Rumah 3 Lantai
Jl. Jeruk Sitrun
Masuk dr Jl. babakan jeruk 1, dekat gerbang tol Pasteur
Harga 650 rb Lt. 1 & 2, Luas kamar 2.5 m * 2.5 m
Harga 750 rb Lt. 2, Luas Kamar 2.5 m * 3 m
Harga 850 rb Lt. 3 ( view Rooftop ), Luas Kamar 2.5 m * 2.5 m
Telp: 081910245763

Fasilitas:
- kamar mandi dalam
- Spring Bed
- Meja Rias

In just 50 years antibiotics are well on their way to becoming obsolete. And the reason is that nature adapts faster than we can innovate. Antibiotics first came out as a nearly miraculous cure for common infections. But little thought was ever given to two key questions:

1. Why do some people get infections and others do not?
2. How will infectious agents respond to antibiotics over time?

The history of antibiotics and the antibiotic-age that they ushered in involves several historical figures, some famous, some not so famous. Men like Pasteur, Bechamp, Koch, Bernard, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Fleming, all had a hand in it.

Whenever there is an outbreak of disease there are always people that never get sick and sick people that don’t die. So why is that? The answer is nutrition. But unfortunately modern medicine and nutrition researchers don’t see it that way. And this is the core of a long brewing controversy in science.

In France during the 1870s, three scientists were conducting experiments with yeast, and the newly discovered micro-organisms called bacteria. All were conducting similar research and there was a great deal of borrowing in the competition for novel discoveries. There were two french men, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp, and a German, Robert Koch. These individuals worked independently and each knew that he was onto a whole new area of human discovery, and the race was on to influence the medical world and make a fortune.

Pasteur won the race of politics and influence and today students memorize that Louis Pasteur “discovered” the Germ Theory. Not only is this inaccurate, but Germ Theory itself is unsubstantiated even today. Pasteur himself, recanted the theory and admitted that his rivals had been right, and that it was not the germ that caused the disease, but rather the environment in which the germ was found.

The Germ Theory

Germ Theory states that there are separate diseases and that each disease is caused by a particular micro-organism. It is the job of science to find the right drug or vaccine that would selectively kill off the offending bug without killing the patient.

Sounds like a good idea at first. But nature is a moving target–both the infectious agent and host.

Bacteria and viruses are “environment-specific.” That’s why some people get the flu and others do not and why some die and some do not. That’s why some doctors and nurses are immune to disease even though they’re surrounded by it day in and day out.

Deepak Chopra tells a story where the influenza virus was isolated and implanted directly onto the mucous membranes of a group of subjects, with only 12% of them getting the flu. If it was the germ and not the environment (subject), then more people should have gotten sick. Instead what happened is that 88% of the subjects were able to fight off the virus.

The Germ Theory is weak and Pasteur knew it, hence the death bed confession. But Pasteur had a gift for self-promotion. He would never let his research keep him from an opportunity to address royalty or a medical society at a prestigious university.

He was well published, frequently quoted, and given practically every honorary title and chair in Europe. The record establishes fairly clearly that Pasteur “borrowed” research for some of his most famous discoveries, and then capitalized on his celebrity of being there first.

Before his death, Pasteur left instruction not to release over 10,000 pages of lab notes after his death. It wasn’t until 1975, after the death of his grandson, that the secret notes were finally made public. Professor Geison, a historian from Princeton, made a thorough study of the papers. He presented his findings to The American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston in 1993. Dr. Geison concluded that Pasteur published a great deal of fraudulent data and was guilty of multiple counts of scientific misconduct, violating rules of medicine, science, and ethics.

Both Koch and Pasteur were motivated by money and fame. In the race for an anthrax vaccine, not only did Pasteur not test it on animals before using human subjects; it was also established that Pasteur actually stole the formula from Toussaint, a colleague. Toussaint died a few months later of a nervous breakdown after being unable to prove his claim at the time.

To be continued…

Antoine Bechamp

In 1932 a booked titled “Bechamp or Pasteur?” was published under the name E. Douglas Hume. Hume was actually a woman who had to ghostwrite under a male name to get her book published. Hume wrote about Antoine Bechamp, a contemporary of Pasteur. Bechamp was department chair at the University at Lille, France and the most respected professor and researcher at the time.

Bechamp was a talented and committed researcher who cared more for what was going on in the lab than awards, politics or personal appearances. He worked nearly everyday of his life until his death at age 93. Bechamp reasoned that it was not the pathogens that caused disease, but rather the condition in which pathogens lived. Disease happens when an imbalance causes some of pathologen (bacteria, viruses, yeast) to take over. What causes the imbalance? Poor nutrition, overloaded or weak immune system, stress. This seems like such a simple idea, but it is the fundamental question of the whole controversyto this day. Even Pasteur, agreed that pathogens do not cause disease alone. Dr. Price was convinced that the change from traditional diets high in vitamin A and D to “foods of commerce” was a significant factor in the rise of TB rates.

I encourage you to do a little research on Pasteur, you will discover the following:

• Pasteur had background no in medicine or physiology; he was trained as a chemist
• Pasteur likely created the disease known as “hydrophobia,” rather than found a cure for it.
• Pasteur started the horrific practise of vivisection. Still in use today, it is responsible for much needless suffering of animals.
• Pasteur was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people inoculated with his unproven vaccines, and indirectly for thousands more when disease was introduced by other unproven procedures developed by Pasteur.
• Pasteur was more a merchant than a scientist, with his frequent reporting of false test findings and fraudulent data, which always had two purposes: self-promotion and profiteering from the sale of drugs and vaccines that were often made mandatory by legislators.
• Pasteur’s methods of treatment actually killed Alexander, the King of Greece, for a disease he did not even have.
• Pasteur frequently avoided working on naturally diseased subjects, instead he introduced the idea of inducing sickness by giving disease injections into healthy subjects.

As for his Germ Theory, there was a great deal of opposition to it among many researchers of the time.

In a lecture given in London 1911, M.L. Leverson, MD stated:

“The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of these unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs.”

Rudolf Virchow,the discoverer of the cell theory, with respect to the Germ Theory, commented:

“Germs seek their natural habitat – diseased tissue – rather than being the cause of diseased tissue.”

Virchow thought that the presence of germs identified a tissue as diseased, and was not the cause of disease. A weakened or diseased tissue was a target for pathogens, providing a hospitable environment in which they can thrive. Quite different from germs having caused the weakened tissue in the first place.

Bechamp graphically showed the same idea when an amputated arm was brought into his lab. The patient’s elbow had developed gangrene within eight hours after a sever blow, amputation was the only option to save the patient. Bechamp began to examine the severed limb using his microscope. To his amazement he found no bacteria in the gangrenous tissue. After a few hours bacteria began to appear, where initially there were none. Bechamp’s associate, Professor Estor, remarked “Bacteria cannot be the cause of gangrene; they are the effects of it.”

Robert Koch

Robert Koch was racing against Pasteur to find the cause of anthrax, which was killing great numbers of cattle in Europe at the time. He took blood from the diseased cattle and isolated bacteria from it and injected mice with the bacteria. Of the mice that died, Koch cultured their blood and compared it to the original bacteria from the cattle. His postulates are still memorized by medical students the world over as the foundation of the Germ Theory:

1. The organism must be present in every case
2. Must be isolated
3. Must cause the disease in a healthy host
4. Must be isolated again

Each postulate has been proven false, both at the time and even today, but his postulates are still basic tenets of the Germ Theory “religion”. Both anthrax vaccines that Koch and Pasteur developed were near total failures, thousands of sheep all over Europe were killed as part of the “experiment”. Both Koch and Pasteur did everything possible to alter and cover up the results of these failures.

Strike two

Koch developed the first vaccine for tuberculosis, using his postulates. The vaccine was called “tuberculin”. In Berlin, 2000 patients were inoculated with tuberculin. They died at a higher rate than TB patients who hadn’t been treated at all. Tuberculin simply did not work.

