Welcome to the blog of Indian 007

Like a beacon unto the world ...

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Vaccines, What the CDC Documents and Science Reveal

by Sherri Tenpenny,

The following presentation by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is sure to destroy at least some of the widely held "beliefs" touted as "science". Also watch her extensively researched and very informative talk "Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices", again posted in this blog.

Vaccines, What the CDC Documents and Science Reveal - Part 1 of 2

Vaccines, What the CDC Documents and Science Reveal - Part 2 of 2

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Dr. Russell Blaylock Interview on Mandatory Vaccine Trials - Mar 2012

by Mike Adams

Dr. Russell Blaylock Interview on Mandatory Vaccine Trials, Fraudulent Vaccine Science - Mar 2012 

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS

by Carol A. Valentine , Public-Action.com
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum

October 6, 2001--There were no "suicide" pilots on those September 11 jets.  The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and remote-control technology, not hijackers.  Fantastic?  Before I explain, read about the history-making robot/remote-controlled jet plane. 

Global Hawk: Now You Have It ...

The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is a robotized American military jet that has a wingspan of a Boeing 737.  The excerpts below were taken from an article entitled:  "Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned," which appeared in the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain's International Television News :
"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," according to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.  Here is an excerpt from that article:

A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.
The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.
The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737 flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... [NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s, two were Boeing 767s]
It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images.

... And Now You Don't

Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling. In a section subtitled "On autopilot into the future," The Economist wrote:
Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in The Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ...
(See http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=787987
or http://www.Public-Action.com/911/economist-autopilot)
So, even though the ITN article was published on April 24, in September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is pretending Global Hawk technology is a thing of the future.
Then The New York Times ran this:
... In addition, the president [President Bush] said he would give grants to airlines to allow them to develop stronger cockpit doors and transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit. Government grants would also be available to pay for video monitors that would be placed in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin; and new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.
("Bush to Increase Federal Role in Security at Airports," The New York Times, Sept. 28, 2001; emphasis added.)
So, then, right after Operation 911 was pulled off, two men of world influence were pretending such technology had not yet been perfected. That was dishonest.  And revealing. 
Run a Google Advanced Search on the phrase "Global Hawk," and you will find additional information.  Meanwhile, I have attached the text of the ITN article at the end of this piece.
[Note of Jan. 28, 2002:  For an historical overview of automated plane landing systems, see "Thwarting skyjackings for the ground," by Alan Staats, posted to FACSNET, October 2, 2001, at: http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/aviation.php3
or http://www/Public-Action.com/911/facsnet/aviation.php3 .

The author states: "Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new.  The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s.  In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft confingured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program known as SAGE.  These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them."]

With this technology, we could have a "suicide" airplane fly into a building without a suicide pilot.  Robotics and remote control technologies have developed to the point that a high-altitude Global Hawk (or a low-altitude Tomahawk cruise missile) can be guided into collision with a target without a Kamikaze pilot in the cockpit.

America And Its Allies Would Never Attack America!

Now, hold it there!  This is US military technology.  We all surely know that the US and its allies would not conspire to attack America! Or do we?
The Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS ) thinks Israel is capable of doing exactly that.  On September 10, 2001, The Washington Times ran a front page story which quoted SAMS officers:
"Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say:  'Wildcard.  Ruthless and cunning.  Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.'" ("US troops would enforce peace under Army study," The Washington Times , Sept.. 10, 2001, pg. A1, 9.)  Just 24 hours after this story appeared, the Pentagon was hit and the Arabs were being blamed.
These SAMS officers are obviously interested in protecting their country, but not all Americans are.  Some are traitors and pay allegiance to Israel.  Recall the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and American complicity in the attack.
During the Six Day War, the Liberty, an American intelligence gathering ship, was sailing in international waters.  Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked it for 75 minutes.  Read the story at the USS Liberty Memorial Website, at http://www.USSLiberty.com
When four US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft carrier came to protect the Liberty, President Johnson, through Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, ordered the jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid.  Johnson reported said he did not care who was killed or what happened to the ship, he just didn't want his allies embarassed.
The Israeli attack was allowed to cotinue.  Thirty-fourAmericans were killed and 171 wounded, thanks to the treason of an American president and defense seretary.
Now consider Operation Northwoods:  In 1962, US military leaders designed a plan to conduct terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba, to create popular sentiment for invasion of that country. Operation Northwoods included:
  • Plans to shoot down a CIA plane designed to replicate a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down.
  • Creation of military casualties by blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba:  "....casualty lists in the US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation," and
  • Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, DC.
Information on Operation Northwoods can be found in James Bamford's Body of Secrets, (Doubleday, 2001), and at the following URLs.
In other words, US allies and people within the US military establishment are not opposed to killing Americans, given the right goal.

Why Take Chances?

