marahfreedom

Archive for February 20th, 2012|Daily archive page

3 Articles on Malaysian Politics – Debates, Journo-relayed one-upmanship (sympathies to Ibrahim Ali here, but because of racism, Ali’s locus standi is not even valid to debate by) and PPP’s lapdoggery and irrelevance to REAL voters – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 21st February 2012

In Apartheid, Law, Malaysia, voting methods, voting strategy on February 20, 2012 at 8:12 pm

ARTICLE 1

No Benefit In Debate Between Races – Tuesday, 21 February 2012 00:12

PUTRAJAYA — Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad said debates between the races will not bring any benefit because each race will continue to hold on to their own stand.

“Even if we have it (debate between the races), there will not be any impact. It will make the situation worse, each race will hold on to their own stand,” he said.

He said this when approached after attending a closed-door meeting with the right-wing group, Perkasa, at the Perdana Leadership Foundation, here on Monday afternoon.

Mahathir said his meeting with Perkasa today was to discuss various issues pertaining to the Malay race, besides presenting various problems being faced by the community including factionalism.

Meanwhile, responding to a question, Mahathir said there was no need to hold a debate (involving the Prime Minister) with the opposition head, Anwar Ibrahim as Anwar’s stand on many issues was already known to all.

“He is everything to everybody, he is a chameleon, he changes colour everytime. When he is with the Indian he is Indian, when he is with Muslims he will give talks about Islam. All they are fighting for is to make him a Prime Minister that’s all,” he said.

Meanwhile, Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali said the party’s legal bureau was studying the possibility of suing Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for defamation for his statements during his debate with MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek.

“During the debate, he (Lim) had mentioned about Perkasa having a relationship with the MCA and that purportedly Perkasa would create chaos.

“So we are looking at his video (debate) many, many times and I instructed the Perkasa lawyers to study from the legal aspect to sue Lim Guan Eng because we cannot allow him to continue making the allegations,” he said.

He said Lim’s allegations were baseless because Perkasa had never held any illegal assembly.

Meanwhile, Ibrahim said he was now prepared to debate with Lim and the subject of the debate would be “Who is more racist, DAP or Perkasa” and “Who is more trouble maker Perkasa or DAP” and let the people judge.

(Bernama)

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Dr.Mahathir does not want people to discuss because the final conclusion will be that they will find Mahathir was responsible for most of the problems of the day mainly from corruption and cronyism-patronage culture. What does a medical doctor know about running a country anyway? We need discipline appropriate people or Malaysia is finished. Debates are important but only if the subjects address systemic problems caused by specific issues. Apartheid, corruption, nominally nepotism are serious problems. But most MPs turn the debate into a shouting match on useless issues, debates are beneficial, the subject choice too often though is irrelevant due to MP’s self serving agendas. They view Dewan as a big gambling table for their family members, the Rakyat should identify these types of MPs and dump the lot of them by GE13, otherwise run for election as independents, the Coalition/Party paradigm is a failure.

ARTICLE 2

Debate with me, Ibrahim Ali dares Guan Eng – UPDATED @ 08:42:11 PM 20-02-2012 – by Yow Hong Chieh – February 20, 2012

Ibrahim said DAP has unfairly tarred his Perkasa as a chauvinistic group. — File pic
PUTRAJAYA, Feb 20 — Datuk Ibrahim Ali challenged DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng today to a debate over which was more racist, the opposition party or Perkasa.

The leader of the Malay rights group said the debate was necessary to dispel misconceptions about Perkasa, which he said had been unfairly vilified as a chauvinistic group by DAP.

The debate could be conducted in Malay and English and should be broadcast live on television, Ibrahim said, adding that it must feature an independent moderator but no audience.

“I will produce the facts and figures, all the paper clippings, all the resolutions to prove that DAP is racist and out to make trouble,” he told reporters at the Perdana Leadership Foundation here.

“With the record with I’ve kept since the May 13 tragedy in 1969, I can put across to the public so that they remember how DAP has consistently played the political game, which, to us, is purely chauvinist and racist.”

The Pasir Mas MP was speaking after a closed-door meeting with former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on Malay issues.

Ibrahim added that Perkasa will sue Lim for allegedly defaming the group during the latter’s debate with MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek on Saturday.

Lim had repeated unfounded allegations that Perkasa was a group out to cause chaos, he charged.

“I have instructed Perkasa’s lawyers to study the video (of the debate) and we will sue Lim Guan Eng,” he said.

“We can’t allow him to continue making such accusations… He just wants to hide DAP’s racism by hurling accusations at others.”

Ibrahim said Perkasa will subpoena the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to clarify whether the group was indeed racist, as claimed by Lim.

He pointed out that Perkasa had never broken any laws and was only fighting to safeguard the constitutional rights of the Malays, Bumiputeras and Muslims.

“We would like to go to court and settle this with Lim Guan Eng once and for all,” he said.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Try this one you 2 old guys. How about ALL politicians who were present during 1969 be struck from the Dewan, and only politicians born AFTER 1970 be allowed to run for politics hereon? Our grandfathers whatever race who participated were violent and unreasonable then. This generation does not want to fight or believe in fundamentalism, how about letting the younger generation take over instead? Any born after 1969 did not participate in, nor provoke the riots, nor have any hand in the ‘social contract’ and hence has better credentials to run the country. As for Mahathir’s article, the OLDER generation who are inflexible and RACIST (believe APARTHEID laws and APARTHEID constitutional articles), will indeed hold on to their outdated and miserable pro-violence, inward-loking Asabiya communalism stands. The younger generation, at least those who have not committed to apartheid or benefited off apartheid, are uncorrupted and ready to press the reset button.

ARTICLE 3

PPP Gets ‘Green Light’ To Contest Seat In Melaka – Tuesday, 21 February 2012 00:14

KUALA LUMPUR – The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has received ‘green light’ to contest a seat in Melaka for the first time at the general election.

Its president M.Kayveas said Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam and MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek had agreed to hand Kota Laksamana state seat to PPP.

He said MCA’s decision to give up the seat showed Barisan Nasional (BN) unity where winnable candidates from other component parties are given the chance to contest.

“This is the Barisan Nasional strategy. Previously, seats alloted to a party were rarely given to others but things have changed,” he told reporters after chairing the PPP supreme council meeting here on Monday.

Betty Chew of DAP won Kota Laksamana with a majority of 3,642 votes at 2008 general election, beating Lim Eng Teck of BN.

Kayveas said the candidate for Kota Laksamana seat will be decided by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

(Bernama)

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Right to contest means nothing. A one man independent unknown candidate can run for ANY constituency without permission from anyone. If PPP believes in continuing apartheid, PPP will lose wherever PPP contests, if PPP needs permission to run for candidacy, then PPP has even less autonomy than a one man show independent candidate who will endorse with intention to grant :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. . . . amongst other things.