Even more upsetting to Koch was the revelation that the Prussian government had made an exclusive agreement with Koch to sell tuberculin and share the profits. This was a political disaster for the Prussian government and a huge blow to Koch’s reputation. It was also an embarrassment for the cause of scientific medicine when the prestige of the scientific method suddenly suffered this failure. Koch never recovered his credibility and today is only remembered for his “Postulates.” However Koch helped arrange the marriage of science and marketing, for which divorce does not appear likely any time soon, especially at present.

Turning waste into medicine

Turning chemical waste material into profit by selling it as medicines was not initially accepted. At the time, people took natural cures and occasionally consulted a doctor for something “serious.” The best way to gain general acceptance of these new waste-based medicines became obvious: standardize the education, training, and credentialing of medical doctors and then raise their economic status to a level where they would follow these insane policies. In 1900 doctors were the lowest paid professionals.

In 1904 Andrew Carnegie noted that workers in his factories made more money than most doctors. Working with Henry Pritchett, the president of MIT, Carnegie donated $10 million to set up the Carnegie Foundation. Originally it’s purpose was to be a pension fund for retiring professors. However, with money like that comes tremendous power. Carnegie used that power to control education. The name was changed to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and Pritchett expanded its original purpose to be “a great agency devoted to strengthening American education through scientific inquiry and policy studies.”

Whenever a billionaire tells you they’re going to devote themselves to something for your betterment, better check your wallet. The Foundation became very successful, controlling educational standards. It worked like this; to qualify for the pension system, an institution had to meet the standards set by the Foundation. In it’s first year, 52 of the 421 colleges who applied were accepted. Eventually the Foundation would go on to exert enormous control over all the best educational institutions.

The Flexner Report

The Carnegie Foundation hired a non-physician teacher named Alexander Flexner to travel across the country and “observe” medical education. In 1910 his landmark study, known as the Flexner Report, was published. Based on his recommendations, the Foundation expanded it’s control from being merely a pension plan for professors to an entirely new area: research funding.

Schools that met the Foundation’s standards from the Flexner Report were awarded research funds and endowments. Those that did not got no funding. This created an enormous incentive model for these institutions to play along. Thus, the titans of industry came to dictate the type of medical care that would flourish in America and starved out the competing types of care.

Natural methods of healing, used traditionally for centuries, suddenly fell out of favor simply because a more “scientific” approach started getting funding. “Coincidentally” those schools receiving the funding began disseminating information supporting the products of the new pharmaceutical industry. Big universities in the medical industry that rule today were all aligned with the Carnegie Foundation at that time, these include:

Case Western Reserve
Carnegie Institute of Chicago
University of North Carolina
University of Chicago
Johns Hopkins
Harvard School of Medicine

Jealous of the Carnegie Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation was established. Also utilizing the consultation of Abraham Flexner, the Rockefeller Foundation developed national standards for medical schools that were seeking “philanthropic” support. In 1904 there were 5747 medical doctors. Just 15 years later, after the Flexner Report, by 1919, there were only 2658. In that same 15 year period, the number of medical schools went from 162 to 81. The model had been proven, Rockefeller was deciding who was going to control what was medicine and what was not.

The reason so many schools closed was that schools had to be connected to a large university. The universities had to be linked to clinical departments that had laboratories and a university hospital. Using Rockefeller Funds, Flexner was able to develop a small group of elite, clinically oriented, medical schools. The raw materials for the new drugs were ready to go. All that was lacking was an academic power-base to legitimize their development and general use.

The system of education, funding, research and the organizing principles of medicine that persists today was created in less than a generation. This is why simple folk medicine, which had been around for centuries, was marginalized almost overnight.

Carnegie and Rockefeller were able gain control of organized medicine and turn it into a successful industry, with its focus on market growth. But the model has an inherent contradiction: an industry concerned with disease is not about to put itself out of business by curing a disease. This is why all these years, effective inexpensive non-pharmaceutical remedies, like nutrition, have been systematically suppressed. It’s just good business.

This model was the perfect environment for the flailing Germ Theory which was revived for a second run. Despite the fact that it had been repudiated by its creator, and most of his contemporaries, was of no concern and no longer mentioned in circles expecting next year’s funding. Germ Theory fit well with the new market-oriented paradigm of medicine: if germs are out there causing diseases, better find drugs to kill them.

Up into the 1920s, the burgeoning medical industry was gaining strength. It was aided by the declining incidence of infectious diseases due to improved sanitation and nutrition, for which medicine took credit. That is a story unto itself, “The Sanctity of Human Blood” is a good source.

The organized medicine was becoming stronger with each passing year, as new institutions were built and funding was given out for those research projects that had the best potential for future market value. Then the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 killed millions proving that the new “scientific” approach had a lot to learn about disease prevention. There was no cure, as the virus traveled around the world.

The as yet proven Germ Theory came to be accepted as policy largely because any opposition to it had little chance of being published. This is similar to how fake food producers attack the competition, except in this case the competition is denied a platform. None the less, a small group of scientists, aware that the work of Bechamp was a much more reasonable view of physical reality, continued to develop research in the direction that the environment played a key role in the cause of disease. Corporate “science” was up and running though, fueled by money from the new drug markets, but the scientific method had been abandoned. The Germ Theory was anointed as the underlying dogma of a new medical religion. Doctors like J.H. Tilden, MD, and others, were apparently not willing to convert:

“…doctors fight the imaginary foe without ceasing. The people are so saturated with the idea that disease must be fought to a finish that they are not satisfied with conservative treatment. Something must be done, even if they pay for it with their lives, as tens of thousands do every year. This willingness to die on the altar of medical superstition is one very great reason why no real improvement is made in fundamental medical science.”
- Toxemia Explained 1926

1926? Sounds like today.

The First Wonder Drug

However, in 1928 the Germ Theory got a huge boost that has lasted to the present. Dr. Alexander Fleming, a British scientist, was annoyed to discover that his cultures were being destroyed by a certain mold. Over the next 14 years, scientists in England and America worked successfully to isolate and test penicillin, but did not publish to keep the work secret. But in 1942 a fire at The Cocoanut Grove, Boston’s oldest nightclub, killed and injured hundreds of people. Penicillin was rushed to Boston in time to prevent infection from burns in hundreds of patients. The news got out, and the race was on to mass-produce penicillin. By 1944, Merck was producing enough to satisfy all the demand from the American military.

This single event, the commercialization of penicillin, did more to bring credibility to organized medicine than anything else in its history to that point. To be able to prevent infection was a nearly miraculous and compelling power. Countless people had died from infection down through the ages. And finally here was proof of the Germ Theory: these patients had died from bad bacteria, and when the bacteria are killed with penicillin, the patients live.

However, mother nature was to show that she does not deal in black and white.

Mother Nature Always Bats Last

Even in his early research of penicillin, Fleming knew very well that living things could change and adapt when exposed to stress. He knew the dangers of resistance from overuse of penicillin, and warned against such overuse from the start, here in an interview Fleming gave to the New York Times in 1945:

” The greatest possibility of evil in self-medication is the use of too-small doses, so that instead of clearing up infection the microbes are educated to resist penicillin…”

The oldest living things on earth are bacteria and viruses. They are billions of years old. They have persisted through every change in the environment that has ever occurred: hot, cold, wet, dry, high oxygen, no oxygen, earthquakes, volcanoes, glaciers – they’ve seen it all. And they’re still around. Millions of plant and animal species of have come and gone because they couldn’t adapt.

Now suddenly in the 1940s, we start mass production and administration of a substance into the human population: penicillin, a substance which kills all bacteria. And ever since it’s introduction, bacteria have been doing their best to survive by adapting. Exposed to antibiotics, if bacteria can change and survive, they are said to be drug-resistant. Superbugs.

Since the 1940s, many antibiotics have been developed and today there are about 160 types. The problem is that most are just slightly different versions of a few main types. And resistance to those main types has increased year by year.

Drug resistance is now one of the leading causes of deaths in the U.S. More than 70,000 people die each year from it, according to the National Institutes of Health. Most of these people acquired the infection while they were in a hospital being treated for something else, according to the May 1997 documentary “The Coming Plague”. No known antibiotics can help these patients, and they die.

