Global warming? . . . Or cooling?

Interesting: Shortly after hearing of the supposed "failure" of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, I happened to come across an article in the Economist's special The World in 2010 called "Where have all the sunspots gone?"

"In the past, sunspots have disappeared for decades," writes the author.

Between 1645 and 1715, they were rare. There were several years in which none at all was sighted and others in which fewer than ten were spotted. Giovanni Cassini, an Italian astronomer, described a sunspot that appeared in 1671 as the first he had seen for many years. John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, observed one in 1684, after a gap of ten years. This 70-year period of low solar activity has since been dubbed the Maunder Minimum (after an astronomer called Edward Maunder, a sunspot specialist).

And so? . . .

Well, it appears we may be entering into a new "Maunder Minimum."

Four centuries after sunspots were first seen—by Galileo—they have disappeared almost entirely. In 2009 weeks and sometimes months went by without a single sunspot being discerned. In 2010 they will return, or so say most solar scientists. Others wonder whether the sun may be going through an extended period of inactivity. . . .

Normally the number of sunspots peaks every 11 years, coinciding with the times when the sun’s magnetic field is at its strongest. As the field wanes, the number of sunspots falls to a trough or minimum, at which point the sun’s magnetic field reverses direction and starts to regain its strength. As it does so, sunspots begin to appear close to the poles of the sun. When the magnetic field is at its strongest, and sunspots at their most plentiful, they cluster close to the equator.

Back in 2008 solar scientists saw a high-latitude, reversed-polarity sunspot, suggesting the start of a new solar cycle. Since then, however, there has been little activity. . . .

Scientists from America’s space agency, NASA, reckon that the next peak will come in March or April 2013. However, their colleagues at the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, have found that the magnetism of sunspots (the strength of the knot that they form) has been declining over the past couple of decades. If this carries on, solar magnetic fields will become too weak to form sunspots, which will vanish completely in 2015.

So are we headed for a new "Maunder Minimum"? We may find out in 2010.
"Reliable predictions of sunspot numbers are impossible to make until the solar cycle is well established, usually three years after the minimum"--i.e., this year, 2010.

But so what? And why did I title this post with words about global warming or cooling?

Well . . .

"The Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of exceptionally cold winters in Europe and North America and, perhaps, elsewhere," writes the author.

"Oh, yes!" I thought when I read that sentence. "Wasn't that called the Little Ice Age?" (Yes, it was.)

Frankly, I have been a skeptic not so much about global warming, per se, but about the supposed link between human action and global warming. Considering the temperature increases that occurred long before the build-up in atmospheric carbon dioxide; and considering the much higher temperatures the earth seems to have experienced in millennia past: I just don't find the "arguments" for human causation particularly compelling.

So then comes this article about sunspots.

"What happens if global warming meets solar cooling?" asks the author. "Expect a hot debate."

Yes. I can imagine.

But I just hope the cooling, if it is to come, comes quickly and decisively so that our governments will not have made it impossible for those of us who will need fuel just to stay warm and survive to get the fuel we need.

******
While we're on the subject, let me encourage you to read physicist Howard Hayden's "one-letter proof" that the science is not settled on the issue of CO2 and climate change.

Nice job, Professor Hayden (and Stephan Kinsella, who quoted him).

******
Oh. And then yesterday I happened upon this article, from yesterday's Daily Mail (UK), in which "some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists" claim that "a global trend towards cooler weather . . . is likely to last for 20 or 30 years."

Interesting: These scientists don't mention sunspots. They refer to certain "oceanic cycles, . . . known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs)."

Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

‘They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.

For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.

It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer.

'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’

As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted.

Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole.
In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow.

‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

Of course, the "orthodox" global warming advocates claim all of this is preposterous.

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

Will the die-hard believers allow us to wait two or three years to see?

Somehow, I think not. They will attempt, with all their might, to push the rest of us into their orthodoxy.

And I? I would prefer to advocate for a little room to let global warming "heretics" have their say without persecution.

[NOTE: If you are reading this article on Facebook, it originally appeared on my personal blog.]

"A bowl of M&M's . . . with all brown ones removed"

I had heard the stories. Perhaps you did, too.

Van Halen included a notorious clause in all of its contracts: Concert promoters had to provide a bowl of M&M's backstage, but every single brown candy had to be removed. I had heard that. I hadn't heard that if the band found any brown candies the show would be forfeit and the band was to be paid anyway.

But, it turns out, the contract was, indeed, "that bad"!

Indeed, the "no brown candies" clause was toward the end of an astonishingly detailed 40- or 50-page contract. (Here is a copy of the page with the M&M's clause: page 9 in an 11-page rider to the main contract.)

No question, the clause existed. But why? It's part of the "spoiled brat" culture of celebrity, isn't it?

I was surprised this morning to find a different suggestion in The last word article at the back of this week's The Week magazine--a condensed portion of a new book by surgeon Atul Gawande, The Checklist Manifesto:

Listening to the radio one day, I heard the story behind rocker David Lee Roth’s notorious insistence that Van Halen’s contracts with concert promoters contain a clause specifying that a bowl of M&M’s has to be provided backstage, but with every single brown candy removed. . . . At least once, Van Halen actually followed through, peremptorily canceling a show in Colorado when Roth found some brown M&M’s in his dressing room.

This turned out to be, however, not another example of the insane demands of power-mad celebrities but of an ingenious ruse.

As Roth explained in his memoir, Crazy From the Heat, “Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We’d pull up with nine 18-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors—whether it was the girders couldn’t support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren’t big enough to move the gear through. The contract rider read like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages because there was so much equipment, and so many human beings to make it function.”

So just as a little test, buried somewhere in the middle of the rider, would be Article 126, the no-brown-M&M’s clause.

“When I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl,” he wrote, “well, we’d line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you’d run into a problem.”

The mistakes could be life-threatening, the radio story pointed out. In Colorado, the band found that the local promoters had failed to read the weight requirements and that the staging would have fallen through the arena floor.

Sounds reasonable.

Not sure why I decided to dig deeper, but as I read up on this story I found enough inconsistencies that, though I think the story makes a worthy object lesson as told, I don't think it's "the truth." It's part urban legend.

First, if Roth is to be believed, the band did not immediately cancel its engagement. And it's not that the staging "would have" fallen through the arena floor, but, according to Roth, it actually did fall through:

The folks in Pueblo, Colorado, at the university, took the contract rather kinda casual. They had one of these new rubberized bouncy basketball floorings in their arena. They hadn’t read the contract, and weren’t sure, really, about the weight of this production; this thing weighed like the business end of a 747.

I came backstage. I found some brown M&M’s, I went into full Shakespearean “What is this before me?” . . . you know, with the skull in one hand . . . and promptly trashed the dressing room. Dumped the buffet, kicked a hole in the door, twelve thousand dollars’ worth of fun.

The staging sank through their floor. They didn’t bother to look at the weight requirements or anything, and this sank through their new flooring and did eighty thousand dollars’ worth of damage to the arena floor. The whole thing had to be replaced. It came out in the press that I discovered brown M&M’s and did eighty-five thousand dollars’ worth of damage to the backstage area.

Well, who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?