Advertisements

A minority of 1 – by Robert Ringer (A Voice of Sanity Blog from World Net Daily) – Posted: May 21, 2010 1:00 am Eastern Standard Time

In abstention options, advice, Apartheid, checks and balances, conscientious objection, Conscription, critical discourse, criticism, Democracy, domestic terrorists in the political sphere, dress code, drugs, electronic weapons, electrosmog, Equality, Equitable Distribution, Ethics, food prohibition, Forced Conscription, Forced Military Conscription, Freedom of Expression, freedom of speech, halal zone, halal zones, Hindu sumptuary law, Informed Consent, intent, Law, luddite, luddites, neutral spaces, one level up, organic psychedelics advocacy, political correctness, politics, privacy, psychedelics, separation of powers, social freedoms, technofascism, Technology, unique on February 20, 2012 at 2:20 pm

As BHO (FOX News Refers To Obama as “BHO”) continues to transform the United States into a socialist hell, yet another poke in the eye is the National Mediation Board’s proposal to make it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize.

For 75 years, the rule has been that for any class of workers (e.g., pilots) employed by an airline or railroad to unionize, a majority of all employees in that class have to vote for unionization. But the proposed new rule would require only that a majority of employees who actually vote on the question of unionization would be needed to unionize.

All Democrats love unions; Republican progressives love unions; and even many conservatives believe that a worker should be allowed to join a union voluntarily, so long as those who do not want to join the union are not forced to do so.

Which probably makes me a minority of one. Why? Because not only do I believe that workers do not have a right to unionize a company through tyranny of the majority, I don’t believe that any worker has a right to join a union without the consent of his employer.

What would it look like if the federal behemoth were severely cut down to size? Read Wayne Allen Root’s prescription for the nation in “The Conscience of a
Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts”

It is a basic tenet of libertarian-centered conservatism that without property rights, no other rights are possible. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this fundamental concept. They view property only as inanimate matter, separate and apart from a person’s life.

In actual fact, they are so connected that one is virtually an extension of the other. If you took everything an individual owned, the fact is that he would not own his own life, because whenever he attempted to create something for his personal gain, the fruits of his labor could again be confiscated.

The same is true of purchasing property. The money used to make a purchase presumably was earned through the purchaser’s efforts. That makes the money an extension of his life, and, therefore, the same would be true of anything purchased with that money.

A libertarian-centered conservative believes that no one has a right to any other person’s property, which includes both his body and everything he owns. When people make “humanitarian” statements about human rights being more important than property rights, they are, in a sense, correct. That’s because human rights include property rights, as well as all other rights of man.

A man has the right to dispose of his life and his property in any way he chooses, without interference from anyone else. By the same token, he has no right to dispose of any other person’s life or property, no matter what his personal rationalizations may be.

As explained in “Fundamentals of Liberty,” there are only three possible ways to view property:

No.1 ANARCHY/BARBARISM

Anyone may take anyone else’s property whenever he pleases.

No.2 ABSOLUTISM/DICTATORSHIP

Some (select) people may take property of other people whenever they please.

No.3 DEMOCRACY (One-man, one-vote) / Republicanism (Lesser Representative Democracy)

No one may ever take anyone else’s property without his permission.

It is self-evident to anyone who believes in individual liberty that the only morally valid way of viewing property is No. 3. Likewise, no one has a right to tell a property owner (property being land, buildings, a business, or anything else that a person may own) what he can or cannot do with his property.

Take a business, for example. It belongs to the owner, whether he started the business himself or bought it from someone else. No one has a right to take any part of someone else’s business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.

If a business grows large and has millions of shareholders, the business is the property of many people – the shareholders. Thus, size is irrelevant when it comes to property rights. When property rights are violated against a multinational corporation as opposed to a “mom-and-pop” business, it simply means that far more people become victims of government aggression. It is a moral absurdity to believe that bigness validates aggression.

Therefore, as a minority of one, I am compelled to say that regardless of the size of a business, the only way unionization is morally valid is if the owner of that business voluntarily agrees to it. Why? Because it’s his business! It’s his property! And it is his human right to set the rules for his own property!

In a truly free society, a worker has one inalienable, overpowering right with regard to his job: He can quit at any time. He is not a slave, so his employer cannot chain him to his work. If he wants to belong to a union, he is free to search for employment with a company that allows workers to unionize.

The fact that so many people reading this article will find my comments to be extreme speaks only to how far down the road toward socialism we have traveled. We no longer respect property rights, especially when the property is a business. Generations have been brainwashed into believing that abstract notions such as “the good of society” and “social justice” are more important than private ownership.

The proposed new ruling by the National Mediation Board opens a debate that is nothing more than a distraction. The real debate should be over whether or not employees should be allowed to unionize at all without the consent of the owner.

This is precisely the kind of issue that has caused conservatives to lose their way over the years. Until politicians have the courage to confront an issue such as unionization head on and stop buying into debates about whether to move further to the left or stick to what has become the status-quo left, America will continue its acceleration toward total collapse – both morally and economically.

It will be interesting to see if anyone reading this article has a strong enough belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights to agree with what I’ve said here. That would be nice, because it would instantly elevate me to the status of being part of a minority of two.

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” Mahatma Gandhi

(The truth propounded in this site being, that Malaysia’s Laws and Constitution as currently standing ARE institutionalised APARTHEID from the Colonial era which neither BN nor PR, (much less the Bar Council or Judiciary of which both groups should have their degrees revoked, the earlier 2 coalitions mentioned unvotable,  for the tacit approval of APARTHEID via silence, lack of address and mention) have yet to honestly address and mention or discuss openly . . . )

  

MahatmaGandhi    Robert Ringer (article author)

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Try considering the above issue on property to social freedoms now. Even for a minority of 1 (being rhetorical here, generally such uniqueness is extremely rare), no matter how rarefied/antipathetic the meme or preference, equitable space reasonable to ‘life and liberty’ as considered against the UNHCR AND access to NEUTRAL spaces must be given, must be protected. In this the district by district concept of living space earlier discussed is the best way to apply unique and diverse mosaics of disyricts (preferably with the most incompatible districts being as seperate from the least compatible ones as possible).

