Eugenics


Bill Gates’ Philanthropy: 30,000 Indian girls used as guinea pigs to test cancer vaccine

gardasil poison

21st Sept 2016

What philanthropy has to do with vaccines, we would wonder, especially if the philanthropist is Bill Gates. The world’s richest man decided to give away the massive wealth he had amassed by selling computers. It was a philanthropy that the world had not witnessed earlier. Mr. Gates, with his wife Bellinda, built up the foundation that would dispense wealth to the poor: Africa, India and a host of other countries in need of ‘healthcare.’

Why was Bill Gates funding India’s poor health sector? A partial but negative answer began to emerge in 2014, when the country’s Supreme Court raised questions about the operations of the foundation in some rural parts of India.

In 2009, tribal children from the Khammam district in Andhra Pradesh were administered with a Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine meant for cervical cancer. Around 16,000 girls between the age of 9-15 years were given three shots of vaccine, (manufactured by Merck) by the state health department. The girls were told that they were being given “well-being” shots. The incident started getting attention when some months later, several girls’ health deteriorated and the following year, five of them died. Two such similar cases of deaths were reported from Vadodara, Gujarat, where 14,000 tribal children were also vaccinated with the HPV vaccine Cervarix, made by Glaxo SmithKline.

Around the same time when these incidents were reported, young girls were hospitalised in northern Colombia with similar symptoms. Coincidentally, these girls had been given doses of vaccine too.

Skeletons started tumbling out when an NGO visited Andhra Pradesh. Health activists from the NGO Sama visited Khammam in March 2010 and found out that more than 100 girls were having epileptic seizures, stomach aches, headaches and mood swings. The girls also complained about early menstruation, heavy bleeding and menstrual cramps. Sama raised the issue that these students were made guinea pigs on the pretext of providing healthcare. The illiterate parents were kept in the dark about the real vaccine, and most of them gave their consent in the form of thumb prints.

The American NGO, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) had carried out the studies. They were testing how the cervical cancer vaccine would react on young females. And this unethical test of Path was being funded by none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ironically, the study was considered a success by the foundation. The Bill Gates Foundation also aided PATH in the study of Rotavirus vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine in Africa and Asia.

A few days after the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared in 2009 that two HPV types cause 70% of cervical cancers, PATH started its five-year project across various parts of the world: Peru, Vietnam, Uganda, and India.

The lives of the poor have no value, especially if they are from the third world countries. The dark decisions of human testing are carried on without much fuss, and authorities prefer to look the other way when there are billions of dollars involved.

 

source: http://wearechange.org/bill-gatesphilanthropy-30000-indian-girls-used-guinea-pigs-test-cancer-vaccine/

A Current Affair: Dipping their toe into the fun world of eugenics!

euge

6th Jan 2016

Last night ‘A Current Affair’ asked the question, should women on welfare be forced onto contraception? Comedian James Colley investigates why the show wasn’t immediately then ended with the line ‘no, that’s some weird Nazi shit’.

A Current Affair, the show that frightens your nan every night on Channel Nine, has gone beyond it’s usual domain of shonky builders, shonky plumbers, shonky fridge repairers and the shonky youth to dip their toe into the fun world of eugenics.

 

The almost-news program ran a story asking if women should be forced to take contraception to go on welfare. You’d be right to expect such a story to go for about three seconds with a script that looks a little like this:

HOST

Hello and welcome to A Current Affair. Thank you for leaving your television on as you fall asleep on the couch. Tonight we’re asking: should women on welfare be forced to take contraception? We asked an expert.

EXPERT

Obviously not. That’s some weird Nazi shit.

HOST

Weird Nazi shit indeed. That’s all for us tonight. Remember, email your relatives everything you hear on this show as if it’s undeniable fact and not just some bullshit we made up while bored.

But somehow instead the story got a full berth with a poll being put in the field to see if the Australian people are down with eugenics yet.

It’s truly as if someone misunderstood what we meant by hoping for the ‘eradication of poverty’ and started to push for ‘the eradication of people suffering in poverty’.