But there's at least one more problem with the story--at least as I read it in light of the actual contract rider as presented. The problem: At least according to the one copy of the contract that we can see, the M&M's didn't have to be provided until one hour before the show--long, long after equipment would have been off-loaded from the trucks and set up on the stage. Moreover--and this, I think, too, speaks against the idea that the M&M's were some kind of unique "test": There were plenty of other minute details in the contract, any one of which could have served as a "test" of the producers' attention to detail.

No. In the end, I think the brown M&M's clause was the result, simply, of one of the band member's personal preference. And as long as he could ask for it, he might as well get it.

Again: I like the parable. I think Gawande's larger message is still valid. It's just too bad that this particular story--my impression--cannot possibly be true as told.

Amazon expands competition in sales of college textbooks . . .

Officially, I'm an Amazon affiliate. (I think I've gotten maybe $50 worth of commissions over the last five years. Obviously, I'm not a major player in the market! :-)) But having a son in college, and being aware of how much college textbooks can cost, I was pleased to receive notification yesterday, first, that Amazon actually sells textbooks, and, second, that they are holding a textbook promotion:

Our Textbooks Store features savings of up to 30% on new titles shipped from and sold by Amazon.com, and up to 90% on millions of used textbooks.

This season, you can take advantage of FREE two-day shipping for three months with a free trial of Amazon Prime when you purchase any eligible textbook. You can also receive a $5 credit good for individual songs or full albums at the Amazon MP3 store when you purchase $50 or more in textbooks.

I should probably note concerning Amazon Prime: I signed up for the service back in February 2005, very shortly after they announced the program. I mean, what a deal! You pay $79 once a year and then get free two-day shipping on virtually everything Amazon sells: not only books, but everything. (One of the reasons I do about 80% or more of my Christmas shopping at Amazon.)

If you are a printed book lover (as Sarita and I are), and you buy a few books every month or so--sometimes a book or two a week--how can you beat that kind of deal? Every time you want a book (or almost anything else you want to purchase): Order it from Amazon and you get free shipping . . . and the book will arrive the day after tomorrow (if you order before about 2 o'clock in the afternoon). What a deal!

On the other hand, I have to confess, as a competitive bookseller, I hate the program. I mean, for the onesie-twosie book purchaser, how can you possibly compete? There's nowhere near enough profit in the small sales to cover the cost of premium shipping. . . .

Oh. One more aspect of Prime that I just discovered this morning: when you become a member, you can invite four other members of your household to enjoy your benefits as well at no additional cost!

"Household" members seem to include every relation from grandparents to grandchildren, aunts and uncles to nieces and nephews . . . and everyone in between . . . plus "unmarried partner[s]" (business partners? --Why not?!).

Anyway. FWIW.

Whither the US dollar?

I just ran across this interview between Martin Weiss and Larry Edelson. I think it is well worth your consideration.

Conducted in late October last year, it is titled "Washington's Secret War on the Dollar"--but it actually begins by noting that the U.S. government is only one among many entities that have declared war on the dollar.

Caveat Emptor! (Buyer[s of dollar] Beware!)

. . . Besides laying out the true risks associated with being invested in dollar-denominated assets, Weiss and Edelson also recommend some general--though relatively specific--guidelines for avoiding problems with dollar-denominated assets.

Follow-up to DCA post

You may recall my post on a potential semi-universal cure for cancer.

One of my readers contacted a professional cancer researcher, a friend-of-a-friend, who offered the following input:

• A quick literature search indicates that there have been promising in vitro studies (using cells grown on plates) which show cancer cells dying after treatment. However,
   
• In vivo there has only been one animal study using rats to show a decrease in tumor size (one lab did it with Michelakis as first author on the paper).
   
• Keep in mind that nothing is really believable until it can be replicated in other labs.
   
• Many other papers indicate that ingestion of DCA in mice caused liver cancer and another showed damage to peripheral nerves.
   
• Basically, there are no human or even monkey studies to support the claims of DCA being a safe and effective drug for cancer treatment.

The same researcher then forwarded original versions of two articles:

1. A popular article from Nature magazine, written in March 2007 (almost three years ago, and just a month after the DCA story first came out in the scientific press: Cancer patients opt for unapproved drug

and,

2. An academic (but relatively readable) article by Dr. Michelakis, the researcher who first brought DCA to the attention of cancer researchers: Dichloroacetate (DCA) as a potential metabolic-targeting therapy for cancer. (This article was published in September 2008, but was first received for publication in December 2007.)

The first article takes a generally antagonistic stance toward patients who would ingest "unapproved" drugs:

Jim Tassano, who owns a pest-control and marketing company in Sonora, California, came across DCA when researching alternative cancer therapies to help his dying ballroom-dance instructor. He wanted something that was effective, safe and that he could lay his hands on: DCA fit the bill. He ordered some from chemical supply companies, teamed up with a chemist friend and they worked out a way to synthesize the compound themselves. “I couldn’t walk away from it,” Tassano says. “It could do so much good for so many people.”

Tassano set up two websites. The first of these (thedcasite.com) hosts information on DCA and a patient chatroom. On the second (buydca.com) Tassano is selling his homemade DCA. . . . Many patients taking DCA — acquired from Tassano, chemical companies or other sources — are reporting their progress on thedcasite.com.

And the problem with this, according to Dr. Michelakis and others?

Although DCA seems safe overall, they point to a clinical trial that was stopped early because those taking the drug developed damage to their peripheral nerves (P. Kaufmann et al. Neurology 66, 324–330; 2006). Without a control group, they point out, it will be impossible to tell whether any improvement in the patients’ condition is caused by the drug. Patients could also be taking DCA that is not of pharmaceutical grade and might contain harmful impurities.

Michelakis says the patients could end up undermining efforts to do a controlled clinical trial if, for example, some develop harmful side effects and the drug earns a bad reputation. “It’s destroying efforts to do this right,” he says. “Any way you look at this, it’s a negative development.”

"Any way you look at it," it's a negative development? From the perspective of the patients who have, otherwise, been given no hope?

The article's author continues:

The battle between dying patients who want immediate access to unapproved drugs and doctors who urge trials and caution is a perennial one. Some patients argue that they cannot wait for trials and should have the right to take unapproved drugs, regardless of the risks.

But there are arguments against this. An estimated 95% of cancer drugs that enter clinical trials do not get approval, many because they are ineffective or unsafe, so patients risk shortening their life or making their last days more uncomfortable.

Okay. But shouldn't it be up to the patients themselves to determine whether they are willing to take the risks? On what grounds should that decision be left to the government or the "powers that be" who get to "approve" drugs for trial?

Oh. And then there's another argument "against" permitting patients to make their own decisions about whether to use "unapproved" drugs:

[I]f patients can access DCA — or other unapproved drugs — there is no incentive for them to enter a clinical trial. So in terms of public health, ethicists argue, more people will be helped if access to unapproved drugs is restricted and proper trials performed.

So, apparently, selflessness is to be mandated by law. You must, by law, sacrifice yourself for the potential of helping others--"one day, maybe, long after you're dead, if we can just get the funding."

Peter Jacobsen, an expert in ethics, health and law at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, doubts whether any good can come of the patients’ efforts. They are so desperate to see results, he says, that there is no way they can report unbiased results and no mechanism to ensure the reports are accurate. “I don’t trust the data,” he says. “It’s hard enough to rely on them in clinical trials, let alone this.”