Put yourself in the shoes of the masterminds of Operation 911.  The attacks had to be tightly coordinated.  Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over.  The masterminds couldn't afford to take needless chances.
Years ago I saw a local TV news reporter interview a New York mugger about the occupational hazards of his trade.  "It's a very, very dangerous trade," the mugger informed the interviewer.  "Some of these people are crazy!  They fight back!  You can get hurt!"
If a freelance New York mugger realized the unpredictable nature of human behavior, surely the pros who pulled this job off must have known the same truth.  Yet we are asked to believe that the culprits took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew and four sets of passengers -- armed with (depending on the news reports you read) "knives," "plastic knives" and box cutters.  Given the crazy and unpredictable nature of humans, why would they try this bold plan when they were so poorly armed?
A lady's handbag -- given the weight of the contents most women insist on packing -- is an awesome weapon.  I know, I have used mine in self defense.  Are we to believe that none of the women had the testosterone to knock those flimsy little weapons out of the hijackers' hands?  And what of the briefcases most men carry? Thrown, those briefcase can be potent weapons.  Your ordinary every-day New York mugger would never take the chances that our culprits took.
Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight 77.  She had been "trained to handle a hijacking.  She knew not to let anyone in the cockpit.  She knew to tell the hijacker that she didn't have a key and would have to call the pilots.  None of her training mattered." ( "On flight 77:  'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked',"  The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. A 1, 11.)
That's right, The Washington Post for once is telling the whole truth.  Heidenberger's training didn't matter, the pilots' training didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't matter, the mens' briefcases didn't matter.  The masterminds of Operation 911 knew that whatever happened aboard those flights, the control of the planes was in their hands.  Even if the crew and passengers fought back, my hypothesis is that they could not have regained control of the planes, for the planes were being controlled by Global Hawk technology.

Flight 77:  "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"

Once again:  Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly coordinated.  Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over.  If we are to believe the story we are being told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could actually fly the planes and who could arrive at the right place at the right time.
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m.  The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers.  Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.  The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the sources said."  ("On Flight 77:  'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 & 11)

Meet Ace Suicide Pilot Hani Hanjour

Let's look at what we know about the alleged suicide pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour.  According to press reports, Hanjour had used Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport three times since mid-August as he attempted to get permission to use one of the airport's planes.  This from The Prince George's Journal [Maryland] September 18, 2001:
Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.
According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. ...
Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.
Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed ...
... Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam.  He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.
Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience .S Pete Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman for the FBI, said it is an on-going criminal investigation and he could not comment. (pg. 1.)
If you were the mastermind who planned this breathtaking terrorist attack, would you trust a man who took 600 hours of flying time and still could not do the job?  Who was paying for Hanjour's lessons, and why?
Yet this is the man the FBI would have us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill."  He could not even fly a Cessna 172!
Yes, maneuvering a Boeing 757 into a 270 degree turn under tense conditions (remember, the culprits were outmanned and had crude, non lethal weapons) demanded the skill of a fighter pilot.  But why would those bad, bad, Muslims want to do such a thing?
By shifting the plane's position so radically, Flight 77 managed to hit the side of the Pentagon directly opposite the side on which the offices of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff were located.  (Coincidentally, Flight 77 hit the offices of Army operations [US News and World Report, Sept. 14, 2001, pg. 25]. Recall, it was the Army that warned of the possibility that Israel's Mossad might make a terror attack against the US.)  The masterminds of Operation 911 were prepared to sacrifice the rank and file, but carefully avoided touching a hair on the head of the brass.
It reminds one of Operation Northwoods, doesn't it?  Remember the rank and file sailors who were to be sacrificed on a US Naval vessel in Guantanamo Bay, in order to justify war with Cuba?  No, neither Hanjour nor any other Muslim suicide pilot was at the controls of this plane.  It had been fitted with Global Hawk technology and was being remotely controlled.

Let's Meet The Other Aces

According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida.  They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport.  According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be given flight training.  Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult.  "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye.  His attention span was very short."
The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept.  After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post:  Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego.  "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....
Last spring, two of the men visited Montgomery Field, a community airport ... and sought flying lessons.  They spoke to instructors at Sorbi's Flying Club, which allowed them to take only two lessons before advising them to quit.
"Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse," said an instructor, who asked not to be named.  "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..."
"They seemed like nice guys," the instructor said, "but in the plane, they were dumb and dumber." ("San Diegans See Area as Likely Target," The Washington Post, September 24, 2001, pg. A7.)
But the masterminds would not need competent pilots -- if they had Global Hawk technology.