Try the below groups for example in order of ease of implementation for closed districts, though with access to neutral spaces, such as traveling spaces etc.. :

i) Luddites/Anti-technology types (this district being ENTIRELY free of Electrosmog, ELF or EMF emissions)
ii) Smokers-Tobacco users/Coffee users (this district will allow use of tobacco throughout/the other coffee throughout – as we know Coffee is disallowed to Xians etc..) For more information on coffee use, see : https://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/category/coffee/
iii) Fundo-religionists (wearers of Burkha to any dietarily limited persons)
iv) Conscientious military objectors (refusers of military culture, who must be offered abstention options and not punitive fines and jail terms to allow them to make a choice without being punished for making a choice)
v) LGBT (non-binary gender types – as sexual-energic exchanges appear to exceed beyond a street or neighbourhood at anytime, separate districts should be considered or dedicated living spaces in generally closed districts at night may be dedicated to these persons at a quantum suitable to the number of such persons)
vi) Red Light Districts (sex workers and sex worker patrons (nominally atheists) without religious injunctions to follow)
vii) Nudists (wearers of nothing, again the psychic-vibrancy issue arises, so dedicated places for nudists could be ensured)
viii) Organic psychedelic users (again the psychic-vibrancy issue arises, so dedicated places for organics users could be ensured)
ix) advocates of right to bear arms (they could live with others fine with the preference, though perhaps with high and thick walls to prevent any accidental misfirings – this should be at cost to the users of this district IF not a majority to warrant use of tax funds)
x) Synthetic psychedelic users (due to the sometimes permanent and undesirable mental effects synthetics cause, these persons could be required to distance themselves from certain groups again, physically or otherwise – with the very most toxic and debilitating drugs left entirely illegal unless a euthanasia or consensual waiver staying awarness of potential permanent mental debilitation is considered)
xi) Neurotech/Cybernetic/Electrosmog-causing-device Areas (the enhanced or debilitating effects may require inhibitants to give signed waivers and for service providers to give accurate readings of ionising radiation and EMF or ELF emissions on a street to street basis)

All these groups or combinations thereof should have dedicated districts or spaces appropriate to their community size for expression of self,self determinism etc.. and not be subject to discriminative disenfranchising and punitive laws or uncivilised harassment by citizens with differing preferences.

This must be assured WITH government awareness, formal recognition ofthe group, guarantees (administrators of government MUST be entirely neutral and non-judgmental and have no personal preferences or if they do have such prefeerence are very aware of the need to remain neutral in applicatio of thje law as oer professional administrators) of protection from discimination by other citizens, to ensure at least civilised treatment of the person is assured as per a responsible government.

The above suggested typifies an ideal First World Country’s conditions where any disparate group’s Human Rights may not be infringed on, via illegal electronic surveillance, secret druggings, theft of tangible or intangible property, tangible or intangible spiritual property, general harrassment or bullying by the mob-minded among the majority of citizens without consent or awareness in the most abusive cases.

Note : Building space issues notwithstanding, the above concept of separate districts was extrapolated from the ‘Nudist Colony’ and ‘Red Light Districts’ concept. So I thought why not specialised districts for every other disparate and diverse group? I have hence advocated closed districts based on a single street to a few streets (for example) since . . . with the narrow minded having condemened and smeared this one’s reputation no end with all forms of indirect retaliations from neurotech implantations/NLPs that have left some of us with no privacy, our human rights invaded upon, contrived car accidents (the last one being particularly serious), psychiatry-pharma neuro-poisonings to manipulative public reactions from people unknown no end. This world does not belong to any mob minded group, the world has enough space for everyone, the selfishness, hatred, unreasonable insularism and intolerance is a sign of a very vicious, sick, uncivilised and fundamentalist minded society. Hopefully the next generation of MPs and Senators or what not will have the presence of mind to develop a conscience and mental flexibility to appreciate the rarer mosaic parts that make up any and all societies . . . diversity is strength.

‘Cheap shot’ shows Soi Lek not secure, says Tee Keat – by Yow Hong Chieh – February 19, 2012

In Bumiputera Apartheid, Democracy, Malaysia on February 20, 2012 at 10:26 am

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — Former MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has described jibes by his successor, Datuk Dr Chua Soi Lek, as a sign of “insecurity” from a leader who oversaw the party’s worst ever electoral defeat.

Ong said Dr Chua should explain to MCA members why popular support for the Barisan Nasional (BN) component party has plummeted instead of taking “cheap shots” at someone who could not defend himself.

“He should ask why the party has no support as he is the president now,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

During his debate with DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng yesterday, Dr Chua remarked that MCA had rejected Ong because he turned the party from one that took “leftovers” from Umno to one which subsisted only on “crumbs”.

But Ong yesterday refused to comment further on the “unethical” swipe by Dr Chua, who wrested the party presidency from the former in March 2010, saying he did not wish to bother responding to such statements.

“Personally, I just brushed it off. I choose to disdain this kind of cheap shot. I was not there to have my say,” he said firmly.

“He may call me anything because he won the (party) election, but under his leadership support for the party has nosedived.”

Ong (picture) added that both debaters had failed to delve into the topic – “Chinese at the Crossroads: Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” — and merely talked at each other for an hour.

“They talked about what they wanted (to talk about). In a way, it was more like party propaganda,” he said.

Yesterday’s debate between Dr Chua and Lim was organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) and MCA’s Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP).

The highly anticipated debate — only the second such exchange between senior BN and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders since opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s debate with then-information minister Datuk Seri Shabeery Cheek — was broadcast live on Astro.

Political analysts have criticised the Mandarin debate for veering greatly off-topic and descending into mere political posturing.

Both Dr Chua and Lim said yesterday they would organised another debate on another topic in Malay and English soon.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Anyone in a coalition that tacitly accepts APARTHEID will not be secure – INCLUDING OTK himself. Work on ethics is admirable OTK, but you too are no more secure being part of MCA which is in BN coalition that continues APARTHEID. As mentioned before, how about if MCA/MIC/Gerakan/PPP/SUPP/(the few best of UMNO who does not believe in APARTHEID?)  LEAVE BN to form a swing vote party LEADING 3rd Force to grant the below 3 items that could destroy the nepotists in Pakatan) :

1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution. . . . amongst other things.

To the minorities even OTK is unacceptable because of his presence in MCA which is in BN alludes the acceptance of APARTHEID. Will OTK make a stand for Article 1 of the UNHCR? OTK has no business saying CSL is insecure because – all MCA members and MCA MPs are insecure – by the implict acceptance of APARTHEID due to MCA remaining in BN.

This is how DAP despite the severe nepotism problem in DAP may be more secure than any MCA MP. 3rd Force indies of course have a further advantage over DAP being non-nepotists. So OTK, make clear your own stand on apartheid and consider the above suggestion towards EQUALITY/EMANCIPATION for MINORITIES from BUMI-APARTHEID! Where’s that Commissar, so many apartheid accepters in the MCA’s ranks!

2 Articles on Hitting Women and respect of men/faith – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 20th February 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, Abuse of Power, Democracy, dhimmi, dhimmitude, halal zone, halal zones, misplaced adoration, Muslims, neutral spaces, nudism, public spaces, social freedoms, spiritual abuse, subtle insults, unprofessional behaviour on February 20, 2012 at 10:12 am

ARTICLE 1

Where I come from, beating up on a woman is never okay:’ Miranda Lambert continues to wage her war against Chris Brown during concert performance – by Laura Schreffler Last updated at 3:36 AM on 18th February 2012

With songs about burning down a cheating boyfriend’s house and women planning to shoot her abusive husband, it would perhaps take a brave soul to mess with Miranda Lambert.