Okay. I'll buy that. I'll buy the need for caution and the need for skepticism. But . . .

Then I read Michelakis' article.

Remember that clinical trial that was "stopped early because those taking the drug developed damage to their peripheral nerves"? Michelakis notes,

[T]he first two randomised control trials of chronic oral therapy with DCA in congenital mitochondrial diseases were reported in 2006. In the first, a blinded placebo-controlled study was performed with oral DCA administered at 25 mg kg^-1 day^-1 in 30 patients with MELAS syndrome (mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes) (Kaufmann et al, 2006). Most patients enrolled in the DCA arm developed symptomatic peripheral neuropathy, compared with 4 out of 15 in the placebo arm, leading to the termination of the study.

Whoa! Sounds bad!

But he continues:

Seventeen out of 19 patients had at least partial resolution of peripheral neurological symptoms by 9 months after discontinuation of DCA. . . . No other toxicities were reported.

Beyond this,

It is important to note that peripheral neuropathy often complicates MELAS because of primary or secondary effects on peripheral nerves; for example these patients also have diabetes and diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy.

And then,

In contrast [to the negative results of this one study that was terminated], another randomised placebo-controlled double-blinded study failed to show any significant toxicity of DCA, including peripheral neuropathy. In this study only one of 21 children with congenital lactic acidosis treated with DCA orally at 25 mg kg^-1 day^-1 for 6 months demonstrated mild peripheral neuropathy. Serial nerve conduction studies failed to demonstrate any difference in incidence of neuropathy in the 2 arms (placebo vs DCA). Sleepiness and lethargy, muscular rigidity of the upper extremity and hand tremor were reported in one patient in each group (Stacpoole et al, 2006).

So what is Michelakis' view of the divergent results with respect to neuropathy?

The higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy in adult MELAS patients may represent an intrinsic predisposition to this complication in MELAS or its associated conditions, that is, diabetes mellitus; this toxicity might also be age-dependent. . . . [Moreover, a]s peripheral neuropathy is a frequent complication of taxane, platinum and vinca-alkaloid chemotherapies, the risk for DCA-associated peripheral neuropathy may depend on whether cancer patients have prior or concurrent neurotoxic therapy. . . . [But i]n summary, peripheral neuropathy is a potential side effect of DCA that appears to be largely reversible.

I want to quote one more section from Michelakis' article. Before I do, however, I would like to add some weight to what he said in the section I have just quoted. One of the moderators on thedcasite.com, Jay C, comments,

Researchers at the University of Alberta have reported that DCA is relatively non-toxic, since it has already been used as a medicine on adults and children to treat metabolic disease, and for hypertension. It has been known to have some mild side effects in a minority of patients and they include a change in gait [and] some nerve problems, but both of these symptoms appear to be reversible upon cessation of DCA. This is certainly in positive contract to most of the poisons being administered today as "chemo", including IL-2 (requires on[e] week in ICU), Interferon, and DTIC.

So why the apparently special concern over possible complications from DCA? Is it really scientific objectivity at work here? Or, possibly, something else? [Fear of losing power on the part of gatekeepers like the FDA? Fear of lost profits on the part of major pharmaceutical companies? "The preclinical work on DCA (showing effectiveness in a variety of tumours and relatively low toxicity) (Bonnet et al, 2007), its structure (a very small molecule), [and] the low price (it is a generic drug) . . ., provide a strong rationale for rapid clinical translation," Michelakis says early in his article. Oh. I should probably include the last comment that I elided from the immediately preceding quote. One other factor that ought to provide a rationale for rapid clinical translatioin? " . . . and the fact that DCA has already been used in humans for more than 30 years" (presumably without notable safety concerns).]
The concluding paragraph in Michelakis' article adds another note of interest to this reader:

[E]ven if DCA does not prove to be the ‘dawn of a new era’ (Pan and Mak, 2007), initiation and completion of clinical trials with a generic compound will be a task of tremendous symbolic and practical significance. At this point the ‘dogma’ that trials of systemic anticancer therapy cannot happen without industry support, suppresses the potential of many promising drugs that might not be financially attractive for pharmaceutical manufacturers. In that sense, the clinical evaluation of DCA . . . will be . . . [a] paradigm shift.

While I'm at it, I ought to include one last note. A "Note to Proof" appended by the editors of the British Journal of Cancer at the end of Michelakis' article:

Since the acceptance of this review two important papers have confirmed the novel anticancer effects of DCA in prostate and endometrial cancers: Wong JY et al, Dichloroacetate induces apoptosis in endometrial cancer cells. Gynecol Oncol June 2008; 109(3): 394–402 and Gao et al, Dichloroacetate (DCA) sensitizes both wild-type and over expressing Bcl-2 prostate cancer cells in vitro to radiation. Prostate 1 August 2008; 68 (11):1223–1231.

[NOTE: If you are reading this article on Facebook, it originally appeared on my personal blog.]

Whoa! I can't imagine driving like this!

Best I can make out, this occurred in Southern California back in April.

A driver tried to ram a Long Beach car, prompting an hour-long, high-speed chase in which the woman drove the car in circles, went the wrong way on a tollway and even got out of the car to gesture at officers.

The woman was arrested after about a 40-mile pursuit. No injuries were reported, but the woman endangered motorists on four freeways, California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers said.

The chase began when Long Beach officers went to an intersection shortly after 6 a.m. in response to a report of a woman screaming. A car tried to ram their police cruiser three times and then fled, Long Beach police Officer Jackie Bezart said.

After an eight-minute chase through Long Beach, the driver got onto a freeway and the CHP was notified. Officers chased the silver Scion into Orange County at speeds that sometimes topped 100 mph, authorities said. Television news helicopters carried the chase live.

On the SR 241 tollway in Rancho Santa Margarita--where the video clips below were shot--the woman made "doughnuts" while driving on both shoulders of the road, briefly drove the wrong way then got out of the car and gestured with both hands at officers before returning to the slowly rolling vehicle and driving off.

Shortly thereafter, a patrol car rammed the back of the Scion, spinning it around in an attempt to stop it, but the driver managed to flee once more.

The car finally was stopped at the end of the tollway in an unincorporated area near Rancho Santa Margarita after being bumped a second time. The Scion was boxed in and swarmed by officers, including one who jumped onto the roof. The woman was pulled through the car's window, forced to the ground and handcuffed.

First video, covering the end of the chase played at a slightly faster-than-normal pace (maybe 120% of real life) and set to humorous music (0:54):



Second video, a more sober summary of the story with the same basic video but shot from a different angle (1:56):



Glad I have not found myself confronted by drivers like this!

. . . And if they aren't enough, and you really want to get your blood pumping . . .

How about this a police chase of a stretch limo going upwards of 150 mph--with a goodly portion of the chase conducted while the limo driver is driving his vehicle in reverse (3:42)?!?

Amazing natural phenomena

I got hooked into some fascinating blog posts about just about unbelievable natural phenomena.

