Jail Releases Portland Man Who Set Fire With Molotov Cocktail. Then He Sets SIX More

by Tyler O´Neil

On Sunday, police arrested a man who confessed to starting a brush fire with a Molotov cocktail in Portland. They booked him in Multnomah County Jail. Portland being Portland, the authorities released the suspect that evening. The man then went on to start six more fires before the police arrested him yet again. The cops took him to a hospital for a mental evaluation.  On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 4:35p.m., East Precinct officers were dispatched to assist Portland Fire and Rescue with a brush fire in the 9600 block of East Burnside Street, the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) reported....Original Article

EPA's "Science" Evokes Nazi Death Camp Memories

By Alan Caruba

I would like to thank Alan for allowing me to post his work.  This originally appeared here.  RK

The “EPA has admitted to a federal court that it asks human guinea pigs to sacrifice their lives for regulatory purposes—and $12 per hour.” That was a recent news item reported by JunkScience.com’s founder, Steve Milloy.

“EPA has responded to our emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against its ongoing human experiment (called ‘Captain’) involving the air pollutant” known as “fine particles.”

In a declaration to the court by an EPA clinical research studies coordinator he said that participants were provided with information about them, noting that “if you are a person that for example lives in a large city like Los Angeles or New York” where on a hot summer day one can often see a haze in the air “and you have an underlying unknown health condition, or, you may be older in age, chances are you could end up in the emergency room later on that night, wondering what’s wrong, possibly having cardiac changes that could lead to a heart attack; there is the possibility you may die from this…”

“You may die from this.” That did not, however, deter the EPA from conducting the study in which participants were exposed to such particles.

Milloy points out that “Every law, regulation and code developed since World War II strictly prohibits human sacrifice (i.e., significant injury or death) for no health benefit to the patient” and the $12 per hour payment is not deemed a benefit. “Moreover,” said Milloy, “EPA has repeatedly stated in numerous regulatory documents and public statements that there is no safe level of exposure to particulate matter”, and that any exposure can kill within hours or days.

A Wall Street Journal article on June 16th and titled “EPA Seeks Tighter Standard on Soot” reported that “The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday proposed tighter national standards for soot pollution” deeming it “the latest chapter in a long-running battle between the Obama administration and industry over environmental restrictions.”

“Particulate matter forms in the atmosphere as a result of smokestack and tailgate emissions” and the EPA wants to set a new level of 12 to 13 micrograms per cubic meter.” The current standard is 15 micrograms. We are talking about things so small it would take an electron microscope to measure them. The notion of protecting people about anything at this level is absurd. Next thing to go would be children’s sandboxes.

In practical terms, tightening the standards would make it even more difficult for industrial facilities to get permits to operate. Milloy warns that “The EPA is a government horror story that is responsible for trillions of dollars in lost economic growth, trampled rights and liberties and perverted science.”

There is, however, something far more ominous about the EPA’s particulate study.

In an AmericanThinker.com article, Mark Musser, the author of “Nazi Oaks”, a book about the environmental zealotry of the leaders of the Nazi regime, connected the sweeping Nazi environmental legislation that preceded the racially charged anti-Semitic Nuremburg Laws that led ultimately to “the final solution”; the deliberate murder of millions of Europe’s Jews and millions, too, deemed enemies of the state.

Referencing Milloy’s exposure of the EPA human experimentation in which diesel fumes were piped from a running truck mixed with air into the lungs of participants. In his commentary Musser noted that “They even had a gas chamber set up to accommodate the environmental research project that shockingly recalls the death camps of Poland.”

“The whiff of the Jewish holocaust is thus unmistakable,” notes Musser. “When the Nazis found out how difficult it was in practice to shoot so many Jews on the Eastern Front at the outset of the war, they switched to gassing them in mass at death camps with engine fumes. Such gassing methods became infamous at Treblinka where almost one million Jews were killed.”

The commandant of Auschwitz, another death camp, was Rudolf Hoess. He belonged to the SS whom Musser describes as “the greenest faction of the Nazi Party. It was run by Heinrich Himmler who was an animal lover, vegetarian, and organic farm enthusiast” and Musser says it was the environmentalism that was “at the heart of the holocaust at death camps like Treblinka.”

There is a very thin line between the EPA’s particulate experiments and the death factories of Treblinka and Auschwitz, and it is more than just a hint of the kind of thinking at the EPA that would condone it.

Environmentalism is synonymous with a hatred of humanity, an oft-stated wish that millions must die to protect the Earth.

It's a 75th birthday donation

 countdown until October 9.

Your $upport makes it happen!

© Alan Caruba

EPA admits to Court: Human subjects ‘may die’ from air pollution experiments

Posted on October 5, 2012 by Steve Milloy | 9 Comments  This first appeared here.  RK

EPA has admitted to a federal court that it asks human guinea pigs to sacrifice their lives for regulatory purposes — and $12 per hour.

