Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

January 25, 2010

DailyMail.co.uk

By David Rose

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.

‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.

‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’

One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’

When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.

Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.

It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’

However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.

Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

The damage to the IPCC’s reputation, already tarnished by last year’s ‘Warmergate’ leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.

Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’.

Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel’s credibility had been damaged. ‘They’ve done sloppy work,’ he said. ‘We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.’

Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ‘Our procedure is robust,’ he added.

Click here for the full report.

CCTV In The Sky: Police Plan To Use Military-Style Spy Drones

January 25, 2010

Gaurdian.co.uk

By Paul Lewis

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ­”routine” monitoring of antisocial motorists, ­protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

Documents from the South Coast Partnership, a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE, have been obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year.

The Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates UK airspace, has been told by BAE and Kent police that civilian UAVs would “greatly extend” the government’s surveillance capacity and “revolutionise policing”. The CAA is currently reluctant to license UAVs in normal airspace because of the risk of collisions with other aircraft, but adequate “sense and avoid” systems for drones are only a few years away.

Five other police forces have signed up to the scheme, which is considered a pilot preceding the countrywide adoption of the technology for “surveillance, monitoring and evidence gathering”. The partnership’s stated mission is to introduce drones “into the routine work of the police, border authorities and other government agencies” across the UK.

Concerned about the slow pace of progress of licensing issues, Kent police’s assistant chief constable, Allyn Thomas, wrote to the CAA last March arguing that military drones would be useful “in the policing of major events, whether they be protests or the ­Olympics”. He said interest in their use in the UK had “developed after the terrorist attack in Mumbai”.

Stressing that he was not seeking to interfere with the regulatory process, Thomas pointed out that there was “rather more urgency in the work since Mumbai and we have a clear deadline of the 2012 Olympics”.

BAE drones are programmed to take off and land on their own, stay airborne for up to 15 hours and reach heights of 20,000ft, making them invisible from the ground.

Far more sophisticated than the remote-controlled rotor-blade robots that hover 50-metres above the ground – which police already use – BAE UAVs are programmed to undertake specific operations. They can, for example, deviate from a routine flightpath after encountering suspicious ­activity on the ground, or undertake numerous reconnaissance tasks simultaneously.

The surveillance data is fed back to control rooms via monitoring equipment such as high-definition cameras, radar devices and infrared sensors.

Previously, Kent police has said the drone scheme was intended for use over the English Channel to monitor shipping and detect immigrants crossing from France. However, the documents suggest the maritime focus was, at least in part, a public relations strategy designed to minimise civil liberty concerns.

“There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a ‘good news’ story to the public rather than more ‘big brother’,” a minute from the one of the earliest meetings, in July 2007, states.

Behind closed doors, the scope for UAVs has expanded significantly. Working with various policing organisations as well as the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Maritime and Fisheries Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency, BAE and Kent police have drawn up wider lists of potential uses.

One document lists “[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving” as future tasks for police drones, while another states the aircraft could be used for road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance.

Under a section entitled “Other routine tasks (Local Councils) – surveillance”, another document states the drones could be used to combat “fly-posting, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, abnormal loads, waste management”.

Senior officers have conceded there will be “large capital costs” involved in buying the drones, but argue this will be shared by various government agencies. They also say unmanned aircraft are no more intrusive than CCTV cameras and far cheaper to run than helicopters.

Partnership officials have said the UAVs could raise revenue from private companies. At one strategy meeting it was proposed the aircraft could undertake commercial work during spare time to offset some of the running costs.

There are two models of BAE drone under consideration, neither of which has been licensed to fly in non-segregated airspace by the CAA. The Herti (High Endurance Rapid Technology Insertion) is a five-metre long aircraft that the Ministry of Defence deployed in Afghanistan for tests in 2007 and 2009.

CAA officials are sceptical that any Herti-type drone manufacturer can develop the technology to make them airworthy for the UK before 2015 at the earliest. However the South Coast Partnership has set its sights on another BAE prototype drone, the GA22 airship, developed by Lindstrand Technologies which would be subject to different regulations. BAE and Kent police believe the 22-metre long airship could be certified for civilian use by 2012.

Military drones have been used extensively by the US to assist reconnaissance and airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But their use in war zones has been blamed for high civilian death tolls.

