we are not assembly line workers, and when these safe staffing bills are voted into law, nurses will finally be protected in the process of doing our life’s work: providing the focused, professional, safe care that saves lives.

Bonnie CastilloDirector of Health & Safety at @NationalNurses, Director of RN Response Network; I’m an RN & healthcare champion who believes healthcare is a human right!

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Migrant Measles Outbreak: Blame Vax Opponents

There has been a measles outbreak of about 50 people — mostly (but not all) unvaccinated. Establishment press ignores that it is concentrated in a migrant community — the largest Somali community in the US, called “Little Mogadishu”. They misdirect concern about health issues related to unvetted immigration and attack those who have concerns about the side effects of vaccines, not limited to autism.

Aetna Pushes Govt HealthCare: Senate Delays Until August - The TRUTH About Universal Healthcare! (from a Canadian)

Obamacare, Trumpcare, Ryancare, Berniecare. Doesn't matter what you call it, when you hand over control of healthcare to the Government through a single-payer, universal system: it sucks. Allow me, someone who grew up with socialized medicine in Montreal, Canada, explain why.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Protesters laugh at cancer survivor story

 | May 8th, 2017

Just wanted to flag this for you – earlier today, Rodney Davis was laughed at by protesters from Organizing for America when he attempted to tell his wife’s story of fighting cancer.
He was interrupted by laughter and groans three times in the span of 2 minutes.

OFA Protestors Laugh as Republican Tells Story of Wife’s Fight With Cancer
Washington Free Beacon
Brent Scher
May 8, 2017
Organizing for Action activists gathered outside the Illinois office of Republican Rep. Rodney Davis laughed at the congressman as he attempted to tell the story about his wife’s fight with cancer.
Davis attempted to tell the protestors, who gathered outside his office with signs protesting his vote for the American Health Care Act, about his experience with the healthcare system back when his wife was diagnosed with colon cancer, but from the beginning he was interrupted and laughed at by the group.
After being told by a woman about how great her experience with the health care system was in Canada, Davis wanted to explain his experience dealing with the Canadian health care system. Just as Davis started his story about his wife, he stopped once he heard groans from somebody in the crowd.
“Did I just hear an ‘ugh’?” Davis said. “Wow, Did I just hear an ‘ugh’ as I’m about to talk about somebody who had cancer? That’s offensive.”
Davis began to tell his story again after the interruption.
“My wife when she was diagnosed 18 years ago,” was all Davis was able to say before the man holding the camera, a staffer for Protect Our Care Illinois, audibly laughed and caused the congressman to again stop speaking.
After the laughter stop, Davis again continued to tell his story.
“When my wife was diagnosed eighteen years ago she was told by her primary care physician that it was in her head,” Davis said. “But because she was a great advocate and was able to push for the right tests, she was able to get diagnosed, and had colon cancer, stage two.”
“We were able to fire that primary care doctor, and we were able to go out and get a new one. He was from Canada, and you know what he told my wife? He said, in Canada we wouldn’t have gotten to you until you were in stage four.”
“That’s my experience talking with somebody that used to practice in the Canadian medical system. And that’s a personal experience that I have, which is why I prefer our system—because it saved my wife.”
It is unclear what exactly about the cancer story made the protestor with the camera laugh.
The full interaction, which was broadcast on Facebook Live by OFA, can be viewed below.


CANCER IS CURABLE NOW FULL LENGTH DOCUMENTARY - Make Sure to View Related Links at the Bottom of the Page


Welcome to the beginning of the end of Obamacare! And apparently, we’re all going to die. We’re all going to die here in short order and we’ll all have Republicans, who were elected to Congress in record majorities, to blame. Good job everyone. That’s the message coming out of Democrats and duly picked up by national media after yesterday’s House passage of the amended American Health Care Act. “Families will go bankrupt. People will die,” Chief Elizabeth Warren signaled on Twitter. ““This will cost American lives if it ever becomes law,” claimed Cory Booker on MSNBC. “This will mean death, pain, and suffering to people’s families.” Chris Murphy, never one to be outdone in using death to exploit, tweeted: “House GOP, I hope you slept well last night. Because after this vote, you will have the death of thousands of your conscience forever.” 

The Daily Kos shouted: “House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death!” The newly ‘elected’ head of the DNC, Tom Perez said: “Trump and Republicans will own every preventable death.”. Perez is somehow allowed to go unchallenged on what constitutes a preventable death.

Democrats have been riding the death wave now for awhile. When it comes to the climate cycles of the planet, we’re all going to die. Healthcare, all dead. Soda tax? Gotta do it or we’re all dead. A Donald Trump tweet about North Korea? Now he really went and killed everyone.

As Democrats –fueled more and more by a willing media and celebrity microphones– have amplified their dire warnings, the smaller and smaller their electorate has become. Their entire party philosophy for almost a decade now has become “Vote for us or people will die”. On top of these childish hysterics, popular media is all too willing to oblige them. Vox continues to roll out story after story of people who really love Obamacare, and who are all going to die without it. The Washington Post got on the ball with a story of a rape survivor who now is going to die.