EPA has responded to our emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against its ongoing human experiment (called “CAPTAIN”) involving the air pollutant known as PM_2.5.

In the declaration of Martin W. Case, the EPA clinical research studies coordinator for CAPTAIN, Case claims he verbally warns study subjects before the experiment as follows:

… My first approach after being introduced to the subject by the medical station staff is to ask the subject if they have read the consent form. The subjects for CAPTAIN have been given the informed study consent form on a previous visit, and, they are also given the same consent to read again if they have not read the consent the day of the training…
I provide participants with information about fine particles (PM2.s). I say that PM2.s are particles so small that they are able past through your airways and go deep into your lungs, these particles are so small that your usual lining and cilia of your airways are not able to prevent these particles from passing into your lungs, Therefore, if you are a person that for example lives in a large city like Los Angeles or New York, and it’s been a very hot day, and you can see the haze in the air, and you happen to be someone that works outside, and if you have an underlying unknown health condition, or, you may be older in age; the chances are that you could end up in the emergency room later on that night, wondering what’s wrong, possibly having cardiac changes that could lead to a heart attack; there is the possibility you may die from this…

Here’s the analysis of Case’s remarkable admission — that is, if we can even rely on Case’s declaration:

1. Prohibition on human sacrifice. Every law, regulation and code developed since World War II strictly prohibits human sacrifice (i.e.,significant injury or death) for no health benefit to the patient (the wage of $12 per hour does not count as a “benefit”). EPA employee Case explicitly admits in this declaration that short-term exposure to PM_2.5can be lethal.And though Case attempts to distance this warning from the experiment by explaining the risk in terms of a person living “in a large city like Los Angeles or New York”, EPA states in its IRB application for approval of CAPTAIN, “The particle burden, on a mass basis presented to the volunteer will not exceed an exposure an individual receives over a 24 hour period while visiting a typical urban center in America on a smoggy day.” Moreover, EPA has repeatedly stated in numerous regulatory documents and public statements that there is no safe level of exposure to PM_2.5 and that any exposure to PM_2.5 can kill within hours or days.
2. Failure to obtain substantive informed consent. Despite Case’s admission that experimental exposure to PM_2.5 may cause death, according to the EPA-provided consent form given to study subjects, the risks of experimental exposure to PM_2.5 are only as follows:

   PM exposure: During the exposure to the concentrated air pollution particles, you may experience some minor degree of airway irritation, cough, and shortness of breath or wheezing. These symptoms typically disappear 2 to 4 hours after exposure, but may last longer for particularly sensitive people. You will be monitored continuously during the exposure session through a window in the chamber or by closed-circuit television, and can communicate with a staff member via an intercom. Your heart rate and rhythm will also be constantly monitored for any adverse changes brought about by the exposure. In the unlikely event that you develop medically significant symptoms, the exposure will be terminated and the appropriate medical intervention will be provided if required. A physician is always available on the premises to respond to an emergency and full resuscitation equipment is available for use in the event of a cardiac or pulmonary emergency.
   Air pollution particles may induce an inflammatory reaction that can last for 24 hours after exposure and may increase the chance of you catching a cold. You should not engage in heavy levels of exercise for 24 hours before and after the exposure period. If you have any tendency to become uncomfortable in small closed spaces, it is possible that you may become uncomfortable during the chamber exposure. Although the chamber is somewhat small, it has multiple windows and you will be in constant visual contact with the investigator who will be monitoring you during the exposure. You also will be able to verbally communicate with the investigator via a microphone headset.

   So in the place in the consent form where EPA is legally required to disclose to study subjects all the risks the experiment entails, EPA omits death, as well as all the dangers it mentioned to the institutional review board in the IRB application, including:
   

   Numerous epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between acute and chronic exposure to ambient levels of particulate matter (PM) and various adverse cardiopulmonary effects including mortality, respiratory tract infection, exacerbation of asthma, chronic bronchitis, ischemic heart disease, and stroke (see review, (1)). A recent national scale epidemiological study has shown that short-term exposure to particulate matter (PM) is associated with increased rates of hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms. The cardiovascular risk tended to be higher in the Eastern United States. This study also indicated a disproportionate risk among the elderly who are exposed to PM (2). Dietary factors such as intake of omega-3 fatty acids have been linked to human susceptibility to the adverse effects of ambient PM (14).Although air pollution exposure has long been known to be a risk factor for respiratory disease, over the last decade, a growing body of epidemiological studies has heightened concern over elevated rates of cardiovascular events related to both short-term and long-term exposure to PM (3). The risk of death from cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and fatal arrhythmias) in response to chronically high levels of air pollution was much greater than that from lung disease (4-6). Short-term elevations in ambient PM levels are capable of evoking cardiac arrhythmias, worsening heart failure, and triggering acute atherosclerotic/ischemic cardiovascular complications, particularly in certain at-risk subsets of population (3). PM exposure can result in increases in heart rate, and decreases in heart rate variability (HRV; defined as changes in mean heart rate during 24 hrs, which is a reflection of autonomic tone on the heart (7). PM has been associated with transient increases in plasma viscosity (8), endothelial dysfunction (9) and acute-phase reactants (10, 11) such as C-reactive protein (12). Animal studies have suggested that long-term exposure to low concentration of PM altered vasomotor tone, induces vascular inflammation and potentiates atherosclerosis (13). Despite a decade of intensive studies, much about the PM health effects problem, especially the cardiovascular effect, is still not well understood. The present study is designed to test the hypothesis that genetic expression of the Phase II metabolizing enzyme GSTM1 alters the outcome of adverse responses
   to PM exposure.