Click here for the full report.

Hope For Haiti Telethon Scam

January 25, 2010

Info Wars

By Anthony Gucciardi

It takes a lot of disdain for the human race to use a catastrophic event such as the earthquake in Haiti to peddle people out of their hard earned dollar. Unfortunately, this is what the “Hope for Haiti” telethon is all about. The donations will benefit such foundations as the Clinton Bush Haiti Foundation and UNICEF. Instead of the proceeds going towards a local Haitian organization that would provide the victims with adequate food and water, the millions will be given to a foundation created in part by George W. Bush.

If that does not alarm you, then you have not done your research. Corrupt politicians have no business taking donations for a country in turmoil. There are plenty of organizations that have been operating in Haiti for years, and have therefore proven themselves to be legitimate. The IRC (International Rescue Committee) spends 90% of its funds on beneficial programs, while only using 4% for administrative costs, and 4% on fundraising. Why then, are the proceeds going to a foundation run by two corrupt politicians?

The only decent foundation being donated to is the Yele Haiti Foundation. Despite the mainstream media smear campaign being launched against this foundation, it has been located in Haiti and has proved itself by aiding the country long before the earthquake hit. The foundation also encourages food and clothing donations, as opposed to George W. Bush who is asking you to send only cash. With food and clothing donations it is impossible for any foundation to put the contribution towards administrative costs and other worthless expenses. In sharp contrast, writing the Clinton Bush Haiti Foundation a blank check could result in your donation being used quite illegitimately.

The telethon is loaded with celebrities and popular musicians, begging for you to support the Haitian people. Instead of telling you that your donation may be used to fund other United Nations operations, or that it could be used to pay absurdly high administrative costs, they act as if every cent is going to aid the Haitians. If these foundations were truly concerned about the Haitians, they would accept food and clothing donations. If the foundations were truly honest, they would publicly post every cent that was spent and for what reason. Of course, this is not the case for most of these organizations.

As if the chosen recipients of the donations were not enough to cause some concern, Latin American leaders are now saying that the United States is occupying Haiti militarily. After all, it does seem as if the United States military plans on staying for a while.

“So we’re focused on getting command and control and communications there so that we can really get a better understanding of what’s going on. MINUSTAH [United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti], as their headquarters partially collapsed, lost a lot of their communication, and so we’re looking to robust that communication, also.”  Said General Douglas Fraser, commander of U.S. Southern Command.

“We also are looking at a large-deck amphibious ship with an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit on it that will be a couple of days behind the USS Vinson. ” He went on to say.

(Defense.gov News Transcript: DOD News Briefing with Gen. Fraser from the Pentagon, January 13, 2010)

It seems that the involvement of the United States in such a direct way is causing not only a stir, but a negative impact on an already chaotic nation. Machete-wielding gangs patrol the streets of Haiti, as U.N. “Peacekeepers” fire rubber bullets into innocent Haitian crowds. What were these men doing that provoked the attack ? They were searching for jobs.

Taking advantage of the American people, and ultimately taking advantage of the Haitian people, is something that takes a lot of apathy towards the suffering that the Haitian people endured. The celebrities involved probably believe they are truly benefiting the Haitian people, but the sad truth is that the telethon is forwarding their proceeds to ruthless businessman that will not use “every cent” to help the Haitians. Donate your money to an organization that is based in Haiti and accepts food donations, as it is the only way to ensure that your dollar is actually reaching the country.

Click here for the full report.

Conservative vs. Liberal Could Destroy U.S.

January 25, 2010

Info Wars

By Stephen P. Fuller

Beyond the fear mongering main-stream media, asinine rivalries amongst Americans and rants of Russian analysts lays a serious and potentially deadly conflict on the horizon. This future, and imminent, conflict may or may not shatter our bodies but could certainly decimate the soul and body of our nation.

Not long ago Igor Panarin, a Russian scholar and analyst, predicted that 2010 would see the disjunction of the United States into six super-states. Russia and China would be the most favored nations to lead the new world order through its birthing pangs and US hegemony would serve to a lesser effect in the remnants of the old Anglo-American empire. And while “normalists” screamed “belligerence!” at his predictions, they gave credence to his credentials, and something real was stewing in the chat-rooms, vlogs and town halls of America.

