David Rockefeller speaks about population control.

SOVEREIGN INDEPENDANT ARTICLE ON EUGENICIST BARBARA HARRIS

Anti-drugs campaigner Barbara Harris brings crusade to sterilise addicts to UK

In California, Barbara Harris’s Project Prevention has been accused of back-door eugenics. Now she’s touring British cities

To many people, Barbara Harris is a dangerous woman. A maverick “do-gooder” from California, she has been accused of effectively promoting eugenics via the back door by paying for drug addicts to be sterilised.

Despite being lambasted in the media and condemned by health experts in the UK, Harris is visiting cities around Britain looking to launch pilot projects that will help her achieve her goal of reducing “the number of substance-exposed births to zero”.

While Harris may have been subjected to savage criticism from the authorities, a significant portion of the public are warming to her views.

The website of Harris’s charity, Project Prevention, boasts scores of emails from Britons supportive of her aims, many of whom have pledged donations while expressing anger that the government will not introduce a similar scheme of its own. Typical comments read: “I had to deal with this issue as a teacher and it enraged me. I hope you are successful in the UK and not defeated by the liberal urban elite who seem to dominate our country with their wishy-washy half-hearted solutions to our deep social problems. I have made a donation.”

Another, from a child protection solicitor for a county council, adds: “All I want to say to you is thank god for project prevention! Congratulations on coming to the UK. I get tired of hearing about drug addicts’ rights while children suffer”¦ I hope to see the success of this project in my everyday work.”

Harris has talked up her growing UK support base on Twitter, although backing for her ideals is by no means uniform. Many of the comments on the site and other social networking online platforms are hostile. Some experts are reluctant to condemn Harris outright.

“The problem that Ms Harris is trying to address is a real one,” concedes Julian Sheather, the British Medical Association’s ethics manager, writing in a personal capacity on the British Medical Journal’s blog.

“A small number of drug-addicted women give birth to a succession of drug-dependent children who are taken into foster care. It is by any standards an appalling start in life.

“There is a certain red-necked ‘it does what it says on the can’ appeal to Ms Harris’s response. Her championing the rights of the unborn over the rights of addict mothers also has a certain populist appeal.”

However, Sheather warns, Harris’s actions raise serious ethical issues. “Even Project Prevention admits the money will almost always go to feed the addict’s habit,” he notes.

“Would the addiction render consent invalid? Is the payment a coercive means of getting people to agree to a sterilisation they would otherwise not contemplate?”

Since it was founded in 1994, Project Prevention has paid 3,388 people in the US to be sterilised or to take long-term contraception measures. Of these, 1,059 have chosen Depo-Provera, a long-term injectable contraceptive; 1,260 chose tubal ligation — sterilisation — while the remainder have opted for coils or implants. Just under 50 men have had vasectomies.

In the US, addicts are offered up to $300 (£200) for sterilisation. The charity states its objective is “to reduce the burden of this social problem on taxpayers, trim down social worker caseloads, and alleviate from our clients the burden of having children that will potentially be taken away.”

Felicia Le May, a former crystal meth addict who opted for sterilisation after having nine children, told the Sun: “At first I was scared, but then I thought, ‘I have too many kids already.’

“They’ve suffered so much through having both parents addicted. I had my children taken away for two years because of my meth addiction. That was the worst time of my life. I didn’t want to risk putting any more babies through the same thing.”

Her story is typical of those who have sought help from Project Prevention, which was founded by Harris after she adopted four of eight children born to a Los Angeles addict. Harris said that she decided to take action after spending “countless hours watching her children fight through withdrawal”.

There have been accusations the charity focuses disproportionately on black people.

It insists it “targets a behaviour, not a racial demographic”. Since she arrived in the UK earlier this month there have been reports that a woman was approached near a health centre in Glasgow by three women from Project Prevention who offered her £200 if she agreed to be sterilised. The woman was with her nine-year-old son and was not a drug addict.

However, Harris told the Observer in an email that the story was untrue. “We never approach people on the street,” she said, adding: “We never assume someone is an addict, no matter where we go. We approach people asking if they know any drug addicts they can give our info to.”