The primary problem, among many others with this strategy, is simple: Nobody believes them anymore. When everything is an imminent catastrophe, nothing is and life now moves at the speed of Twitter. Of course, quoting Chuck Palahniuk, “In the Tibetan philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word I know we’re all dying…”

But the party of the happy grim reaper (on everything it seems except Planned Parenthood) is missing historical context. When almost six million Americans received policy cancellation notices in 2013–a shock to many as they were promised by Barack Obama they wouldn’t be getting those letters–there were not dire warnings of bodies in the streets from “the party of compassion”. Americans were told they would simply be receiving something better in return. Their old policies were outdated. There were no cable news hysterics.

Another point: for every Democrats’ story of someone affected by losing their Obamacare plan that Vox puts up in lights, there are stories of people either losing their own life saving insurance or not being able to afford their new plan. For every cancer patient with a reporter in their living room now, there is a family member of one who lost their own oncologist during treatment. Democracy dying in darkness, indeed. Read more at


Trump, GOP Celebrate Repeal Of ObamaCare-Full Event - Limbaugh's Side-By-Side Comparison Of Obamacare vs GOP Health Care Bill - CONGRESS VOTES TO DEFUND MURDER FACTORY

LIMBAUGH: HYSTERIA Over GOP Health Care Bill Is GROTESQUE! - RUSH: The END Of Obamacare Is BIGGER Than The Bill Itself

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Levamisole (That’s not cocaine)

Levamisole is one of those drugs that was discovered quite awhile ago, when we had even less idea what target things were hitting. It’s not used often in people these days. What’s interesting about it is that it is occasionally found as an adulterant in cocaine (PDF) – and it popped up again recently.
It is truly bizzare what people use to cut drugs. I once heard of a chemistry professor who told his class about how he walked into a head shop and saw a big sack of mannitol behind the counter (which is used as a cutting or bulking agent for street drugs as well). He marvelled that he had just bought mannitol from Aldrich for his lab (presumably for more mundane, licit purposes) and that the shop was charging much too high a price. So, if you were thinking of saving on lab supplies at the bong store, that’s right out.
Levamisole, sold under the trade name Ergamisol among others, is a medication used to treat parasitic worm infections.[1]Specifically it is used for ascariasis and hookworm infections. It is taken by mouth.[2]...
Levamisole has increasingly been used as a cutting agent in cocaine sold around the globe with the highest incidence being in the USA. In 2008–2009, levamisole was found in 69% of cocaine samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).[15] By April 2011, the DEA reported the adulterant was found in 82% of seizures.[26] 
Levamisole adds bulk and weight to powdered cocaine (whereas other adulterants produce smaller "rocks" of cocaine) and makes the drug appear purer.[27] In a series of investigative articles for The Stranger, Brendan Kiley details other rationales for levamisole's rise as an adulterant: possible stimulant effects, a similar appearance to cocaine, and an ability to pass street purity tests.[28] 
Levamisole suppresses the production of white blood cells, resulting in neutropenia and agranulocytosis. With the increasing use of levamisole as an adulterant, a number of these complications have been reported among cocaine users.[15][29][30] Levamisole has also been linked to a risk of vasculitis,[31] and two cases of vasculitic skin necrosis have been reported in users of cocaine adulterated with levamisole.[32] 
Levamisole-tainted cocaine was linked to several high-profile deaths. Toxicology reports showed levamisole, along with cocaine, was present in DJ AM's body at the time of his death.[33] Andrew Koppel, son of newsman Ted Koppel, was also found with levamisole in his body after his death was ruled a drug overdose.[34] More recently it has also been suspected in the death of a Sydney teenager.[35] 
In response to the dangers, The Stranger, People's Harm-Reduction Alliance and DanceSafe began producing tests to identify levamisole's presence in cocaine. The kits include a survey postcard, and one revealed its presence in a 1/4-kg block of cocaine, indicating both users and dealers were using the kits.[36]


Stop Using Cocaine Hypnosis Session

Debunking MADD - MADD “Statistics” Again Debunked - A Reality Check on DUI Claims