Of course, I'm sure you've heard of the Aurora Borealis or Northern Lights,	Image via Wikipedia
. . . and if you've been to the Caribbean almost anywhere on the U.S. coastline, you're probably familiar with Red Tides caused by algal blooms.	Image by Chris Willey via Flickr
Maybe you've heard of Supercells (though if you're like me, you've never either seen one or a photo of one before).

But how about Mammatus Clouds, Fire Whirls, Ice Circles, and Hums? (Check out 10 Most Fascinating Natural Phenomena.)

And better than these, I'm impressed with the virtually eternal "Relámpago del Catatumbo" (Catatumbo lightning) and the Pororoca--a surfable wave that lasts for more than half an hour! (Check out 7 Incredible Natural Phenomena you've never seen.)

. . . By the way: Happy Old Year's Night!

And if you're seeing this on Facebook and can't find the links: you'll find this post on my personal blog.

Thyroid difficulties . . . and the US government

I had my thyroid destroyed back in 1984 as a result of a hyper-hyper case of Grave's Disease. --The lab that did the tests said they had never seen thyroxine levels as high as mine; they were "off the charts."

So my doctor gave me the radioactive isotope Iodine-131 to destroy my thyroid gland . . . and a few months later I had none.

I have been taking thyroxine tablets ever since. For some time, now, I've been taking the "natural" stuff sold under the Armour^® brand name by a company named Forest Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals (what, in just the last few days, I found out are desiccated and pulverized pig thyroid glands formed into pills). Most of the time, however, I've been taking synthesized thyroxine sold as generic levothryroxine or a branded product like Synthroid^®.

What's the difference between the two? I mean, physiologically . . . for the person like me who is ingesting the stuff?

I will confess that, for me, I haven't really been able to tell the difference. But then, I haven't been all that attentive to my physical condition until the last couple of years.

For many people, however, the difference between the two concoctions is dramatic, though the majority of doctors seem to believe the difference is all in hypothyroid sufferers' heads.

Happily, only one of my doctors has actively opposed my use of the Armour^® tablets. But despite his opposition, I've been able to use the Armour^® product for the past seven years or so.

This last year, however, I started bumping into supply difficulties. Back in January I was told the pharmacy didn't have 120 mg tablets (the daily dose I needed at the time). . . . Happily, they "simply" gave me the equivalent in the form of two 60 mg tablets per day. No big deal.

Last time I refilled prior to when I began writing this post in mid-October, I still had almost a month's worth of pills left. But for various reasons, at that time I got a three-month supply of 60 mg tablets from our insurer's mail order pharmacy. . . . Then, only a few days after I got my three-month supply, I was told I should reduce my dose to only 90 mg--1½ tablets--a day. So in mid-October, I was just coming to the end of my supply.

Meanwhile, in mid-October I had another blood test to see how my thyroxine levels were.

My doctor wanted to run with the "standard" TSH-only (thyroid stimulating hormone-only) test. I said I believed we really needed the T4 and T3 levels measured as well. (Since then I have found some interesting data on the need for all three tests.)

TSH measures what your body "thinks" it needs in the way of thyroxine. T4 and T3 measure actual thyroxine levels in the blood--and, based on tests I've been having done throughout this past year on the direction of my longevity and vitality doctor, I know that one or more of these numbers can be "out" of range while TSH is "in" range.

My doctor relented.

The tests came back: TSH and T4 levels both indicated a significant deficiency, but T3 was slightly out-of-range on the high end.

"How about bumping your dose back up?" my doctor asked.

"Sounds reasonable," I said. (I had gotten the sense, somehow, that my body was slowing down a bit.)

But what should we make of the T3? Why is that so high?

Is it that kind of anomalous/strange number that got Armour's thyroxine in trouble, here, in the last year [so that it is unavailable for purchase]?

I still have a few weeks' worth of Armour left if I take it at 120 mg/day.

Meanwhile, I asked, "Is there any 'natural' thyroxine that can/will replace Armour while they are out of production?"

I thanked him for any help he could provide.

He replied:

1. I've been in touch with my pharmacologist. She states that since Armour is an animal product, the amount of T3 and T4 will vary from batch to batch which might explain the high T3 and low T4. Synthetic products like synthroid are more consistently dosed.

2. I don't think Kaiser has any of the other brands of the natural thyroid of any kind so we might have to get you to get it elsewhere during the shortage.

Somehow, I had this feeling the pharmacologist was misinformed. I can't imagine Armour/Forest Pharmaceuticals has been able to get away with inconsistent product quality for all these years.

So I did a little research. And then some more. And then a lot more.

I'm astonished at what I have found.

• First--not terribly astonishing, but worth noting: The pharmacist really was "blowing smoke" about the supposed quality or lack thereof in the Armour thyroid. Armour Natural Thyroid is carefully controlled for potency and purity:
  

  The amount of thyroid hormone present in the thyroid gland may vary from animal to animal. To ensure that Armour Thyroid tablets are consistently potent from tablet to tablet and lot to lot, analytical tests are performed on the thyroid powder (raw material) and on the actual tablets (finished product) to measure actual T4 and T3 activity.
  
  Different lots of thyroid powder are mixed together and analyzed to achieve the desired ratio of T4 to T3 in each lot of tablets. This method ensures that each strength of Armour Thyroid will be consistent with the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) official standards and specifications for desiccated thyroid lot-to-lot consistency. The ratio of T4 to T3 equals 4.22:1 (4.22 parts of T4 to one part of T3).

  Beyond that, however, the synthetic hormone manufacturers have faced numerous and "significant stability and potency problems" themselves with their products. It's not as if they are above reproach.
• Despite the statements about quality control by the manufacturer of the Armour brand thyroid, you can still read claims such as this:
  

  Armour Thyroid was the only treatment for hypothyroidism for about 50 years, but it was found that the amounts of T3 and T4 varied greatly from batch to batch. Eventually, synthetic T4 (Synthroid) was being produced and widely used because it did not have similar problems of standardization in common with the naturally derived Armour Thyroid.

  You can also find even stranger and more inaccurate information from the American Thyroid Association.
  
  But, as Mary Shomom notes in the About.com Guide to Thyroid Disease, there may be good reasons for this kind of disinformation even "from the top." Just follow the money--from Abbott Laboratories, maker of Synthroid, to the American Thyroid Association, for example. [Look toward the bottom of this article for the evidence.] --Or how about the payments from all the synthetic hormone manufacturers to the FDA in order to get their products approved in the early 2000s after the FDA threatened them with being pulled off the market due to those "significant stability and potency problems" I mentioned above?
   
• Armour REFORMULATED its thyroid product in the spring of 2009--changing its binders and excipients . . . and causing a bunch of problems for many patients.
   
• Whether Armour thyroid is efficacious or not, it turns out there really is no source of natural thyroid in the United States as of this moment. And, it appears, the FDA may have actually outlawed--or may be in the process of outlawing--the manufacture of this product in the United States, a product that has been on the market and helping people like me for more than 100 years.
  
  The more I have read, the more disturbed I have become at this turn of events.
   
• Despite the shortage here in the United States,
  

  Canada has a generic natural desiccated thyroid drug, referred to as 'Thyroid,' which is made by ERFA Drugs . . . [and s]ome of the foreign pharmacies that ship to the US may have some remaining stock of Nature-Throid, Westhroid, Armour Thyroid, or foreign brands of natural desiccated thyroid like Thyroid-S.