The controversy generated by her visit to the UK this month has focused attention on the risks to children of drug addicts. It is reported that one out of every 264 babies born in Scotland suffers withdrawal symptoms from mothers who use drugs including heroin and cannabis.

In a sign that she is serious about bringing her vision to the UK, Harris confirmed that she is seeking UK charitable status, though there are questions over whether the Charity Commission will approve this given the group’s controversial aims. Harris also confirmed she is considering several cities in the UK for potential pilot projects, although she has yet to decide whether she will proceed.

Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope, an independent organisation that examines drug issues, accused Project Prevention of applying what could be “a simplistic, moralistic and exploitative approach to addressing the difficult and complex issue of drug use and pregnancy”.

He added: “The welfare of children is paramount, but using cash incentives to often poor and vulnerable women is highly questionable. For many women with drug problems, the chance to become a mother can be life-changing and a powerful motivation to seek help for their addiction and other problems in their lives.”

He warned that legitimising Project Prevention could have significant repercussions. “Where should the line be drawn? Women who drink? Women who smoke? Women with mental health problems? Women who themselves have been the victim of abuse?”

Short URL: http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=4367

GRANDADDY OF GREEN, JAMES LOVELOCK, WARMS TO ECO-SCEPTICS

From The Sunday Times
March 14, 2010
Grandaddy of green, James Lovelock, warms to eco-sceptics
Charles Clover

Just occasionally you find yourself at an event where there is a sense of history in the air. So it was the other night at the Royal Society, when a small gathering of luminaries turned up to hear that extraordinary nonagenarian, the scientist James Lovelock.

They had all come: David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change; Michael Green, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge; Michael Wilson, producer of the James Bond movies; Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum; and more. You knew why they had answered the Isaac Newton Institute’s invitation. They wanted to learn where one of the most interesting minds in science stood in the climate debate.

Lovelock has been intimately involved in three of the defining environmental controversies of the past 60 years. He invented an instrument that made it possible to detect the presence of toxic pollutants in the fat of Antarctic penguins — at roughly the same time as Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, her hugely influential book about pollution. In the 1970s the same instrument, his electron capture detector, was used to detect the presence of chlorofluorocarbons — CFCs — in the atmosphere. Although Lovelock mistakenly pronounced these chemicals as no conceivable toxic hazard, the scientists F Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina later won the Nobel prize in chemistry for proving they were destroying the ozone layer.

Then, in 1979, Lovelock published the book-length version of his Gaia theory, which postulates that the Earth functions as a kind of super-organism, with millions of species regulating its temperature. Despite initial scepticism from the Darwinists, who refused to believe that individual organisms could act in harmony, the Gaia theory has been widely accepted and now underlies most atmospheric science.

What, I wondered, would be the great man’s view on the latest twists in the atmospheric story — the Climategate emails and the sloppy science revealed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To my surprise, he immediately professed his admiration for the climate-change sceptics.

“I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.”

As we were ushered in to dinner, I couldn’t help wrestling with the irony that the so-called “prophet of climate change”, whose Gaia theory is regarded in some quarters as a faith in itself, was actively cheering on those who would knock science from its pedestal.

Lovelock places great emphasis on proof. The climate change projections by the Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre — a key contributor to the IPCC consensus — should be taken seriously, he said. But he is concerned that the projections are relying on computer models based primarily on atmospheric physics, because models of that kind have let us down before. Similar models, for example, failed to detect the hole in the ozone layer;

it was eventually found by Joe Farman using a spectrometer.

How, asks Lovelock, can we predict the climate 40 years ahead when there is so much that we don’t know? Surely we should base any assumptions on things we can measure, such as a rise in sea levels. After all, surface temperatures go up and down, but the rise in sea levels reflects both melting ice and thermal expansion. The IPCC, he feels, underestimates the extent to which sea levels are rising.

Do mankind’s emissions matter? Yes, they undoubtedly do.

No one should be complacent about the fact that within the next 20 years we’ll have added nearly a trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. When a geological accident produced a similar carbon rise 55m years ago, it turned up the heat more than 5C. And now? Well, the effect of man-made carbon is unpredictable. Temperatures might go down at first, rather than up, he warns.