The idealistic young president was no longer to be heard spouting rhetoric designed to inspire, he needed to now be seen making a difference in our Nation and yet he was not. While Wall Street began its hoarders rebound, unemployment grew, in fact, soared well beyond the promised stopping points, bank bailouts were legislated, the Patriot Act renewed, young men marched off to Iraq and Afghanistan, bombs dropped in the sovereign nation of Pakistan, Americans became paralyzed from government propagandized Swine-flu shots, and health-care legislation was crammed down the, as listed, choking throat of the American populace and Igor Panarin slyly grinned. In fact he is probably elated, euphoric over the notion that Americans will prove him right simply because they have yet to grasp that it is themselves who will destroy their own nation with the most simple of Machiavellian tactics, divide and conquer.

We are not a nation of conservatives and liberals; we are a nation of constitutionally free human beings. The only ideas that we can agree upon stem from this one equality we give power to through our consent, equal protection under a rule of law. It is through this ratiocination that Republicans and Democrats proposition that they represent what is the best of the American way of life. “Join us!”, they say, “we believe in liberty, free markets, equality and a safer America!”, and you all know what they mean; liberty means you pay taxes and we don’t, liberty means say nothing of our corruption and we’ll hand you a conviction on middle management every-so-often, free market means freely open for upper echelon corruption and consolidation, equality means that you must be labeled, tracked and “secured” a place in our vision of society, safe means you are a terrorist until proven innocent, and safe means you must support the wars or “shut up”.

However, Igor is dead wrong about America and Americans. He is wrong because we do realize that the left-right paradigm is destroying our Nation. Our problem is that we, collectively, don’t know how to turn over 100 years of political in-fighting from the Democratic-Republican Party (founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) into a second party system.

Most Americans see themselves as independent voters or free thinkers. And as a result, rattlebrained sycophants like Glenn Beck pray on the populace as they are being forced to wake from the Democratic-Republican illusion. Men like him only intend to represent a new movement in politics while heartbreakingly submersing their audience into a Jabba the Hut carbonite-encased ideological super trap. If my fellow Americans do not shatter the political world in 2010 by electing a truly new second party into the spotlight, there may be little hope for the long term future of our Republic.

So it is left to you. You have 10 months left until an election that could seal the fate for the story of America. 10 months to collect into your Campaign for Liberty, street action, We Are Change, truth movement, patriot movement, whatever group of like minded individuals you can muddle together to place in office a truly new breed of politician. Live out our destiny now by becoming the only politician you can trust. Will it be a destiny fueled by the uncompromised juggernaut of liberty or one where Igor Panarin’s vision of a dysfunctional America teeters on the edge of history with only a disaster between freedom and tyranny? That is, immeasurably, your choice.

Click here for the full report.

Why Bernanke’s Confirmation Is, and Should Be, in Trouble

January 25, 2010

The Seminal

No sooner had the New York Times released an initial story that “Opposition Grows Against Second Term for Bernanke,” noting opposition from Sens. Feingold and Boxer, than Sen. Harry Reid made a Friday evening announcement that he would support Bernanke.

With presumed White House urging, Reid was hoping to head off further erosion in Bernanke’s support. But it may not be enough.

One unconfirmed vote count late Friday suggested there were still up to 59 Senators undecided, with those supporting/opposing split about 25/16. That was before Reid’s announcement.

The fact that over half the Senate doesn’t know what to do about Bernanke speaks volumes. For such an important position, and with so much already known about Bernanke’s record, you’d think Bernanke’s fate would be known by now.

While Mrs. Greenspan may want to spin this as scapegoating Bernanke, and Chuck Todd may think Tuesday’s MA Senate election changed everything, I think the more important story lies in an answer Bernanke gave last December to UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong [a strong Bernanke supporter; see update links below], who asked why the Fed wasn’t temporarily raising its inflation target to 3 percent. His answer undermined whatever basis for support he had at the time.

To continue reading this report, click here.