  It took a while, but eventually I discovered the natural thyroid preparation made by Greater Pharma of Thailand: a product that goes by the brand name Thiroyd and available in wholesale quantities at a wonderful price. I also found a Canadian source with very good prices of the ERFA Thyroid and in a wide variety of specific dosages.
  
  I had my doctor write me a highly "generic" prescription for natural thyroid along the lines of the following advice from the http://is.gd/4hhvT article:
  

  During the shortages, ask your doctor to write your prescription for desiccated thyroid as broadly as possible. For example, a prescription for 'desiccated thyroid, 1 grain' can be filled with Armour, Nature-Throid, Biotech, or a generic. But if they write 'Armour Thyroid, 60 mg' for example, you won't be able to get 'Nature-Throid.'

• I should have learned these things years ago, but I just now discovered: the synthetic thyroxines normally prescribed by the medical profession supply only one form of thyroxine, "T4"--tetra­iodothyronine--commonly formulated as levothy­ro­xine sodium (a synthetic thyroxine molecule that contains four molecules of iodine bonded by sodium). Our bodies, however, use T4, T3 (triio­dothy­ro­nine--i.e., thyroxine with three iodine molecules), T2 (diiodothyronine--thyroxine with two iodines), T1 (monoiodothyronine), and something called cal­ci­to­nin, a hormone that participates in and/or regulates calcium loss from bone, calcium levels in the blood, and, possibly (proven in rats and monkeys; not yet demonstrated in humans), satiety.
  
  Not only do our bodies use all five of these hormones, when they are healthy, our bodies manufacture them. If--as happened to me via Iodine-131 therapy--your thyroid has been knocked completely out of commission, the only way you're going to get the T2, T1 and calcitonin is if you take natural thyroid. Yes, your body can convert some T4 to T3, but, I am given to understand, it cannot further break down the T3 to T2, T1, or calcitonin.
   
• An article published in the February 11, 1999 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (1999;340:424-429, 469-470) reports that treatment with thyroxine [T4--the commonly prescribed synthetic levothyroxine/Synthroid hormone] plus triiodothyronine [T3--rarely prescribed by American doctors, but available under the brand name Cytomel; a synthetic T4/T3 combination product is also available under the brand name Thyrolar] improved the quality of life for most hypothyroid patients. Indeed, "Among 17 scores on tests of cognitive performance and assessments of mood, 6 were better or closer to normal after treatment with thyroxine plus triiodothyronine. Similarly, among 15 . . . scales used to indicate mood and physical status, the results for 10 were significantly better after treatment with thyroxine plus triiodothyronine [i.e., T4 plus T3]."
  
  Of course, that is a dispassionate medical/scientific statement.
  
  A more partisan description comes from the StopTheThyroidMadness.com website:
  

  [I]n nearly ALL patients on T4 meds, the T4 does NOT convert into an adequate amount of T3, leaving you with symptoms that neither you OR your uninformed doctor realize are related to inadequate treatment—poor stamina compared to others, chronic low grade depression, thinning hair or outer eyebrows, feeling cold when others are warm, cholesterol problems, aches and pains, hard or small stools, easy weight gain, memory problems, foggy thinking, a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Fibromyalgia, difficulty conceiving . . . the list is long and pathetic. In other words, healthy thyroids are NOT meant to rely solely on T4-to-T3 conversion!

  (I should note, for full disclosure, a report issued by the British Thyroid Association in 2007 says,
  

  Since [the] initial study [reported in the NEJM in 1999], there have been a further seven rigorously conducted (“randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled”) studies, encompassing more than 900 hypothyroid patients (summarised in refs. 3 & 4). None of the subsequent studies showed a beneficial effect of combined T4/T3 therapy on measures of wellbeing, health and mental functioning. Three of the seven studies show harmful or undesirable effects of the T4/T3 combination. . . .
  
  In three of the subsequent studies of combination treatment, the patients were asked which treatment they preferred, and in two of these 3 studies more patients preferred the combination T4/T3 therapy. There is no obvious explanation for these observations, and it may or may not be a reproducible effect.

  [One last note on these statements: I found an article in the journal Thyroid in 2004 that seems to prove at least one of the negative statements, here, wrong. Clearly, at least one subsequent study "showed a beneficial effect of combined T4/T3 therapy on measures of wellbeing, health and mental functioning"!
   
• Despite the fact that the medical profession recently tightened the definition of "normal TSH" to no more than 3.04 mU/l (they used to say "normal" went as high as 5 mU/l), a 1997 article in the British Medical Journal concluded, "Thyroid stimulating hormone concentrations above 2 mU/l are associated with an increased risk of hypothyroidism." --And again the author at StopTheThyroidMadness.com ups the ante:
  

  Around 1973, the TSH lab test was developed. Based on a sampling of several volunteers, a so-called “normal” range was established—.5 to 5.0 (recently lowered to 3.0). But volunteers with a history of family hypothyroid were NOT excluded, leaving us with a range that leans towards being hypothyroid! In fact, the TSH RARELY corresponds to how a patient feels [i.e. to actual hypothyroid symptoms]. There is a large majority of patients who have a “normal” TSH, even in the “one” area of the range, and have a myriad of hypo symptoms. There is a complete chapter on the TSH with more information in the Stop the Thyroid Madness book.

I am deeply tempted to continue, but I need to post this, finally, after sitting on the story for the better part of three months.

Perhaps at a later date I can talk about the FDA's apparent war against non-Big Pharma medicine. (Imagine the position we skeptics will face when the federal government begins to dictate all medical care!)

But this is more than enough for one post.

Well . . . maybe not quite.

One last note. There are reasons to consider avoiding the desiccated thyroid pills and taking synthetic T4 and synthetic T3 pills as an alternative. Two reasons that I've found:

1) The ratio of T4 to T3 in the desiccated thyroid pills does not match the ratio normally found in the human body. Indeed, I am given to understand, the ratio of T3 to T4 is higher than is normal in humans. Desiccated thyroid pills give you an approximate 1:4 ratio (T3:T4) as compared to--I have seen numbers anywhere from 1:7, to 1:14, to 1:20! Whatever the "correct" normal ratio, it is clearly different from the standard ratio found in desiccated thyroid pills.

2) Most of the desiccated thyroid pills are made from pig thyroids. If you are allergic to pig, you may have difficulties finding a "natural" product you can use. I am told a few exist, but they are exceedingly difficult to find. (I have not found any.)

For more on the T4/T3 controversy, check out the About.com T4/T3 Thyroid Drug Controversy page.

[NOTE: If you are reading this article on Facebook, it originally appeared on my personal blog.]

Nationalized Health Care

I woke up Christmas morning thinking about this video (0:31):



The people who put the video together obviously believe that a nationalized healthcare system would be/will be a good thing.

Clearly, this family was put into a tremendously difficult circumstance. And then their neighbors came together and bailed them out. Indeed, all the footage and, it seems, all the music, too, is from neighbors' fundraising efforts.

"It took our neighborhood to come together to save us," the narrator says.