The suggestion initially came from former Labor MP Gary Johns, himself an excellent argument for the use of contraception. Johns argues that women on welfare should have a forced medical procedure that would see a rod inserted in their arm which temporarily forces contraception until they were working again. Perhaps the most impressive thing about his argument is that he managed to get it out of his mouth without vomiting at the sheer horror of the thought. It’s the kind of notion you hear about in a documentary right as the footage goes black and white and the music turns ominous.

There’s a lot to step through here so let’s just start at the most obvious. Any plan that starts with ‘women should be forced to -’ is a pretty fundamentally bad plan. There aren’t really a lot of great ways for that sentence to end. It’s pretty rare that something starts so awfully but ends up being something like “Women should be forced to travel abroad. It really broadens the mind.”

The dictating of women’s lives isn’t an accidental repercussion of Johns’ plan, it’s the central thesis. He goes on to claim that “if someone is on a parenting payment.. they should be looking after existing children not having more children. And if someone’s on Youth Allowance… they should be studying not starting a family.”

It’s the kind of social policing that is more common coming from the mouth of William F. Buckley than anyone operating in the last half century. Sure, we’d all like to dictate the lives of others. Hell, I’d really enjoy being able to force, say, former Labor ministers attempting to advocate for class-based eugenics to fuck off into the woods forever. But we don’t do that because we aren’t cartoon monsters. If Johns would like to fuck off into the woods forever of his own free will than that would be really terrific. If he’d rather write terrible books about shitty, outdated and frankly borderline evil ideas on how to control the poor, then he can also do that. Though, of course, it would be preferable if those comments were kept to his mad scratchings and not shown as somehow valid by a national “news” program.

It feels like a side note to place here but it’s also important to note that this won’t work. You won’t stop people from having children you will simply stop people who have children from being able to afford to live. It’s a rare and brave stand to push for a higher infant mortality rate but I guess that’s the kind of scum you find when scraping the bottom of the barrel.

This story isn’t the disease, though. It’s a symptom. Sure, it’s a particularly pus-filled, warty symptom. It’s the kind of symptom that, were you to have, you’d really have a duty to inform all previous sexual partners – but it’s a symptom of a greater problem.

The problem with this story isn’t just the insane fascist parts. Don’t get me wrong, the insane fascist parts are certainly a problem but they’re the fun icing. The scary part is the breathless way in which this question and A Current Affair in general associate poverty and the need for welfare with being of a lower state of human.

The second someone needs societal assistance to get by even for a short time we’re told that they’re bludgers and that they’re incapable of making their own decisions. It seems the second someone leans on our society is the second we want them removed from it.

Obviously A Current Affair is attempting to court controversy to balloon their audience figures from the usual twelve people to a robust fifteen but the attitude with which it’s done speaks to a real sentiment in the community. There’s a nasty but prevalent idea that those on welfare are getting away with something. They’re sneaking one past the keeper. While we’re all away on work they’re lounging about like kings.

ham sham

ACA just can’t get the ratings with their normal line up of hard hitting news dripping with journalistic integrity.

It’s a shame that this attitude has grown because social welfare should be a place of pride. It’s pure, fundamental mateship. The idea that we as a society decided that we would not leave anyone behind, that we would be there in the hard times and give you the boost so that you can contribute and help others – it’s wonderfully Australian.

And maybe that’s a long way for A Current Affair to go – maybe we need to give them a stepping stone along the way. Here’s one that seems pretty simple and that most of us got down pat a long time ago: stop using your resources to advocate for eugenics.

There. How hard is that? Before you answer, remember that if you have any difficulty with that idea you might just be a monster.

 

source:http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2016/01/05/current-affair-dipping-their-toe-fun-world-eugenics

Welfare card law to be introduced

19th Aug 2015

The federal government hopes trials of cashless welfare cards will stop gambling, and drug and alcohol abuse in remote communities.

Parliamentary secretary Alan Tudge will introduce a bill to parliament today, authorising trial sites to begin from February next year with Ceduna in South Australia earmarked as the first.

Mr Tudge has told reporters in Canberra the cost will be less than the Basics Card which operates in other parts of Australia.

 

source: html#sthash.UotI9GTA.dpuf: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2015/08/19/welfare-card-law-to-be-introduced

Tracker Chips for Welfare Recipients

14th Aug 2015

Pasi Maenranta, a member of the nationalist-oriented Finns Party, has suggesting implanting tracker chips in Finland’s welfare recipients.

Maenranta said all recipients going abroad should be forced to have the implantation to prevent them from joining the Islamic State. He said some welfare recipients continue to receive payments while in Syria and Iraq.

“The law should be changed: To receive payments from Kela [the Social Insurance Institution], one has to tell exact data about your location using your personal code, read by a satellite. It is also possible to implant electronic chips to all going abroad, who for example receive medical welfare from Kela,” Maenranta wrote on his Facebook page.

He said the idea does not violate privacy because with “Google or Facebook it is… clear where we are.” Maenranta added that he does not “believe that a chip is so terrible.”

Technologists have called for microchip implants.

Ramez Naam, who led the early development of Microsoft software projects, told Fox News last year he foresees a time when implanted chips are used to keep track of people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Others have suggested using the chips to monitor the activity of felons or locate kidnapped children.

In the United States, politicians have called for drug testing of welfare recipients.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said when he announced his presidential campaign he would drug test all welfare recipients.

In 2009 Arizona instituted a drug testing program for welfare recipients. Gov. Jan Brewer said recipients would be tested if the state had “reasonable cause” to believe they were taking illegal drugs.

The Arizona program ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved in denying benefits to those who tested positive.

 

source:http://www.infowars.com/tracker-chips-for-welfare-recipients/

Sweden Scrambles to Produce Black Band Aids After a Blogger Complains About White Privilege

14th Aug 2015

A complaint by a feminist, anti-racist ‘blogger’ has prompted a Swedish pharmacy chain to search out a manufacturer of ‘dark’ band-aids.

A discussion on government-funded Radio Sweden precipitated the controversy, as a spokeswoman for the national Apoteket chain of pharmacies went head-to-head with Every Day Racism blog author and Left-party campaigner Paula Dahlberg.

Triggering a national discussion about whether sticking plasters are a symptom of something more sinister, Dahlberg said the beige coloured patches were symptomatic of what she called the everyday “whiteness norm” where manufacturers presumed their customers to be white by default.

She said on radio:  “Usually I try and find a clear plaster, to try and be a little more discreet, precisely because there are no plasters available close to my skin colour… its part of what is usually called the whiteness norm, that white people are normal”.

White people currently make up around 90-per-cent of the Swedish population.

Pharmacy spokesman Eva Fernvall was absolutely horrified to have the charge of racism levelled at her, and remarked “It is a bit embarrassing that we haven’t thought of it ourselves”, promising to stock darker hues in future.

She may very well struggle. It seems the production of the familiar beige plasters is a matter of economics – they sell well and are profitable. An article in magazine The Atlantic recalls the fate of previous attempts to produce sticking plasters in any shade of human flesh as long as it wasn’t pink.

Despite being very popular with political activists, ‘Ebon-aid’ plasters marketed in the United States in the 1990s sold only 20,000 boxes of their original one million pack production run, bankrupting the company and costing the investors their start-up capital. Such a noted public failure of the product might curtail interest by potential manufacturers for the time being, at least until there are more “new Swedes” to buy them, as it is put by the Swedish Free Press

Source:http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/12/in-europe-the-whole-band-aids-are-racist-thing-is-taking-off-again/

Cases of Brain Infection Reported in MS Patients Taking Gilenya

11th Aug 2015

Multiple sclerosis patients prescribed Gilenya (fingolimod) are now being informed about a handful of documented cases where the therapy was found to have led to a rare brain infection, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has released a public warning indicating that cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) have been reported in several patients taking the drug. Even though these PML cases are the first to be reported and linked to the drug in patients who have no history of receiving any type of immunosuppressive therapy, the FDA is now mandating Gilenya’s manufacturer, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, add the appropriate warning to the drug’s label.

Gilenya, an immunomodulator that has shown significant therapeutic benefits in patients with relapsing MS, first received FDA approval in September 2010. The FDA is on alert that this potent immunosuppressant may predispose those taking it to a rare and highly fatal brain infection called PML, which is caused by the John Cunningham (JC) virus. While this virus is relatively common and oftentimes harmless, patients with compromised immune systems are not equipped to fend off an infection.

This is not the first time the FDA was alerted to a case of PML in a patient taking Gilenya, however. In August 2013, a PML case was reported but could not be conclusively linked to the drug, as the patient had previously received immunosuppressants before taking Gilenya, and had been exposed to several courses of IV corticosteroids.

Patients currently taking Gilenya should be aware of the following potential symptoms of PML: new or worsening weakness; increased trouble using their arms or legs; or changes in thinking, eyesight, strength, or balance. Patients are advised to immediately contact their healthcare provider, but should not stop taking Gilenya without proper consultation with a professional. Healthcare providers should immediately withhold Gilenya upon suspection of PML.

Both healthcare professionals and patients are urged to report any notable instances of Gilenya-associated PML to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:

Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.

Download this form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-8

 

 

Source: http://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/2015/08/05/cases-of-brain-infection-reported-again-in-ms-patients-taking-gilenya/

Proposal to temporarily sterilise all NZ teenage females should raise serious red flags

6th July 2015

Yesterday the NZ media featured coverage of a new proposal that has been put forward by two “senior” academics from the University of Otago, who would like to see all young New Zealand females temporarily sterilised with long-acting chemical contraceptive implants.

In their ideal vision for the future of New Zealand young people, these academics would like temporary sterilisation to be the default policy that young girls would have to deliberately be opted out of if they didn’t want their new and still-developing fertility to be chemically shut down for months or years at a time.

No, this is not the plot of some dystopian novel or film, this really is a policy that a couple of NZ academics apparently now seriously consider to be a good idea.

To put things mildly: there is a lot to be concerned about with this proposal.

Firstly, these academics don’t seemed to have considered the possible impacts that temporarily sterilising an entire population of females from a very young age could have.

As far as I am aware, no attempt at the population-wide temporary sterilisation of very young females, whose physiology is still new and still developing, has ever been attempted – meaning that the outcome of such an experimental scheme is totally unknown.

We are talking here about synthetic hormonal interference with the female fertility system while that system is still very young and developing, and there is no reliable way of knowing how such interference could turn out (for all of us) in the long-run.

We already know that chemical contraceptives are an environmental pollutant that end up in waterways, and from there cause harms to wildlife populations. Imagine how devastating this environmental impact could become if every female in NZ was temporarily sterilised with these agents at a young age?

Then there are the eugenic memories from recent history that make mass sterilisation (even if it is reversible) a very unpalatable idea for most people today – the Nazis experimented with ways of trying to sterilise entire female Jewish populations, and in Apartheid South-Africa a similar sterilisation scheme was attempted on Black Africans.

Then there were the forced sterilisations of those considered to be ‘defective’ that took place in the United States of America prior to, and after World War II – not to mention those that took place in other parts of the world as well last century.

I think people are right to be extremely wary of any attempt to introduce any sort of mass sterilisation programmes – even temporary chemical sterilisations – because these can very easily morph into state-mandated sterilisation programmes for economic or social reasons (the old saying: ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is still as true today as it was the day when it was first uttered.)

And none of this even touches on the negative impact that synthetic hormonal contraceptives can have on female health and wellbeing, or the fact that such a scheme would not actually do anything to alleviate the far more serious problem of sexually transmitted diseases.

(By the way, I hoped everyone took notice of the fact that these academics have rightly pointed out that condoms have a failure rate of 18% per annum (that’s 18 pregnancies per year, for every 100 couples using condoms) – which makes condoms only 4% more effective than the woefully unreliable withdrawal method! This is important, because pregnancy can only occur for a very limited window each month (due to the way that female fertility works). Sexually transmitted diseases, on the other hand, can be transmitted 24/7 – meaning that condoms are a far less reliable form of protection against sexual disease than some people wrongly believe and tout them to be.)

I think that most people are rightly very concerned by this proposal for the automatic temporary sterilisation of all young New Zealand females – and for lots of very good reasons.

For me, one of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is the way in which it so flippantly treats normal healthy female fertility as if it were something that needs to be shut down or medicated against – like we would a disease, or some other physiological problem.

At the end of the day, this proposal would actually create far more social problems, and expose us to far more risks and unknown factors than we are currently experiencing in this country – which is precisely why I think that it is one of the worst health policy proposals that has been mooted in this country in quite some time.

– See more at: http://theleadingedgeblog.com/sterilisation/#sthash.Z65eegVP.dpuf

Yesterday the NZ media featured coverage of a new proposal that has been put forward by two “senior” academics from the University of Otago, who would like to see all young New Zealand females temporarily sterilised with long-acting chemical contraceptive implants.

In their ideal vision for the future of New Zealand young people, these academics would like temporary sterilisation to be the default policy that young girls would have to deliberately be opted out of if they didn’t want their new and still-developing fertility to be chemically shut down for months or years at a time.

No, this is not the plot of some dystopian novel or film, this really is a policy that a couple of NZ academics apparently now seriously consider to be a good idea.

To put things mildly: there is a lot to be concerned about with this proposal.

Firstly, these academics don’t seemed to have considered the possible impacts that temporarily sterilising an entire population of females from a very young age could have.

As far as I am aware, no attempt at the population-wide temporary sterilisation of very young females, whose physiology is still new and still developing, has ever been attempted – meaning that the outcome of such an experimental scheme is totally unknown.

We are talking here about synthetic hormonal interference with the female fertility system while that system is still very young and developing, and there is no reliable way of knowing how such interference could turn out (for all of us) in the long-run.

We already know that chemical contraceptives are an environmental pollutant that end up in waterways, and from there cause harms to wildlife populations. Imagine how devastating this environmental impact could become if every female in NZ was temporarily sterilised with these agents at a young age?

Then there are the eugenic memories from recent history that make mass sterilisation (even if it is reversible) a very unpalatable idea for most people today – the Nazis experimented with ways of trying to sterilise entire female Jewish populations, and in Apartheid South-Africa a similar sterilisation scheme was attempted on Black Africans.

Then there were the forced sterilisations of those considered to be ‘defective’ that took place in the United States of America prior to, and after World War II – not to mention those that took place in other parts of the world as well last century.

I think people are right to be extremely wary of any attempt to introduce any sort of mass sterilisation programmes – even temporary chemical sterilisations – because these can very easily morph into state-mandated sterilisation programmes for economic or social reasons (the old saying: ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is still as true today as it was the day when it was first uttered.)

And none of this even touches on the negative impact that synthetic hormonal contraceptives can have on female health and wellbeing, or the fact that such a scheme would not actually do anything to alleviate the far more serious problem of sexually transmitted diseases.

(By the way, I hoped everyone took notice of the fact that these academics have rightly pointed out that condoms have a failure rate of 18% per annum (that’s 18 pregnancies per year, for every 100 couples using condoms) – which makes condoms only 4% more effective than the woefully unreliable withdrawal method! This is important, because pregnancy can only occur for a very limited window each month (due to the way that female fertility works). Sexually transmitted diseases, on the other hand, can be transmitted 24/7 – meaning that condoms are a far less reliable form of protection against sexual disease than some people wrongly believe and tout them to be.)

I think that most people are rightly very concerned by this proposal for the automatic temporary sterilisation of all young New Zealand females – and for lots of very good reasons.

For me, one of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is the way in which it so flippantly treats normal healthy female fertility as if it were something that needs to be shut down or medicated against – like we would a disease, or some other physiological problem.

At the end of the day, this proposal would actually create far more social problems, and expose us to far more risks and unknown factors than we are currently experiencing in this country – which is precisely why I think that it is one of the worst health policy proposals that has been mooted in this country in quite some time.

 

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 6th Grade Without Their Parents Knowing

3rd July 2015

Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.

The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?

As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.

Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

School-based health clinics in at least 13 Seattle-area public high schools and middle schools offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), including IUDs and hormonal implants, to students in sixth-grade and above at no cost, according to Washington State officials.

LARCs are associated with serious side effects, such as uterine perforation and infection. IUDs, specifically, can also act as abortifacients by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

The state and federally funded contraceptive services are made possible by Take Charge, a Washington State Medicaid program which provides free birth control to adults who are uninsured, lack contraceptive coverage, have an income at or below 260 percent of the Federal Poverty Level — or, in this case, to teens who don’t want their parents to know they’re on birth control.

In an email exchange with the Washington State Health Care Authority and CNSNews.com, a Take Charge spokesperson acknowledged that underage students are eligible for a “full array of covered family planning services” at school-based clinics if their parents meet the program’s requirements.

Take Charge added that “a student who does not want their parents to know they are seeking reproductive health services is allowed to apply for Take Charge using their own income, and if they are insured under their parents’ plan, the insurance would not be billed.”

When asked if a sixth grader could get an IUD implanted without parental consent, Take Charge told CNSNews.com: “We encourage all Take Charge providers to offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in their clinics. A young person does not need parental consent to obtain a LARC or any other contraceptive method…If the young person is not choosing abstinence, she would be able to select a LARC and have it inserted without parental consent.”

Parents, if you have children in these schools, you need to investigate and complain immediately. And all parents ought to take a look at the health policies of their young daughters’ schools to find out if a similar program is in place where you live.

 

 

source:http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/02/schools-implant-iuds-in-girls-as-young-as-6th-grade-without-their-parents-knowing/

India’s next weapon against climate change? The heat-tolerant dwarf cow

30th June 2015

Worsening heat, fodder shortages and the threat of drought are forcing many hard-hit dairy farmers in the Anantapur area of India’s southern Kerala state to reduce their herds, experts say.

“This is nothing less than a catastrophe,” said Ananthakrishnan Kannappan, a livestock agent for 30 years in Anantapur. “This is the first time that due to lack of water and fodder, farmers are eagerly competing to sell off their livestock for throwaway prices.”

But the solution to the problem is simple and small, livestock experts argue: heat-tolerant dwarf cows.

A team of researchers from Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and the state government’s Animal Husbandry Department are now promoting a switch to Vechur and Kasargod cattle, two local varieties known for being easy to raise, resistant to diseases and – most important – better at tolerating high temperatures than the more popular crossbred cattle.

“High-yielding crossbreed varieties of cattle can faint or even die during hot and humid summer days,” said E.M. Muhammed, an expert on animal breeding and genetics at the university. “Our natural breeds can better withstand the effects of climate change.”

Dwarf cows, on the other hand, appear to carry a “thermometer gene” that allows them to better tolerate high temperatures, researchers said.

Dwarf cows were already gaining popularity among some farmers because they consume less food and water than conventional cattle varieties, the experts said. Small-scale farmers need only one or two dwarf cows to meet the milk needs of their households, they said.

The breeds are also less susceptible to mastitis, a common udder infection. Kerala farmers lose at least 250 crore rupees (around $40 million) each year due to mastitis in crossbreed varieties, according to researchers at the animal husbandry department.

According to the 2012 Kerala livestock census, not a single case of severe mastitis has been reported among dwarf cows.

QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY

Still, many commercial cattle farmers are skeptical about the benefits of downsizing to dwarves. Of the 2.3 million cattle in Kerala, only 6.5 percent are dwarf varieties, agricultural experts say.

One issue is cost. A dwarf cow costs almost the same as a larger crossbred – about 20,000 rupees ($300). But a crossbreed cow, when it is healthy, produces much more milk than its dwarf counterpart, making crossbreeds a popular choice among farmers.

“I am concerned about the commercial aspects,” said K. Ravindran, a farmer from Palakkad. “In order to produce 10 liters of milk, a farmer has to rear at least four Vechur cows instead of one crossbreed.”

But Basha Balakrishnan, a farmer living in Calicut, argues that customers are willing to pay more for milk from dwarf cows. Her dairy herd includes 35 crossbreeds and 15 dwarf varieties, and she says she can sell a liter of milk from the smaller animals for three times as much as the larger cows.

“Though dwarf milk is costlier, many people — especially the rich who live in flats in Calicut — are eager to purchase it because it is thought to be more nutritious than crossbred milk,” she said.

Balakrishnan’s dwarf cows are even famous. One of her Vechur cows was recently featured in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s shortest cow at a height of 61cm (24 inches).

With India facing growing heat and drought threats, other state governments have reached out to learn more about Kerala’s dwarf cows as a way to help protect their own cattle and dairy industries.

Government officials from the state of Gujarat recently bought three Vechur cows from Kerala, while Punjab Chief Minister Prakesh Singh Badal took six dwarf cows from Kerala to his farm in Chandigarh, livestock experts say.

“It is a fact that the characteristics of the seasons have been altered by the disastrous impacts of climate change, so our lifestyle needs to adapt to using our indigenous flora and fauna,” said K. Ramankutty, a dairy farmer in Palakkad.

“The dwarf cow is a great weapon against climate change,” he said.

 

 

source: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/indias-next-weapon-against-climate-change-heat-tolerant-103800648.html

Pesticide used decades ago may raise breast cancer risk

17th June 2015

Although the pesticide DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, women exposed to the chemical while they were still in the womb may be more likely to develop breast cancer than women who had less exposure to the pesticide, a new study contends.

“We discovered that daughters who are highly exposed to DDT before birth had four times the chance of breast cancer before the age of 52 than women who were not,” said study co-author Barbara Cohn, director of the Child Health and Development Studies at the Public Health Institute in Berkeley, Calif.

“This is a strong effect compared to other modifiable risk factors,” Cohn said. For instance, research suggests drinking two alcoholic beverages a day can boost risk by 40 percent, she said.

Although Cohn found an association between pre-birth DDT exposure and later breast cancer, she emphasized that no study of this type can prove cause and effect.

“We can never measure every other single factor” that could affect the outcome, Cohn said. The DDT, she said, could “ride along with another environmental exposure,” for instance.

The study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, was published June 16 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

While DDT is banned in the United States, it’s still in use in other parts of the world, Cohn said. In the United States, many women now in their 50s and 60s — an age when the risk of breast cancer tends to rise — were likely to be exposed to DDT before birth, she said.

For the study, the researchers tracked more than 20,000 pregnancies among women who were members of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan from 1959 through 1967. The women gave birth to 9,300 daughters during those years.

The researchers looked at DDT levels in the mother’s blood samples during pregnancy or soon after childbirth. Until 2012, they also tracked whether or not breast cancer developed in the daughters of these women by age 52.

During the 54-year follow-up period, the researchers examined DDT levels in mothers of 118 daughters who developed breast cancer. They compared these women to 354 women from the group who didn’t develop breast cancer.

Women exposed to the highest levels of DDT in the womb had a 3.7 times higher risk of breast cancer than those who had the lowest exposure to DDT, the study revealed.

And the higher the DDT levels in the mother’s blood samples, the more likely a woman was to be diagnosed with more advanced breast cancer, according to the study.

This link held strong even after Cohn’s team took into account the mother’s history of breast cancer.

Most of the women with breast cancer (83 percent) had estrogen-receptor positive cancer, which is thought to need estrogen to grow. Prior research has suggested that DDT may have a weak estrogen-like activity, according to the study authors. However, Cohn said she doesn’t know what the mechanism might be behind the link between DDT exposure and breast cancer risk.

Shiuan Chen, the chair of cancer biology at City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., agreed that explaining the link between high DDT blood levels and the higher risk of breast cancer is not possible from this study.

Women born when the pesticide was still commonly used probably have no way of knowing whether they were exposed, or what levels they were exposed to, Cohn and Chen said.

Chen’s advice to women is to follow standard recommendations for screening, such as getting regular routine mammograms. “I don’t think we can say more than that” based on this study’s findings, he said.

“The best thing any woman can do is talk to her doctor about steps to reduce her risk of breast cancer,” Cohn said. The discussion should be based on her known risk factors and medical history.

Cohn plans to follow more generations to see if the breast cancer risk holds, she said. Some animal studies suggest such vulnerability may persist for generations

 

 

 

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pesticide-used-decades-ago-may-raise-breast-cancer-risk-study/