A 1992 study by the CDC’s Institute of Medicine showed that mortality from infectious disease has risen 22% worldwide from 1980-1992.

We can see the steady increase in drug resistance as Staphylococcus adapt:

• 1946, about 88% of staf infections could be cured by penicillin.
• 1950, only 61% of staph infections could be killed by penicillin
• 1982, fewer than 10% of staph cases could be cured by penicillin.
• Today it is less than 5%.

Nesse fim de semana, encerrou-se o Super 8 2009, com o São José assegurando o vice campeonato. O jogo mais importante em terras brasileiras foi a decisão entre BH Rugby e o Rio Branco, mas tivemos amistosos no Rio de Janeiro e no interior de São Paulo, em comemoração ao aniversário da atlética do Mamutes. Confira!

Super 8

São José 22 X 07 Pasteur

Rio Branco 25 X 17 BH Rugby – Rio Branco se garante no Super 8 2010

Amistoso

Taubaté 43 X 05 Mamutes

Guanabara X Calx-Cis (não informado)

Origine du document de 18 pages >>

Ce document est une ébauche. Si vous souhaitez contribuer à l’améliorer, écrivez à :

Jean-Luc Guilmot – jlg911(at) gmail.com – Version du 13/10/09

0

Ce recueil de brèves citations vise à sensibiliser le public sur la question de la vaccination – ce concept si bien ancré dans les esprits, notamment par des expressions populaires comme « majeur et vacciné ». Pourtant le principe de la vaccination continue à diviser le monde médical. Et il existe des raisons de croire que ses bases scientifiques ne sont pas aussi solides que ce que l’on serait en droit d’attendre. A l’heure où l’on évoque une campagne de vaccination sans précédent au niveau mondial, avec de surcroît un vaccin expérimental préparé dans l’urgence, cela donne à réfléchir.

0

“Primum non nocere”

0

« Peu de médecins sont disposés à attribuer un décès ou une complication à une méthode qu’ils ont eux-mêmes recommandée et à laquelle ils croient.»

Pr Georges DICK (British Medical Journal, juillet 1971).

« C’est dans les sociétés libres que l’invisible police de l’esprit est le plus efficace précisément parce qu’on croit qu’elle n’existe pas. »

B. Cassou, M. Schiff, dans : Qui décide de notre santé ? (1998).

« Il n’existe pas de preuve scientifique sur l’utilité des vaccins ».

Dr Jean-Michel DUBERNARD, Député, chirurgien et docteur honoris causa de l’Ulg, dans la conclusion d’une table ronde qu’il présidait au Sénat français en 2007 en présence des représentants de l’industrie « Les vaccins en France: quels enjeux pour l’industrie pharmaceutique et la recherche ? » Comptes rendus de l’office parlementaire d’évaluation des politiques de santé. http://www.senat.fr/bulletin/20070604/sante.html

« Aucun historien des sciences digne de ce nom ne conteste le fait que Pasteur s’est trompé sur de très nombreux points. Aucun ne conteste non plus son opportunisme, les nombreuses entorses à la méthode qu’il professait, ou encore le pillage d’autres chercheurs. [...] Il est évident que l’engouement pour l’aventure vaccinale est très largement mercantile, car les vaccins sont à l’origine de profits fabuleux. Cela tient sans doute au formidable crédit de son idée de base : la maladie vient de l’extérieur. »

Dr Jacques LACAZE, dans la préface de : En finir avec Pasteur, 2005, du Dr Eric Ancelet.

En médecine actuellement, la Cochrane collaboration [...] a pour objectif de «préparer, tenir à jour, et diffuser les revues systématiques sur l’efficacité des thérapeutiques et des stratégies thérapeutiques ». Quoique ses évaluations
– en principe indépendantes – ne soient pas forcément au-dessus de toute critique, elles sont largement tenues comme parmi les plus fiables en matière de médicament.
Précisément [...], la Cochrane collaboration a récemment publié une série assez systématique d’évaluations concernant les vaccins antigrippaux : en toute logique et compte tenu de ce qui vient d’être rappelé, celles-ci devraient d’autant plus valoir pour le dernier mot sur la question qu’elles sont extrêmement récentes – peu susceptibles, à ce titre, d’avoir été rendues obsolètes par des investigations méconnues. Or, comparées à l’activisme promotionnel implacable des autorités sanitaires, leurs conclusions sont accablantes. [...] Bien sûr, personne n’est réputé avoir le monopole de la vérité. Mais le moins que l’on puisse dire, c’est que par leur exhaustivité (toutes les études publiées sur une période de 40 ans), la transparence de leur méthodologie, la convergence de leurs résultats – pour ne point parler de la déférence accordée, par principe, aux évaluations de la Collaboration Cochrane –, ces revues tranchent avec l’assertivité expéditive des administrations sanitaires ou des « experts » quant au bénéfice – voire à l’ardente nécessité – d’une vaccination antigrippale.
Depuis 1966, les fabricants ne se sont jamais donné la peine de fournir le minimum de preuves suffisantes quant à l’efficacité de leurs vaccins antigrippaux, que ce soit chez les « espèces » traditionnellement protégées par l’éthique de la recherche clinique (sujets âgés, enfants, nourrissons), dans populations réputées à risque (professionnels de santé) ou, tout simplement, chez les sujets en bonne santé.
Les autorités sanitaires, qui octroient régulièrement les autorisations de mise sur le marché à ces vaccins antigrippaux, n’ont jamais exigé des fabricants ce minimum de preuves.
Que, malgré une telle carence de preuves, les dits vaccins soient autorisés au remboursement et qu’ils fassent même l’objet d’une promotion de plus en plus intensive (notamment chez l’enfant) place les responsables de ce remboursement et de cette promotion – les autorités de santé – en situation patente de conflit d’intérêts : on n’attend pas d’elles qu’elles reconnaissent rétrospectivement qu’elles ont promu et payé des médicaments dont le rapport bénéfice/risque) serait à ce point problématique.

Dr Marc GIRARD, Sept. 2009, dans “Vacciner ou pas ?” en ligne (et vivement recommandé) sur www.rolandsimion.org

Les rares médecins restés fidèles à la Tradition, qui s’évertuent à redonner à leurs malades les moyens de retrouver la santé, butent chaque jour sur un obstacle colossal, quasi insurmontable, lourd, rigide, et épais comme les dogmes : le mythe pastorien de l’origine bactérienne des maladies. [...] Désormais figées dans la certitude matérialiste, la Médecine a suivi le chemin facile des petits esprits, de ceux qui voient l’ennemi partout, le tuent à l’arme antibiotique ou le trompent par ruse vaccinale.

Dr Jean ELMIGER, Lausanne, dans la préface de : En finir avec Pasteur, 2005, du Dr Eric Ancelet.

Alors, quelles sont les véritables raisons de ce déclin ?

Dans son livre Health and Healing, le docteur Andrew Weil répond de la manière suivante :

« La médecine scientifique a pris crédit pour certaines avancées dans le domaine de la santé qu’elle ne mérite pas. La plupart des gens croient que la victoire sur les maladies infectieuses du siècle dernier est due à l’invention des immunisations. En fait, le choléra, le typhus, le tétanos, la diphtérie et la coqueluche, etc., étaient en régression avant que les vaccins spécifiques ne soient devenus disponibles – et cette régression résultait de l’amélioration des conditions d’hygiène, de l’évacuation des eaux d’égout, et de la distribution de la nourriture et de l’eau. »

La suite ici du document pdf de 18 pages >>

Neste fim de semana temos muitas atrações no campo e na TV, com a série de test matches na Europa a pleno vapor, o Super 8 2009 encerrando-se definitivamente, o duelo pela última vaga na edição 2010 do torneio e amistosos pelo Brasil.

Quer ver o seu jogo do seu time divulgado aqui? Envie os dados da partida para blogdorugby@gmail.com, ou comente o post!