Missing: Air Traffic Control Conversations

Now, let's look at the contemporaneous media coverage of Operation 911.  Did you notice that during the event and for weeks after, we heard no excerpts from the conversations between the air traffic control centers and the pilots of the four aircraft?
Those conversations are recorded by the air traffic control centers. Surely those conversations were newsworthy.  They should have been available to the media immediately.  Why didn't we hear them?  I believe the answer to this question is simple:
If we could hear the conversations that took place, we would hear the airline pilots telling air traffic control that the controls of their airplanes would not respond.  The pilots, of course, would have no way of knowing that their craft had been fitted with Global Hawk technology programmed to take over their planes.
But no, we MUST believe the crashes were the work of Muslim terrorists. Therefore we were not permitted to hear the news as it happened.  We will have to wait for the FBI/military intelligence people to cook up doctored and fictional conversations.  They will then serve them to the public through the complicitous mass media and strategically placed "investigative reporters," and we will be asked to swallow them.  Many of us will.  (See The Christian Science Monitor story discussed below, "Communication With Flight 11.")


That the airlines cooperated and did whatever the FBI told them to do is no secret.  The Washington Post of September 12, 2001, says this:  "Details about who was on Flight 77, when it took off and what happened on board were tightly held by airline, airport and security officials last night.  All said that the FBI had asked them not to divulge details."
Think back to Operation Northwoods in which the Pentagon considered reporting a bogus passenger airplane being shot down by a non-existent Cuban fighter jet.  The Pentagon was obviously confident that some airline would go along with the deception. Not surprising, considering many commercial airline pilots and executives are former military pilots, and the government controls the airline industry in many ways.  These pilots and executives were trained to do as they are told, and would be out of a job if they broke the rules.
[Note of Jan 28, 2002:  Some time after this article was published, this author concluded the Operation Northwoods documents are counterfeit.  That is, they were produced by the Pentagon, as claimed by James Bamford in "Body of Secrets".  See: "Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit".]
Why would the take-off time and the passenger list be held secret? The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead.  The relatives must have known that when they heard the news of the crashes.  Flight departure and arrival times had been public knowledge.  The masterminds knew the details of their own plans.
No, it was the PUBLIC that was being denied information, and the significant information being denied was the conversations between the air traffic controllers and the pilots.  Recall that during the Vietnam War, the US "secretly" bombed Cambodia.  The bombing was no secret to the Cambodians.  It was only a secret from the American public, who were paying for the war and may have objected to the slaughter.  And that's the only purpose of the Operation 911 secrecy:  To keep the information from the public.

Communication With Flight 11

American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, left Boston at 7:59 a.m. on its way to Los Angeles.  It was allegedly piloted by Mohamed Atta, one of the pilots who couldn't fly, discussed above.  Flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the WTC at 8:45 a.m.
Boston airport officials said they did not spot the plane's course until it had crashed, and said the control tower had no unusual communications with the pilots or any crew member.  (The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, "At Logan Airport, Nobody Saw Plane's Sharp Turn South," pg. A 10.)
Sorry, this report is not credible.  Airplanes are tracked constantly.  The skies over the US are far too busy for us to have a lackadaisical attitude.
Note the date of The Washington Post story:  September 12.  Now compare it to the very different story that appeared a day later, in The Christian Science Monitor:
An American Airlines pilot stayed at the helm of hijacked Flight 11 much of the way from Boston to New York, sending surreptitious radio transmissions to authorities on the ground as he flew.
Because the pilot's voice was seldom heard in these covert transmissions, it was not clear to the listening air-traffic controllers which of the two pilots was flying the Boeing 767.  What is clear is that the pilot was secretly trying to convey to authorities the flight's desperate situation, according to controllers familiar with the tense minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked.
The story goes on to say that the conversations were overheard by the controllers because the pilot had pushed a "push-to-talk" button. "When he [the pilot] pushed the button and the terrorist spoke, we knew.  There was this voice that was threatening the pilot, and it was clearly threatening.  During these transmissions, the pilot's voice and the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly audible ...."
There are some logical problems with this account, of course, not the least of which is that a) we are told the pilot's voice was seldom heard, b) it was not possible to tell which pilot was at the controls, and c) during the transmissions the pilot's voice was clearly audible.
This accounting is spook talk.  Let's get to the heart:
All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation Administration traffic control center.  Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. The tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers -- and may become even more important if they plane's 'black boxes' are damaged or never found. ("Controllers' tale of Flight 11," The Christian Science Monitor, September 13, 2001)
So, yes, the same "federal law-enforcement" machinery that cooked up the David Koresh negotiation tapes and arranged to destroy the evidence at the Mt. Carmel Center in the April 19 inferno will be handling these records, too.

Flight 175

The Washington Post reported a similar story for United Airlines Flight 175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center tower at 9:06 a.m.
Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken six hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey, near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline employees said.  It then headed directly toward Manhattan.
Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than 90 minutes from Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact, according to a statement released by United Airlines. (The Washington Post, "Everything Seemed Normal When They Left' Boston Airport," September 12, 2001, pg. A10.)
Once again, there was no contemporaneous, detailed, first hand information from the air traffic controllers about communication from the air traffic controllers.
Of course the controls would not respond to manual directions if they were under the control of Global Hawk.