But rather than noticing how her family's difficult circumstance were actually overcome through unified community effort. And rather than noticing how truly thrilled participants seem to have been to have helped her, she concludes:
If we can get it in Washington Park [Winston-Salem, NC], then why can't they get it in Washington, DC? Look: "Public Option," "Trigger" . . . --I really don't care what they call it: something's got to change."

And then, finally, a placard: "Isn't it time to put people before politics?"

Ummmm.

My morning wake-up dream/thoughts included these things:

• I would prefer recipients of aid recognize it is a privilege and it is the result of the largesse--the charity, if you will--of those who make it possible for them to enjoy the help they are receiving.
   
• If we are receiving services for which we have not paid, that is a gift; it is not a "right."
   
• Someone is sacrificing in order to make it possible for any or all of us to receive medical help beyond our means. Those of us who receive that aid should recognize the sacrifices of others and express appropriate gratitude. We ought, certainly, not to take the attitude that the receipt of such aid is our "right" and we have the "right" to "demand" such aid.

Upon further reflection, what really bothers me is the notion that some bureaucrats in Washington can cobble together a better, more equitable, more efficient system--in the space of even a few months--than the free market, with all the competing forces of open competition, has been able to create over centuries.

Beyond that, I am deeply disturbed by what I have experienced within and under the drugs regime of our federal government.

I have meant to write on the problems of thyroid/thyroxine over the last couple of months. I expect I will finally get to it sometime in the next week.

I do not regard our government as my friend in the realm of pharmaceuticals. To put them in charge of our entire health care industry is downright scary to me.

*******
And one last set of comments.

I noted the concluding placard in the video: "Isn't it time to put people before politics?"

My question: Are we really dealing with "politics," here? Aren't we dealing with a bankrupt government, already acknowledging it is in debt equivalent to almost 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($12.1 trillion of acknowledged debt in a country with a GDP of just under $14.25 trillion) . . . and, if it were to account for its contracted future obligations the way normal businesses are required to account for such things: its total "unfunded future obligations" amount to just a bit over seven times GDP ($106.5 trillion).

Let's put that into perspective.

The ratio of government debt to GDP is really not as important as government debt in comparison to government revenue. After all, the government can't consider total GDP as grounds for spending--either on new obligations or to pay off old ones. It can only spend its actual revenue. And when we look at the debt-v.-revenue numbers, here's what we're really looking at: a government with revenue of not quite $2.2 trillion and an acknowledged debt of $12.1 trillion already on the books.

Put in terms that you and I might be able to digest, that means a family with a net (post-tax) income of $35,000, has a current debt load of (12.1/2.2=5.5; 5.5 x $35,000 =) $192,500. And if we were to include future obligations not funded, the federal government's obligations, for a family with net (post-tax) income of $35,000 is (106.5/2.2 = 48.4; 48.4 x $35,000 =) $1,694,000.

--And this government--this government, that hasn't been able to balance its budget in more than 30 years--through good times and bad--is proposing to take on additional major obligations?

With what money? Whose money?

Do you think the Chinese, who hold close to $800 billion of our government's debt, and the Japanese, who hold about $700 billion, are going to sit idly by as American congresspeople continue to ratchet up their debt with no reasonable idea of how they ever intend to repay it?

I don't. And so, until the American Congress can come up with a plan to pay off its debt, I say: "No new purchases."

New Iran-Iraq War? New Iran-US War?

I had not heard about this Iranian incursion into Iraq until I received an email from STRATFOR with a link to this video (the entire story is covered in the first 4:09):


STRATFOR's summary:

The Iranian incursion into an Iraqi oil field just across the border looks like a wake-up call to Washington. George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, discusses the possibility that Iran is signaling its readiness to act first if an armed confrontation over the nuclear issue looks inevitable. Meanwhile, the price for Russia’s help on the issue has gone up.

Consider signing up for free strategic analysis of international news on the STRATFOR website.

The future of free speech in the United States?

From the Dearborn, Michigan, Islamic Festival 2009: "Welcome to Sharia--and dhimmitude--in America."

Introduction (1:34):



Follow-through (10:00):



And "the rest of the story" (2:45):

Fascinating and disturbing view of Israel and the Middle East

I have not understood why the UN seems so anti-Israel. I understand it even less after watching the Terrorism Awareness Project's What Really Happened in the Middle East. (Turn your speakers on!)

Consensus

Saw this today. Reminds me, for some reason, of many people's de facto definition of "tolerance":

To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects. Margaret Thatcher - 1981

How sad!

Semi-universal cancer cure?

I've been sitting on this one for several weeks now. I don't remember how it first came across my radar, but Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a professor at the University of Alberta Department of Medicine, has shown that sodium dichloroacetate (DCA) causes regression in several cancers, including lung, breast, and brain tumors.

Apparently, the story has been out for well over a year (actually, according to the U of A website, since March of 2007), but it still seems to be a "back page" and "small print" story.

The problem: "The DCA compound is not patented and not owned by any pharmaceutical company, and, therefore, . . . difficult to find funding . . . to test . . . in clinical trials" and, of course, to promote.

For a popularized presentation of what this is all about, here's a Glen Beck TV spot:



For a summary webpage that includes links to almost anything you might be interested in finding, check out "The DCA Site."

Want to buy DCA? Here's your source.

And, finally, a full academic paper published in the British Journal of Cancer.

Michelakis is a quiet and understated man. You can see and hear him on the Glen Beck segment. But how is this for an understated summary (from the BJC article)?

The preclinical work on DCA (showing effectiveness in a variety of tumours and relatively low toxicity) (Bonnet et al, 2007), its structure (a very small molecule), the low price (it is a generic drug) and the fact that DCA has already been used in humans for more than 30 years, provide a strong rationale for rapid clinical translation.

If you think it's bad in the United States . . .

. . . and I will confess: I am deeply concerned about our runaway federal government--you should get a look at things in other parts of the world.

For example . . . Andhra Pradesh, India.

I received an email this morning from the president of Mission India (United States) who forwarded the following email from a key contact in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India:

We need your prayers for our tomorrow 10^th Dec. The panicky state government has brought 9000 para military and rapid action force from New Delhi to meet any challenge in view of the fluid situation in the state. The Joint Action Committee of the Students and some of the political parties have planned to take a big march towards the State Legislative Assembly to present their demands. They are mobilizing people in a large number. There is a possibility that the Maoists might also play mischief in the agitation tomorrow. We are waiting for the update tonight to know more about the situation. I do not know how many of our staff will turn to the office as the whole life in Hyderabad will come to stand still not even an auto is going to ply on the roads. All the roads leading to Hyderabad from all corners have barricades stopping the inflow of any people into the city.

The civil unrest is going to be intensified tomorrow and literally Hyderabad will be under the control of police. The health of KCR who is on fast unto death is deteriorating and the doctors say that he might slip into coma if he continues the fast. Both the central and state governments have not yet made their stand clear with regard to the separate statehood for Telengana.

I wrote back:

Who is KCR who is on this “fast unto death”? –Sorry I'm so “out of it”!

And he wrote to me:

Hello John. No, you are not “out of it.” I don’t know the actual name of “KCR” either! It’s the initials of a politician in Andhra Pradesh who is leading the political movement that is demanding statehood for the Telengana region – which is about the northern third of A.P. Everyone just refers to him as “KCR” – a fairly common practice in India. Another practice that is not unusual is suicides over these kinds of issues. When the Christian leader of AP died in a helicopter accident two months ago, it was reported that in the following days, 50 people committed suicide!