That said, country music’s resident tough girl is coming after Chris Brown for a second time – and she hopes he receives her message.

The 28-year-old wasn’t shy in the slightest about holding up a fan-made sign during her concert at UMass Amherst last night that read ‘Take Notes Chris Brown’.

The battle continues: Miranda Lambert carries on her war of words against Chris Brown during a concert last night in Massachusetts

The Southern blonde held up the sign high and told her fans: ‘Get a good picture now, put it on Twitter.

‘I’ve been in a world of hurt with Chris Brown fans lately…but, see, I just have to speak my mind because where I come from, beating up a woman is never OK’.

She then sang her 2008 single Gunpowder and Lead, about a woman who plans on shooting her abusive ex-husband after his release from jail.

Rage face? Not so much. Chris Brown seemed to be having a blast on Miami Beach today

For his part, the 22-year-old singer doesn’t seem to care. He tweeted earlier today: ‘Let them be mad!!! We make music. Don’t like it, don’t listen!

‘Turn up the music remix is coming too! Guess who’s on it?’

He’s hinting not so subtly that ex-girlfriend Rihanna might appear on the track.
No sweat off my back! The 22-year-old R&B singer is unfazed that Lambert and others have been hating on him

No sweat off my back! The 22-year-old R&B singer is unfazed that Lambert and others have been hating on him

But several fans are unhappy due to his arrest on Grammy night three years ago for assaulting the Bajan beauty.

His arrest and conviction is the reason why Lambert has waged a verbal war against the R&B singer.

She doesn’t believe he should be rewarded for his behaviour, as he not only made his comeback at the Grammys earlier this month, but also won an accolade for Best R&B album.

Fury: Miranda Lambert has taken to Twitter to blast Chris Brown after his appearance at the Grammys

Displeased: Miranda Lambert took to her Twitter account to show her fury at the singer

While his superstar ex, 23, also performed and seemed unfazed by the presence of her former flame, Chris’s presence was unacceptable for some of the other celebrity attendees.

Blake Shelton’s other half was especially candid in her blasting of the star, as she took to Twitter to fume about his appearance at the bash, also sniping at the length of Nicki Minaj’s performance.

She wrote: ‘How dang long did they give Nicki Minaj to do whatever that was? Strange. And Chris Brown twice? I don’t get it. He beat on a girl…’
Comeback: Chris Brown returned to the Grammys after he was arrested for assaulting then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009

Biting her tongue: Songstress Michelle Branch found it hard to keep her feelings quiet

In agreement: The View host Sherri Shepherd also did her best to repress her feelings towards the singer

Not happy: Modern Family star Eric Stonestreet made a joke about producers allowing Chris Brown to be there

She went on to post: ‘Not cool that we act like that didn’t happen. He needs to listen to Gunpowder and lead and be put back in his place. Not at the Grammys.’

Bling: Meanwhile, Miranda posted a picture on her WhoSay account of a ring she got from husband Blake Shelton as a Valentine’s Day gift

The singer, 28, who is married to fellow country star Blake Shelton, was referring to one of her hits songs.

Gunpowder and Lead, which was released in 2007, conveys the story of a woman who prepares to kill her abusive husband when he is released from jail.

Miranda sings the lyrics: ‘He slap my face and he shook me like a rag doll, don’t that sound like a real man.

‘I’m going to show him what a little girl’s made of – gunpowder and lead.’

And the country crooner was not alone in thinking Chris should not have been invited to the ceremony as a host of other celebrities spoke of their fury over Twitter.

Songstress Michelle Branch wrote: ‘Trying not to go off on a rant but…Chris Brown…*bites tongue* have we forgiven him? #Grammys’

Bad move?: Some celebrities slammed Chris Brown after he performed twice at the awards ceremony

Making his return: As well as performing at the bash, Chris scooped the award for Best R&B album

Sharing in her view was The View host Sherri Shepherd, who also seemed to be repressing her anger and wrote: ‘Looks like all is forgiven w Chris Brown. That’s all I’ll say.’

Meanwhile Modern Family actor Eric Stonestreet quipped: ‘Are Chris brown’s mom and dad CBS and Grammy Brown?’

Chris performed his new single Turn Up The Muisc along with his collaborative effort with Benny Bennassi, Beautiful People.

Victim: Chris was arrested for assaulting Rihanna and a restraining order was lifted last year

He then took to the stage again to perform I Can Only Imagine alongside David Guetta.

Meanwhile Rihanna sang her hit record We Found Love, before taking the stage to duet with Coldplay’s Chris Brown.

Chris has shied away from the Grammys since the domestic violence incident against Rihanna in 2009, which happened on the eve of the awards ceremony.

Putting the past behind her: Rihanna seemed unfazed by the presence of her former flame as she also performed at the ceremony

Duet: After performing solo, Rihanna took to the stage to sing alongside Coldplay’s Chris Martin

The pair were both due to perform at the bash the following day and were forced to pull out of their respective appearances.

A judge eased a restraining order last February after an attorney for Rihanna said she didn’t object to removing the stay-away provisions.

The former order required Brown to stay 50 yards away from 23-year-old Rihanna, but the restriction was reduced to 10 yards if they were at a music industry event.
In the audience: Miranda Lambert and her husband Blake Shelton (R) were sat next to an ornately dressed Lady Gaga

In the audience: Miranda Lambert and her husband Blake Shelton (R) were sat next to an ornately dressed Lady Gaga

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Get Rihanna to beat Chris Brown back or anyone on behalf of Rihanna then. Chris did not hold placards and try to destroy Rihanna’s career at the concert, also the beating was in private and we do know that in private people can be very different, so to be fair and equitable, the beat-back could be done in private as well. This public attack via placard is unprincipled and has nothing to do with what happened. Attention whoring on the back of Rihanna and Chris Brown’s spat perhaps?

‘beating up a woman is never OK’. Fine and well. But what happened to the equality thing? Beating anyone up is never OK. It’s not just women this ‘adage’ applies to. So get Rihanna and Chris together in a private setting as ask Rihanna to beat Chris back. End of story.

ARTICLE 2

Arab man hits two women over peck on cheek – by Yow Hong Chieh – February 20, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 20 — An Arab visitor allegedly attacked two women at a Kota Kinabalu backpackers’ lodge after flying into a rage over a kiss.

The man is said to have blown his top after witnessing Canadian tourist Daniel Gunn kiss his girlfriend on the cheek out in the hall area, The Star reported today.

Gunn, 30, told the daily efforts to calm the man failed, following which lodge receptionist Dewina Jolilin stepped in to try and defuse the situation.

Her intervention, however, incensed the Arab man further as he reckoned that Dewina, who is also Muslim, should have been equally angry about the public show of affection.