Flight 11/Flight 175 Hijacker Passport Found

We have just mentioned the distinct possibility that the masterminds of Operation 911 will manufacture evidence.  Well, here is a CNN story for your consideration:
In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center, a passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers was discovered a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. That has prompted the FBI and police to widen the search area beyond the immediate crash site.  ("Leaders urge 'normal' Monday after week of terror," September 16, 2001 Posted: 7:07 p.m. EDT (2307 GMT)  http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack cached at http://www.Public-Action.com/911/cnn-passport
We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought his passport with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would not need it then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew from the hijacker's pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that the passport flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the burning tower, and that it was carried by the air currents and landed safely, where it could be discovered, several blocks away ...

Flight 93

United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was scheduled to leave Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco.  We are told it crashed into an abandoned coal mine near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:37 a.m., one hour and 50 minutes after the first World Trade Center tower was hit.
Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down.  The first TV network reports said exactly that:  Flight 93 had been shot down by a military jet.  That information even made it into the print media.
Local residents said they had seen a second plane in the area, possibly an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the sky. [FBI Agent] Crowley said investigators had determined that two other planes were nearby but didn't know if either was military.
("Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found," USA Today, September 14, 2001.)
Pieces of the wreckage have been found as far away as New Baltimore, about eight miles from the crash site. When the eastbound plane crashed, a 9-knot wind was blowing from the southeast, [FBI Agent] Crowley said.
("Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Friday, September 14, 2001.)
On September 11, "[r]esidents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers, and what appear to be human remains.  Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the crash site."  ("Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash," [Pittsburgh] Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.) http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp cached at http://www.Public-Action.com/911/postgazette-09-13-01
The Washington Post reported that, just as Congressional leaders were discussing shooting the plane down, they learned it had crashed. ("Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa," Sept. 12, 2001, pg. A10.) The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the FBI denied that the plane had been shot down.
The FBI blamed the spread of debris over an 8-mile area on a 10 mph wind that was blowing at the time.  Of the debris, TIME Magazine of September 11 says: "The largest pieces of the plane still extant are barely bigger than a telephone book."  (Pages in this edition are not numbered: this quote appears on what should be pg. 40).
Planes that crash do not disintegrate in this manner.  However, the assertion that the hijackers had a bomb on board, and the bomb exploded, might provide an explanation for the disintegration.
There is a problem with this story, however:  Hijackers who planned to crash the plane into the Capitol would not want, or need, a bomb. In fact, a bomb might be counterproductive: Suppose it went off before the plane hit the Capitol?  The mission would be ruined.  Bringing a bomb on board would greatly increase chances the hijacker who carried the bomb would be detected when boarding.  And it's hard to imagine why hijackers would mutilate and dismember passengers with plastic knives and box cutters when they were planning to blow them up, anyway.  No, the bomb story does not wash. You can read one such story at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp cached at http://www.Public-Action.com/911/postgazette-09-13-01

More Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations

According to a an ABC news report by Peter Dizikes on September 13:  "Federal Aviation Administration data shows Flight 93 followed its normal flight plan until it neared Cleveland, where the plane took a hard turn south.
"That marks the point at which the plane must have been hijacked, investigators say.  Then it took a turn east."
Note that the investigators used the phrase "must have been" hijacked.  Didn't they know?  Weren't the air traffic controllers in touch with the pilots?  But the direction changes with the next paragraph:
ABCTV NEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington.
Now THAT conversation must have been interesting!  You can imagine the response of the air traffic controller:  "Excuse me?  Flight 93, you're in the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but you're just changed your mind and want to spend the day in Washington? Please explain."
According to an MSNBC story of September 22, 2001, Flight 93 was late taking off, and did not make its way down the runway until 8:41 a.m. ("The Final Moments of Flight 93" http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp) cached at http://www.Public-Action.com/911/postgazette-09-13-01
It was aloft for almost two hours, crashing at 10:37 a.m.  Making a rough estimate from the distances traveled and the time in the air (see TIME Magazine, September 11, "The Paths of Destruction" ), Flight 93 went off course sometime between 9:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Recall that both towers had been hit by 9:06 a.m., and the New York airports had been closed since 9:17 a.m.  It would have been impossible for an air traffic controller on duty between 9:45--10:00 a.m. not to know that commercial air traffic in the US was in a dire emergency from "suicide planes."
And now Flight 93 calls in, asking permission to do a U-turn, fly east an hour and a half, and land in Washington DC ???  What, the pilot was nervous and didn't know there were airports in the midwest?
I'd love to hear the REAL conversation between Flight 93 and the air traffic controllers, wouldn't you?  But I think we'll have to wait a while ...
Come to think of it, why would a hijacker call in to ask for an OK to change directions?