Se alguém souber links para assistir aos jogos pela internet, poste um comentário no blog! Agradeço ao Guanabara Rugby pelo link do jogo da Itália.

Confira!

OBS: Curitiba e Blumenau se enfrentam somente no dia 28, e não no dia 21. Agradeço ao @Iced_Priest que me corrigiu pelo Twitter e ao Rodrigo Oliveira, que corrigiu pelos comentários.

21/11 – Sábado

Test Matches de novembro

12h00 – Itália X África do Sul

Na internet: clique aqui para acessar

12h30 – Inglaterra X Nova Zelândia

Na TV: O’Malleys

No Twitter: acompanhe pelo Twitter do Blog do Rugby

15h00 – França X Samoa

Na TV: O’Malleys

No Twitter: acompanhe pelo Twitter do Blog do Rugby (não definido ainda)

15h15 – Escócia X Austrália

Na TV: O’Malleys

No Twitter: acompanhe pelo Twitter do Blog do Rugby (não definido ainda)

Eliminatórias para a Copa do Mundo 2011

18h00 – EUA X Uruguai

Na internet: clique aqui para acessar

Super 8

16h00 – São José X Pasteur

Local: Teatrão (clique aqui para acessar o Mapa do Rugby Brasileiro)

São José e Pasteur cumprem tabela no último jogo pendente do confuso Super 8 2009. Clique aqui para saber o que ocorreu

16h00 – Rio Branco X BH Rugby

Local: SPAC (clique aqui para acessar o Mapa do Rugby Brasileiro)

Esse duelo sim é importante. o BH Rugby, bicampeão da Copa do Brasil, enfrenta o Rio Branco, lanterna na edição desse ano, por uma vaga na edição 2010 do Super 8. O BH fez grande campanha na Copa do Brasil e está se mostrando uma equipe bem estruturada para alçar voos maiores. O Rio Branco vai na contramão. Mesmo com bons jogadores e bom técnico, a equipe decepcionou no Super 8 desse ano, perdendo 4 jogos por diferenças superiores a 30 pontos.  O vencedor garante a vaga. 

Amistosos

Taubaté X Mamutes (USP Lorena)

Local: Taubaté (clique aqui para acessar o Mapa do Rugby brasileiro)

Guanabara X Calx-Cis

Local: não divulgado

Brockett, Henry

Pasteur discovered that the air is full of invisible organisms which contaminate…likewise the spiritual…atmosphere is sin infected. - Scriptural Freedom From Sin (KC: Beacon Hill Press, 1941), 99.

Making vaccines at the Biological Vaccine Company No.1 (Filed photo: SGGP)

The Ho Chi Minh City-based Pasteur Institute announced it has successfully produced a vaccine against A/H1N1 flu based on Vero cell-based technology instead of the conventional fertilized hen-egg vaccine technology.

Following the fact, the Ministry of Health will soon set up a scientific council to test this vaccine.

Meanwhile, the director of the Institute of Vaccines and Biological Substances, Le Van Hiep, says Vietnam has state-of-the-art vaccine production technologies to make nine out of 10 essential vaccines for the national immunization program.

But mass production capabilities are limited, he adds.

The country only makes around 50 million doses of vaccines annually, focusing on key diseases like hepatitis, encephalitis, measles, and poliomyelitis.

Vietnam needs to have at least five million doses of H1N1 vaccine in reserve to protect high-risk groups like children, old people, and health workers, according to the Ministry of Health.

Related article:
Vietnam needs 5 mln doses of swine-flu vaccine: Government

Bookmark & Share

Mais uma vez vou fugir um pouco do tema,  pra colocar algumas frases e algumas coisa que aprendi ao longo da minha vida, acho que é o momento pra isso:

“Que o medo que tenho nao me deixe esquecer o que anseio” (Oswaldo Montenegro)

Ficar triste muitas vezes é inevitável. Todas as pessoas do mundo podem te dizer o que quiserem, dizerem que você é louco, podem não compreender, mas voce é e sempre será a única pessoa que pode resolver sua vida. É a pessoa mais responsável pela sua felicidade.

Às vezes não poderemos esperar que as pessoas se preparem, ou te acompanhem para mudar o que não nos faz feliz. Você tem que tomar o rumo, atuar, fazer sua sorte e quando o tempo passar, as coisas se arranjarão da maneira mais perfeita, porque é impossível contarmos com as tantas variáveis da vida, mas é imprescindível fazer o melhor que se pode a cada passo que damos. É nossa tarefa não machucar as pessoas por pura vaidade, mas mesmos quando fizermos as coisas da melhora maneira possível muitas ficarão tristes, muitas ficarão presas, muitas ficarão perdidas. Se somos capazes, tentemos ajudar, ainda que ajudar seja se afastar. Ser solidário, por mais que no momento a pessoa não entenda, pode aliviar um coração, pode libertar essas pessoas para a vida e, até mesmo para tudo aquilo que ela não é capaz de ver naquele momento.

O importante é não deixar de caminhar, de ir atrás do que acreditamos porque no futuro, nós seremos nossos mais severos juízes.

“To be free or to feel free. The first one is a myth” (Mick Hucknall)

Ninguém é 100% livre. Há a sociedade, a familia, o emprego, o dinheiro, a matéria, o medo. A liberdade é, portanto, as formas e momentos que nos sentimos livres. Dar-se liberdade é também libertar.

“Le hasard favorise l’esprit preparé” (Louis Pasteur)

‘A sorte’ favorece os espíritos preparados. Quer dizer que às vezes achamos que uma pessoa tem sorte, mas quem nos garante que essa pessoa aprendeu  a desviar ou tirar do seu caminho as tantas pobrezas que nos cercam? Há pessoas que sabem identificar oportunidades, são humildes para reconhecer seu erros e aprender com eles. Aprendem que o bem é lógico, tiram as barreiras da sua frente, esclarecem-se de que precisam e assim, multiplicam as possibilidades do que o que pretendem aconteça. Aumentando a possibilidade, se aumenta a probabilidade do “acaso” positivo, o que as pessoas denominam: sorte.

“Cogito, ergo sum”  (Descartes)

O homem que não pensa padece.  Fato!

Se não se contesta o que as pessoas nos dizem, o que a vida nos traz, o que as influências nos causam e os resultados que obtemos, fatalmente seremos pegos em muitas e muitas ocasiões apoiando-nos em coisas que são completamente efêmeras ou infundadas. Imagine construir sua casa sobre essas noções vazias, é como construir num barranco sem arrimo ou sobre areia da praia, sob a primeira pressão, sob uma chuva mais forte: adeus pra suas verdades, sua história.

“What is written without effort, is in general read without pleasure” (Samuel Johnson)

Ler é preciso. Ler mil livros e não lembrar-se de nenhum é como ter mil colegas e não ter amigo algum.

Se não te interessa ou não vai ser cobrado à respeito não leia. Se alguém te sugeriu, se esforce.Ler livros ruins também nos ajuda a evidenciarmos os bons.

Escrever é ainda mais sério. Escrever sem amor, sem vontade dá no que dá. Não importa quantos leitores leiam seu texto, seu bilhetinho na tela do computador: 1, 2, 1000. O que importa é que 1º se consiga ler (se a sua caligrafia é ruim, se vire!), 2º seja algo, 3º a pessoa que recebe sente, não me pergunte como, mas sente.

Há alguns outros ditos e frases, e para cada pessoa haverão tantos mais ou tantos menos, não importa.

O que realmente importa é que, em algum momento, nos pusemos frases e ditados: marcos. Milestones provando que não andamos para trás e nem queremos. Celebremos, pois.

10. Marie Curie (1867-1934)
Chemistry

Marie Curie created the theory of radioactivity through her discovery of radium and also developed a process for isolating isotopes. These were huge advancements in chemical science which have been used in many applications, not the least of which are major advancements in the medical field. Unfortunately the discoveries she made would eventually claim her life, yet she left in indelible mark on modern science.

9. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Biology

This quiet Austrian Monk would go on to develop the foundations of genetic study. Sure genetics has come a long way since then, but Mendel was the one who started it all with his ideas on inherited traits through his experiments and the idea of genotypes. Mendel’s theories were not accepted by the scientific community during his life however. It would only be later when his work was revisited and validated.

O São José saiu vencedor da primeira etapa do Circuito Brasileiro de Sevens, ao vencer o Pasteur na final.

Nos Juniores, deu Jacareí, sobre o Curitiba, por 14 a 7 (resultado a confirmar).

O interior de São Paulo começou muito bem na competição, parabéns!

Confira a classificação parcial da competição.

Adulto (8 primeiro colocados)

1 – São José
2 – Pasteur
3 – Bandeirantes
4 – Ilha Rugby
5 – Spac
6 – Rio Branco
7 – Desterro
8 – Barbarians Universitários

Feminino (4 primeiros colocados)

1 – Spac
2 – Niterói
3 – Bandeirantes
4 – Spac B

Juvenil (4 primeiros colocados)

1 – Jacareí
2 – Curitiba
3 – São José
4 – Bandeirantes

Em breve os resultados completos.

Fonte: Rugby Spirit

I like to think about how truly and deeply quiet it was…

From my own experience and from talking with other college professors, I know that the great majority of university students assumes that technology is almost all good.  Historians tell us that that the average person in western society became increasingly enamoured of science, and of increasing technology, since about the mid-nineteenth century; at roughly the same time when advances in chemistry and medicine enabled the creation of effective drugs on a whole new scale.  While many traditional medicines did help many ailments, there were also plenty of basic things which were untreatable by such methods.  For example, the industrial revolution caused many people to live crowded together in cities, so that they could be close to the factories where they often worked for 16 hour days, six days per week. 

But no one had yet discovered that the resulting sewage difficulties was a major cause of cholera, which would devastate whole towns, carrying off many of the children in partciular.  Then, scientists developed the germ theory of disease, which led to effective urban planning, and cholera began to be less of a factor.  Pasteur discovered how to keep bad milk from killing people, and in the earlier twentieth century, antibiotics were invented.  About the year 1900, asprin was discovered and put on the market, providing tremendous relief for people who had suffered chronic headaches for years:  L. M. Montgomery wrote in her journal that asprin was perhaps the single greatest invention in human history, in terms of how much suffering it relieved.  Today, we take a lot of this older stuff for granted, but the feeling remains:  people who have grown up in the presence of continuing medical miracles are very apt to be impressed by medical science, and to worship doctors as demigods.  And of course, they are right to do so, to a degree:  since doctors are pursuing one of the main goals of the species (which I have written about in this post), which is to become immortal (we may pretend otherwise, but this has always been a human goal, generally speaking–see the quoted post for details).

Since the 1970s, the microcomputer/electronics revolution has rapidly accelerated the pace of new gizmos which have been introduced to us as ‘consumers’; and these things seem to come in such a bewildering array, and seem to be able to do such marvellous new things, that it seems as if whole new realms of human possibility are being opened up every few years.  And, of course, there is plenty of truth to this, though, again, it’s also good to keep all of this razzle-dazzle in perspective–because in the end, all of our new technology is all focused to solving a very limited number of problems which face human beings.  All that the electronics revolution can do, in essence, is speed communication.  That’s it.  It can enable us to access other people’s thoughts and words faster, whether  these are being spoken live, or have been recorded in some written medium, or videotaped.  Art forms such as dance and music can also be accessed over distances this way, and our cars can access satellite tracking capabilities, etc., but it all boils down to access and organization of information.  Again, this is pretty handy, but, my point here is to point out that this is not the sum total of what humans are capable of.

Technology since the Industrial Revolution has enabled us as a species to pursue three goals:  first, the goal of ‘immortality’ (or health, if you’d like to put it that way).  Second, the goal of transportation:  we can transport ourselves more places faster.  Third, the goal of communication:  we can access more information faster, and/or organize our own thoughts more easily.

But at what cost?  I have already spoken in the last post  of the fact that, since the scientific revolution, western man (and now pretty much everyone else – though monotheistic fundamentalists are trying very hard to keep their heads in the sand) has very much lost the really comforting sense of being taken care of, which medieval monotheists had developed over the course of nearly 1,500 years.  In this view, the earth was the very centre of the universe, and, according to the medieval Caholics, Jesus had come down to earth in order to save it from the original sin which had consumed the earth after Adam and Eve were driven from Eden.  And the funny thing is, is that the notion that the erath is the centre of the universe, and that all planets revolve around it, is mathematically sustainable, given the tools which were available to ancient and medieval man.  In other words, by a funny trick of fate, the mathematics for an earth-centric universe happen to work out quite well, and they are quite consistent with one another, leading to the “proof” which held for 1,500 years that the earth was indeed the centre of it all.  But copernicus beginning in the 1540s (under the influence of the renaissance) began to question the mathematics behind the terrocentric universe, based on some very subtle incongruities.  The funny thing is, that for some 80 years, Copernicus’ own math was no more convincing than the old calculations of the Alexandrian Greek Ptolemy, on whom the medieval terrocentrism was based.  It took until the 1610s, and Galileo’s new findings, to turn the tide, and begin to prove that, sorry folks, the cosmos was not earth-o-centric.

The story of how the earth was dethroned as the centre of it all is a very interesting one, but we’ll have to skip that for now, so that we can move on to more recent developments.  The main point for now is, that when earth was dethroned, man was dethroned too.  And gradually, through the early 20th century, astronomers kept shrinking our place in the universe, i.e., they kept telling us that, well, the universe is far, far bigger than we ever imagined.  In the Ptolemaic system, medieval people believed that the sky was perhaps only a few tens of thousands of miles high, and that the stars were located in a fixed sphere (like a planetarium dome), and that on top of that was the beautiful walled and gated city of heaven.  Wouldn’t that be fabulous?  How comforting is that?  To have heaven be right there, only a few thousand miles up – no wonder they believed that angels were ascending and descending on ladders every night, to watch over us.  How beautiful, how magnificent!  And they believed that the stars and planets themselves were luminous lights, which were given off by angels, or intelligences, which circled above us in the sky, shedding their celestial influence (and being the basis of the system of astrology which we still see in newspapers). 

But science shattered all of those illusions:  and by the early 20th century, the universe had gone from being a short stairway to heaven, peopled with angels (and demons), to being an extraordinarily, unfathomably enormous, and shockingly cold, and dark, and empty place.  Very very sad indeed:  even our brief sense in the 1930s that there might be aliens out there soon proved to be far-fetched:  this golden age of science fiction was perhaps the last attempt of the race to people the universe.  As humans, we thrive, we have a very strong sense that population is good:  we need other people in order to survive, to converse, and to be human.  Evolutionarily, if we are alone, we tend to die.  So we are very unnerved by this notion of an empty universe, and it is deeply depressing.  Whenver I see pictures of Jupiter’s moons or Saturn’s moons being discovered and explored by NASA, i no longer get those feelings of excitement that I did as a kid:  as an adult I can only think of how desperately far away these places are, and how utterly silent, and lacking in atmosphere, and so cold that methane would freeze to ice.  It’s really not cool. 

The point being:  science has first of all turned our universe from highly inviting, to desperately existentially depressing.  Next, the scientists told us that we were not created in god’s image, but had merely evolved from monkeys.  That was Darwin’s fault.  Moreover, there was not even any absolute notion of ‘man’ but that millenia ago we looked like hairy brutes, and that millenia from now we would look like space aliens or something else weird.  There was nothing to lean on:  no absolute image.  Man was essentially a hollow image, we could conclude.  And we weren’t even the kings of the world any more, this meant, either, not in any absolute sense like the Eden myth had taught us.  We weren’t put here by god to be stewards – but had merely usurped that position by having bigger brains.  So, we were not only de-centered in the universe, but also in the animal kingdom as well.  And god was taken away from us:  the ultimate father figure.