He then reportedly hit the 22-year-old in the face with a plastic bag, prompting Gunn and his local girlfriend to come to the receptionist’s aid.

“My girlfriend told him that he cannot attack a woman. And then, she was also attacked,” said Gunn, who recorded the incident that took place at around 6.30pm on February 9.

The man then stormed out of the lodge and left in a taxi, without settling his bill.

Dewina lodged a police report over the alleged assault immediately after. City police are now looking for the suspect.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Arab Islamic faithers do act as if Malaysia, much less Orang Asli Malay East Malaysia is their ‘spiritual’ colony (Nusantaran Animism being the local faith system especially in East Malaysia). The Arab likely filled with the ‘spiritual colonialist’ pathos was not ready to allow other non-Muslims to express themselves in what was after all neutral space for all faiths and expressions. It is not chivalrous to hit women you Arabs, though some women have indeed become very disrespectful to the point of unprofessionalism and used feminism to disregard faith-sensitivity issues.

Hitting the woman was wrong and a complaint and report should have been made by the Arab for outrage of Muslim sensitivity at most (this is however East Malaysia and NOT a religious place), even while the condescension of Arabs towards their ‘faith based colonies’, was probably the first punch thrown and the self inflicted sanctimony to a right to feel outraged inappropriate. Clash of civilisations happened here.

Arabs have to understand that the world does not revolve around their race or faith and that people in obviously neutral space have the right to express themselves. Those who are religiously sensitive perhaps could demand Halal Zones where no-kissing rules apply, or no Muslims are allowed but this is a private establishment so no controls or expectations much less with violence can be applied.

The Canadian though could have been intentionally flaunting this fact of neutral space, and the Arab not wanting to be ‘outdone’ in right of action in space, decided to go all fisticuffs on the Canadian. Still wrong when provoked though wrong to provoke – if intentionally kissing, the first non-physical punch was thrown by the Canadian. If the Canadian was minding his own business and incidentally was kissing, the Arab is in the wrong, doubly so for using physical force.

What would happen if a Nudist AND Islamist neutral zone where BOTH social types was created? The very most enlightened of Muslims would not care and do their prayers among the Naturists. But would less neutral minded Muslims go around beating up as many people as possible? Violence is not the solution, but clearly delineated spaces should be created for high tourist zones and clearly zoned so that misunderstandings will not occur. By the Arab’s logic, the Malaysian police would have to arrest all non-Muslims kissing in public, that wouldn’t work now would it?

Maybe in a holy city or inside a Mosque or on halllowed ground, but this is a tourist area for boisterous and amorous couples unwinding from urban life, the Arab has not been reasonable. I suggest that the Arab read the above post and settle the issue with an apology out of court and compensate for hitting the women and attempting to dominate the Canadian’s neutral space rights.

Psychiatric Drugs in Abusive Psychiatric Establishment – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 27th February 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, Abuse of Power, collusion, corruption, domestic terrorists in the political sphere, drug laws, drugs, Ethics, Freedom of Expression, Neurotech, organic psychedelics advocacy, Orwellian, overkill, psychedelics, psychiatry, soul theft, spiritual abuse on February 20, 2012 at 9:35 am

ARTICLE 1

A Proposal for Jenelle’s Law to protect us from brain-damaging neuroleptic drugs

The Antipsychiatry Coalition
P.O. Box 1253, Topeka, Kansas 66601-1253
antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net

March 14, 2000

The Hon. Diana DeGette
1339 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Rep. DeGette:

Thank you for your sponsorship of The Patient Freedom from Restraint Act of 1999, H.R. 1313. Physical restraint immobilizing a person at the wrists, ankles, and neck or chest is a kind of torture psychiatrists too often wrongfully inflict on mental patients. I start to panic when I merely think about it being done to me. Thank you for your concern.

Another perhaps even worse horror psychiatrists inflict on people is permanent brain damage caused by neuroleptic drugs.

I recently met a charming young woman named Jenelle Dorner. Her story so moved me that I wrote an account of how she was damaged by neuroleptic drugs and, with her permission, posted it on the Antipsychiatry Coalition web site that I maintain. I’ve enclosed a copy of my article, which I titled “Jenelle’s Story.” Jenelle’s story illustrates what psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., said in his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain: By using drugs that cause brain damage, “Psychiatry has unleashed an epidemic of neurological disease on the world” one which “reaches 1 million to 2 million persons a year” (Springer, 1983, pp. 109 & 108). Jenelle’s story illustrates the failure of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to protect Americans from harmful drugs.

I propose the introduction of legislation to create a federal statute that would require the FDA to withdraw its approval of a drug if the drug causes permanent brain damage evidenced by tardive dyskinesia or dementia in more than 2% or 4% or whatever percent of patients and which would give federal district courts power to order the FDA to withdraw approval of a drug if any person files a civil action for the purpose of proving and does prove that the drug meets the statutory criteria for mandatory withdrawal of FDA approval. And I propose that the law be known as “Jenelle’s Law.”

Please read the attached article and give my proposal careful thought and let me know if you will introduce “Jenelle’s Law” for the purpose of stopping the epidemic of harm now being inflicted on millions of Americans by neuroleptic drugs.

Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/j-law.htm

Media Clip on Dangers of Xanax (This writer believes that ‘sudden withdrawal’ of medication method was used to intentionally cause a seizure to cause death (where heart stopped or was it lungs paralyzed, probably from drug overload and sudden withdrawal but did not die due to being apracticioner of yogic breathing exercises and being in general good health etc.) at the hands of a local pro-regime psychiatry outfit for activist work on anti-apartheid and perhaps LGBT issues (or being LGBT – more towards ‘Questioning’, but by section 377B’s 20 years and whipping, that regime thought they were being ‘merciful’ or ‘subtle’. To the largely ‘intended as anonymous’ activist who is most probably known to the local populace . . . that regime looks to have ceased this ‘chemical’ based method after implantation of ‘neurotech devices’, or systematic and complete bugging of the activist’s  home, effectively imprisoning via mental duress conditions that has left the activist without any privacy : the activist has contacted the Bar Council in person but has received no response or advice relevant to prevention of further abuse, or removal of the devices implanted in a contrived car  crash early 2000 s . . .   – the spiritual damage caused by poisoning the victim and the poisoners souls has become quite severe on all parties . . . Xanax or any psychiatric drug administered by domestic terrorists dispensing poisons, does not only affect the physical body, but the ethereal and astral bodies, and in spiritually advanced persons who are here on a particular mission (i.e. ending apartheid), the consequences can be particularly disasterous . . . many otherwise viable candidats for politics could be consistently sabotaged in this manner, even throughout the 1st world, be aware and connect the dots before going on that shooting or knifing spree . . .

ARTICLE 2

INFORMED CONSENT: REALITY OR MYTH?