Conflicting And Unbelievable Reports

The networks dropped the story that Flight 93 had been shot down and now said that Flight 93 passengers called their families and described a hijacking.  The hijackers were armed with box razors, and overwhelmed the passengers and crew, and told the passengers they planned to crash into the Capitol in Washington, DC.  The hijackers also mutilated and dismembered the passengers, presumably with their plastic knives and box cutters.  What a messy job that must have been!  We were not told if the hijackers chatted to the passengers about their plans before, after, or while they were committing the mutilation/dismemberment. (I heard the mutilation/dismemberment story once while watching network TV coverage.  Then the story was dropped.)
On the other hand, TIME Magazine reported that one of the passengers called home to say:  "We have been hijacked.  They are being kind." (TIME, Sept. 24, pg. 73.)
Are we believing this?  I'm not.
No.  Something went wrong with the masterminds' plan.  They could not afford to have Flight 93 make a conventional landing and allow the pilots and passengers to talk about their experience.  They could not afford to have the "hijackers" survive and the electronic controls of the plane examined.  So Flight 93 was shot down.

Who Were Those People, Anyway?

Before September 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic intelligence -- the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency -- were clueless that such a catastrophic event would occur.  Yet a day or so later, the FBI had secured the names and mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers.  How did the FBI know who the hijackers were?  After all, all the eyewitnesses are dead.  How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?  Or did they just go through the passenger lists culling out the Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing those names as hijackers?  "You're Muslim so you're a hijacker..."
On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights.  To my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers' names.  Here are the URLs I checked:
Then I went searching on Usenet for more information.  I found that had noticed the hijackers' names were not on the passenger lists on September 27, on alt.culture.alaska, "Re: BLACK BOXES AND BODIES -(2). " I don't know what you'll find when you look at the passenger lists, but the historical record is there.
The FBI may be lying, of course, and the airlines telling the truth: Perhaps none of the "hijackers" were passengers on those four planes. If that is true, the airlines are helping the FBI commit a most grievous fraud on the public.  What does that say for the airlines' integrity?  In either case, we can place little confidence in the veracity of the information in those lists.  Names could have been added just as easily as deleted.
NOTE:  As late as February 3, 2002, United Airlines displayed on its website a copy of its September 12, 2001 press release, issued days before the alleged hijackers were "identified." The press release listed all the passengers on Flights 175 and 93 on September, 11, 2001.  The names of the alleged hijackers did not appear -- and United Airlines could not have removed them, for the "hijackers" had not yet been "identified."  So, clearly, none of the "highjackers" were aboard those two flights.

On February 3, 2002, the United press release was located at this URL:
It was cached here:

Don't Take The Credit, Take The Blame

By now you've realized that it's OK to believe in conspiracies provided they are Muslim conspiracies.  In fact, we MUST  believe that a man who dresses in sheets lives in a tent or a cave in the middle of nowhere - Osama bin Laden -- was the mastermind.  He used his $300 million fortune to pull off Operation 911.  Come to think of it, how do we know the size of his fortune?  Does the FBI know his banker?  And given that the world's banking system is highly centralized and in the hands of Mr. bin Laden's avowed enemies, how could our terrorist tent-dweller have retained his fortune all these years?  If Mr. bin Laden could have pulled this off in New York, why didn't he pick on his more direct enemy, Israel, and do a 911 on them?
Brilliant as Mr. bin Laden is, he forgot to take credit for the attack.  Even worse, he forgot to issue any demands.  He allowed his operatives to use their Muslim names and leave a clear trail for the FBI to follow.  Mr. Atta, the pilot of Flight 11 (north World Trade Center), was particularly helpful.  He kindly left his car at the Boston Airport.  Luckily, an unnamed source drew the FBI's attention to this car.  According to radio reports, the FBI found a suicide note written in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in the car.  Mr. Atta liked to write in Arabic; he wrote a second, long document in that language, which, for some reason, he put in his luggage. Coincidentally, this luggage did not make it to Flight 11, so the FBI found it at the airport.  Another lucky break!  But why Mr. Atta would take luggage on a suicide mission has not been explained.  The same note was carried by one of the hijackers on Flight 93, and, Mother of Miracles! survived the crash, even though the airplane itself was torn into shards.  Everything was so amazing that Bob Woodward, the man who talks to the dead, was called in to write a story about it all. See "In Hijacker's Bags. A Call to Planning, Prayer, and Death," The Washington Post, September 28, 2001.  Formerly at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37629 2001Sep27.html
The re-dated article now can be found at:
Read Mr. Woodward's article.  Mr. Atta sounds like a Jewish lawyer with his wires crossed, exhorting his co-conspirators to remember their wills  and reminding them that Mohammed was an "optimist;" exhorting his fellows to "utilize" (ugh--there's a lawyer's word for you -- what's Arabic for "utilize"?) their few hours left to ask God's forgiveness.  God's forgiveness for what?  They were about to die Muslim heros, Muslim martyrs in Allah's holy cause  ... what need would Allah have to forgive them? 
Sure, we believe every word.  We swallow the whole story.
On the other hand, here is the International Television News article on the Global Hawk:

(ITN Entertainment April 24, 2001) --- "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from take-off, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway." - Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith. 