Monsanto and The Gates Foundation Working Hand-In-Hand

January 25, 2010

OrganicConsumers.org

By Jill Richardson

Gates Foundations = Monsanto now even more than ever. I should refine that statement. Gates Foundation = in favor of a pro-biotech, for-profit, unsustainable, scary, powerful approach to “feeding the world” (a.k.a. lining corporate pockets). And they have many ties to Monsanto including a brand new one. They just filled Rajiv Shah’s old job with Sam Dryden. Dryden’s resume is enough to make me throw up.

* * 1973: Graduates from Emory with a BA
* * 1973: Analyst at US Dept of Commerce Dept of Economic Analysis
* * 1974-1980: Works at Union Carbide
* * 1980: “led the spin-out of Union Carbide’s biotechnologies and related business operations and was subsequently co-founder, President and CEO of Agrigenetics Corporation” (a large seed company)
* * 1985: Agrigenetics is bought out (presumably by Dow AgroSciences). Dryden leaves after the sale. Dryden founds Big Stone Inc “a private venture investment and development company focused on the life sciences.”

The firm participated in founding over a dozen companies in area such as biopesticides, novel nucleic acid-based therapeutics and diagnostic products, transgenic animals, fermentation based production of vitamins, pharmaceutical clinical trialing, environmental toxicological testing and bio therapeutics.

*  * Somewhere in this timeline, Drysden served as the “non-executive chairman” of Celgro, Inc. – an “independent venture of Celgene Corporation, a company focused on the development of novel, single-isomer, agricultural chemical compounds.”
* * From there, he went on to become CEO of Emergent Genetics, Inc. (a biotech seed company and the third largest cotton seed company in the U.S.)
* * 2005: Monsanto acquires most of Emergent Genetics (Syngenta buys the rest). Dryden goes to work at Monsanto.
* * June 2006: Dryden becomes Managing Director of Wolfensohn & Company, an investment and consulting company founded by a former World Bank president (James Wolfensohn). Drysden’s focus is investing in alternative energies.

FYI, Union Carbide’s famous disaster in Bhopal, India occurred on December 3, 1984 – four years after Dryden left the company. The plant, which manufactured the pesticide carbaryl (a.k.a. Sevin), was established in 1969, which means it was put into operation long before Dryden worked at Union Carbide and it was in operation during Dryden’s entire time working there.

If that all ain’t scary enough, read about what this guy does in his spare time:

In addition to his for-profit activities, Sam has extensive pro-bono involvement in efforts relating to food security and international economic development.  Currently he is an advisor to The World Bank regarding rural development strategy.  He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Global Crop Diversity Trust.  Sam serves on the Nation Academies Panel on Science and Technology for Global Sustainability.  In the past, he served on the Steering Committee for the Global Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology, led by the World Bank.  He was a member of the Executive Council, as well as chair of the Private Sector Committee, of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.  He has been as advisor to the Rockefeller, McKnight and Macarthur Foundations and a member of the Design Advisory Committee and Scientific Advisory Board of its African Agricultural Technology Foundation — an organization created for the advancement of African food security.  In the mid-1980′s, Sam chaired a Rockefeller Brothers Fund development initiative to benefit developing country food security.  He also served on the Board of the South/North Development Initiative — a private Rockefeller Family foundation for alleviation of rural poverty in less developed countries through entrepreneurial development. He is a past member of the U.S. Government’s Agricultural Sciences and Technology Review Board.

Sam is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and serves on its Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property and American Competitiveness.  In the past he served on its Study Group analyzing trade issues between the United States and Europe surrounding genetically modified foods.

Sustainability? Crop diversity? Food security? Are they joking? Also note that he’s got some Green Revolution credentials in there with his work with CGIAR and the Rockefeller Foundation. Then there’s his work with the World Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s not terribly surprising that Gates picked him really. The Gates Foundation just formally joined CGIAR, and Sylvia Mathews Burwell (Dryden’s new boss) is on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Click here for the full report.

Mystery: Swiss Watch Found in Ancient Tomb

December 8th, 2008

dailymail.co.uk

By Cher Thornhill 

Archaeologists are stumped after finding a 100-year-old Swiss watch in an ancient tomb that was sealed more than 400 years ago.

They believed they were the first to visit the Ming dynasty grave in Shangsi, southern China, since its occupant’s funeral.