Informed consent represents the single most important issue in the delivery of health care.  Informed consent exists only when there is full disclose of known relevant information and known risk presented to the patient in a manner that they can understand. There are patients who did not understand that the surgical “mastectomy” they agreed to undergo involved removal of their breast.  The text, shown above, a work of fiction by Roger Radford, hit close to home on the subject of adhesive arachnoiditis; a present and real worldwide health care problem.

In the “real world” in which we exist there are often procedural modifiers which influence “full disclosure.”  Some of these have legitimacy and some do not.  It is not unusual to see a court setting as the venue by which resolution of these issues is being attempted.  One such situation is whether a medical treatment or surgery being recommended or performed is “accepted”, “standard” or “approved” and from whence the authority to determine this exists.

The challenge in determining “informed consent” becomes even greater when it becomes apparent that there are significant disparities in the definition of the terms being used.  In fact this confusion may be taken advantage of this to promote secular interests and agendas.  Medical malpractice cases based on informed consent issues (rather than negligence) as sometimes considered to represent the “soft” side of forensic medicine.  This litigation is, however, an important “safety net” for society.  It is unfortunate, but true, that informed consent sometimes been subject to serious abuse for the purpose of personal gain.  Examples of such are failure to make patients aware of minimally invasive uterine artery embolization instead of surgical hysterectomy, minimally invasive aneurysm coiling instead of open cranial surgery and reconstructive spine surgery as opposed to multi-level pedicle screw and rod “fusions.”

It is true that the practice of medicine has never related to certainties. Treatment is based on best information.  Evidence based medicine consists of  careful clinical observation and experience combined with the best scientific data available. The notion that there is no empirical basis upon which to draw valid inferences and render reasonable judgments in the treatment of patients is false. On the other hand there also exists important scientific information which never seems to make itself known to physicians responsible for patient care.  As medical practice progresses in time it becomes smarter and learns of risk factors which were previously unknown or unappreciated.  Sometimes this knowledge is privy to some who purposely do not release it or act to obfuscate it for personal gain.  The actions of the tobacco industry, over the past 50 years, makes this point.  Yet, an important landmark in forensic medicine is “what was known, and when was it known” as a determinant of informed consent.

An interesting example of this is the issue of chronic respiratory disease related to exposure to asbestos fibers.  There is a great deal of ongoing litigation against manufacturers of such products.  For the most part exposure to asbestos occurred during a period of time when neither the manufacturers, the workers or their physicians were unaware of asbestos toxicity.  Where the are the benchmarks?  How can we create expectations which are smarter than we are?

The phenomenon of “managed care” has introduced additional challenges to the concept of “informed consent.”  In their quest to justify denial of coverage for their subscribers many third party payors, seeking an opportunity to say “no” to treatment being recommended for a patient, often use the term “not proven” or “experimental” as a means of denying coverage.  What is the legal ramification of this to the physician recommending treatment?  What are the legal ramifications when care is denied and an alternative treatment goes “wrong.”  Who has the legal responsibility?  Well, up-to-now the physician has been left “blowing in the wind” on this issue.  The “worm ” is, however,  “turning.”  Now that the unique immunity against legal suit provided by ERISA is in the slow process of being stripped away by the courts the health care “playing field” may, finally, become more level.

A level playing field is particularly needed in the arena of informed consent because full disclosure of risk is typically taken to be a medical “right” in the United States (as well as a primary “standard of care”).  This is an interesting phenomenon because this concept varies considerably throughout the world (as demonstrated by the Burton Experience in the Soviet Union in the 1970s).   In the real natural world there are no “rights” for animals (astutely pointed out by Charles Darwin).  If each of us were placed naked in the center of a dense tropical jungle and we had to fend for ourselves we would discover what Darwin had in mind.

As the human race evolved on planet earth only those humans who possessed power had “rights.”  In medieval times only the monarchs and the nobility held “rights.  When the United States was young Thomas Paine and James Madison observed that rights were divided into “natural rights” (i.e. freedom of thought and speech) and “civil rights” (i.e. the right to trial by jury).  Informed consent is a civil right”, more specifically a conceptual “patient right.”   Other important conceptual “patient right” is that of the expectation of being provided with respect and consideration from a heath care system.

The Burton Report® is a strong advocate of real informed consent.  This requires the clear presentation, to a patient, of all significant potential risk.  The Burton Report® is also a strong proponent of providing patients respect and consideration.

Another position of Burton Report® is against the banning of any drug or therapy.  Banning is the making of rules “which are smarter than we are.”  One never knows when a toxic substance can be of benefit (i.e. thalidomide and botox).  The better approach for the patient, and society, is real informed consent.

Clearly, the United States is the world leader in regard to disclosure of risk to patients.  Even so there continues to be serious inadequacies and transgressions of this process which need attention.  This is, at times, difficult to address because the concept of “rights” in the United States has burst asunder to finally reach a level of true frivolity.  Perhaps this should not come as a surprise in a society where legal suits have become, as George F. Will has observed: simply a part of “a great American growth industry, litigation that expresses the belief that everyone has an entitlement to compensation for any unpleasantness.”

When one considers all the attention which has been focused on the issue of informed consent over the past few years it may seem surprising to learn that important areas of medical diagnosis and treatment still exist where full disclosure of risk has never been provided in the past and has continued to be seriously deficient in the present.

A look at the record confirms the point.  Only recently have the adverse effects of particulate radiation, exposure to toxic chemicals and cellular damage resulting from nicotine and carbon monoxide poisoning (from cigarette smoking) been disclosed.  It is important to note that most of this has occurred only as the result of litigation reflecting plaintiff rage and not as a result of governmental or medical intervention.

A good case in point is that of cigarette smoking.  From a medical standpoint, the toxic effects of cigarette smoking appear to represent the single most adverse known chronic health liability, from an external source, directed to the human body.  Remarkably, it has only been since 1997, when, as a direct response to legal actions, the actual ingredients of some cigarettes were finally disclosed to the public.

Once again, were it not for the existence of legal process to unravel the cover-up contrived by the tobacco industry the release of this important information might never have occurred.  One indication of society’s patience wearing thin was the shock therapy administered to the tobacco industry  on June 7, 2001 when a Los Angeles jury awarded $3 billon in punitive damages to a longtime smoker with lung cancer.  A key element in the resolution of this case for the plaintiff was the introduction of a 1972 memo written by a Tobacco Institute executive pointing out how the tobacco industry had successfully undercut public health concerns about the cancer risk of smoking by “creating doubt…without actually denying it” (Geyelin M: Former Two-Pack-a-Day Man Finally Satisfied His Urge to Sue, Wall St. Jour., June 8, 2001).  The fall-out from this decision continues with punitive damages being awarded against the tobacco industry for continuing “nefarious” behavior (Judge awards $15 million in punitive damages in tobacco case against R.J. Reynolds, Associated Press, June 22, 2002).