A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.
The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.
The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state.
The 8600 mile (13840 km) flight, at an altitude of almost 12.5 miles (20 km), took 22 hours and set a world record for the furthest a robotic aircraft has flown between two points.
The Global Hawk flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images.
"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," said Rod Smith, the Australian Global Hawk manager.
"While in Australia, the Global Hawk will fly about 12 maritime surveillance and reconnaissance missions around Australia's remote coastline.
"It can fly non-stop for 36 hours and search 52,895 square miles (37,000 square km) in 24 hours.  Australia is assessing the aircraft and might buy it in the future.
"Emerging systems such as the Global Hawk offer Australia great potential for surveillance, reconnaissance and ultimately the delivery of combat power," said Brendan Nelson, parliamentary secretary to the Australian defence minister.
"Nelson said the Global Hawk could be used in combat to 'detect, classify and monitor' targets as they approached the Australian coast."

[Note of August 12, 2002] Supporting News Story: "Amid crashes and hype, military shows off latest robot plane" -- Associated Press, July 11, 2002.
That Associated Press article states that since 9-11 there has been an enormous interest in robot planes ...
That article is a testimonial to the effectiveness of Public-Action's articles on the use of remote controlled planes on 9-11. 
But AP is covering for the military when it it pretends that remote control technology is in its infancy.
"In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them."
-- Alan Staats, "Thwarting skyjackings from the ground," posted to FACSNET Oct. 2, 2001, published in Quill magazine, February 1998. http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/aviation.php3#
cached at http://www.public-action.com/911/facsnet/aviation.php3
[The article was revised on September 28, 2004.  Notes added as indicated.]

Monday, March 5, 2012

The American Medical System Is The Leading Cause Of Death And Injury In The United States

By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC , in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. (2, 2a)
The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. (3) The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. (4) The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths is 783,936.
The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate is 553,251. (5) It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States

Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one paper. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually—each one a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is to stand one inch away from an elephant and describe everything about it. You have to pull back to reveal the complete picture, such as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine, keeps their own records and data on morbidity and mortality like pieces of a puzzle. But the numbers and statistics were always hiding in plain sight. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands and thousands of studies. Finally putting the puzzle together we came up with some disturbing answers. 

Is American Medicine Working?
At 14% of the Gross National Product, health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003. (15) Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease, preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However, careful and objective review shows the opposite. Because of the extraordinary narrow context of medical technology through which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the full picture.
Medicine is not taking into consideration the following monumentally important aspects of a healthy human organism:
(a) Stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes
(b) Insufficient exercise
(c) Excessive caloric intake
(d) Highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil
(e) Exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins.
Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we actually cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being appropriated for preventing disease. 

Under-reporting of Iatrogenic Events
As few as 5% and only up to 20% of Iatrogenic acts are ever reported. (16, 24, 25, 33,34) This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have a much higher annual Iatrogenic death rate than 783,936. Dr. Leape, in 1994, said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days. (16) Our report shows that six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each and every day. 

Correcting a Compromised System
What we must deduce from this report is that medicine is in need of complete and total reform: from the curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients from excessive medical intervention. It is quite obvious that we can't change anything if we are not honest about what needs to be changed. This report simply shows the degree to which change is required. 

We are fully aware that what stands in the way of change are powerful pharmaceutical companies, medical technology companies, and special interest groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets they entice scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional caution to uncritical acceptance of a new therapy or drug. 

You only have to look at the number of invested people on hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflict of interest. The public is mostly unaware of these interlocking interests. For example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of medical school faculty, who serve on Institutional Review Boards (IRB) to advise on clinical trial research, also serve as consultants to the pharmaceutical industry. (17) The authors were concerned that such representation could cause potential conflicts of interest. 

A news release by Dr. Erik Campbell, the lead author, said, "Our previous research with faculty has shown us that ties to industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing research. It's possible that similar relationships with companies could affect IRB members' activities and attitudes." (18)

Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific Medicine
Jonathan Quick, director of Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy for the World Health Organization (WHO) wrote in a recent WHO Bulletin:
"If clinical trials become a commercial venture in which self-interest overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical advances is broken." (19)
Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the attention of the world to the problem of commercializing scientific research in her outgoing editorial titled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?" (20) Angell called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers. She said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science. 

She warned that, "When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways." She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry. 

Angell left the NEMJ in June 2000. Two years later, in June 2002, the NEJM announced that it would now accept biased journalists (those who accept money from drug companies) because it is too difficult to find ones who have no ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was just not the case, that there are plenty of researchers who don't work for drug companies. (21) The ABC report said that one measurable tie between pharmaceutical companies and doctors amounts to over $2 billion a year spent for over 314,000 events that doctors attend. 