Then Freud came along, and taught us that our subconsciouses were merely those of animals:  we were not noble, as the enlightenment taught, but merely animals, whose main drives were to kill people, kill ourselves, shag as many people as possible, and grab all the food from everyone else.  And that our id was the seat of all of these base drives, and that our ego helped us to rationally figure out how to achieve these objectrives, while our superegoes did a number on us, to try and keep our egos in check, but more often than not led to psychoses.  In the eighteenth century, the enlightenment had taught that we were vessels of virtue.  Now, Freud taught us that we were a bunch of psychotic fuckups.  We couldn’t even trust our own minds anymore:  we were constantly having to second-guess our own amalistic instincts; and more often than not, we would find ourselves acting self-destructively, all because our parents had raised us wrong, or we had seen some traumatic thing as children that we were doomed by our faulty mental apparatus to keep repeating.  And a look at most families today will tell you that Freud was right, in the main.

So, in other words, the advance of science, including psychology, has already caused us as humans to lose a lot of reasons for confidence.  We were literally gods, in the eighteenth century:  no wonder the founding fathers could achieve so much, with so much confidence.  And now we’re born, with science essentially telling us that there is no point (one reason why I have started this website:  to accept the science, but to get around the negative implications by seeking out the positive ones, which have not been all that obvious over the last century).

But advancing technology, which has gone hand in hand with science, has also taken its toll on our quality of life, and our mental environment.  In many ways, the advance of entertainment technology has been one of the worst culprits.

Viz, the phonograph.  Prior to its invention, people had to make their own music.  While it was still in a primitive state, ca. 1910, there were more pianos in middle class homes then there would ever be.  People were not embarrassed to make music in this kind of environment, because they were not constantly bombarded with music from recordings.  And the problem with recordings, is that, naturally, companies will record the best artists that they can get – which means, that when one listens to a phonograph, or record or any other sound-reproducing technology, one is suddenly exposed not just to the best person in one’s village, but in the entire country, or even the world.   Whereas people who sang songs in 1910 had mostly ever just heard their neighbours singing around the piano (and did not need to feel selfish), afterwards, everyone was continually comparing themselves to Frank Sinatra, or Madonna, or whever else was in fashion at the time – this is a pretty humbling experience, and the result is, that most people stopped singing.

Same with playing music:  most people who hear recordings, which feature the world’s best artists, digitally remastered and often after dozens of takes, will inevitably feel that their own homemade music – particularly after the advent of electronic sounds on recordings, which feature all sorts of odd noises that very often cannot be produced naturally– will of course sound pathetic, and homespun, compared with what one will hear on the latest CD.  And more recently, with all of the effects being put on voices, it’s virtually impossible for a normal person to sound like the latest hip songster, and so the result, is that no one wants to sing.

Same with acting plays, which during the nineteenth century was a favourite pasttime of many children and teenagers.  Nowadays, except for high school plays, which will still get some people interested in theatre, the TV has made it absolutely absurd to parade around in homespun costumes, and with homemade scripts, and poor local acting… also one will feel self conscious since only the most beautiful and/or charasmatic people end up on the TV, anyway – even on most ‘reality’ TV. 

So:  through technology, in just the past 100 years, we’ve lost singing, we’ve lost music playing, and we’ve lost acting.  Ditto with dancing:  thus, technology has led to a restriction of what the average person thinks they can do.  Whereas before, almost everyone could consider themselves to be ’something of a singer,’ or something of an actor, or dancer, or even a poet– nowadays, there is so much professionalization made possible through the medium of instant access to information, that the species has been squeezed of its talent – and it’s all been concentrated into the lives of a few individuals.  The rest of us have been bereft of most of our artistic impulses – they ahve been esentially beaten out of us, or rather, embarrassed out of us.

Same goes for the conception of what is ‘cool.’  With the advent of TV, and album covers, etc., what was cool became increasingly divorced from what was possible.  Fashion has always in Western Europe aped the rich, throgh the 1920s, which wasn’t exactly fair.  But after the 1920s, fashion began to follow film stars, who set examples of glamour which far outshone any simple rich perosn – since film stars were both rich, and beautiful, and ultra-charismatic to boot.  With the 1960s revolution, music stars took over from film stars, though film stars have more than held their own – so, i guess you can say that they muscled their way up – and now, in the MTV and post-MTV era, we are bombarded with ever more ridiculous stars, who are more and more outrageous, since they need only be believable for about 2 minutes and 30 seconds’ worth of ridiculous dancing and/or prancing.  And so, since the 80s, and entirely due to the technology which fostered it, fashion gets reduced to the mere image of some dancer/prancer – whoever can look the most outrageous.

And we dont’ even need to touch upon the TV, which studies now show lead to ADD, and we all know that it leads to wasting your life.  I remember, as an American middle class kid in the 80s, reading an interview with Drew Barrymore, who was asked her favourite TV show – and to my astonishment at the time, she said, “I don’t watch TV, I have too much going on.”  And I was shocked.  And didn’t quite believe her.  Having chosen to give up the tube in my 20s, as I embarked upon a career as a scholar – I realized that I had so much to learn, that I really had very little if any time for the tube.  And besides, once you get your mind to a certain level, where you could be writing the scripts for TV shows, it pretty much takes the fun out of it – you can no longer suspend your disbelief – and you don’t want to , because they almost inevitably come across as banal, with a few exceptions, in the hands of a few truly gifted writers.

And then there are video games - and here I’d argue that the Matrix people are essentially right – within a few decades, we’re going to see many people just “plugged in.”  In Asia, where there is less cultural taboo vs. electronics than even in the US, many teens are essentially lost to the real world already – they spend 16 hours or more online at a time… stopping only to sleep, if that.  We’re going to see more and more of this – and we’re going to do have to do something about it – some way or another.  Already, Xbox has such graphic images, that they are damaging our very democratic and humanist values, such as the unacceptability of torture, as I have said in this post.  It’s happening so quickly, that alternate reality is beginning to take on the dimensions of life in ancient Rome, with all of its barbarity and brutality.  And new humanists are going to have to come forward, in order to help the people save themselves from themselves once again – this time in an alternate world – if we are ever going to build a truly ideal and egalitarian society.

This also says nothing about the fact that technology has enabled us to increase the food production of the planet to previously unimaginable levels, so that our population has mushroomed accordingly – thus creating the danger that, like locusts, we as a species are going to overrun the entire earth, as we’re already seeing with global warming, disappearing forests, and the fact that nearly all the intersting species on the planet are on the verge of extinction – let alone the fact that it’s virtually impossible to find a wild spot to retreat to anymore.  (Or just a job which doesn’t require a commute through the visual and sensory equivalent of a journey to the fourth level of hell).       

We can also mention the built environment–all buildings built until about 1900 are inherently pleasing, but with modern materials, which were not natural, we began to be able to build on an entirely inhuman scale – causing people to feel dwarfed once again, this time in their own cities and communities.  And many of the building materials were so hideous, that they create eyesores 30 stories high, all over the world, which cause one’s soul to weep whenver one has to be anywhere near such a monstrosity.  Prior to 1900, the fact that all things had to be made of more or less natural materials, meant that they all had an earthy, homespun feel, which is inherently soothing – people almost inevitably find it comforting to visit the old centre of a european or old east coast town, for precisely this reason.

And that’s not even to go into one of Marx’s main points which was that, prior to the Industiral Revolution, almost everyone had the satisfaction of building complete products (think a blacksmith, or carpenter, or silversmith), whereas afterwards, people spent all day tending machines, which made just, say, the heads of pins.  All day, just pinheads.  Day in, day out.  Absolutely stultifying – factory labour, and its modern successor cubicle labour, is nothing like a complete work experience – no one can take pride in finished products, they never see the end of it, the point of it – it’s all just working for da man, to get a paycheck.  Filling endless reports, which will always be endlessly repeatedly in need of doing, etc.  That’s no way to work.  It’s incredibly alienating.  But that’s the downside of increased technology, which increases productivity, and makes for very cheap products.  So, we get lots of stuff, in return for having to spend most of our waking lives in zombification chambers.