But inside they uncovered a miniature watch in the shape of a ring marked ‘Swiss’ that is thought to be just a century old
The mysterious timepiece was encrusted in mud and rock and had stopped at 10:06 am.

Watches were not around at the time of the Ming Dynasty and Switzerland did not even exist as a country, an expert pointed out.
The archaeologists were filming a documentary with two journalists when they made the puzzling discovery.
‘When we tried to remove the soil wrapped around the coffin, suddenly a piece of rock dropped off and hit the ground with metallic sound,’ said Jiang Yanyu, former curator of the Guangxi Museum.

‘We picked up the object, and found it was a ring.

‘After removing the covering soil and examining it further, we were shocked to see it was a watch,’ he added.

The Ming Dynasty – or the Empire of the Great Ming – was the was ruling dynasty in China from 1368 to 1644.

Click here for the full report

WHO: H1N1 Pandemic Easing, But Risks Remain

January 25, 2010

Reuters

By Stephanie Nebehay

The H1N1 flu pandemic appears to be easing, but a third wave of infections could yet strike, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Monday.

“Pandemic infections are occurring in many countries but overall the pattern is decreasing,” Keiji Fukuda, the WHO’s top flu expert, said at the start of a week-long meeting of the organisation’s Executive Board.

He warned, however, that a new wave of infections could hit the northern hemisphere in late winter or early spring, saying: “This is probably the biggest speculation. We simply do not know.”

The H1N1 virus, also known as swine flu, emerged last April and caused the first influenza pandemic in 40 years.

It initially sparked widespread concern about antiviral and vaccine supplies, especially in developing countries, but many nations have cut back their vaccine orders recently because the pandemic has not turned out as deadly as originally feared.

WHO director-general Margaret Chan told the meeting that the effects of the pandemic had been moderate and were probably closer to outbreaks experienced in 1957 and 1968 rather than the far more deadly 1918 version.

The 1918 pandemic, known as the Spanish flu, swept around the world at the end of World War One, killing some 40-50 million people.

Chan said H1N1 appeared to be easing in the northern hemisphere, but cautioned that it was too soon to say what would happen once the southern hemisphere entered winter and the virus became more infectious.

Fukuda said the majority of people infected with H1N1 recovered without complications or special treatment, but children were being hospitalised at about twice the rate of adults.

Most deaths occurred in people with underlying conditions, including pregnancy, asthma, heart or lung disease, or diabetes. A total of 265 million doses of the vaccine had been distributed and 175 million of those administered to people, Fukuda said.

14,000 DEATHS

Chan, a former health director of Hong Kong, said nearly 14,000 official deaths had been reported by more than 200 countries since the virus emerged in North America last April.

But it will take at least 1-2 years after the pandemic ends to establish the true toll and WHO experts say the actual death rate could be much higher than the number of laboratory-confirmed cases so far.

Chan defended her organisation against accusations from some politicians that it exaggerated the dangers of the virus under pressure from drug companies.

“I believe we would all rather see a moderate pandemic with ample supplies of vaccine than a severe pandemic with inadequate vaccine,” she said.

Her United Nations agency has announced that it will launch an evaluation of how it handled the pandemic crisis and Chan said it would “withstand this scrutiny.”

A committee including independent experts will start to review the response to the pandemic of the agency and global community by May and present initial findings to health ministers that month.

This would include a review of the WHO’s pandemic alert scale and whether that should be broadened to reflect the severity of an attack as well as its geographical spread.

Sir Liam Donaldson, Britain’s chief medical officer, dismissed criticism the pandemic was exaggerated.

“It is extremely important that none of us be intimidated by these criticisms and become complacent,” Donaldson told the board. “This virus will drift and produce more serious outbreaks and deaths over time.

Click here for the full report.

Group Urges Recall of Fibromyalgia Drug

January 20th, 2010

abcnews.go.com

By Matthew Perrone

A consumer advocacy group is asking government regulators to recall a drug they approved last year for a little-understood pain ailment, saying the pill can lead to dangerously high blood pressure.

A letter Wednesday from Public Citizen calls on the Food and Drug Administration to pull Savella off the market, almost exactly a year after it was cleared to treat fibromyalgia.

The drug is co-marketed by Forest Laboratories Inc. and Cypress Bioscience Inc.