3. Failure to provide/obtain written consent. The Common Rule, as codified in federal regulation 40 CFR 26.117, specifically requires that written informed consent be obtained when risk of serious injury or death is involved in an experiment. As the consent form provided by EPA makes no mention of the risk of death, written consent acknowledging that they are willing sacrifice themselves for EPA regulatory purposes is not obtained.

Lawmaker wants probe of EPA experiments on humans

By Joshua Rhett Miller

A powerful lawmaker is calling for Senate hearings following a lawsuit charging the Environmental Protection Agency conducted illegal human experiments, including some that exposed asthmatic patients to known carcinogens.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called it “extremely disturbing” that EPA scientists may have exposed people with conditions such as asthma and a syndrome that puts them at higher risk for heart disease and strokes to concentrated, high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust. The allegations first surfaced after Steve Milloy, an author and publisher of JunkScience.com, learned of the experiments through Freedom of Information Act requests. Milloy's subsequent report led to the lawsuit and now Inhofe's call for hearings.

"Indeed, the EPA may be criminally liable for its conduct.”

"It is extremely disturbing that EPA may have conducted illegal human experiments, exposing people with conditions such as asthma and metabolic syndrome to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote in a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee chair. "EPA has repeatedly said that these substances can cause cancer and lead to death so if these allegations of human experiments are true, it just validates the problem that the Obama-EPA's mission is not about public health."  To Read More…… 

Editor's Note:  If you would like more foundation on this subject go to Steve Milloy's Junkscience.com.  RK

EPA invokes Fifth Amendment with media in human testing scandal?

By Steve Milloy

I would like to thank Steve for allowing me to publish his work.  Steve posts on his site, Junkscience.com.  RK

While EPA seems to be trying to invoke a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Politico is trying to fill the agency’s deafening silence.

The tale of today’s two Politico articles on the EPA human testing scandal exposes a federal agency in dire circumstances.

PoliticoPro (subscription only) this morning first published “Suit casts spotlight on EPA’s human soot experiments,” an article which surprisingly began:

Opponents of EPA soot science are asking the agency to pick a side: evil or inept.

Because EPA failed to provide comments for the story, the article was largely limited to describing our claims that the EPA has conducted illegal human testing.

Someone (either at Politico or EPA) realized that the agency’s not responding was a bad idea. So Politico published a follow-up article, “EPA: Human studies follow ethical rules,” which seemed to promise a response from EPA.

As reported by Politico, the response was as follows:

… Milloy had previous raised his complaint in an April op-ed in the Washington Times titled “Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments?”

That prompted a response from EPA’s Director of the Environmental Public Health Division Wayne Cascio, who said the agency and its partners subject their human research to the oversight of an independent institutional review board, as required under the Common Rule, to ensure that any risks to study volunteers are minimized and justified.

“Precautions are taken throughout the volunteer’s participation to ensure his safety. In the case of the EPA’s research on particle pollution, scientists studied biological changes that carry no or minimal risk while providing evidence for the reasons that particle pollution can lead to serious health problems,” Cascio said.

Scientists from the EPA, U.S. universities and medical centers have published more than 50 clinical studies in the last decade involving human volunteers, he said.

The research into the pollutants was crucial, he said, because in the United States, a heart attack occurs every 34 seconds and more than 2,200 people die of cardiovascular disease each day.

“It is estimated that tens of thousands of premature deaths and nonfatal heart attacks are triggered by air pollution, and this emphasizes the importance of research in this field,” Cascio said.

Yes, that’s right. Today’s EPA response actually dates back to a May 1 letter to the editor of the Washington Times from Cascio, which we debunked at the time.

Moreover, our response to Cascio was developed before we obtained thousands of pages of documents detailing the illegal experiments and EPA’s lies to the study subjects and University of North Carolina institutional review board.

As Sen. Jim Inhofe stated in a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer on Friday, in words that no doubt gave Sen. Inhofe great pause before committing them to paper:

Indeed the EPA may be criminally liable for its conduct.

EPA, you have the right to remain silent…