Most interested patients in the United States today are reasonably cognizant of risk factors as more trustworthy information continues to appear on the internet.  There are, however, a number of areas where informed consent remains, quite remarkably, almost absent.  In fact there are a number of examples of serious health risks which have continued unabated over many years (and sometimes decades).  Many of these are still unassociated with adequate public disclosure and few in the legal profession have yet “stepped up to the plate” to assist in assisting the public interest.

One of the most serious examples of this has been, and continues to be, the disabling complications resulting from the introduction of foreign body substances into the subarachnoid space for the purpose of myelography as well as ill-advised epidural steroid injections. The disease complication is that of clinically significant adhesive arachnoiditis.  This particular entity represents one of the most flagrant examples of a ongoing world-wide serious public health problem due to many years of industry misinformation and cover-up.  Patient suffering secondary to adhesive arachnoiditis serves as a frightening example of an area where, at the beginning of the 21st century it is difficult to find a single patient who has ever been provided with real  informed consent in this area.

What about the physicians?  As adhesive arachnoiditis expert Sarah Smith points out:

“What concerns me is that if the person informing the patient is themselves poorly or inaccurately informed then how on earth can consent ever be truly informed?”

In association with this remain remarkable examples of continuing medical ignorance relating to commonly performed procedures.  Medical informed consent is unlikely when the usual material provided to the public, by their physicians, ignores the most significant risk factors?

No area of informed consent is more important than that of medical research and the involvement of human subjects.  How can patients know the risks if they are basically unknown to science as well as the medical profession?  Unquestionably, gene research will play a very important role in future medical therapy.  Gene therapy represents a challenging voyage into uncharted water where the benefits for all mankind may be historic.  How do we know what we don’t know, and how does informed consent fit into this picture?

Summary:

It is clear that there is no risk-free state in medicine. What then are the risks of surgery? In the field of spine surgery all patients run the risk of dying, being paralyzed, experiencing a nerve injury, wound infection, medical problem, drug reaction, etc. Actually most of these serious risks also exist when the patient drives to the hospital. As an example, the United States government reported that in 1998 alone 41,480 people died from auto accidents.

Informed consent is an essential requirement for the well-being of any modern health care system in the 21st century.  Informed consent is based on full disclosure of known significant risk (the easy part).  Full disclosure of all “relevant information” is the murky component, particularly from the standpoint of jurisprudal  machinations and contrived governmental anomalies.  Informed consent litigation has created a great deal of “busy work” for attorneys.  Much of this litigation has wasted large amounts of time, talent and resource which could have been put to better use in the courtroom by pursuing more important areas of societal need.  The need the create clearly defined requirements for patient protection, taking into account the rapidly changing landscape, is an important  priority for the 21st century.

ARTICLE 3

Lumbo-Sacral Adhesive Arachnoiditis – Introduction

There is no area of medicine today where greater, or more cruel suffering has been created in large populations of patients throughout the globe than those directly related to adhesive arachnoiditis of which the most common form is in the lumbo-sacral area.  Whether due to apathy, disinterest, indifference or self-protective behavior by the medical, scientific and governmental communities lumbo-sacral adhesive arachnoiditis (LSAA) and it’s potential liabilities continues to remain essentially unknown, unreported, and unrecognized among both physicians and patients.

An important reason for this state of affairs has been the pattern of organized  deception and obfuscation in regard to the safety and efficacy of oil myelographic substances such as Pantopaque® and Myodil® perpetrated by some of the originators and manufacturers of iophendylate for over half a century.  This “bodyguard of misrepresentation” and “damage control” by company lawyers has been effective in insuring that governmental agencies, physicians and patients have not been allowed to fully appreciate the risks inherent in introducing highly toxic substances into the sub-arachnoid space.  By not focusing, or adequately propagating, what is known scientifically regarding LSAA it has continued to be a serious world public health challenge and something which is continuously being  perpetrated on unsuspecting patients by their uninformed physicians.

Even today the world community has still not yet come to grips with this cruel phenomenon nor has it yet demonstrated an appropriate social conscience regarding this  disease entity.  LSAA continues to be a trail of tragedy for many unfortunate patients and new cases appear on a regular basis because of our failure to learn from history.  This regrettable situation has tended to cast those health care professionals who have tried to sound this alarm in a role similar to that of Dr. Peter Stockmann, the hero of Hendrik Ibsen’s 1882 play “An Enemy of the People.”

What determines whether or not the pathologic entity LSAA produces significant or disabling pain and neurologic impairment has a lot to do with how active or passive the meningeal reaction is.  Because of the human nervous system’s remarkable abilities to recover from insult if given the opportunity many patients with LSAA are asymptomatic but exist in a precarious balance where things could easily change for the worse if a patient is subject to additional insult.

Remarkably there are still those who actually insist that the pathologic entity LSAA “does not even exist .”  Fortunately these individuals belong to the ever-diminishing circle of those who also believe that:

The Holocaust never happened.
Americans never really landed on the moon (it was staged).
September 11, 2001 was really an Israeli plot.

The saga of adhesive arachnoiditis is not just something of historical interest.  In no area of medicine has failure of “informed consent” been more evident than in the continuing saga of this disease process.  The discussion of this rather incredible and continuing misadventure, which focuses on the  neurotoxicity of foreign body substances being introduced into the subarachnoid space for the purposes of myelography and epidural steroid administration, begins with a review of these subjects:

Myelography

Myelography, is an invasive diagnostic test in which a radio-opaque substance is placed in the subarachnoid space so that the space can be visualized by x-ray. The first contrast material used for this purpose was air. Air myelography developed from innovations in air ventriculography and air encephalography started in 1918, by Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Walter Dandy.  Because air was difficult to visualize on x-ray a search for alternatives began.  In 1932 thorium dioxide (Thorotrast®) was first introduced.  It appeared to be ideal for the purpose of myelography (and other diagnostic studies) and were it not for the fact that it was radioactive it would have been.  Thorium dioxide turned out to be a highly toxic radioactive substance.  It was only 20-30 years after its introduction that the medical profession began to suspect that the sudden and  unusually high incidence of malignancies involving the brain and spinal cord (as well as adhesive arachnoiditis) might be related to thorium dioxide’s radioactivity.  At this point this myelographic agent “fell into disuse.”

Epidural Steroids

The “epidural” space is separated from the subarachnoid space only by the thin dura mater membrane and its associated filamentous pia mater. Epidural steroid administration is an empiric therapeutic modality commonly performed for the treatment of low back disorders. If the steroid is inadvertently injected into the subarachnoid space rather than the epidural space serious disability and incapacitation can result. Although all foreign body substances introduced into the subarachnoid space are “irritating” others can be highly neurotoxic. The most significant example of such neurotoxic agents are those containing ethylene glycols to allow for slow release (i.e. Depo-Medrol® , Depo-Medrone®, Aristocort® and Methylprednisolone Suspension®).  When introduced into the subarachnoid space these materials can be highly neurotoxic and productive of a potentially disabling condition referred to as adhesive arachnoiditis. Since none of these steroids is approved, by their manufacturers, for epidural injection, and that they are clearly know to be toxic if misinjected, it is interesting to note that they still appear to be used by the majority of physicians now performing epidural steroid injections.