The AP politicians might be over-reacting however this conflict could cause severe disruption.

Another recipient of his email wrote to him, and he forwarded it to me:

Thanks for your e-mail this morning. When reading it I wondered “What’s going on”? I am sure that those of you at the office are in the know. But [the recipients of your email] may not be.

The article below from June 8, 2009 gives some background.

India: A Region's Independence Hampered by National Interest June 8, 2006 | 0013 GMT Summary India’s opposition Bharatiya Janata Party recently announced its backing for a Telangana state independent of Andhra Pradesh, reaching a rare accord with the governing Congress party, and challenged the latter to prove its commitment to the cause. The Congress party won the state of Andhra Pradesh in the 2004 general elections as a result of its alliance with the secessionist Telangana Rashtra Samiti party. Although Congress inserted Telangana independence into its election manifesto, it has not acted upon it in the two years since the election, and it has no incentive to do so. Analysis The Telangana region of India’s Andhra Pradesh state has been campaigning for separation from the state for decades. The Telangana separatists claim that the 1956 decision to merge the region — then known as Hyderabad state — with Andhra Pradesh created a state too unwieldy to be governed properly. The movement believes the region has been shortchanged by policymakers and has not developed as the same pace as the rest of Andhra Pradesh. The secessionist movement gained a formal voice with the formation of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) political party, which developed a national presence when it allied itself with the Congress party and won 26 assembly seats in the 2004 general elections. The Congress party formalized its support for an independent Telangana in its election manifesto, but supporters of the Congress-TRS alliance have been disappointed by the lack of progress towards that goal. As the Congress party itself won 185 seats in the 2004 state elections, it has no electoral compulsion to mollify the TRS. Though Congress won the state of Andhra Pradesh in 2004 as a result of the party’s alliance with the TRS, the smaller party does not have sufficient strength to place any overwhelming political pressure on Congress. Now, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has announced its support for Telangana’s independence and challenged the Congress party to demonstrate its commitment to the cause. However, the Congress party has no incentive to seriously pursue an independent Telangana. Doing so would disrupt the party’s larger national objectives because of three factors: the city of Hyderabad, Telangana’s religious demography and the Naxalite problem in the region. Hyderabad has been Andhra Pradesh’s state capital since the state’s formal creation in 1956. Today, it is one of India’s major economic hubs and has developed into one of the country’s two primary technology centers (the other being Bangalore). Many large multinational firms, such as IBM, Dell Inc. and Microsoft Corp., have established a presence there. In 2004, Hyderabad’s software exports reached the $1 billion mark. The 2005 World Knowledge Competitiveness Index ranked Hyderabad the most competitive of Indian cities. Given Hyderabad’s credentials, Andhra Pradesh would be loath to give up such an important source of economic power and prestige. If Telangana secedes from Andhra Pradesh, the TRS would be pressured into boosting development revenue for the province’s more rural districts. This could result in new economic regulations and tax laws affecting firms in Hyderabad — which the Congress-led national government does not want. The government has had to strive to persuade international investors that despite its leftist tendencies, it is still business-friendly. Thus, changes that could affect large firms in Hyderabad would be discouraged in New Delhi. The Telangana movement is predominantly Hindu-led, and local Muslims have been less than enthusiastic about the idea of the region’s succession. Telangana was controlled by a succession of Muslim rulers for centuries before Indian independence, and though the region’s Muslim population is around 12 percent, an estimated 40 percent of the population in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are Muslim. Muslims in Andhra Pradesh are satisfied with the status quo, and talk of a separate Telangana is disquieting enough to them that an influential Hyderabad-based Muslim political party, the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, has made an (unrealistic) call for the city of Hyderabad to be declared a state of its own in the event of Telangana’s secession. Indian Muslims have traditionally voted for the Congress party, as Congress is viewed as the more reliable guardian of India’s secular traditions. Therefore, it would not be in Congress’ best interests to weaken its support in this constituency. The party is unwilling to deal with the Hindu-Muslim tension that Telangana’s independence would bring. Yet another factor in Congress’ lackadaisical approach to the Telangana issue is the Naxalite movement. Since the late 1960s, the Naxalites — communist guerrillas — have led a widespread insurgency in hopes of fomenting revolution across India. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has declared the Naxalites the country’s biggest internal security challenge. One Naxalite group, the People’s War Group (PWG), has an established presence in Telangana and has gone so far as to publicly support the region’s independence. PWG claims to have established “special guerrilla zones” in both northern and southern Telangana, and many observers believe that TRS supporters are linked with the Naxalites. New Delhi would not wish to be seen as caving in on the Naxalites’ demands for Telangana’s independence, especially since the Naxalite threat has consistently hampered India’s ability to attract more foreign investment and continues to wear down domestic security forces. An unwritten rule of Indian politics states that allowing one separatist group’s demands to be fulfilled would lead to a hundred more such groups coming out of the woodwork. Thus, the government’s slow approach could be an intentional choice meant to give regional anti-Naxalite policing strategies time to work. The BJP, meanwhile, is clearly attempting to win the support of regional parties like the TRS as part of its overall electoral strategy. Therefore, it is not clear that the BJP would be any more likely to move forward toward Telangana’s secession if it were in power. __________________ Please feel free to distribute this Intelligence Report to friends or repost to your Web site linking to www.stratfor.com. This analysis was just a fraction of what our Members enjoy, to start your Free Membership Trial Today! If a friend forwarded this email to you, click here to join our mailing list for FREE intelligence and other special offers. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us © Copyright 2009 Stratfor. All rights reserved.

Can you imagine?!? If you think politics here in the States is tough! How do you get anything done in India?

Tax avoidance as a civic good

Sarita handed me several file folders full of old papers she thought I could get rid of.

She was right that I could get rid of most of the papers. But one caught my eye. It was a newsletter from March of 2000. The lead article was titled "Tax Avoidance Pays Off" and it is by James Dale Davidson.

"One of the more cloying conceits of the 'Goo-Goos,' the good government crowd, is that tax-avoidance defrauds other taxpayers and harms the economy. Don't believe it," he writes.

What?!?

Before I go any further, let me note the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The first is legal. The second is not.

As Wikipedia notes,

Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. By contrast, tax evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means. The term tax mitigation is a synonym for tax avoidance. Its original use was by tax advisors as an alternative to the pejorative term tax avoidance. Latterly the term has also been used in the tax regulations of some jurisdictions to distinguish tax avoidance foreseen by the legislators from tax avoidance which exploits loopholes in the law.

But back to Davidson's article.

He wrote his article immediately following Team New Zealand's 5-0 win in 2000 over Italy's Prada to retain the oldest grand prize in sport--the America's Cup.

Davidson first tells the story of the America's Cup, and then a little about how Team New Zealand came to own the technology that gave them the winning edge. I'll skip the story of the America's Cup. Let me tell you about Team New Zealand.

Italy's Prada entry, Luna Rosa, funded by fashion tycoon Patrizio Bertilli, to the tune of a reported $120 million, proved to be faster than the yachts entered by all five American syndicates, as well as those from Japan, Australia and elsewhere. But while Prada was the champion among the challengers, it could not take even one race from Team New Zealand.