In short, there have been plenty of ways in which, both as species and as individuals, we have been robbed of many of our birthrights by technology.  Next time we see an advert which beckons us to worship at the altar of technology, we should remember that humans come first – gizmos a distant second.  Humans still have souls (whether we actually do or not is immaterial…what matters is that we can feel that we have souls), which are very complex, and multifaceted, and, more to the point, we have conscious minds – a feat that no computer can come close to emulating.  These machines that we have created have helped us in many ways to become like the gods that God originally wanted us to be (that is, that our own subconscious yearnings have always wanted us to become), but we need to remember that they have upset a great deal of the thousands of years old balances that our species has evolved into, and with, and in dialogue with. 

It’s very important that some of us, at least, can take the long view, and take stock of our profits and losses, over the longue duree.  This way, we can hopefully keep ourselves from falling so blindly in love with the latest iphone, that we forget that we are still very much the biological product of millions of years of more or less technology-free evolution – and that our biological needs cannot change nearly so rapidly as the latest model of toaster.  If we forget who we are, and what our ambitions are – i.e., if we forget our history, then we are very highly likely to find that the rapid pace of technology, which is after all guided almost entirley by profit, and by short-term desire, will create for us a world in which we suddenly discover that we cannot really be happy… if indeed we can live in it at all.

Si de nos jours l’anesthésie est l’un des fondamentaux de la médecine moderne, elle ne fût pas la composante initiale de l’histoire de la médecine. Bien au contraire car la naissance de l’anesthésie n’a qu’un peu plus de 150 ans !

L’Histoire de la chirurgie est bien entendu liée à l’étude de la douleur et la possibilité de l’atténuer. Pour autant l’anesthésie n’est jamais concluante si bien qu’encore au XIXème siècle, certains praticiens étaient venus à déclarer qu’il était impossible de penser médecine et atténuation de la douleur. Cela dit, il fallût attendre 1842 pour qu’un pas fondamental, bien que non diffusé, fût franchi aux Etats-Unis: celui de l’utilisation de l’éther comme anesthésiant. Ce n’est qu’en 1847 que l’éther fût utilisé en France avant d’être que l’utilisation du chloroforme ne vienne en parallèle.

La morphine, tout comme la cocaïne furent aussi parmi les premiers composants des anesthésiants à la fin du XIXème siècle. Ce n’est qu’au XXème que l’on commence à comprendre les dangers de l’anesthésie. Par ailleurs, les deux guerres mondiales vont permettre à l’évolution de l’anesthésie de faire un bon phénoménal. Il en sera de même concernant la chirurgie et la réanimation qui connurent bien évidemment une évolution par nécessité et expérience. Les désastres de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale y sont véritablement pour quelque chose.

Abbiamo già detto che – riducendosi freneticamente i cicli di vita di ogni “cosa”  poiché sempre più rapidamente il contesto ne determina l’obsolescenza – i cambiamenti che dovranno affrontare le organizzazioni e gli individui saranno, nell’unità di tempo, molto più numerosi.

Domanda:

Quanti capolavori hanno prodotto nella loro intera vita Michelangelo, Beethoven, Thomas Mann? Uno? Due? (stiamo parlando di capolavori, non di “esercizi” ).

E quante teorie rivoluzionarie hanno prodotto nella loro intera vita Newton o Einstein? E quante scoperte decisive hanno prodotto nella loro intera vita Pasteur o Fleming?

E quindi che cosa ci fa pensare che un imprenditore geniale, un manager sagace, un capo eccezionale possa produrre un numero talmente elevato di geniali business idea, strategie innovative, scelte organizzative da consentire ad un’azienda di procedere a tutti quei “salti” di curva cui siamo obbligati nell’Era dello Squalo Bianco?

E che cosa ci fa pensare – sì, proprio a noi, a me – di avere sempre l’idea “giusta” rispetto ad ogni contesto?

Quante soluzioni “giuste” possono avere in serbo dei singoli uomini – anche se particolarmente intelligenti –  nella loro intera vita?

Ahimè, non ci sono uomini adatti per tutte le stagioni e poiché è per altro vero  che – come si usa dire – non ci sono più le stagioni di una volta (con la loro prevedibilità, stabilità o al massimo con qualche complicatezza), un altro cambiamento culturale profondo che ci impone l’era della complessità è quello di rassegnarci alla limitatezza nostra (e degli altri) come singoli individui e imparare davvero a “giocare in squadra”.

Il capo, il padre, l’eroe che indica la via, dice agli altri che cosa fare e da cui dipende la felicità di ognuno è definitivamente morto.

Here in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s influenza season again, and the topic du jour this year is H1N1, also known as Swine Flu.  I’ve found myself perplexed by this little bug since it first hit the mainstream media earlier this year.

The thing that really caught my attention was how quickly the World Health Organization (WHO) decided to label it a pandemic.  It had taken 11 weeks for the virus to kill as many people as normal seasonal flu kills in just a few hours.  Yet WHO decided that it was worthy of pandemic status. 

Being the curious little researcher that I am, I decided to look up the definition of a pandemic.  According to WHO, three conditions must be met:

• The disease must be new to a population – or at least a disease that has not surfaced for a long time.
• It must spread quickly.
• And there must be little or no immunity to it.

H1N1 definitely meets the last two criteria, but the first one?  Not exactly.  It’s been circulating among humans for decades, although this particular strain hasn’t been seen widespread since the 1970s.  So I guess it could technically meet the first criteria.

I should have been satisfied with that, but I wasn’t, so I dug a little deeper.  Lo and behold, just before declaring H1N1 a pandemic, WHO had changed its definition.  It had removed two additional criteria:

• There must be a high morbidity.
• There must be a high mortality rate.

Hmmm.  Now it starts to get interesting.  What possible reason could WHO have for making it easier to declare a global pandemic? 

The cynic in me immediately went straight to the two most common reasons for everything in this world: money and power. 

At present, 5 companies worldwide have developed an approved vaccine for H1N1 (Baxter, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, and CSL).  By declaring a pandemic, WHO has forced governments worldwide to respond to the “threat” of this outbreak.  As a result, those 5 companies stand to make exorbitant profits.  I don’t think it’s all at far-fetched to think that some of those profits will be making their way back to the WHO “voluntary contribution” coffers.

As for the power…well, WHO has been doing what all NGOs seem to do eventually.  They’ve been migrating into the world of politics.  In a recent speech in Copenhagen, Director-General Margaret Chan made several comments about how global policies regarding social, economic and climate change should fall under the purview of public health – in other words, under the influence of WHO.

The big kink in their plans though, was that prior to H1N1, they were losing credibility, and they were losing it fast.  There have been reports surfacing from multiple sources that the number of HIV infections has been grossly exaggerated for years in the name of political correctness and additional funding.  There was the widespread hysteria over Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which killed only about one day’s worth of flu victims before it vanished.  And more recently, the refusal of Avian Flu (H5N1) to go pandemic, after nations around the world had stockpiled (bought) millions of doses of vaccines at WHO’s urging.

Yes, it’s quite fair to say that WHO needed to improve their standing.  So when H1N1 came along, they realized that it was awfully simple to change a little definition here, cross out “Avian” and replace it with “Swine” over there, sound the alarm, and shout, “PANDEMIC!”

As Director-General Chan stated in her speech last month [emphasis mine],

“…Public health had no say in the policies that seeded the financial crisis or set the stage for climate change. But public health has much to say about the influenza pandemic, how it is managed, and how its impact can be reduced.

This is one occasion when heads of state and ministers of finance, tourism, and trade will listen closely to ministers of health. This is one occasion where the need for “health in all policies” becomes readily apparent…”

Voila!  Instant credibility and political influence…

In regards to the controversy regarding the safety of the vaccines, I’m not going to presume to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t do to protect themselves and their families.  Do your own research and make up your own mind.  I, for one, will not be volunteering for that injection.  H1N1 may yet develop into the killer virus that many have been predicting, but personally, I doubt it. 

What I don’t doubt, is that once again, the public in being manipulated and used as pawns in the game of political gain. Once again, the taxpayers will be left footing the bill.  And once again, the public is left wondering exactly whose side the men and women we trust to lead us, are really on.