The ABC report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug company-funded study will show favorable results 50% of the time. 

It appears that money can't buy you love but it can buy you any "scientific" result you want.
The only safeguard to reporting these studies was if the journal writers remained unbiased. That is no longer the case. 

Cynthia Crossen, writer for the Wall Street Journal in 1996, published "Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America," a book about the widespread practice of lying with statistics. (22) Commenting on the state of scientific research she said that:
"The road to hell was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government research funding."
Her data on financial involvement showed that in l981 the drug industry "gave" $292 million to colleges and universities for research. In l991 it "gave" $2.1 billion. 

The First Iatrogenic Study
Dr. Lucian L. Leape opened medicine's Pandora's box in his 1994 JAMA paper, "Error in Medicine." (16) He began the paper by reminiscing about Florence Nightingale's maxim—"first do no harm." But he found evidence of the opposite happening in medicine. He found that Schimmel reported in 1964 that 20% of hospital patients suffered Iatrogenic injury, with a 20% fatality rate. Steel in 1981 reported that 36% of hospitalized patients experienced iatrogenesis with a 25% fatality rate and adverse drug reactions were involved in 50% of the injuries. Bedell in 1991 reported that 64% of acute heart attacks in one hospital were preventable and were mostly due to adverse drug reactions. 

However, Leape focused on his and Brennan's "Harvard Medical Practice Study" published in 1991. (16a) They found that in 1984, in New York State, there was a 4% Iatrogenic injury rate for patients with a 14% fatality rate. From the 98,609 patients injured and the 14% fatality rate, he estimated that in the whole of the United States 180,000 people die each year, partly as a result of Iatrogenic injury. Leape compared these deaths to the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.

Why Leape chose to use the much lower figure of 4% injury for his analysis remains in question. Perhaps he wanted to tread lightly. If Leape had, instead, calculated the average rate among the three studies he cites (36%, 20%, and 4%), he would have come up with a 20% medical error rate. The number of fatalities that he could have presented, using an average rate of injury and his 14% fatality, is an annual 1,189,576 Iatrogenic deaths, or over ten jumbo jets crashing every day. 

Leape acknowledged that the literature on medical error is sparse and we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. He said that when errors are specifically sought out, reported rates are "distressingly high." He cited several autopsy studies with rates as high as 35% to 40% of missed diagnoses causing death. He also commented that an intensive care unit reported an average of 1.7 errors per day per patient, and 29% of those errors were potentially serious or fatal. 

We wonder: what is the effect on someone who daily gets the wrong medication, the wrong dose, the wrong procedure; how do we measure the accumulated burden of injury; and when the patient finally succumbs after the tenth error that week, what is entered on the death certificate? 

Leape calculated the rate of error in the intensive care unit. First, he found that each patient had an average of 178 "activities" (staff/procedure/medical interactions) a day, of which 1.7 were errors, which means a 1% failure rate. To some this may not seem like much, but putting this into perspective, Leape cited industry standards where in aviation a 0.1% failure rate would mean:
Two unsafe plane landings per day at O'Hare airport
In the U.S. mail, 16,000 pieces of lost mail every hour
In banking, 32,000 bank checks deducted from the wrong bank account every hour

Analyzing why there is so much medical error Leape acknowledged the lack of reporting. Unlike a jumbo-jet crash, which gets instant media coverage, hospital errors are spread out over the country in thousands of different locations. They are also perceived as isolated and unusual events. However, the most important reason that medical error is unrecognized and growing, according to Leape, was, and still is, that doctors and nurses are unequipped to deal with human error, due to the culture of medical training and practice.

Doctors are taught that mistakes are unacceptable. Medical mistakes are therefore viewed as a failure of character and any error equals negligence. We can see how a great deal of sweeping under the rug takes place since nobody is taught what to do when medical error does occur. Leape cited McIntyre and Popper who said the "infallibility model" of medicine leads to intellectual dishonesty with a need to cover up mistakes rather than admit them. There are no Grand Rounds on medical errors, no sharing of failures among doctors and no one to support them emotionally when their error harms a patient. Leape hoped his paper would encourage medicine "to fundamentally change the way they think about errors and why they occur." It's been almost a decade since this groundbreaking work, but the mistakes continue to soar.
One year later, in 1995, a report in JAMA said that:
"Over a million patients are injured in U.S. hospitals each year, and approximately 280,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. Therefore, the Iatrogenic death rate dwarfs the annual automobile accident mortality rate of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined." (23)
At a press conference in 1997 Dr. Leape released a nationwide poll on patient iatrogenesis conducted by the National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF), which is sponsored by the American Medical Association. The survey found that more than 100 million Americans have been impacted directly and indirectly by a medical mistake. 42% were directly affected and a total of 84% personally knew of someone who had experienced a medical mistake.(14) Dr. Leape is a founding member of the NPSF. 