The puzzle is that a small economy like New Zealand['s] . . . was able to achieve breakthroughs in fluid dynamics and the computer modelling of wind propulsion sufficient to create a super-yacht speedier than any produced in much wealthier and larger economies.

How was New Zealand able to do this? Ultimately, said Davidson, it had to do with a tax avoidance scheme.

A merchant banking firm, Fay, Richwhite had found a brilliant way to satisfy New Zealand tax liabilities at a 90% discount to the taxpayers.

As a result of this scheme, the partners of Fay, Richwhite became very rich.

And it was with these riches that Sir Michael Fay, principal of Fay, Richwhite, engineered New Zealand's rise to prominence in international yacht racing.

Okay.

Maybe.

But what about all the other New Zealand taxpayers who were forced to pay far higher tax rates? And (this really chapped my hide): How and why could Davidson make the fantastic claim--as he did several times in the article--that Fay's decision to invest in an ultra-expensive yacht racer was some kind of "high value" use for the money he had earned and been able to keep because he was paying relatively low taxes?

Indeed, how could Davidson claim--as he did--that the New Zealand media were foolish and wrong to suggest that Fay and his cohorts had done something dishonorable--or, at least, less honorable--than their compatriots who had failed to use the loophole? Why and how could Davidson suggest it was inappropriate for the media to tell New Zealanders "that they were victims of a terrible outrage [and that t]hey had been 'defrauded' of billions in tax revenue by wealthy corporations"? And why did Davidson suggest that, "[w]hen courts determined that the tax avoidance formula at issue was perfectly legal, New Zealand's parliament [acted against New Zealanders' best interests when it] promptly enacted legislation to close the 'loopholes'"?

Listen to his logic:

As welfare states mature, an ever-larger share of government expenditures around the world is devoted to simple income transfers, which are just about the lowest order possible use of money.

Let me illustrate. One of the more high value uses of money in the 20th century was when Misters Hewlett and Packard started their company with a total investment of less than $400 during the waning years of the Great Depression. In time, that $400 grew to be tens of billions. Clearly, they deployed their money in a way that created a lot of value.

As a counter-example, suppose the U.S. government in the late 1930s had succeeded in taxing away Hewlett and Packard's founding stake, and had used it instead to fund roughly $400 of soup kitchens for the unemployed. The public would have cheered. But the money would have been consumed in short order and little or nothing of value would have been created. Subsidizing the lowest orders of human endeavor generally results in the minimum possible value creation.

He continues:

Tax rates are set at the margin. The greater the degree of compliance, the higher rates can be. If tax avoidance is widespread, governments must lower tax rates in order to raise additional revenues, the so-called Laffer Curve, in action. In that sense, taxpayers who successfully avoid taxes are not forcing others to pay higher burdens in their stead. Rather they are performing a public service in placing downward pressure on tax rates for everyone.

The strongest confirmation of this is provided by the outraged responses of governments to successful tax avoidance. If it were really true that lower tax payments from you simply meant that your neighbors had to pay more, governments should logically be indifferent to tax avoidance. By their arguments they would get the money anyway.

In fact, they treat tax avoidance as a mortal threat.

Note in this respect the ominous efforts by the OECD, prodded by the Clinton Administration to destroy off-shore tax havens. The destruction of tax havens would make tax avoidance more difficult thus facilitating still higher taxes in the world's high tax countries.

Counter-intuitive, but I think Davidson has convinced me: Long live the creative souls who find and utilize every loophole in the tax law!

Oh. And one last comment.

I said it really chapped my hide to have Davidson suggest that entering a yacht in the America's Cup could, somehow, be a "high value proposition." With what I have quoted so far, I'm sure we can see that tax avoidance, per se, offers some strange but very real potential economic benefits to broader society. Kind of.

But how can Davidson suggest, as he does, that the America's Cup investment, per se, was a high value investment?

Listen to his conclusion.

How do I know that the America's Cup has been a high value proposition for New Zealand? The mayor of Auckland and the New Zealand Herald have kindly provided public calculations of the hundreds of millions in benefits accruing to New Zealand as the result of the America's Cup. As Alan Bond said of his four challenges for the America's Cup, it draws a good crowd. "Successful men come to the America's Cup to be with other successful men."

By the same token, it is not solely an elitist activity. No one who was in Auckland on March 2 could doubt the genuine enthusiasm and delight that hundreds of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders experienced from Team New Zealand's victory in what might be considered an anachronistic, rich man's sport.

It probably would never have happened if Sir Michael Fay had not succeeded in mastering the arts of tax avoidance sufficiently to accumulate such great wealth that he could he write the big checks necessary to fund an America's Cup yacht challenge.

The long and short of it is that Michael Fay and his associates can create more value deploying money for their own amusement than governments can with the most sober of intentions. Note that Fay, Richwhite also played a leading role in privatizing Telecom New Zealand and New Zealand Rail, in each case creating a staggering increment to value in the worth of those enterprises.

!!!!

Counter-intuitive all the way through.

Fundamental music education . . .

Oh. My. Goodness.

I was involved with the early stages of a music education project at Sonlight Curriculum several months ago. I was intrigued . . . and inspired . . . and excited about the prospects of the program we settled on, but the developers really hadn't "put it all together" in a way that I felt comfortable promoting . . . yet.

I invested a number of hours in the project, offering input and feedback and critiques of what the manufacturer had done and was proposing to do. But I finally gave up. It was taking too much time. I still loved the concept, but considering the minuscule profit potential for Sonlight and all the other things I have on my plate, I bowed out.

Just this morning, having returned from a "Family Fun Week," I noticed that the rest of the Sonlight team and the manufacturer did not give up and, in fact, took much of my input and put together a tightly integrated, truly complete music education package . . . for preschoolers to adults. Truly.

Amazing.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't tried it myself . . . and seen and heard the responses and remarks of other people--from preschoolers to adults.

What a brilliant integration of computer gaming technology and education! Absolutely riveting.

******

If you've ever wanted to learn how to read music and/or play the piano, I encourage you to check out the truly astonishing special offer Sonlight and the Music Wizard Company have put together.

U.S. taxes . . . and taxpayers

Bob Bauman, former congressman and commentator for The Sovereign Society, published an interesting article back on November 21st about "income taxes" in the United States.

He concludes his brief article with the comment that "democracy is much like two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner."

The meaning of that phrase becomes clear when you read what he said immediately prior to that aphorism:

[A]n astonishing 43.4% of all Americans now pay zero or "negative" federal income taxes, (negative is a liberal cover word meaning they get welfare payments simply for filing their tax forms for various reasons Congress has deemed to be tax-free worthy).

The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million out of the 151 million who do file.

I might remind you at this point of the risks of unrestrained majoritarianism.

That is; should that number make its way from 65.6 million to, say, 75.6 million . . . then a simple majority of Americans who file will be paying no taxes at all.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) described the prospects of such a world over a year ago,: "I think we've got a major crisis in democracy . . . We assume that voters will restrain the growth of government because it becomes burdensome to them personally. But today fewer and fewer people pay taxes, and more and more are dependent on government, so the politician who promises the most from government is likely to win.”