A prudent individual would assume that the medical leaders in performing, teaching, and publishing on epidural steroids would be acutely cognizant of the most potentially serious patient complication of “epidural” steroid administration. The facts suggest otherwise.  A prominent medical publisher, publishing 16 spine-related patient manuals including “Lumbar Epidural Injection” and “Cervical Epidural Injection” has, under the section on “risks and complications”, made no mention of adhesive arachnoiditis, the most serious potential complication of epidural steroid administration. This is despite the fact that new cases of incapacitating adhesive arachnoiditis directly related to inadvertent subarachnoid administration of neurotoxic steroids are being diagnosed by spine specialists on a continuing basis.

Are there alternatives to potentially neurotoxic formulations of methyl- prednisolone for epidural administration? Indeed there are. Why are they not used? The best answer is colossal ignorance, indifference, deception, or worse. Methyl prednisolone “suspensions” have neither “fallen into disuse” nor have they been officially identified as being a serious potential risk to the public health in any country at this time.  What does this revelation mean in regard to informed consent?  Might viewing Burton Report® allow patients to ask the right questions as to just which drugs will be injected and techniques used prior to therapy?  Will physicians, because of these questions from informed patients, begin to modify their practice?  We certainly hope so.  It is sad to observe that once again, the public may be forced to call upon the good offices of the legal profession to help in promoting awareness of this clear and present danger because of failure by the health care establishment and elected officials to accept responsibility and become involved.

Intrathecal Catheters

The use of intrathecally placed (within the subarachnoid space) catheters for the purpose of delivering drugs (i.e. morphine for pain relief, baclofin for control of spasm) is not without risk of producing local adhesive arachnoiditis.  These catheters can produce focal adhesive arachnoiditis, cysts and other inflammatory problems.  That such risks exist should be explained to patients as part of the preoperative informed consent process.  It should also be an important part of the risk versus benefit consideration for even considering such therapy in patients with normal life expectancies.

Summary

Clinically significant lumbo-sacral adhesive arachnoiditis is a particularly cruel disease because of the nature of the pain syndrome associated with it.  Yet, its pathophysiology is well understood and is no mystery.  Yet, for those desiring an objective determination of the existence or absence of adhesive arachnoiditis non-invasive high-resolution MRI scans have now allowed definitive determination of this frightening pathologic entity.

The nature of the pain associated with adhesive arachnoiditis is uniquely incapacitating and dolorologists have created the term “regional complex pain disorder” (RCPD) to describe it.  Apologists for those who have created adhesive arachnoiditis and RCPD in patients have pointed out that only 1-5% of those with the condition actually have the full-blown clinical symptoms (which can include progressive neurologic deficit and even death).  The reason for this is interesting and appears to relate to the remarkable ability of the nervous system, with its great reserve and redundancy, to cope with severe insult and injury (if applied in a gradual fashion).  It appears that despite being enmeshed in solid collagenous scar tissue and being deprived of the nurturing of cerebrospinal fluid and its normal vascular supply nerve cells can often achieve a tenuous equilibrium.  This delicate balance can, however, be easily upset by additional insult or injury (i.e. spinal surgery or a motor vehicle accident releasing blood into the subarachnoid space).

There are a number of other neurologic parallels to the phenomenon of nervous system acclimization.  One such is the “post-polio syndrome” where individuals afflicted with poliomyelitis early in life may make complete functional recoveries but as they age they experience progressive weakness.  In this circumstance polio has destroyed the neuronal reserve and normal function belies the fact that there is no reserve.  As the normal process of aging occurs and neurons die by attrition the lack of reserve is evidenced by the inability of the few remaining viable neurons to handle the challenge of normal function.  The human body functions well with only one kidney, one lung etc.  No one would  dare to suggest that the loss of these organs was not inconsequential to the welfare of the individual.  In the case of adhesive arachnoiditis the story has, unfortunately to date,  been different.

Expressions of  plight by individuals suffering with adhesive arachnoiditis are common. The many individuals legitimately suffering from adhesive arachnoiditis often are undiagnosed only because of healthcare establishment inadequacies. The legitimate disability of these unfortunates is then looked upon with distain by the medical and legislative communities who, because of their own diagnostic limitations, tend too often to consider these patients to be malingerers (or worse).  The sad result of this are legions of patients seeking only the dignity of a definitive diagnosis from professional groups and organizations whose skill at evasion and cover-up have unfortunately exceeded their other talents. The disrespectful manner in which many countries have treated these unfortunates, whose only crime was not knowing the right questions to ask before a “minimally invasive” myelogram or epidural steroid injection was performed, has been sad to see.

Sadly, the rare examples where recourse has occurred typically has represented the compassion of the legal profession again serving as a societal “safety net.”  Even so legal attempts at legitimate recourse have been hampered by unrealistic “statue of limitation” requirements.  Unfortunately, tort litigation reform has focused only on limiting the liability of transgressors so that their exposure becomes only a “business expense” and not something which will actually change their behavior.

The Editor, as a health care professional who has been concerned with the subject of neurotoxicity and patients suffering from adhesive arachnoiditis for over a quarter of a century has, as his only excuse for becoming involved in an issue emulating Hendrik Ibsen’s “Enemy of the People”,  is not being “smart enough to know when to quit.”

http://www.burtonreport.com/infforensic/informedconsent.html

ARTICLE 4

Conspiracy Theory on Organic Drugs (if not a neurotech induced thought line) – by @AgreeToDisagree – 20th February 2012

Symbolism of the Opium bed = Psychiatrists couch dawned upon me while doing casual searches for old opium posters.

This is where the drug is administered under neuotech control, to induce neurotech control.

The NLP, perhaps psychic, links are based on/intended for sequestration of Opium’s ‘power’ by HUMAN BEINGS, namely psychiatrists who probably are chemically  (enhanced) tghe same way non-psychiatrists are chemically suppressed so that the SOUL or tretment of SOUL nominally formerly the realm of shamans and soothsayers, are now dominated byu chemiocally drugged up people with no morals.

This allows ‘peaceful feelings’ to become a franchise CONTROLLED by psychiatrists and their drugged up natures (taking drugs to increase telepathy, stronger control of other minds via good drugs), as well as their drugged up (weakened via bad drugs) ‘clients’ who will have to PAY them for their addiction POSING as pharma drugs. This is denounced by ANY and ALL countries which have a legalized drug law. Instead of creating dependency and high fees for profiteering psychiatrists, the honest government legalizes.

The psyche establishment in the 3rd world is thus complicit in addicting populations unawares, perhaps via foods, or other beverages to addict at cost.

How does this theory sound?