Amphiboly
http://datanation.com/fallacies/amphib.htm

Definition:
An amphiboly occurs when the construction of a sentence
allows it to have two different meanings.

Examples:
  (i) Last night I shot a burglar in my pyjamas.

 (ii) The Oracle of Delphi told Croseus that if he pursued the
      war he would destroy a mighty kingdom. (What the Oracle
      did not mention was that the kingdom he destroyed would
      be his own. Adapted from Heroditus, The Histories.)

(iii) Save soap and waste paper. (From Copi, p. 115)

Proof:
Identify the ambiguous phrase and show the two possible
interpretations.

References
Copi and Cohen: 114

Accent
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/accent.htm

Definition:
Emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the
actual content of the proposition.

Examples:
 (i) It would be illegal to give away
     Free Beer!

(ii) The first mate, seeking revenge on the captain, wrote in
     his journal, "The Captain was sober today."
     (He suggests, by his emphasis, that
      the Captain is usually drunk. From Copi, p. 117)

References
(Copi and Cohen: 115)

Logical fallacies
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/accent.htm

Toxic drugs are good for you
This January, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham.
This will ensure its place as the biggest company in the UK, and one of
the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately
7.4% of the market . Glaxo has exercised considerable power over health
provision in the UK since the company was formed in 1929. But its
behaviour has not always been in the best interests of those consuming its
drugs. Robert Brack of the Myodil Action Group reports below how – for
forty years – Glaxo knowingly sold a toxic drug to tens of thousands of
people.
Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium
called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up problems
on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including
the UK. But Myodil, an oil-based yellow dye, was far from harmless itself
– once injected into the spine it has been shown to cause a disease called
Adhesive Arachnoiditis .
This causes chronic, intractable pain and is characterised by the
inflammation of one of the three membranes surrounding the brain and
spinal cord.
The inflammation results in thickening of the middle membrane, called the
arachnoid, causing it to adhere to structures near it. Finally the spinal
cord nerves clump against the inner membrane and impair the flow of the
spinal fluid.
The chronic pain which sufferers have to endure is caused by inflammation
and nerve atrophy. There is no cure and no treatment. Accounts of the
number of people who have developed Adhesive Arachnoiditis due to Myodil
vary between different sources , but it is likely to be tens of
thousands.
Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released
onto the market in 1946, since the company was under an obligation to
gather reports of adverse reactions to its drugs. By that time many
studies had already been published which showed this.
Glaxo Laboratories Limited was incorporated on 28th May 1929 to deal in
pharmaceutical drugs, with only one director, Alec Nathan. Nathan formed
the company when it was discovered that the dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was
the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories Ltd
produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace
vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.
Glaxo realised that to manufacture a medicinal product is one thing, to
sell the manufactured product profitably was another. It had to have
influence in the local health departments and infirmaries. Glaxo
advertised its products through medical and nursing publications and by
writing directly to a selected group of doctors.
Sales of the company’s products grew and Glaxo, previously familiar to
only a limited number of doctors, became more widely known. By targeting
the people who prescribed Glaxo’s products it was able to sell to the
Public Health Departments of a number of cities including Sheffield,
Manchester and Birmingham. Sales of Nathan’s products steadily increased.
Nathan had another method of influencing the Public Health Authorities –
this was through the appointment to Glaxo of a government chemist called
Harry Jephcott.
This recruitment drive led to other employees from the Public Health
Authorities joining Glaxo’s staff: a Mr Hunwicke from the Somerset County
Public Health Laboratory, a Ms Allchorne and a Ms Findlayson from the
government laboratory.
These staff officials naturally had connections and influence in the
Public Health Departments. From this time on Glaxo was able to market its
products from the inside.
The Second World War gave Nathan an opportunity to capitalise on the new
recruits’ contacts and with government backing he set up a drug factory in
Durham. By the end of the war his factories were producing 90% of the UK’s
supply of new drugs.
Harry Jephcott became Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1946. He
soon recognised that the new National Health Service, established in 1948,
could be his single most profitable customer. Instead of having to
influence the hundreds of different Public Health Departments scattered
around the country he needed contacts within the new emerging bureaucracy
to ensure that he became prominent in supplying the service with Glaxo’s
drugs. He did this by targetting senior civil servants who were to run the
Department of Health and Social Security from Whitehall.
Jephcott’s appointment had proven to be a profitable one – soon Health
Service officials were signing major deals with Glaxo. This strategy was
to become an important factor in the significant growth of the company.
Many competitors were taken over by Glaxo Laboratories Limited. The
company now called itself the Glaxo Group and consisted of various
companies that were each individually limited in their liability.
The Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s resulted in the introduction of the
1968 Medicines Act. Previously there had been only a voluntary code of
practice for the pharmaceutical industry to comply with. But the
Thalidomide tragedy exposed the code as inadequate, and measures were
introduced to bring the industry under legislation. The main purpose of
the Licensing Authority was to test the safety, quality and efficacy of
existing drugs on the market and to licence them. Under the new proposals
a body corporate called the Medicines Commission was to be established
with no less than eight members appointed by the Licensing Authority
(Government Ministers) and to include representatives of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Part of the Act provided the
members of the Medicines Commission with powers to establish advisory
committees. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Committee
on the Review of Medicines (CRM) were set up when the Act came into effect
on 1st September 1971.
The new legislation would mean stricter controls on the pharmaceuticals
industry. This was unacceptable to the industry, which fought hard to have
the Medicines Act drafted in such a way that it would benefit its own
interests. Many companies also made sure that they had representatives
present in the different committees. Usually they were heads of the
research laboratories and many of the drugs they were testing for safety,
quality and efficacy were their own company’s drugs.
The contacts within Whitehall established so many years previously enabled
Glaxo’s drugs to be granted concessions that other companies’ drugs were
denied. Myodil was one such drug that was not licensed through the proper
procedures. All drugs on the market were given a one-year statutory period
in which to register with the Medicines Commission: once registered each
company’s drugs would be granted a non-transferable Product Licence of
Right (PLR). The first PLR granted for Myodil was on the 19th November
1973 – one full year after its registration period had ended.
The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’
by the Medicines Control Agency . After pressure from the Myodil Action
Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman
recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary
to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil
licensing documents.
On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that
Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they
wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product
was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured
and sold overseas – it has found new markets in countries that are
vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies.
Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive
arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in
1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on
average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive
Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what
many of them felt to be Glaxo’s solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling out
of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further
litigation in the UK.
Glaxo was certainly aware from an early stage that Myodil was an irritant.
Equipped with that knowledge it could have investigated further given the
nature of Myodil’s use. It did not. If it had, it would have concluded
that Myodil was toxic and should be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn until
1988, and then only for ‘commercial’ reasons.
The Board of Glaxo sits in its plush Head Office in Berkley Square
planning the future of the company. The fact that one of their products
has caused suffering to so many people around the world, and that many
more are still being injected with this highly toxic drug, does not appear
to be ranking high on the list of priorities.
Contact: Myodil Action Group Tel: 01905 357 374

FACTORIES STILL SPEWING OVER 10,000 TONNES OF CANCER-CAUSING CHEMICALS TO
AIR. FOE Demands Tougher Pollution Laws
12 May 1999

Friends of the Earth’s analysis of the Environment Agency’s Pollution
Inventory, published today, shows that Britain’s biggest factories are
still releasing over 10,000 tonnes of cancer-causing chemicals into the
air (see tables) [1]. Associated Octel in Ellesmere Port are still worst
of the bunch, releasing 4,090 tonnes of cancer-causing chemicals, down
from 5,340 tonnes in 1996 (the last data published). Total reported ICI
releases from factories in Runcorn and Middlesborough have increased by
over 800 tonnes to 4382 tonnes. Glaxo Wellcome’s releases at Ulverston
have increased by almost 20 per cent to 992 tonnes.
FOE is calling for the Government to set a statutory target to reduce the
release of hazardous substances by 80 per cent by 2005. FOE is also
demanding that the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill – currently
before Parliament – is amended to give the public a comprehensive picture
on pollution released into their area (including pollution from smaller
factories, landfill sites, transport, etc). Environment Minister, Michael
Meacher MP,made an election promise to introduce comprehensive pollution
inventories which he has yet to deliver on. The Environment Agency say
they are keen to develop a better inventory.
In February, FOE launched Factory Watch, which named and shamed those
companies releasing most cancer-causing chemicals. The Environment
Agency’s Pollution Inventory has shied away from using the same approach
and does not outline the health threats associated with the chemicals
released. FOE has carried out a preliminary analysis of the data but will
be carrying out a more thorough analysis shortly and publish national and
regional “cancer-threat” league tables. FOE has also recently published
research showing industrial pollution hits poorer communities harder
(www.foe.co.uk/pollution-injustice).
Mike Childs, Senior Pollution Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said:
“People are still being bombarded by thousand of tonnes of hazardous
chemicals from Britain’s filthy factories. The Government must make
drastic cuts in this pollution if they are serious about protecting public
health. They must also deliver on their election promise to give people a
decent right to know about all the pollution in their neighbourhoods.”
————————————————————————
Cancer-causing chemical 1996 reported releases 1998 reported releases
-adjusted to exclude factories not reporting in ’96 1998 total reported
releases
Chloroethane
5,247 tonnes

4,023 tonnes

4,023 tonnes
Dichloromethane
2,002 tonnes

2,288 tonnes

2,400 tonnes
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,900 tonnes

2,193 tonnes

2,256 tonnes
Benzene
1,122 tonnes

568 tonnes

1,795 tonnes
Vinyl Chloride
699 tonnes

396 tonnes

397 tonnes
Total
10,970 tonnes

9,468 tonnes

10,871 tonnes
Company Factory Watch releases(tonnes of cancer-causing chemicals to air
in ’96) Environment Agency data -1998
Associated Octel, South Wirral
5,340 tonnes

at least 4,090 tonnes of recognised carcinogens still released
ICI, Runcorn
2,150 tonnes
at least 3,381 tonnes of recognised carcinogens released. ICI claim this
is due to changes in reporting requirements. However they didn’t come
clean when Factory Watch was launched and admit they released over 1,000
tonnes more carcinogens in 1996.
Glaxochem Ltd, Ulverston
813 tonnes
now called Glaxo Wellcome Ltd,released at least 992 tonnes of recognised
carcinogens.
EVC (UK) Ltd, Thornton-Cleveleys
761 tonnes
at least 579 tonnes of recognised carcinogens still released
ICI, Redcar
833 tonnes
at least 710 tonnes of recognised carcinogens still released
ICI, North Tees
575 tonnes
at least 291 tonnes of recognised carcinogens still released
Courtalds Chemicals (Holdings) Ltd,Lancaster
354 tonnes
now Acordis Acetate Chemicals Ltd,releasing at least 299 tonnes of
recognised carcinogens.
Zeneca Ltd, Huddersfield
276 tonnes
Process closed
Recticel Manufacturing, Derby
233 tonnes
at least 316 tonnes of recognised carcinogens released
Dow Chemical Co Ltd, Kings Lynn
118 tonnes
now releasing less than 1 tonne of recognised carcinogens
Total
11, 453 tonnes

10,659 tonnes
Notes to editors -the Pollution inventory will be launched by Michael
Meacher at 10am in the Baltic Exchange in London. Data for Northern
Ireland and Scotland is not available.
2004,   2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994

Press releases delivered direct to your inbox
Your email address:
News by RSS?

The following are from the ELISA test insert and the insert from the
Western Blot test:
"LIMITATIONS OF THE PROCEDURE (of ELISA)
The (Abbot Laboratories) [Abbot] HIVAB HIV-1 EIA antibody procedure and
the Interpretation of Results must be followed closely when testing for
the presence of antibodies to HIV-1 in plasma or serum from individual
subjects. Because the EIA was designed to test individual units of
blood or plasma, most data regarding its interpretation were derived
from testing individual samples. Insufficient data are available to
interpret tests performed on other body specimens, pooled blood or
processed plasma, and products made from such pools: testing of these
specimens is not recommended.
Abbot HIVAB HIV-1 EIA detects antibodies to HIV-1 in blood and thus is
useful in screening blood and plasma donated for transfusion and
further manufacture, in evaluating patients with signs or symptoms of
AIDS, and in establishing prior infection with HIV-1. Clinical studies
continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical
significance of the presence of antibodies to HIV-1. For most uses it
is recommended that repeatably reactive specimens be investigated by an
additional more specific, or supplemental test. A person who has
antibodies to HIV-1 is presumed to be infected with the virus and
appropriate counseling and medical evaluation should be offered. Such
an evaluation should be considered an important part of HIV-1 antibody
testing and should include test result confirmation on a freshly drawn
sample.
AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical syndromes and their
disgnosis can only be established clinically. EIA testing alone cannot
be used to disgnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of
reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to
HIV-1 is present. A negative test result at any point in the
investigation of individual subjects does not preclude the possibility
of exposure to or infection with HIV-1. The risk of an asymptomatic
person with a repeatably reactive serum sample developing AIDS or an
AIDS-related condition is not known.
Data obtained from testing persons both at increased and at low risk
for HIV-1 infection suggest that repeatably reactive specimens with
high absorbance on EIA are more likely to demonstrate the presence of
the HIV-1 antibodies by additional more specific, or supplemental
testing. Reactivity at or only slightly above the cut-off value is more
frequently nonspecific, especially in samples obtained from persons at
low risk for HIV-1 infection; however, the presence of antibodies in
some of these specimens can be demonstrated by additional more
specific, or supplemental testing."
——————————————————————-
Now from the test to confirm the above test. CONFIRM?!
——————————————————————-
"LIMITATIONS OF THE PROCEDURE (of Western Blot)
1. The assay must be performed in strict accordance with these
instructions to obtain accurate, reproducible results.
2. Although a Positive result may indicate infection with the HIV-1
virus, a diagnosis of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) can be
made only if an individual meets the case definition of AIDS
established by the Centers for Disease Control. A repeat test on an
independent sample should be considered to control for sample mix-up or
operator error, and to verify a positive test result.
3. Individuals with HIV-1 infection may present incomplete patterns due
to the natural history of AIDS or other immunodeficiency states, e.g.:
a. AIDS patients may lose antibody reactions to p24 & p31;
b. Infected infants may fail to seroconvert;
c. Individuals who have recently seroconverted may display incomplete
band patterns;
d. Infected patients with malignancies and individuals receiving
immunosuppressive drugs may fail to develop a Positive result;
e. Individuals infected with HTLV-I/II or HIV-2, may exhibit incomplete
cross-reactivity.
4. Since reactivity of any degree with any of the virus-specific
proteins identified on the strip is possible evidence of antibodies to
HIV-1, all samples interpreted as Indeterminate should be repeated
using the original specimen. Do not use this kit as the sole basis of
disgnosis of HIV-1 infection. In addition, it is recommended that
samples interpreted as Indeterminate be retested after six months,
using a fresh specimen.
A Negative result does not exclude the possibility of HIV-1 infection.
Antibody testing should not be used in lieu of donor self-exclusion by
blood collection establishments."

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What’s in the Fine Print
Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test
has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the
actual diagnosing of HIV infection.
Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all
current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests
(for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and
are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.
The FDA’s lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can
directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV
antibodies in human blood.
Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little
known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the
role of HIV in AIDS.
From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain
statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new
test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal
link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and
pre-AIDS are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody
Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)
Now it appears we’ve gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to
something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG
CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a
retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."
This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test
(Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June
2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm
According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and
co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA
approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for
the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in
just the last three years.
Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there
is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose
infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and
genotyping clearly state they are ‘NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV
infection.’
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual
virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy
for people who doctors assume are infected.?
Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test manufacturers
mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the
diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do
(diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.
At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the
manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be
confirmed with follow up testing.
This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests? is
widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or
Western Blot. But the notion that medical personnel will await
confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely
misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in
labor
Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor
comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester
M Crawford.
The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying
pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during
pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns
from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)
These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy
AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment
for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother
not to breastfeed.
Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal feeding are based
on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV
infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of
her child.
Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a
disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a
history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test.
Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn’t even
evaluate their product in multiparous women.
Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be
routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on
the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection,
doctors may want to retest women in labor who?ve previously come up
negative just to be sure they haven’t seroconverted in the mean time."
Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers
who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact
with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora?s box of
potential life-altering situations.
"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the
impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with
HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start
prophylactic chemotherapy right away.
Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel
an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start ‘saving their lives’
with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles
sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and
treatment manufacturers."
The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health
policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that
the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.

How a 99.99% Accurate Test Can Be Wrong Half the Time
By Christine Maggiore
 
“A new article in Popular Science explains how allegedly accurate HIV
tests can be dead wrong when performed on people with no risk factors…”
 
===
 
An article in the July 2002 issue of Popular Science magazine gives
readers some surprising food for thought: the allegedly accurate HIV tests
can be dead wrong when performed on people with no risk factors. Here’s
the text from page 78:
 
"HIV testing is 99.99 percent accurate, a doctor might tell his patient.
That suggests that if you receive a positive result, you almost certainly
have HIV. But this is not necessarily the case. The chance of a straight
man with no known risk factors contracting HIV is roughly one in 10,000.
That is also the rate at which an HIV test returns an incorrect result. So
if 10,000 men in this low-risk group get tested for HIV, an average one
positive will come back from the man with HIV, and another man will test
positive even though he is not infected. Thus, in our statistically
perfect world, only one of the two men who test positive actually has HIV.
50 percent of positive HIV tests in the low-risk group turn out to be
false."
 
The article incorrectly assumes that HIV tests can diagnose HIV infection
and that the claimed accuracy rate of 99.99% has been established through
careful scientific studies. In fact, HIV tests have not been approved by
the US Food and Drug Administration for use in diagnosing actual HIV
infection, and all claims of test accuracy are based on estimates and
assumptions.

The word ‘estimated’ in ‘AIDS’ lingo means MADE UP.

I estimate that everyone in the World will die of latex allergy.

Before you attack this statement remember ‘estimated’  simply means ‘made
up’ and is meaningless nonsense.

What do YOU ‘estimate?’

Whatever it is, we don’t give a damn.

On the Air Sunday May 8th on WHCR Harlem.

The show is "The Communicators", the topic will be the NIH clinical trial
scandal in New York City and nationally.

I’m scheduled to be on at 2 pm East Coast, 11 am West Coast time.

Listen at:

http://www.whcr.org/liveaudio.html

http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=12&id=1114366947

Agriculture growth in COMESA region slow
By Business Reporter

THE Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
says the expansion of the agriculture sector in the sub-region has not
been commensurate with population growth.

Read more here:

http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=12&id=1114366947