Posted by Lawrence Taylor

As I’ve posted repeatedly in the past, MADD’s prohibitionist zealots are fond of twisting statistics to justify their expansion of unfair laws, Draconian penalties and unconstitutional procedures.  See, for example, A Closer Look at DUI Fatality StatisticsMADDness and Lies, Damned Lies and MADD Statistics.
The truth is finally beginning to emerge:
A Reality Check on DUI Claims 
Groups purposely misstate fatalities
to further an anti-drinking agenda
The Tennessean, June 22 — Drunken-driving stories, like last week’s op-ed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative Alexanderia Honeycutt, make headlines every day.
Groups like MADD relentlessly remind Americans that the abuse of alcohol continues to be a huge problem on our roadways and, as a result, the most drastic measures are needed. Though truly "drunken" driving is a serious issue, much of the reported problem is little more than PR.
 Consider fatality statistics. The number of deaths that activist groups attribute to drunken driving is grossly exaggerated.
Last year, federal statisticians classified almost 18,000 deaths as "alcohol-related." However, alcohol-related does not mean alcohol-caused. In fact, that figure includes anyone killed in a crash in which at least one person (driver, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) was estimated to have any alcohol. (If a sober driver recklessly crashes into and kills a family whose driver had enjoyed a glass of wine, statistics reflect all their deaths as "alcohol-related.")
In reality, the figure reflects a much broader spectrum of casualties: people under the legal limit, drunken pedestrians, impaired cyclists and others. After accounting for those people, actual innocent victims only make up 12 percent of the widely reported statistic — a considerably smaller amount than activists have led us to believe.
The anti-alcohol lobby has also invented fantastical talking points to bolster their bunk traffic stats. Honeycutt uses one of its favorites ("first offenders drive drunk on average 87 times before they are caught"), going so far as to accuse individuals of criminal acts with absolutely no proof to back up the claim.
The truth is that this widely publicized figure comes from rough estimates of self-reported data — commonly criticized as unreliable. Collected from a small sample almost 13 years ago, even the study’s own authors admit the estimates are "crude."
As I posted a couple of years ago, an independent study by the Los Angeles Times  found that despite federal figures claiming nearly 18,000 deaths caused by drunk driving in 2002, only about 5,000 of these actually involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian.
MADD has used the same altered statistics to get all 50 states – with some federal coercion – to lower the legal limit to .08% and to expand the use of roadblocks:
In the 1990s, these groups used another "crude" statistic to convince the public that reducing the legal blood-alcohol content limit from 0.10 to 0.08 percent would save 600-800 lives annually. Today, research proves it didn’t work.
Their 0.08 push failed to have any measurable effects on traffic fatality rates. It only lowered the threshold for qualifying as a "drunken" driver, ignoring the fact that the majority of "drunks" wreaking havoc on our roads drive while more than double the 0.08 limit. One study in Contemporary Economic Policy concluded that 0.08 efforts would have been better spent encouraging effective measures against chronic drunken drivers.
Tennessee’s anti-alcohol groups aren’t heeding that warning. Instead, they’re demanding more funding, more legislation and more manpower for other misguided measures, like sobriety checkpoints.
These roadblocks are based on the idea that it’s more important to look "tough on drunken driving" than to actually go after the drunks. Checkpoints don’t catch many (if any) drunken drivers. In the largest program ever studied, Tennessee ran almost 900 checkpoints over the course of a year, stopping almost 150,000 of the state’s drivers. The result: a mere 773 DUI arrests — less than one arrest per checkpoint. Compare that to the impact of roving police patrols — a tactic that catches 10 times more drunken drivers than roadblocks.
But you won’t hear anti-alcohol activists like Honeycutt repeat that stat. Their groups no longer target "drunken" drivers, aiming instead to eliminate any drinking before driving.
Right now, the 176 million responsible Americans who drink in moderation can still safely (and legally) drive home after enjoying a drink. Furthermore, research shows that drivers who talk on cell phones, drive drowsy, or travel 7 mph above the speed limit pose a larger threat than those who enjoy a few drinks (and stay below 0.08) before driving home.
Disregarding the evidence, the anti-alcohol movement’s invented, inflated and distorted "facts" would have the public believe that there should be no legal limit except zero. This is the reason we all think one thing when the reality is another.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

BOMBSHELL: Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier

BOMBSHELL: Study Proves Unvaccinated Children... by debunkerbuster

House Republicans Pass Trump's Obamacare Replacement AHCA, Liberals Make Up Lies About It (REACTION)

House Republicans finally passed the American Health Care Act (also known as AHCA) on Thursday, May 4th, 2017. This represents the first step in repealing Obamacare also known as ACA or the Affordable Care Act. Donald Trump and Republicans in general were given much grief over their inability to pass AHCA the first time around. Even some people on the right said that Republicans were ineffective, not able to govern, and no different than Democrats. Now, maybe some of those worries will subside with the passing of this bill through the house, although it still has to get through to Senate Republicans and pass there.

The largest point of contention with Obamacare was the individual mandate. Many people fell within a void of not making enough money to be able to afford premiums without subsidy but at the same time they made too much money to be eligible for the premiums. Some people were very healthy and see no need for health insurance. Others saw their existing premiums rise to a point of absurdity. Either they could not afford it or they could afford it, but it was not sustainable. Scores of Americans had their plans change altogether as well, even though former President Barack Obama said the famous lines “if you like your plan you can keep your plan… if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” which of course wound up not being true.

This is just the beginning stages of the bill being passed and it is also just the beginning of reforming American health care in general. The bill will give more power to the states to determine what type of environment they will have for their citizens, but much of healthcare in general is determined by shadowy figures and the Federal Government. Everything from the price of medicine to the cost associated with an ambulance will affect premium costs and also actual medical procedure / care cost, insurance or no insurance. Once health care in general becomes reformed, Americans will be able to take a breath. We’re a long way from that point but at least there have been strides made.