Dr. Leape at this press conference also updated his 1994 statistics saying that medical errors in inpatient hospital settings nationwide, as of 1997, could be as high as 3 million and could cost as much as $200 billion. Leape used a 14% fatality rate to determine a medical error death rate of 180,000 in 1994. (16) In 1997, using Leape's base number of 3 million errors, the annual deaths could be as much as 420,000 for inpatients alone. This does not include nursing home deaths, or people in the outpatient community dying of drug side effects or as the result of medical procedures. 

Only a Fraction of Medical Errors are Reported
Leape, in 1994, said that he was well aware that medical errors were not being reported. (16) According to a study in two obstetrical units in the U.K., only about one quarter of the adverse incidents on the units are ever reported for reasons of protecting staff or preserving reputations, or fear of reprisals, including law suits. (24) 

An analysis by Wald and Shojania found that only 1.5% of all adverse events result in an incident report, and only 6% of adverse drug events are identified properly. 

The authors learned that the American College of Surgeons gives a very broad guess that surgical incident reports routinely capture only 5% to 30% of adverse events. In one surgical study only 20% of surgical complications resulted in discussion at Morbidity and Mortality Rounds.25 From these studies it appears that all the statistics that are gathered may be substantially underestimating the number of adverse drug and medical therapy incidents. It also underscores the fact that our mortality statistics are actually conservative figures. 

An article in Psychiatric Times outlines the stakes involved with reporting medical errors. (26) They found that the public is fearful of suffering a fatal medical error, and doctors are afraid they will be sued if they report an error. This brings up the obvious question: who is reporting medical errors? Usually it is the patient or the patient's surviving family. If no one notices the error, it is never reported. Janet Heinrich, an associate director at the U.S. General Accounting Office responsible for health financing and public health issues, testifying before a House subcommittee about medical errors, said that: "The full magnitude of their threat to the American public is unknown." She added, "Gathering valid and useful information about adverse events is extremely difficult." 

She acknowledged that the fear of being blamed, and the potential for legal liability, played key roles in the under-reporting of errors. The Psychiatric Times noted that the American Medical Association is strongly opposed to mandatory reporting of medical errors. (26) If doctors aren't reporting, what about nurses? In a survey of nurses, they also did not report medical mistakes for fear of retaliation. (27)
Standard medical pharmacology texts admit that relatively few doctors ever report adverse drug reactions to the FDA. (28) The reasons range from not knowing such a reporting system exists to fear of being sued because they prescribed a drug that caused harm. (29)However, it is this tremendously flawed system of voluntary reporting from doctors that we depend on to know whether a drug or a medical intervention is harmful. 

Pharmacology texts will also tell doctors how hard it is to separate drug side effects from disease symptoms. Treatment failure is most often attributed to the disease and not the drug or the doctor. Doctors are warned, "Probably nowhere else in professional life are mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves." (30) It may be hard to accept, but not difficult to understand, why only one in twenty side effects is reported to either hospital administrators or the FDA. (31,31a)
If hospitals admitted to the actual number of errors and mistakes, which is about 20 times what is reported, they would come under intense scrutiny. (32) Jerry Phillips, associate director of the Office of Post Marketing Drug Risk Assessment at the FDA, confirms this number. "In the broader area of adverse drug reaction data, the 250,000 reports received annually probably represent only 5% of the actual reactions that occur." (33) Dr. Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions, comments that because only 5% of adverse drug reactions are being reported, there are, in reality, 5 million medication reactions each year.(34)
It remains that whatever figure you choose to believe about the side effects from drugs, all the experts agree that you have to multiply that by 20 to get a more accurate estimate of what is really occurring in the burgeoning "field" of Iatrogenic medicine. 

A 2003 survey is all the more distressing because there seems to be no improvement in error reporting even with all the attention on this topic. Dr. Dorothea Wild surveyed medical residents at a community hospital in Connecticut. She found that only half of the residents were aware that the hospital had a medical error-reporting system, and the vast majority didn't use it at all. Dr. Wild says this does not bode well for the future. If doctors don't learn error reporting in their training, they will never use it. And she adds that error reporting is the first step in finding out where the gaps in the medical system are and fixing them. That first baby step has not even begun. (35)
Public Suggestions on Iatrogenesis
In a telephone survey, 1,207 adults were asked to indicate how effective they thought the following would be in reducing preventable medical errors that resulted in serious harm: (36)
Giving doctors more time to spend with patients: very effective 78%
Requiring hospitals to develop systems to avoid medical errors: very effective 74%
Better training of health professionals: very effective 73%
Using only doctors specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units: very effective 73%
Requiring hospitals to report all serious medical errors to a state agency: very effective 71%
Increasing the number of hospital nurses: very effective 69%
Reducing the work hours of doctors-in-training to avoid fatigue: very effective 66%
Encouraging hospitals to voluntarily report serious medical errors to a state agency: very effective 62%

Source: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm