In Ireland, Pandemrix vaccination associated with narcolepsy, but we're to rejoice it did not cause Guillain Barre/

Today, one Irish website (Irish Medical Times) rejoiced that a study just out in the BMJ showed Pandemrix swine flu vaccine, containing a novel GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) adjuvant, did not cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, a life-threatening form of temporary paralysis from which over 90% survive and make partial to full recoveries.  No mention is made in the article of the risk of narcolepsy.

UPDATE July 14:  It turns out that the BMJ study actually did NOT prove there was no increased incidence of GBS.  It only showed that the increased risk, if any, was at most 2.7 times higher in those vaccinated with Pandemrix, while back in 1976 the increased rate of GBS in the six weeks following swine flu vaccination was about 8.  But it sure got a lot of publicity, practically all of which incorrectly claimed there was no increased risk of GBS.  According to CIDRAP:

In the accompanying editorial, four specialists with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the findings as being in accord with studies on the GBS risk associated with nonadjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccines but as puzzling in some respects.

"Overall, the results suggest that if there was an increased risk associated with the adjuvanted 2009 H1N1 vaccines studied, it was considerably smaller than that seen with the 1976 flu vaccines," they write. "Whether there was an increased risk, however, is not clear."

Another Irish website (JOE) today noted instead that narcolepsy was associated with the same vaccine, and that over 6 times as many cases developed in those who received Pandemrix as in those who did not.  Narcolepsy is another life-threatening condition, and those who develop it do not recover.

[UPDATE July 15:  Finland's Minister of Health and Social Services has promised to help compensate victims of the swine flu vaccine program who developed narcolepsy.  So far, 96 cases have been diagnosed in Finland, resulting in 70 claims for compensation.  (Finland has only 5.3 million people.)]

There has been a suggestion that other neurologic conditions were associated with new narcolepsy cases, such as changes in personality*, but such changes are harder to quantify and little information has been made publicly available about them.  Because falling asleep involuntarily and unexpectedly is hard to mask or ignore, it is relatively easy to get a reliable count of severe narcolepsy cases.  Mild cases may be notoriously difficult to diagnose.

How much more likely are you to get narcolepsy if vaccinated?  Reports of preliminary studies indicated the risk was high in children and teens but not adults.  For an epidemiologist, once you know who is in a high risk goup, you can calculate how much more likely it is for members of the group to develop narcolepsy.  However, if you include in your calculations all those who got the vaccine, when only those between, say, ages 10 and 20 were at increased risk, you will dilute the degree of risk if you compare all age groups en masse.  In other words, the rate of new narcolepsy cases in all vaccinated people divided by the rate in all unvaccinated people will be much lower than the same comparison using only the smaller, at-risk group.  The cited article does not make clear which groups were compared, but earlier data suggested the risk in adolescents was approximately tenfold higher in the vaccinated.  The peak age of onset in all narcolepsy cases is 15.

Another issue to be clarified is the role of a gene that is known to predispose to narcolepsy.  While a genetic predisposition is important, the gene is commonly found, but the disease itself is rare.  So you cannot blame the gene for cases, although it may be a necessary prerequisite.  The vast majority of people with this gene will never develop narcolepsy.  Instead, narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder, according to researchers at Stanford, where a lot of the genetic work was done.  Autoimmune disorders are believed to be due to attack by one's immune system on a particular tissue type:  by this reasoning, the vaccine likely triggers autoimmune destruction of a small number of cells in the hypothalamus that make a substance which helps regulate sleep, termed hypocretin.

This ABC News story gives a good idea about what it is like to live with narcolepsy, and also explains some of the science.

BTW, the baseline incidence of narcolepsy in Finland, where the association with Pandemrix was first noted, was no greater than in the USA, prior to use of vaccine for swine flu.

It is very hard to predict vaccine side effects in advance of vaccinating large numbers of people, but the most well-known (and probably the most common) serious side effects are both neurologic and autoimmune, from all vaccines.  And so that is where we should cast our net when trying to learn more about the safety of new vaccines in a post-marketing environment.  Surveillance for just Guillain-Barre is a road to disaster, as it is likely to miss the much bigger picture, and alone tells us nothing about the overall safety of a vaccine.

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009 Jun;80(6):636-41. Epub 2009 Feb 11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211597

Psychological health in central hypersomnias: the French Harmony study.

Dauvilliers Y, Paquereau J, Bastuji H, Drouot X, Weil JS, Viot-Blanc V.

Source

Département de Neurologie, Hôpital Gui de Chauliac, 80 av Augustin Fliche, Cedex 5, Montpellier 34295, France. y-dauvilliers@chu-montpellier.fr

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A large observational French study of central hypersomnia, including narcolepsy with cataplexy (C+), without cataplexy (C-) and idiopathic hypersomnia (IH), was conducted to clarify the relationships between the severity of the condition, psychological health and treatment response.

METHODS:

601 consecutive patients over 15 years of age suffering from central hypersomnia were recruited on excessive daytime sleepiness, polysomnography and Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) results. 517 (47.6% men, 52.4% women) were finally included: 82.0% C+, 13.2% C- and 4.8% IH. Face to face standardised clinical interviews plus questionnaires (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), short version Beck Depression Inventory (S-BDI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)) were performed. Patients affected with a different diagnosis and with and without depressive symptoms were compared.

RESULTS:

Mean ESS and body mass index were higher in C+ compared with C-/IH patients. Half of the patients (44.9%) had no depressive symptoms while 26.3% had mild, 23.2% moderate and 5.6% severe depressive symptoms. C+ patients had higher S-BDI and PSQI and lower SF-36 scores than C-/IH patients. Depressed patients had higher ESS scores than non-depressed patients, with no difference in age, gender, duration of disease or MSLT parameters. Finally, C+ patients treated with anticataplectic drugs (38.7%) had higher S-BDI and lower SF-36 scores than C+ patients treated with stimulants alone.

CONCLUSION:

Our data confirmed the high frequency of depressive symptoms and the major impact of central hypersomnias on health related quality of life, especially in patients with cataplexy. We recommend a more thorough assessment of mood impairment in central hypersomnias, especially in narcolepsy-cataplexy.

Case Against Strauss-Kahn for Rape Falls Apart/ NY Times

I hate to say "I told you so" but here it is, from the NY Times.  Now one may ask, why was DSK presumed guilty and treated abominably at the onset of the case?  Still think this was not a political frame-up in which the USG was a major participant?  From today's NYT:

The sexual assault case againstDominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials.

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself...

Doctors who were paid $12-16 million pimped for Medtronic's poor quality spinal fusion material / NY Times

Finally, members of my profession are fighting back against corrupt doctors and the companies who pay lavishly for their undeserved testimonials.  Respected university bigwigs are just as susceptible as anyone else to 10 or 20 million dollar payoffs:  and they may feel they have no conflict of interest as a result and their work is pure.  (So claimed Dr. Thomas A. Zdeblick of the University of Wisconsin, who has earned $20 million from Medtronic for his patents, including those used with spinal fusions.)

Nonetheless, "scientific" studies get performed and written up and published that  misrepresent the truth, so that a product appears more effective and safer than it really is.  Medtronic paid big bribes, but earned about 900 million from this one product last year, used in 100,000 spinal fusions in 2010!

What is extraordinary is that finally many members of our profession have come out about the fraud, filling an entire issue of The Spine Journal to tell the other side of the story.  Medtronic is not a small player gone awry.  It is the largest medical device manufacturer in the US.  Below are excerpts from the NY Times:

 In an extraordinary move, a group of spine specialists are publicly repudiating the research of other experts that has backed the widespread use of a Medtronic bone growth product. In a series of reports published in a medical journal on Tuesday, the specialists called the research misleading and biased. 

The repudiation, appearing in a full issue of The Spine Journal devoted to the topic, represents a watershed in the long-running debate over conflicts of interest for the sponsorship of scientific studies by makers of drugs and medical devices. It is extremely rare for researchers to publicly chastise colleagues, and editors of leading medical journals said they could not recall an instance in which a publication had dedicated an entire issue for such a singular purpose.

Medtronic, the nation’s biggest maker of medical devices, has been facing intensifying scrutiny over its promotion of Infuse, the bone growth product at the center of the controversy. The bioengineered material is used primarily in spinal fusions, a procedure in which spinal vertebrae are joined to reduce back pain.

Infuse is used in about a quarter of the estimated 432,000 spinal fusions performed in this country each year. The articles published on Tuesday charge that researchers with financial ties to Medtronic overstated Infuse’s benefits and vastly understated its risks by claiming there were none. 

“It harms patients to have biased and corrupted research published,” five doctors wrote in a joint editorial that accompanied the reports. “It harms patients to have unaccountable special interests permeate medical research.”

“The spine care field is currently at a precarious intersection of professionalism, morality and public safety,” Dr. Christopher M. Bono, editor of the special edition, said in a statement. “As physicians and journal editors, we felt an obligation to present a thorough examination of this controversial issue.”

“The spine care field is currently at a precarious intersection of professionalism, morality and public safety,” Dr. Christopher M. Bono, editor of the special edition, said in a statement. “As physicians and journal editors, we felt an obligation to present a thorough examination of this controversial issue.”

It is too early to predict how the articles will affect the financial fortunes of Medtronic, which earned an estimated $900 million from Infuse in its most recent fiscal year. But the potential consequences seem significant...

The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why? / NY Review of Books

This June 23, 2011 article by Marcia Angell, a former NEJM editor and a Harvard professor of medicine, is a must-read.  Actually, this article is only Part 1, and the second half will come out in two weeks.  Angell reviews 3 books on psychiatry, and asks all the right questions:

• Why are half of American defined as having a mental illness at some time in their lives?
• Why have the number of children receiving SSI income for a mental disability increased by a factor of 35 over the past 20 years?
• Why do people believe in the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental disorders when there is no evidence to support it?
• Why are new-generation antipsychotics the top-selling class of drugs in the US?
• What is going on here???
• If the drugs work, shouldn't the prevalence of mental illness be falling, not rising?
• Why are illnesses that used to be episodic now chronic, never-ending conditions?
• Are our drugs actually making matters worse?

Memo reveals intelligence chief wrote dossier on Iraqi WMD knowing that "in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional"/ Guardian

From the Guardian, an article provides new information on how Tony Blair's administration lied to make the case for war in Iraq. What do you call this crime?  Is it treasonous to start a war under false pretenses, costing your country hundreds of lives and billions of dollars?  And what was it for, anyway?

The senior intelligence official responsible for Tony Blair's notorious dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proposed using the document to mislead the public about the significance of Iraq's banned weapons.
Sir John Scarlett, who as head of the Joint Intelligence Committee was placed "in charge" of writing the September 2002 dossier, sent a memo to Blair's foreign affairs adviser referring to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional".
The memo, released under the Freedom of Information Act, has been described as one of the most significant documents on the dossier yet published.
The disclosure supports the evidence of the former intelligence official Michael Laurie, who told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that it was widely understood that the dossier was intended to make a case for war and misrepresented intelligence to this particular end...

Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivins's Guilt Is Problematic/ Clinical Psychiatry News

Dr. Annette Hanson penned the following piece on the ethically impaired "Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel" paid for by FBI:

In March, a panel chaired by Dr. Gregory Saathoff, commonly known as the expert behavioral analysis panel (EBAP), released a report containing a summary and analysis of the investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins, the suspected anthrax mailer. (1) The panel was convened at the request of the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Royce C. Lamberth. The full report containing Dr. Ivins’s previously confidential and sealed medical information is being sold online by the Research Strategies Network, a non-profit organization that consults to the Department of Defense and whose president is Dr. Saathoff.(2) After reading the redacted executive summary, I felt compelled to review the work of the panel in light of standards set forth in the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law’s Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry.(3)

Although the panel undertook the investigation with “no predispositions with regard to [Dr. Ivins’s] guilt or innocence and in fact without a focus on that issue,” it nevertheless concluded that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Dr. Ivins’s guilt has never been established in a court of law since he committed suicide in August 2008 and was never charged with the deaths of the five anthrax victims. This pronouncement of guilt is not consistent with the ethics and traditional practice of forensic psychiatry. Ethical guidelines state that forensic psychiatrists should: “...communicate the honesty of their work...by distinguishing, to the extent possible, between verified and unverified information as well as among clinical ‘facts,’ ‘inferences, and ‘impressions.’ ” The panel report concluded guilt based upon “considerable circumstantial evidence” found in the medical records without acknowledging that this conclusion was based on psychodynamic inference. Specifically, the report found that Ivins had the “psychological disposition,” motive, means and the “behavioral history” to carry out the attacks. The use of a psychological profile to infer guilt is particularly problematic, since this evidence is not admissible in most jurisdictions. Bioterrorist profiles are likely more unreliable than most given the paucity of subjects upon which to base a profile.

From an ethical standpoint, the sale of the panel report is particularly problematic. Forensic reports are generated at the request of the retaining agency or individual, and the information in the report is usually not distributed beyond the parties immediately involved in the proceedings. The forensic evaluator himself does not typically distribute a report to non-involved individuals, nor does the evaluator sell the report to the public. While Dr. Ivins signed several releases of information during the course of his career, it is unlikely that he could have foreseen or given knowing consent to worldwide sale of his medical information. The panel report details Dr. Ivins’s social awkwardness and eccentricities, romantic rebuffs, and early childhood abuse while making careful note that his early abuse did not “exonerate” him for the criminal acts of which he is presumed guilty.

Although the investigation was requested by the court, the panel’s work product was intended to benefit national security investigators. According to the website of the Research Strategies Network, which organized the panel, the RSN has previously collaborated with the F.B.I. and the Department of Defense. This creates an appearance of conflict of interest and bias, a common problem among mental health professionals who consult with law enforcement agencies. Psychologists who consult with law enforcement have ethical guidelines that caution against these dual agency roles due to the risk of unintended bias and the danger of distortion when forming an opinion.
Although the majority of the expert behavioral analysts on the panel are not board-certified forensic psychiatrists, standard practices and ethical guidelines still apply. Many people who read the report will be struck by Dr. Ivins’s distasteful traits and behaviors, and some may be convinced of his guilt. This should not detract from the larger issue of the proper role and duties of psychiatrists in such investigations.

1. Executive summary of the expert behavioral analysis panel. Accessed at https://www.researchstrategiesnetwork.org/pages/view/Amerithrax/ on June 5, 2011
2. The Amerithrax case: report of the expert behavioral analysis panel. Accessed at
www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-amerithrax-case-report-of-the-expert-behavioral-analysis-panel-%28redacted-version%29/15208937 on June 14, 2011

3. American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Accessed at www.aapl.org/ethics.htm on June 17, 2011

FDA Anger over Australian flu vaccine investigation/SMH

From the Sydney Morning Herald comes this piece that says our FDA found CSL's "investigation" of why so many children had seizures post-vaccination to be entirely inadequate.  If you don't find the problem then you don't have to make any expensive changes to your manufacturing facility.  And you are not liable for willful misconduct, which would be the case were you to find the problem yet continue to sell products whose mode of manufacture had not been upgraded.

THE US drugs watchdog has slammed Melbourne-based drug manufacturer CSL for mounting an ''inadequate'' investigation of convulsions suffered by children who had used its flu vaccine.
CSL withdrew the vaccine, sold as Fluvax in Australia and Afluria in the US, for use on children under five in June last year after it was linked to convulsions and fevers.

But the company has yet to discover why the dangerous side effects were far more common in young children vaccinated with Fluvax than those who used other brands.

 

In a letter sent to CSL, the Food and Drug Administration lists 15 ''significant deviations'' from drug manufacturing standards uncovered during an inspection of CSL's Parkville facility in March.

''You failed to thoroughly investigate any unexplained discrepancy, or the failure of a batch [of vaccine] or any of its components to meet any of its specifications,'' the FDA's head of compliance, Mary Malarkey, said in the letter, dated June 15.
Ms Malarkey told CSL that their response so far had failed to take a ''more global approach'', including closer scrutiny of raw materials used during drug making.
CSL spokeswoman Sharon McHale said that the company had 15 days to submit a detailed response.

''We're working on our response now and will meet that deadline,'' she said.
The company will then meet with the FDA, probably in the first half of next month.
''If they say our response is adequate we'll continue to implement our action plan,'' Ms McHale said.

''If they feel as though we haven't complied, then they can take regulatory action.''
Ms McHale said that if the FDA was not comforted by CSL's response, ''it can impact our ability to provide vaccine into the US market''. Flu vaccine forms a relatively small part of CSL's $4.6 billion a year in revenue, with worldwide sales last financial year totalling $124 million, of which $53 million was sold in the US.
Convulsions hit between five in 1000 and seven in 1000 children under three vaccinated with Fluvax last year, according to a study by Australian drug regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The baseline rate, observed in a five-year US study, is less than one in 1000.

A TGA survey of hospital data also found children under five vaccinated with Fluvax were between three and 6.5 times more likely to have a fever than users of competing products.
The TGA said that as a working hypothesis a higher concentration of the enzyme neuraminidase due to the inclusion of a swine flu vaccine might have caused the additional convulsions.

''However, despite extensive analyses the biological basis for the excess cases of fever and febrile convulsions remains unclear,'' the TGA said in its report, issued in October.
CSL no longer sells Fluvax for use on children under five and its use on children aged between five and 10 is now only recommended if no other vaccine is available.

What DHHS proposes to tell parents about giving anthrax vaccine to their children

In order to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 46.407, a federal advisory panel must review the proposed pediatric research, agree that it will provide important generalizable knowledge, and that children participating in the research will be protected from taking dangerous risks.  DHHS has convened the necessary panel, which will meet to discuss details of the proposed research on July 7, 2011.  The research is only legally approvable if it meets accepted ethical standards and children are protected from potential serious harm.  In order to appear to meet this requirements, the vaccine is being billed as perfectly safe.  The whitewash is being carefully prepared.  The fun begins at the Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, Northwest Washington, DC between 9 and 4:30 pm.  Note the colored text below, where parents are not being told the whole truth about what their children may experience.  Such inadequate disclosure might be seen as willful misconduct on the part of those conducting the study, since they have failed to fairly review the prior body of literature on anthrax vaccine side effects.--Meryl Nass, M.D.

Vaccine to Protect Children from Anthrax Public Engagement Workshop Hosted by the Anthrax Vaccine Working Group National Biodefense Science Board Questions and Answers

The population has been told by public health authorities that they were in an area deemed to be exposed to anthrax spores. Public health officials have antibiotics and anthrax vaccine available.
Dialogue of parent to provider:
1. Q - Is my child at risk for developing anthrax?

A - Yes. If your child was exposed to anthrax spores, your child is at risk. 2. Q - What treatments are available?

A - Your child will need to take an antibiotic for two months. A vaccine is also available. 3. Q - Should I get my child vaccinated?

A- Based on what we know about the use of the vaccine in adults, public health officials believe it will provide benefit to your child, however, this has not been previously examined. Your child would still need to take the antibiotics. The vaccine should prevent the disease from occurring after the antibiotics have been stopped. 4. Q - What is the anthrax vaccine?
A - The vaccine is a preparation of proteins from the anthrax bacteria. Vaccination
results in an immune response (the body develops antibodies to ready to fight an infection). The immune response kills and clears the anthrax bacteria. 5. Q - Has this product ever been given to children before?

A- No, the product has never been given-to or evaluated-in children before. 6. Q - How do you know this vaccine is safe for my child?

A - Public health and other experts have reviewed all the available safety data collected
as this vaccine is used in adults and from that believe that the vaccine should be safe in children. Like other vaccines, anthrax vaccine is expected to produce local discomfort, pain, and swelling at the injection site that usually goes away. 7. Q - Do you know if the anthrax vaccine will work in children?
A - Based on the data used to support FDA licensure, public health officials and other
experts, believe it will work, however, there are no data on effectiveness in children or in adults for that matter. 8. Q - How do you know how much vaccine to use for children?
A - The pediatric dose is based on the dose given to adults. We expect this dose will
result in the same protective response. We simply will not know unless we study the immune response in children of different ages. 9. Q - Why does my child need both an antibiotic and a vaccine? What are the risks if my

child does NOT receive the anthrax vaccine? A - If your child was exposed to anthrax spores, your child will need to complete a

2-month course of antibiotics. Antibiotics do not kill anthrax spores. The antibiotics work directly against the active anthrax bacteria. The bacteria were delivered as

*

Vaccine to Protect Children from Anthrax Public Engagement Workshop Hosted by the Anthrax Vaccine Working Group National Biodefense Science Board Questions and Answers – continued

spores, which are very hardy and when they germinate, or “hatch” the resulting bacteria cause the disease. These spores can last several months in the body before hatching. The anthrax vaccine prepares the immune system to directly attack the anthrax bacteria and gives protection beyond the 60-days of antibiotics. As with other bacteria, anthrax bacteria may develop resistance to antibiotics. Also, we do not know enough yet about long-term exposure risks from living in an area that has been contaminated with spores from an attack. 10. Q - Does the anthrax vaccine cause anthrax disease?

A - No. The vaccine cannot cause anthrax. 11. Q - What are the risks if my child does get vaccinated – will the vaccine harm my child?

A - The vaccine causes a local reaction that can be mild or severe, with local pain,
swelling and difficulty moving the arm. This reaction can last for days or even longer before going away. As with other vaccines, your child may experience muscle aches, fatigue, and headache. These will go away. Rarely, your child may have a serious allergic reaction within minutes after vaccination and require medication to treat. We will watch for this after your child has been given the vaccine. 12. Q - Will my child be protected against anthrax for life?
A - No. The three doses of vaccine your child will receive are for this particular event.
Based on the data we have at this time, it will not protect your child for life.
13. Q - If your child were exposed to anthrax, would you want them to get the vaccine?
14. Q - Since we do not know the exact dose of vaccine to give your child and its protective
ability, except for the adult dose and data, would you want the US government to collect data on pediatric dosing and protective ability ahead of time, that is, before an exposure? A study done prior to an exposure would help us decide whether the dose that we would use after an exposure is the preferred dose for protecting your child while likely minimizing any side effects.
15. Q - Since we do not know the exact dose of vaccine to give your child and its protective
ability, except for the adult dose and data, would you want the US government to collect data on pediatric dosing and protective ability during an event, that is, after an exposure? A study done only after an exposure would need to start with the adult dose that we believe will be effective, as a lower dose may not be effective. We will not know if this is necessary, since a lower dose may be as protective, but with fewer side effects. Enrolling your child in a study will help us figure this out for future children (or future doses for your child).

Fukushima lesson: You can't rely on govt or industry when a real crisis comes along/ NY Times

Most detailed look yet at the flawed decision-making and terrible information sharing between TEPCO, government bureaucrats, political leaders and outsiders during Japan's nuclear crisis by the NY Times:

Reuters

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, damaged by a tsunami on March 11, became the site of the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, as workers successfully warded off a complete meltdown, but could not prevent the release of considerable amounts of radioactive material.

In nuclear crisis, crippling mistrust

TOKYO — On the evening of March 12, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant’s oldest reactor had suffered a hydrogen explosion and risked a complete meltdown. Prime Minister Naoto Kan asked aides to weigh the risks of injecting seawater into the reactor to cool it down.

MASAO YOSHIDA The manager of the power plant, he ignored orders to stop pumping seawater into a reactor to cool it, an act of defiance that may have prevented many deaths.

At this crucial moment, it became clear that a prime minister who had built his career on suspicion of the collusive ties between Japan’s industry and bureaucracy was acting nearly in the dark. He had received a confusing risk analysis from the chief nuclear regulator, a fervently pro-nuclear academic whom aides said Mr. Kan did not trust. He was also wary of the company that operated the plant, given its history of trying to cover up troubles.
Mr. Kan did not know that the plant manager had already begun using seawater. Based on a guess of the mood at the prime minister’s office, the company ordered the plant manager to stop.
But the manager did something unthinkable in corporate Japan: he disobeyed the order and secretly continued using seawater, a decision that experts say almost certainly prevented a more serious meltdown and has made him an unlikely hero.
The convoluted drama has exposed the underlying rifts behind Japan’s handling of the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, which eventually resulted in explosions at four of the plant’s six reactors. Mutually suspicious relations between the prime minister’s aides, government bureaucrats and company officials obstructed smooth decision-making...

F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds/NYT

More on America's widening surveillance state from the NY Times:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.

Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had carefully considered each change to its operations manual.

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing...

Attorney General Dominic Grieve refuses to order an inquest on death of David Kelly

After David Cameron recently said a full inquest into David Kelly's death was unnecessary, it was no surprise that his Attorney General soon afterward echoed his statement.  Excerpts from the BBC:

On the day Dr Kelly's body was discovered, then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Lord Hutton to conduct an urgent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death.

Unusually, the inquest opened into Dr Kelly's death was never completed.

Lord Hutton released his findings in January 2004, reporting that the scientist had committed suicide by slashing his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

Lord Hutton requested that the details of the post-mortem examination and toxicology tests be classified for 70 years - to protect the privacy of the Kelly family.

Why have there been calls for an inquest?

A group of doctors have mounted a long-running campaign for the inquest into Dr Kelly's death to be re-opened, arguing that Lord Hutton's suicide verdict was unsafe.

"No coroner in the land would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton heard," they say.

They believe Dr Kelly's wrist wounds were not likely to be life-threatening, making the official cause of death - a haemorrhage - "extremely unlikely".

They say unanswered questions surrounding the death remain, including:

    * why no fingerprints were found on the knife apparently used to slit his wrist

    * how Dr Kelly obtained a packet of coproxamol painkillers

    * why his blood and stomach contained only a non-toxic dose of the drug

    * why he was not spotted by a police helicopter with thermal imaging cameras which    

       flew over the wood where his body was later found

    * whether he intended to kill himself

In September last year they petitioned Attorney General Dominic Grieve for the re-opening of inquiries.

It "may represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice to occur in this country", the doctors said in a letter in March appealing to Prime Minister David Cameron to intervene on their behalf.

But, in June 2011, Mr Grieve rejected the doctors' petition. He said his department had thoroughly investigated their complaints and could not find any legal basis for referring the case to the High Court, which has the legal authority to order an inquest.

Following the government's decision, the doctors who had petitioned Mr Grieve called for his resignation.

Campaign leader Dr Stephen Frost said: "The continuing cover-up of the truth of what happened is a national disgrace and should be of concern to all British citizens."

The group will now seek to take the decision to judicial review.

From the Daily Mail, more on the story, including a piece by Sue Reid titled, "Questions that Still Demand an Answer."

Why we are still in Afghanistan: One trillion $ in minerals/NPR

 Mines, like this one in  Badahkshan, could lift Afghanistan out of poverty (NPR)

From National Public Radio, information on how the Pentagon is working to develop business opportunities in Afghanistan for US corporations:

There's close to a $1 trillion waiting to be unearthed beneath the rocky soil of Afghanistan. The massive deposits of iron, copper, gold and lithium could potentially turn the troubled nation's economy around.
"Afghanistan, with certainty I can say, in 20 years is going to be a mining country," Paul Brinkley, head of a Pentagon group called the Task Force for Business Stability Operations, tells NPR's Rachel Martin. "That is going to happen."...

As part of his efforts, Brinkley brings in corporate executives on trips to Afghanistan to try to get them to invest. An array of executives, including from Citibank, IBM and even Kate Spade, have accompanied Brinkley on these types of trips. When he's making his pitch, he wants to make it clear this is not a charity opportunity. It's strictly business.
"I want them to come in and see that they can make actually make money, that there's a market," Brinkley says, "that there's talent that can be brought to bare for their particular business interests."
High-Risk Investments
But these possible business opportunities are still located in a volatile, dangerous environment. With the task force moving to the civilian-run U.S. State Department, the risk is greater.
State Department personnel are "not trained to be in combat zones," notes Nathan Hodge, author of Armed Humanitarians, "they're not trained to be in combat zones, and very often you're talking about doing this kind of armed development work while being shot at."
Those are the same concerns some lawmakers have on Capitol Hill, saying Brinkley's task force blurs the line between military and civilian missions. They think taking CEOs around Afghanistan is not something the Pentagon should be doing.
Brinkley has had his own close calls. In January 2010, a bomb went off in a Baghdad hotel where he was holding a meeting. Even after that close shave, Brinkley and his team only had one thought.
"Our immediate reaction was we're going right back in," he recalls.
Having A Stake
Once the minerals are extracted from the ground, Brinkley is faced with the reality of possible corruption — his greatest concern. He doesn't want minerals to become the blood diamonds of Afghanistan. To combat this worry, the task force makes sure Afghans have access to mining industry experts.
The overall key, according to Brinkley, is engagement. By staying involved, he says, the U.S. has the ability to better shape the outcome. He also notes, the U.S. does have a strategic interest in seeing Afghanistan develop...

More on the bureaucratic challenges of injecting children " with no clear benefit" with anthrax vaccine/DHHS

See here for a detailed discussion of the expanding anthrax vaccine stockpile, vaccine maker Emergent Biosolutions, and the illegality of shooting up children with an anthrax vaccine potion that is too dangerous for adults.

*

WHO: Radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and other sources a possible carcinogen

From the Washington Post:

“After a weeklong meeting on the type of electromagnetic radiation found in cellphones, microwaves and radar, the expert panel said there was limited evidence cellphone use was linked to two types of brain tumors and inadequate evidence to draw conclusions for other cancers.”

This whole issue is totally gummed up by conflicts of interest.  The telecoms industry has sponsored much of the research. But several weeks a go a paper out of China provided powerful epidemiologic evidence for cell phone use and parotid gland tumors.  (This salivary gland is located just below and in front of the ear.)  Other tumors that have been linked to cell phone use include acoustic neuroma (a common, benign tumor of the cranial nerve to the inner ear), glioblastoma multiforme (a very malignant brain tumor seen most often in older ages) and meningioma (usually benign tumors of the brain and spinal cord lining).  Although benign, these tumors still require very delicate brain surgery, and may still kill the patient.

The Interphone study, a multicountry many year study of the effects of cellphones has suffered from hidden data and other issues.  Louis Slesin's well-regarded Microwave News has detailed the backstory of this very expensive project.

Another important, recently published piece of this puzzle is an NIH paper that showed exposure to radiofrequency radiation similar to that from a phone antenna significantly increased brain glucose metabolism in areas experiencing highest signal strength.

It appears the tide has turned on this contentious issue.

On May 27 the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1815 (2011):
The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

-- whose text can be read here.

What to do?  Luckily, there are easy fixes.  Keep the phone away from your body, with an earpiece/headset or bluetooth device, since exposure is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from your tissues.  (Even the package inserts tell you to keep the phone away; do you still have the information that came with your cell phone?)  Use landlines (even better if they are not wireless).  Or texting.  Or email.

A peculiarity of US law:  citizens are not allowed to reject the siting of cell phone towers on the basis of health risk for anything other than thermal effects.*  Let me restate that.  The law is a pre-emptive strike against the kinds of scientific research that now point to adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation (including microwaves) in addition to, and different from, the effect of heating up tissue.  The law basically assumes such effects cannot exist, and prevents citizens from using such effects to fight cell tower installations.

With this law in mind, the local school superintendent recently announced that a cell tower would be placed at our high school, currently a dead zone for cell phones.  If it doesn't cook you, the US Government has made it safe, by decree.

Unlimited service may give us new freedoms, but it has its own price.

UPDATE:  The August 18, 2011 NY Times carried an article from San Francisco on the paradoxical warnings required by federal regulation in areas where radiofrequency antennae are installed as cell towers, while federal law prohibits any consideration of health effects in local decisions about siting of the towers. 

*  1. Federal law prohibits state and local agencies, including zoning boards, from basing tower/antenna
siting and construction permits on the harmful environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation
emissions “to the extent that facilities comply with” the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC)
regulations.  [47 USC Sec. 332( c)(7)(iv)].  Courts and the FCC have interpreted this law to apply to
“human health.”
     2. FCC RF safety standards are based on protection of humans against thermal effects from high
power levels of RF radiation.  The FCC radiation limits do not protect people from adverse
biological effects of long term RF exposure or take into account the impact on children
or other especially vulnerable citizens.   
     3. Legal advocates argue that FCC RF safety standards do not extend to harmful effects on animals or
wildlife. Test cases to determine this are pending in the courts.

Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022/ BBC

From the BBC:

Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy.

Environment Minister Norbert Rottgen made the announcement following late-night talks.

Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a panel to review nuclear power following the crisis at Fukushima in Japan.

There have been mass anti-nuclear protests across Germany in the wake of March's Fukushima crisis, triggered by an earthquake and tsunami.

Mr Rottgen said the seven oldest reactors - which were taken offline for a safety review immediately after the Japanese crisis - would never be used again. An eighth plant - the Kruemmel facility in northern Germany, which was already offline and has been plagued by technical problems, would also be shut down for good.

Six others would go offline by 2021 at the latest and the three newest by 2022, he said...

Continue reading the main stThe previous German government - a coalition of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens - decided to shut down Germany's nuclear power stations by 2021.

However, last September Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition scrapped those plans - announcing it would extend the life of the country's nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years...

The anthrax killings: A troubled mind/ LA Times

In a lead-up to the release of his book in June, David Willman writes about Bruce Ivins' eccentricities and threats of violence.  The problem is, the story fails to make clear who Willman's sources are.  How does Willman know Ivins carried a gun on campus?  How does Willman know Psychiatrist David Irwin said Ivins was the scariest patient he'd ever treated?  

A psychiatrist who treated him in the late 1990s, Dr. David Irwin, confided to a therapist that Ivins was the "scariest" patient he had ever known...

On July 18, 2000, Ivins told a mental health counselor that he had recently planned to poison his former assistant, Mara Linscott. In addition to having cyanide, he said that he had once obtained ammonium nitrate, to make a bomb.

He saw himself, Ivins said, as an "avenging angel of death."

Did these comments originate with the alcohol counselor, who was herself under house arrest at the time for DUI and had a long list of old police charges, including assault and possession of drug paraphernalia?

This piece does appear to shed additional light on Ivins' history and odd habits, but much better sourcing is needed for Willman's work to add significantly to the anthrax letters narrative.

Narcolepsy cases rising after swine flu vaccine/ THE LOCAL

From Sweden's English language online paper, The Local:

Ninety-three people in Sweden, most of them children, have been diagnosed with narcolepsy since taking the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix last winter, according to figures from the Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket).
In 88 of the 93 cases, the agency has identified a direct correlation between the vaccine and the onset of narcolepsy, a sleep disorder causing extreme drowsiness and daytime sleep attacks.

According to the Swedish Association of Persons with Neurological Disabilities (Neurologiskt handikappades riksförbund - NHR), the agency is examining a further 135 cases involving children and will present its full findings later this summer.

NHR announced on Friday the launch of a 250,000 kronor ($40,000) research grant to facilitate studies of the relationship between Pandemrix, a drug manufactured by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, and narcolepsy.

“We are deeply concerned and have decided that things need to happen, and quickly,” said NHR chair Kathleen Bengtsson-Hayward in a statement.

A study presented in March by the Medical Products Agency showed that children and adolescents under 20 vaccinated with Pandemrix could be up to four times as likely to develop narcolepsy as those not inoculated.

Since August 2010, at least 12 countries have reported cases of narcolepsy, particularly among children and adolescents, after receiving a swine flu, or H1N1, vaccine.

Figures from Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), show that 31 million people have been vaccinated with Pandemrix in Europe.

According to the WHO, the rates of narcolepsy reported in Sweden, Finland and Iceland were higher than those in other countries.

Emergent expects large anthrax vaccine order/ Business Week

The US government, according to the anthrax vaccine maker, has promised to spend a billion more bucks on a vaccine that makes 1-2% of recipients seriously ill, and that expires after 3-4 years.  44 million new doses are being ordered.  Every American is kicking in about 6 dollars for this scary product that probably no civilians will use, and military servicemembers only take under threat of court martial.  (There have been hundreds to thousands of refusals anyway.  I testified at a number of them.)

Your taxpayer dollars, being transferred to the company that invested most in lobbyists and getting "connected."  This announcement comes 3 weeks after an earlier order for 3.42 million doses of anthrax vaccine. Although the new order will cost taxpayers over one billion dollars,  it isn't enough.  Now the company wants to expand its vaccine market to children, who are not yet approved by FDA to receive it. 

The Center for American Progress wrote an entire report about what a scam this company and its one product are.  I wrote about rapacious Emergent Biosolutions here after the earlier order was announced.  From Business Week:  

The U.S. government has informed Emergent BioSolutions Inc. said that it plans to order 44.8 million doses of its BioThrax anthrax vaccine, the company said Thursday.
Emergent said it expected to finalize the contract during the third quarter, and deliver the doses of BioThrax to the Strategic National Stockpile over the next five years. The company has delivered about 42 million doses of BioThrax to the government over the past 12 years.

Is a repeat flu shot needed? This fall, maybe not/AP

Most Americans who got flu vaccine last year don't need it again.  But CDC and manufacturers are confident of their maarketing prowess, and manufacturers are making 170 million doses for the US market.  Go figure.  From the Associated Press:

ATLANTA (AP) — Vaccine makers said this month they plan to make a record amount of flu vaccine for this fall and winter — enough for more than half the population. It's just not clear all those people will need it.
This year's flu shot will be a duplicate of last year's because the same flu strains are still circulating. So some experts say young, healthy people may have enough protection from last season's vaccine to skip getting it again this fall.
"For healthy people, it can't be said to be necessary," said Dr. Robert Couch, a flu vaccine expert at the Baylor College of Medicine.
Still, government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall's flu shot. They say a vaccine's protection can fade significantly after several months — especially for those who are frail and elderly. [Many frail elderly do not get protection from the shot at all--Nass]
Two weeks ago, five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season. That's at least 6 million more than the maximum ever produced.
It's quite a bet, considering the flu season that just ended was somewhat mild. But vaccine makers think it's a good one.
"We are confident in our 2011 projections for the U.S. market. They are based on ordering patterns as well as what's known about the epidemiology of the flu," said Liz Power, spokeswoman for Novartis Vaccines, one of the main manufacturers of flu shots for the United States.
Demand for vaccine has been growing in the U.S. More than 40 percent of the population was vaccinated against the flu in the last 10 months, the second year in a row vaccinations were at so high a level. Previously, only about a third of Americans were getting vaccinated, according to government figures.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had something to do with that. Last year, the CDC began recommending an annual flu vaccination for everyone except babies younger than 6 months and those with egg allergies or other unusual conditions. That probably helped boost vaccination rates, along with the appearance in 2009 of swine flu, which was more dangerous than other strains to young people.
The CDC also is buying about 18 million of the 2011-2012 doses, primarily for government vaccine programs for children.
Other countries, even in Europe, do not promote flu shots as aggressively as the United States. Seasonal flu can be deadly, especially for the elderly and people with weak immune systems.
The biggest selling point for an annual shot, usually, is that flu strains are usually different each year. But this year, that argument goes out the window. The last time flu strains didn't change was during the winters of 2002-2004.
But there are other arguments for getting a flu shot. For one thing, the vaccine is only about 70 percent effective to begin with — and that's in a good year, when the vaccine is well-calibrated to circulating strains. That's not good enough to protect the U.S. population for one year, let alone two, CDC officials say.
But the main argument now is one of waning immunity. CDC officials believe that a year after someone gets the flu shot, antibody levels — an indicator of immunity — can fall by two-thirds or more. Some key studies indicate the resulting levels are not strong enough to be protective, said Nancy Cox, head of the CDC's chief of the CDC's flu division.
However, other studies are less clear. Some have suggested that a flu vaccination can provide sufficient protection for more than a year in adults, and perhaps two or three years in children.
Cox said some of those conflicting studies are outdated and flawed, and noted more recent U.S. studies that found large drops in children's immunity in just one year.
Other researchers sound less decided about which studies were right and which were wrong on this question.
"Nobody really, really knows," said Dr. John Treanor, a flu vaccine researcher at the University of Rochester School of Medicine.
But even if the question is unsettled, Treanor and other experts said the CDC's position is probably the wisest course.
"The bottom line is, with our current knowledge, we believe it is better to be re-vaccinated. And getting another shot is certainly not going to harm you," said Dr. Arnold Monto, an esteemed University of Michigan flu expert.

Rep. Nadler presses FBI for anthrax information/ McClatchy

Another story by Greg Gordon explores the false/misleading answer the FBI provided Rep. Nadler, a House Judiciary subcommittee chairman, when he asked about the silicon content of the anthrax letters in September 2008.  It took 7 months to get the wrong answer.

Nadler was told the Leahy letter contained 1.4% silicon (felt to be "naturally" present), and the Post letter was unable to be tested accurately.  But in fact, the FBI got a result of over 10% silicon in the Post letter:

A senior member of the House of Representatives is pressing the FBI to explain why he apparently was sent "incomplete and misleading" information that concealed a lab test showing a soaring level of silicon in one of the anthrax-laden letters that killed five people in 2001.

Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, demanded an explanation in a letter Wednesday to FBI Director Robert Mueller after a McClatchy story disclosed that the Justice Department gave a sketchy reply to Nadler's 2008 inquiry.

McClatchy also reported in its May 19 story that FBI lab data suggests that a silicon-based chemical may have been added to the anthrax powder to heighten its potency. Some scientists say that concocting such a chemical formula would have been beyond the expertise of the late Bruce Ivins, a longtime Army anthrax researcher whom the FBI blames for the attacks.

Ivins committed suicide in July 2008 after learning that prosecutors planned to accuse him of capital murder. Nadler is among the congressional skeptics of the FBI's decision last year, based solely on circumstantial evidence, to close the investigation and blame Ivins.

In his letter, Nadler noted that a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the FBI's handling of scientific issues declined in February to rule out the possibility that silicon was added to the powder mailed to the New York Post in a failed attempt to enhance its dispersion.

"Were additional samples tested to determine the extent to which the ones examined were representative of the New York Post letter material?" Nadler wrote. An anthrax-laced letter was sent to the newspaper in 2001.

If not, he asked, how would the FBI respond to the academy panel's conclusion? Nadler requested that if additional tests were done, that the results be provided to the FBI and the academy.

At a Judiciary Committee hearing weeks after Ivins' death, Nadler asked Mueller how much silicon was found in the anthrax-filled letters sent to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and the New York Post.

Mueller demurred, asking whether he could respond later in writing. Seven months later, the Justice Department replied that the letter to Leahy contained 1.4 percent silicon by mass, but that "a reliable quantitative assessment" of the silicon content in the Post letter wasn't possible because of the "limited quantity of material."

However, a second sample from the Leahy powder contained 1.8 percent silicon, and the bureau advised the academy panel and others that an FBI lab test found 10.8 percent silicon by mass in the Post letter.

Nadler wrote Mueller that the response in April 2009 from M. Faith Burton, an acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs "appears to have been incomplete and misleading."

The FBI said the bureau had received the letter and would respond directly to Nadler.

Allan Lengel also wrote about this story here, including a transcript of Rep. Nadler's letter.

David Kelly: Stolen Dental Records???

David Kelly's dental records went missing for several days, then reappeared, according to his dentist.  It now turns out there were several sets of unidentified fingerprints on Kelly's dental file.

This is not what the Hutton Inquiry was told years ago, when it was assured there were no extraneous prints on the file.

Although borrowed dental records make no obvious sense, they perhaps hint that various methods for elimination of Dr. Kelly were considered, and the issue of identifying his body later, using dental records, may have entered into the discussions.  Enough so a review of the dental records was considered worthwhile.  After all, one wouldn't expect that a dental file, borrowed briefly, would be discovered, let alone be reported to police.

I am done being polite about this case.  Kelly would not have wiped his knife (and 4 other items) clean of fingerprints after cutting himself; he did not die from the pills he took since there was only a low (therapeutic) blood level, and it remains unclear exactly how he died, whether much blood was lost, and even where he died.

Kelly was murdered as punishment for spilling the beans about Tony Blair's falsified case for war.  His murder was a terrorist act, its motive to frighten anyone else who might dare to speak the truth about Bliar's "sexed-up" grounds for invading Iraq.  And perhaps to frighten whistleblowers of all stripes, who might challenge the UK government status quo.  Today the UK is #1 among nations at creating a "1984"-style police state, undergirded by an infinity of surveillance cameras.  What a legacy, Tony!

Qui bono?  Who benefited?  Who gave the order?  Which units perform (or hire out) such acts?  Look for ex-soldiers with experience performing the dirtiest deeds in Ireland, Rhodesia, South Africa, imho.  There you will find people who know how the Kellys of this world are "taken care of".

Male Congressmembers' Favorite Target: Intelligent, Competent Women

Who is the person in the Obama administration who has been most firmly pro-consumer and staunchly in favor of strict banking regulations?  Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor/consumer economist. Professor Warren is trying to clean up the marketplace so consumers will understand what it is they are buying.  She has acknowledged that when reading credit card disclosure forms, for example, even she, who teaches contract law at Harvard, is unable to perform a comparison because the verbiage is so confusing (and is designed to be).

Some would say her plan would help markets run more perfectly, like markets are supposed to according to economic models.  You'd think free market proponents would like that.  Alas, not.

Giving all comers to the marketplace an equal playing field is frightening to Congressional Republicans.  So they tried to tar and feather her.  They played games with the timing of her testimony.  They claimed she misled Congress (after she submitted requested documents to the committee in March and was never questioned subsequently) because her agency had advised the Iowa Attorney General in addition to advising federal agencies.  She was called a liar.  They did their best--unsuccessfully-- to make her "lose it" at the hearing.  In fact, Congressional bravery and brilliance almost attained the trough (pun intended) reached in the Anita Hill hearings on Clarence Thomas.

In March, Nobelist and NYT columnist Paul Krugman commented on this same phenomenon:

The fact that she’s so well qualified is, of course, the reason she’s being attacked so fiercely. Nothing could be worse, from the point of view of bankers and the politicians who serve them, than to have consumers protected by someone who knows what she’s doing and has the personal credibility to stand up to pressure.

We are at WAR, after all, and the rules of engagement say Take No Prisoners.  This is a war on the middle and lower classes of the USA, and no Elizabeth Warren cum Jeanne D'Arc is getting out alive.

I figured this out yesterday, when the May 23 headline of Investors Business Daily (not available free online) shouted "1,000 Small Banks May be Shut Down Due to Dodd-Frank."  Subtitles:  A Flood of Costly New Rules" and "Banker Scourge Warren vows aggressive efforts by her consumer agency."  The article goes on to quote Warren:

'We will build a strong enforcement arm.  More than half our budget will be committed to establishing supervision and meaningful enforcement.'  That has bankers petrified...

The powerful credit cop also will enforce "fair-lending" rules outlawing credit discrimination...

Sounds pretty scary to me.  Enforce banking regulations?  Outlaw discrimination?  Terrifying.  Course it just might save us from the major depression that's looming, if banks are actually called to account, and prevented from bamboozling their clients, mortgagees and insurers.  What a brave new world that would be. Better take down the interim head (Professor Warren) of what Investors Business Daily termed "the only agency dedicated solely to consumer protection" before the agency even launches in July.  Can't let the plebeians win even one battle in this war.  Wouldn't want them getting any ideas.

UPDATE:  I got an email signed by Sen. Al Franken just now asking me to sign a petition asking Obama to make a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  This because Repubs have said they will block all appointments to lead this agency unless the scope of the agency is changed (read: agency is disempowered).  So I signed.  We plebes have to do something to defend ourselves.  Consider signing.

FBI lab reports on anthrax attacks suggest another miscue/ McClatchy

McClatchy's Greg Gordon has written another excellent piece on the anthrax letters. The focus this time is on the silicon and tin added to the spore prep, and how the FBI resolutely failed to investigate them as a means of solving the case:

The existence of the silicon-tin chemical signature offered investigators the possibility of tracing purchases of the more than 100 such chemical products available before the attacks, which might have produced hard evidence against Ivins or led the agency to the real culprit.
But the FBI lab reports released in late February give no hint that bureau agents tried to find the buyers of additives such as tin-catalyzed silicone polymers.
The apparent failure of the FBI to pursue this avenue of investigation raises the ominous possibility that the killer is still on the loose.
A McClatchy analysis of the records also shows that other key scientific questions were left unresolved and conflicting data wasn't sorted out when the FBI declared Ivins the killer shortly after his July 29, 2008, suicide.

And here is a classic example of how the FBI promulgates BS it knows is total BS:  by failing to allow the purveyor of crap to be identified, everyone at the Bureau saves face, and the media will print the excrement FBI provided:

A senior federal law enforcement official, who was made available only on the condition of anonymity, said the FBI had ordered exhaustive tests on the possible sources of silicon in the anthrax and concluded that it wasn't added. Instead, the lab found that it's common for anthrax spores to incorporate environmental silicon and oxygen into their coatings as a "natural phenomenon" that doesn't affect the spores' behavior, the official said.

Gordon printed the unsourced comments, yes--but then he made clear their total lack of veracity:

To arrive at that position, however, the FBI had to discount its own bulk testing results showing that silicon composed an extraordinary 10.8 percent of a sample from a mailing to the New York Post and as much as 1.8 percent of the anthrax from a letter sent to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, far more than the occasional trace contamination. Tin — not usually seen in anthrax powder at all — was measured at 0.65 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively, in those letters.

An FBI spokesman declined to comment on the presence of tin or to answer other questions about the silicon-tin connection.

...The silicon-tin connection wasn't the only lead left open in one of the biggest investigations in FBI history, an inquiry that took the bureau to the cutting edge of laboratory science. In April, McClatchy reported that after locking in on Ivins in 2007, the bureau stopped searching for a match to a unique genetic bacterial strain scientists had found in the anthrax that was mailed to the Post and to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, although a senior bureau official had characterized it as the hottest clue to date.

FBI officials say it's all a moot point, because they're positive they got the right man in Ivins. 

Yet,

... the FBI never found hard evidence that Ivins produced the anthrax or that he scrawled threatening letters seemingly meant to resemble those of Islamic terrorists. Or that he secretly took late-night drives to Princeton, N.J., to mail them.

And

In a chapter in a recently updated book, "Microbial Forensics," Velsko wrote that the anthrax "must have indeed been produced under an unusual set of conditions" to create such high silicon counts. That scenario, he cautioned, might not be "consistent with the prosecution narrative in this case."

...As a result of Ivins' death and the unanswered scientific issues, Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, is investigating the FBI's handling of the anthrax inquiry.

UPDATE:  Further stirring the pot, Maureen Stevens has amended her lawsuit against the federal government with testimony from 2 of Ivins' supervisors, who say Ivins could not have been a sole perpetrator of the anthrax letters.

... After obtaining these statements, Stevens' lawyers successfully argued to a federal judge that she should be allowed to withdraw from her previous agreement with lawyers for the U.S. that Ivins was solely to blame so her attorneys could use the new evidence at trial. Attorneys for the federal government didn't object and her motion was granted April 14.

The change means Stevens' attorneys are now free to take additional statements and search for other evidence that might conflict with the FBI's conclusion...

Trial is currently scheduled for Dec. 5 before Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley in West Palm Beach...

Hurley has refused U.S. government attempts to get the case dismissed, and his rulings were upheld by an appeals court.