UK Column Live - 27th September 2013

Governments Anti-malaria drug endangers UK troops

Anti-malaria drug endangers UK troops

The British Ministry of Defence (MoD)™s refusal to ban a controversial anti-malarial drug is endangering thousands of UK troops because it has some killer side-effects such as psychosis and suicide, media reports said.
The drug, Mefloquine – better known as Lariam, has been banned by the U.S. military because of its effects on mental health and the dangers it poses to troops because of its high level of toxicity, The Independent reported.
After the drug known as a modern-day œAgent Orange” by doctors was linked to a series of suicides and murders – the most typical of which was the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a U.S. trooper – the U.S. military announced a total ban on its use this month.
However, Lariam is being given to British troops and repeated warnings over its dangers have fallen on deaf ears as revealed by a former senior medical officer.
œFor the past 12 years I was saying this is potentially a dangerous drug – most people can take it without problems but a few people will experience difficulties and of those a small number will become psychotic and because there are other alternatives that are safer and just as effective we should move to them but my words fell on deaf ears”, said Lt-Col Ashley Croft, who served for more than 25 years in the Royal Army Medical Corps and is an expert on malaria.

Lt Col Ashcroft, who retired in April, accused the MoD of being in œdenial mode”.
œThe problem is that it can make people have psychotic thoughts and therefore act in an irrational manner and potentially a manner that is dangerous to themselves or their colleagues, or civilians”, he added.
According to the retired officer there are other drugs such as Doxycycline and malarone, which are both safer and effective in preventing malaria.
œReally the only people that get it [Lariam] now are the poor old soldiers and they have no choice”, he noted. Lt Col Croft estimates around 2,500 soldiers a year are given the drug.
The U.S. Army produced Lariam in the 1970s, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it in 1989. It was then recognized as a popular drug for preventing and treating malaria, but newer anti-malarial drugs, such as malarone have been developed in recent years with less side-effects.
MOL/HE
Copyright: Press TV

What Really Happened Radio Show: Michael Rivero Friday September 27 2013...

Outside The Box - Episode 3 - Paul Craig Roberts

Female Face-Off: Muslim veil ban finds public support in UK

Oct-Taper!? How About FRANKEN-TAPER! The Fed. Is OUT OF OPTIONS..By Greg...

UK Column Live - 24th September 2013

Exploding Global Debt Hyperinflation Means You MUST Own Gold & Silver. B...

The Twilight Zone Examination Day A LOOK at the NWO Plans for Education

For One Russia-Christ Victorious

TO SERVE CHRIST IS ALL! if we serve him He serves us. With his protection from the forces of Evil. We in the west no are suffering from that lack of protection from Our Most gracious lord Jesus Christ. God bless Holy Christian Russia and may her example be one to us all!

The Synagogue Of Satan 1949 ~ 1973, by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock

Libertarianism: An Introduction

Saudis Sent 1,200 Death-Row Inmates to Syria to Join Rebels

Saudis Sent 1,200 Death-Row Inmates to Syria to Join Rebels

Offered Detainees Freedom, Stipends for Families

by Jason Ditz, September , 2013

Print This | Share This

According to reports from the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA), a Syriac Christian-run media outlet, the Saudi Arabian government sent over 1,200 death-row inmates to Syria to join the ongoing civil war on the side of the rebellion.
The AINA report cites a leaked memo from the Interior Ministry as saying the 1,239 inmates were all sentenced to “execution by sword” for various crimes, and were given full pardons, as well as stipends for their families.
An unnamed Iraqi MP confirmed knowledge of the program, and said that Saudi Arabia had been forced to end the policy after Russia threatened to bring the issue to the attention of the United Nations.
The quiet deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia was that the influx of inmates would end and Russia would keep the matter from becoming public knowledge. Now that the information is out there, it will be interesting to see how Russia and Saudi Arabia react.

MUST WATCH! An Economic Collapse Of Biblical Proportions Is Coming. By G...

Outside The Box - Episode 1

UK Column Live - 20th September 2013

Good versus Evil And the Liberal Hypocrisy

 

Good versus Evil

Sep  2013

by Joshua L. Roberts.at Amerika

Do liberals believe in evil? Examining the political and cultural conflicts portrayed in the media fosters suspicion that they do not. Think how often liberals attempt to excuse horrific crimes as somehow not being the responsibility of those involved but the result of flaws in society, such as inequality.
My investigations suggest the situation is more complex. Consider the following thought experiment: When conversing with a liberal, you ask, “Do you believe in evil?” The likely response would be an attempt to artfully dodge the question. They may demand you clarify what you mean by “evil” or ask if you’re religious.
Now imagine asking the more direct question, “Do you believe racism is evil?” You will be met with a resounding “yes.” It is inconceivable that any other answer occur. They may even throw in a “duh” for good measure, to show how obvious the question is.
Within the liberal point point of view, this answer makes perfect sense. Liberals don’t believe in good. To clarify, they don’t believe in any objective sense of good. Good is whatever any individual person wants it to be. The only evil is to state otherwise, but let me not get ahead of myself.
Liberals fundamentally view people as being born perfect but then corrupted by society and its institutions through various forms of oppression. Essentially, people are born “free” to pursue their self-fulfillment. The only thing separating humanity from utopia is the existence of unenlightened authoritarians demanding objective standards.
This outlook explains liberal positions. Most (sane) people prefer society to be governed by general principles and then let communities, families, and individuals iron out the details. Liberals, by contrast, examine as much minutia as possible. The conservative expects a business to be run in a fair, honest, and respectable manner. Those concerns being met, the internal workings, business strategies, day to day operations, etc. are up to the owners and employees to work out. The liberal wants to examine every facet of the business they can. What exactly are the demographics of this business, and how do they compare to the make-up of society? Does this business provide special accommodations for LGBT and gender queer individuals? How do the salaries of each individual within the company compare to one another? Are religious or cultural holidays recognized in this company; if so, do they also give equal recognition for Kwanzaa, even though nobody celebrates Kwanzaa? And on and on, on and on…
At first this obsessive examination appears at odds with the liberal tendency toward social anarchy, but looking further it becomes understandable. The liberal ideology of victimhood forces one into a state of habitual paranoia whereby one must constantly be on the look out for signs, not matter how subtle or seemingly innocuous, of oppression, and because the laws and measures put into place never yield the desired results since natural laws deny the liberal ideal, a vicious cycle emerges. Thus in order to “liberate” mankind, the liberal spends tremendous energy and resources attempting to exert their will onto others, and eventually becomes totalitarian.
Because the liberal has no objective conception of good, s/he becomes obsessed with and eventually consumed by the concept of evil. Furthermore, because the liberal has nothing but a vacuous conception of good with which to contrast evil, evil becomes a similarly nebulous concept. When taken to its logical conclusion, a total inversion of moral and ethical principles arises.
In light of all of this, pragmatism and ideology merge for the conservative because moral relativism is always a losing position due to its innate incoherence and counter intuitively. Thus, properly articulating what is right is arguably the strongest weapon conservatives can wield. The question then becomes how best to do so.

Should Hitler Have Been Punished? Stefan Molyneux·