Fibromyalgia is characterized by a wide range of pain-related symptoms, including muscle soreness, headache, fatigue and depression. Last summer European regulators rejected the drug due to lack of effectiveness data and side effects. Public Citizen argues the FDA should have reached the same conclusion.

“FDA should never have approved Savella for fibromyalgia, and should now immediately undo its error by removing it from the market,” states the petition from Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group.

Company studies of the drug showed 20 percent of patients taking Savella had hypertension, or high blood pressure, compared with 7 percent of those taking a dummy pill. Savella, known generically as milnacipran, is part of an antidepressant class of drugs that have been associated with increased blood pressure.

Public Citizen also points out that the original study of Savella failed to meet the companies’ own study goals for effectiveness. Company scientists reanalyzed the study, with a larger population and a shorter time span and recorded relatively meager benefit: 9 percent of patients on Savella significantly reduced their pain, compared with 7 percent of those taking placebo.

Public Citizen cites complaints from FDA’s own statistical reviewer, who wrote: “there is no evidence … that milnacipran is associated with improvements in pain or improvements in function at three months of therapy.”

Since the FDA approved Savella last January, doctors have written more than 250,000 prescriptions for the drug, according to data from IMS Health.

 Click here for the full report

Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor

January 25, 2010

FoxNews.com

By James Rosen
Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will “train the next generation of legal professionals” throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby “develop the capacity of Afghanistan’s justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair.”

The legality of the arrangement as a “sole source,” or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. “They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year,” a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.

“That’s kind of weird,” said another source, who has worked on “rule of law” issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. “There’s lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work.”

Contacted by Fox News, Checchi confirmed that his company had indeed received the nearly $25 million contract but declined to say why it had been awarded on a no-bid basis, referring a reporter to USAID.

Asked if he or his firm had been aware that the contract was awarded without competitive bids, Checchi replied: “After it was awarded to us, sure. Before, we had no idea.”

He declined to answer further questions, however, and again referred Fox News to USAID, saying: “I don’t want to speak for the U.S. government.”

Asked about the contract, USAID Acting Press Director Harry Edwards at first suggested his office would be too “busy” to comment on it. “I’ll tell it to the people in Haiti,” Edwards snapped when a Fox News reporter indicated the story would soon be made public. The USAID press office did not respond further.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Fox News’ reporting on the no-bid contract in this case “disturbed” him.

Issa has written to USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah requesting that the agency “produce all documents related to the Checchi contract” on or before Feb. 5. Citing the waiver that enabled USAID to award the contract on a no-bid basis, Issa noted that the exemption was intended to speed up the provision of services in a crisis environment.

Yet “on its face,” wrote Issa to Shah, “the consulting contract awarded to Checchi to support the Afghan justice system does not appear to be so urgent or attendant to an immediate need so as to justify such a waiver.”

Corporate rivals of Checchi were reluctant to speak on the record about the no-bid contract awarded to his firm because they feared possible retribution by the Obama administration in the awarding of future contracts.

“We don’t want to be blackballed,” said the managing partner of a consulting firm that has won similar contracts. “You’ve got to be careful. We’re dealing here with people and offices that we depend on for our business.”

Still, the rival executive confirmed that open bidding on USAID’s lucrative Afghanistan “rule of law” contract was abruptly revoked by the agency earlier this year.

“It’s a mystery to us,” the managing partner said. “We were going to bid on it. The solicitation (for bids) got pulled back, and we do not know why. We may never know why. These are things that we, as companies doing business with the government, have to put up with.”

As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.

“I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.”

Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates’ debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government’s online databases listing federal contracts.

“If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it’s going and who sponsored it,” he said to audience laughter, “and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too.”

Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would “dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government.”

Flanked by aides and lawmakers at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 4, Obama vowed to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts,” adding: “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition….And that’s completely unacceptable.”

The March 4 memorandum directed the Office of Management and Budget to “maximize the use of full and open competition” in the awarding of federal contracts.

Federal campaign records show Checchi has been a frequent contributor to liberal and Democratic causes and candidates in recent years, including to Obama’s presidential campaign.

To continue reading this report, click here.

« Previous Page — Next Page »