How should we be spending our money to prevent possible disaster? In Britain, says Lovelock, we need sea walls and more nuclear power. Heretical stuff, when you consider the vast amount that Europe plans to spend on wind turbines.

“What would you bet will happen this century?” a mathematician asked him. Lovelock predicted a temperature rise in the middle range of current projections — about 1C-2C — which we could live with. Ah, but hadn’t he also said there was a chance that temperature rises could threaten human civilisation within the lifetime of our grandchildren?

He had. In the end, his message was that we should have more respect for uncertainties and learn to live with possibilities rather than striving for the 95% probabilities that climate scientists have been trying to provide. We don’t know what’s going to happen and we don’t know if we can avert disaster — although we should try. His sage advice: enjoy life while you can.

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.



Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper

News International associated websites: Milkround



Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

DISABLED GIRL CAN BE STERILISED: COURT

from the westaustralian.com.au

Disabled girl can be sterilised: court
By Paul Osborne, AAP March 9, 2010, 11:52 am

Disability groups are split over a Family Court decision to approve the sterilisation of an 11-year-old girl.

Family Court judge Paul Cronin found that the performance of a hysterectomy on the child, identified only as Angela, was "in the child's best interests".

Angela has Rett syndrome, making her profoundly disabled and unable to talk or use sign language.

The court, sitting in Brisbane, heard Angela acted in a similar way to a three-month-old baby.

She has to be fed and cared for and has no bladder control.

Since she was born, Angela - whose parents married in South America and came to Australia in 1991 - has had epileptic seizures but they are now under control through medication.

However, while the epilepsy is controlled, seizures can occur when she has a heavy menstrual period, which have been happening since she was nine years old.

The family was told by experts in March 2009 the recommended treatment would be a hysterectomy, the court heard.

But Queensland Health - acting on legal advice - said because of the irreversible nature of the procedure it could not be conducted without a court order.

Justice Cronin said in his judgment, publicly released on Tuesday, the procedure was "urgent and necessary".

"Angela is never going to have the benefits of a normal teenage and adult life," the judgment read.

"A fundamental consideration is ... the risks to Angela's life as well as her general health."

Mark Pattison, from the National Council on Intellectual Disability, said the decision - which followed a High Court ruling in 1992 - showed the system was working.

Mr Pattison said the High Court found the Family Court was the best jurisdiction to determine such matters.

"It went into a jurisdiction that has some sensitivity to family matters, and from our point of view it was a very good place to put it," Mr Pattison told AAP.

"You have an independent umpire, they consulted with the family and the obstetrician and made the best decision."

But researcher Dr Leanne Dowse, from the University of NSW, said the decision appeared to breach international human rights conventions.

"Australia became a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in July 2008," Dr Dowse told ABC Radio.

"That convention says that individuals with a disability have a right to respect for his or her physical integrity.

"That sort of idea means that the first position is to protect an individual from these sorts of things."

But Mr Pattison said the overriding human right in the case was the "dignity of the person".

He said it would not have been an easy process for the family.

"These families have been through a lot, and done all they can, and throw their hands up and say `What more can I do?'," he said.
"I think people should give them a bit of a break."

WHO Scientist: Swine Flu Pandemic Was “Completely Exaggerated”

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Jan 28th, 2010

A scientist with the World Health Organisation has testified, during ongoing hearings in Strasbourg, France, that the swine flu pandemic was part of an overblown “angst campaign”, devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the WHO’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, slammed the organization and its flu chief, Dr Keiji Fukuda while giving evidence before The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

“With SARS, with avian flu, always the predictions are wrong…Why don’t we learn from history?” Keil said. “It [swine flu] produced a lot of turmoil in the pubic and was completely exaggerated in contrast with all the really important matters we have to deal with in public health.”

The WHO adviser on heart disease, added that the decision had led to a “gigantic misallocation” of health budgets.

“We know the great killers are hypertension, smoking, high cholesterol, high body mass index, physical inactivity and low fruit and vegetable intake,” he said. “In spite of all these facts, governments instead wasted huge amounts of money by investing in pandemic scenarios whose evidence base is weak.”

PACE, a 47 nation body encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, will determine whether a “falsified pandemic” was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of medical advisors, many of whom have close financial ties to the very pharmaceutical giants – GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, – that produced the H1N1 vaccines.

It will also look into the controversy surrounding the fact that two shots were initially advised when it was later revealed that one dose was entirely suitable, as well as investigating concerns over hastily developed vaccines containing adjuvants.

Pharmaceutical companies are thought to have made a profit of somewhere in the region of $7.5-$10 billion on H1N1 vaccines, recouping the billions they had invested in researching and developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares in 2006 and 2007.

The worldwide death toll from H1N1 is thought to be around 13,500, just over a third of the number who die from regular flu every year in the U.S. alone.

Heading the hearings is the former chairman of the Health Committee of PACE, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. A former German lawmaker, a medical doctor and epidemiologist. Wodarg has referred to the swine flu pandemic as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century.”

Wodarg has pointed out that the WHO softened the definition of a pandemic from an outbreak in several continents at once with an above-average death rate, to one where the spread of the disease is constant.

Just one month after changing the definition, and with just 144 people having died from H1N1, the flu was given the highest threat classification possible, a “stage-six pandemic alert”. By comparison, the mildest 20th Century pandemic killed a million people.

“I have never heard such a worldwide echo to a health political action,” Wodarg, an epidemiologist who formerly led the health committee for the Council of Europe, said at Tuesday’s hearing.

“It was stated in panic- stricken terms that this was a flu that could threaten humanity and a great number of humans could fall ill. This is why billions of dollars of medications were bought.” Wodarg said.

He added that the the change in definition “made it possible for the pharmaceutical industry to transform this opportunity into cash, under contracts which were mainly secret.”

“In my view, the WHO undertook an incomprehensible action, which cannot be justified by scientific evidence. The Council of Europe should investigate this to see how WHO can undertake this kind of dangerous nonsense,” said Dr Wodarg.

WHO’s flu chief, Dr Fukuda, insisted that its swine flu scientists do not have conflicts of interest owing to close links with pharmaceutical companies.

“Let me state clearly for the record – the influenza pandemic policies and responses recommended and taken by WHO were not improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.” Fukuda told the inquiry.

He said those calling the epidemic fake were wrong and irresponsible.

PACE’s findings are expected to be announced January 29 and will likely be followed by an in-depth study and recommendations to European governments.

Sources for this story and further reading:

Swine Flu Didn’t Fly

Drug firms ‘drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research’

Electric shock therapy being used on troubled Victorian teenagers

• Padraic Murphy
• From: Herald Sun
• November 28, 2009 12:00AM

A boy receives electric shock treatment. Picture: AP Source: Herald Sun

ELECTRIC shock therapy is being used on deeply troubled Victorian teenagers in a last-ditch bid to cure their mental illness.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation reveal that eight juveniles and a further 107 young adults were given controversial electro-convulsive treatment in 2007-08.

The therapy has split the medical community, with some experts claiming it could harm children.

The revelations have put more pressure on Community Services Minister Lisa Neville, who is facing repeated calls for her resignation amid a continuing crisis in the state's child protection system.

She insists the use of electric shocks to the brains of children was heavily regulated.

Victoria's Chief Psychiatrist, Dr Ruth Vine, said: "The very few adolescents treated with ECT have severe mental illness that has not responded to other treatments - or need very urgent intervention for severe depression or acute psychosis."

But Associate Prof Dr Nick Tonti-Filippini, of the health ethics committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, said: "I regard the use of ECT on children as experimental. I'm concerned about the lack of evidence that it is safe."

Department of Human Services documents obtained by the Herald Sun show 1815 mentally ill Victorians were treated with Electro-Convulsive Therapy in 2007-2008.

Eight of those were under 18, each treated an average of more than four times.

A further 107 aged 18 to 24 also underwent the treatment. And more than 270 Victorians over the age of 75 also received ECT.

The treatment is used only on severely ill patients and is heavily regulated by the Department of Human Services.

Patients sometimes suffer memory loss and confusion, and, in extreme cases, amnesia.

Dr Tonti-Filippini said: "Parents are not informed about the lack of safety evidence before they agree to let children undergo the treatment. I would like to see its use reviewed by a human research ethics committee."

Shadow health minister Mary Wooldridge said the use of ECT was "disturbing".