Un pasteur peut-il confesser l’adultère
avec une paroissienne en publique à l’assemblée ?

Voilà la question qu’un pasteur m’a envoyée. Sans dévoiler son identité, je partage ma réponse ci-dessous :

Je vous remercie de m’avoir écrit. Je vous dirai franchement ce que je crois que la Bible enseigne à ce sujet.

Dans 1 Timothée 3, Paul étale des qualifications minimes pour ceux qui “aspirent à la charge d’évêque” :

Cette parole est certaine : Si quelqu’un aspire à la charge d’évêque, il désire une œuvre excellente. 2 Il faut donc que l’évêque soit irréprochable, mari d’une seule femme, sobre, modéré, réglé dans sa conduite, hospitalier, propre à l’enseignement. 3 Il faut qu’il ne soit ni adonné au vin, ni violent, mais indulgent, pacifique, désintéressé. 4 Il faut qu’il dirige bien sa propre maison, et qu’il tienne ses enfants dans la soumission et dans une parfaite honnêteté ; 5 car si quelqu’un ne sait pas diriger sa propre maison, comment prendra-t-il soin de l’Eglise de Dieu? 6 Il ne faut pas qu’il soit un nouveau converti, de peur qu’enflé d’orgueil il ne tombe sous le jugement du diable. 7 Il faut aussi qu’il reçoive un bon témoignage de ceux du dehors, afin de ne pas tomber dans l’opprobre et dans les pièges du diable.

La première qualification pour un évêque, c’est-à-dire pasteur, est qu’il soit irréprochable. La dernière qualification est qu’il reçoive un bon témoignage de ceux du dehors. À part la qualification qu’il soit "propre à l’enseignement", toutes les qualifications ont à faire avec son caractère, et à vrai dire, il n’y a rien d’extraordinaire dans cette liste : la plupart de ces qualités ne sont que les qualités, selon l’enseignement du Nouveau Testament, qui devraient caractériser tout chrétien. Si un pasteur commet un péché grave…
il n’a plus les qualités requises selon les Écritures pour être pasteur.

Alors, si un pasteur commet un péché grave tel que l’adultère, il n’est plus irréprochable et il ne peut pas recevoir un bon témoignage de ceux du dehors. Donc, il n’a plus les qualités requises selon les Écritures pour être pasteur. Il devrait démissionner.

Quand la Bible parle de restauration, il s’agit de restauration au corps de Christ et non pas au poste de pasteur. Un pasteur chuté peut bien être restauré au corps de Christ, mais quand on transgresse la loi de Dieu, comme Paul dit dans Romains 2:24,

le nom de Dieu est à cause de vous blasphémé parmi les païens, comme cela est écrit.

Le péché flagrant dans la vie d’un soi-disant chrétien endommage la cause de Christ. Combien plus quand il s’agit d’un pasteur.

• Quand une église restaure à la chaire un pasteur chuté, elle annonce aux adeptes et au monde, que le péché n’est pas grave.
• Quand un chrétien ou un pasteur chute, il annonce que Christ n’est pas capable de nous "préserver de toute chute et nous faire paraître devant sa gloire irrépréhensibles et dans l’allégresse" (Jude 24).

Quand David a péché, il a jeûné et prié toute la nuit. Son exemple nous démontre que nous ne devons pas prendre à la légère le péché. Les uns diraient que David est un exemple de restauration, mais il n’était pas un pasteur dans le sens du Nouveau Testament et il n’avait pas tous les avantages et toutes les bénédictions spirituelles qui nous sont accordées en Christ (Ephésiens 1). Le pasteur Charles Spurgeon a dit que si un pasteur n’a pas vécu selon la grâce de Dieu qui est sa puissance pour vivre pour le Seigneur (2 Corinthiens 12:9 et 2 Pierre 1:3), il est vraiment douteux qu’il puisse vivre selon la grâce de Dieu s’il était restauré à un poste de ministère. Il vaut mieux qu’il s’humilie au lieu d’assumer une telle charge. C’était probablement le manque d’humilité qui a précédé sa chute. L’humilité d’une autre place dans l’église pourrait préserver son âme.

Un pasteur peut-il confesser l’adultère avec une paroissienne en publique à l’assemblée ? Il me semble qu’il serait sage de confesser son adultère d’abord à son épouse, puis aux supérieurs dans le ministère (par exemple, au président du mouvement), puis aux anciens ou diacres et à l’église avec sa démission quand les responsables prendraient charge de l’église. Tout cela devrait se faire dans le plus bref délai (24 à 48 heures) pour éviter des on-dit et pour que toute l’église sache que l’on résout la situation d’une manière biblique.

Le pasteur devrait briser tout contact avec la paroissienne et d’autres responsables devraient se charger de sa cure d’âme. Le pasteur chuté et son épouse devraient aussi se soumettre à des conducteurs qui puissent veiller sur leur âme (Hébreux 13:17).

Ces paroles ne sont pas pour vous décourager. Au contraire,

6 Humiliez-vous donc sous la puissante main de Dieu, afin qu’il vous élève au temps convenable; 7 et déchargez-vous sur lui de tous vos soucis, car lui-même prend soin de vous. 8 Soyez sobres, veillez. Votre adversaire, le diable, rôde comme un lion rugissant, cherchant qui il dévorera. 9 Résistez-lui avec une foi ferme, sachant que les mêmes souffrances sont imposées à vos frères dans le monde. 10 Le Dieu de toute grâce, qui vous a appelés en Jésus-Christ à sa gloire éternelle, après que vous aurez souffert un peu de temps, vous perfectionnera lui-même, vous affermira (1 Pierre 5:6-10).

Je prie que le Seigneur vous dirige et vous comble de sa grâce. Je vous invite à répondre si vous voudriez en parler.

Voilà ma réponse. Comment auriez-vous répondu ?

São José dos Campos sedia no próximo fim de semana (24 e 25 de outubro), a 1ª Etapa do Circuito Brasileiro de Sevens, o mais novo esporte Olímpico nas Olimpíadas de 2016 no Rio de Janeiro.

Capital nacional da modalidade, serão 56 jogos em dois dias de competições. Os jogos serão realizados no campo do Poliesportivo do São José Esporte Clube “Teatrão”, todos com entrada gratuita ao público.

A 1ª etapa do Circuito será disputada por equipes femininas, juvenis e adultas masculinas de diversos clubes representantes de vários estados do país.

O torneio será disputado em cinco etapas sendo: 1ª São José dos Campos, 2ª Niterói (RJ), 3ª São Paulo, 4ª Curitiba (PR) e a 5ª em Florianópolis (SC). Durante as cinco etapas as equipes participantes vão somando pontos, onde a campeã será a que tiver o maior número de pontos somados.

Clubes inscritos 

Adulto: São José Rugby A, Bandeirantes, Desterro, Farmácia, Poli, Varginha, Ilharugby, Barbarians Universitário, UFF, Curitiba, SPAC, Brasil 7’s M-19, Taubaté, Rio Branco, Pasteur e São José B.

 Junior: São José Rugby, Bandeirantes, Jacareí, SPAC, Curitiba e Pasteur.

 Feminino: São José Rugby, Bandeirantes, Niterói, SPAC A, SPAC B e Curitiba.

Serviço

1ª etapa Circuito Brasileiro de Sevens

Data: 24 e 25/10

Horário: das 9h às 18h

Local: Poliesportivo do São José Esporte Clube “Teatrão”

Rua Ricardo Edwards, 55 – Vila Industrial. (Mapa do Rugby brasileiro)

 Alojamento equipes

O alojamento dos atletas durante a 1ª etapa do Circuito Brasileiro de Sevens será no seguinte endereço
EMEF PROFª LEONOR P. NUNES GALVÃO

RUA JOSÉ MOLINA, 150 – CEP:12.220-300
VILA INDUSTRIAL
3929-1714

Rugby Social – Durante a primeira etapa do Circuito Brasileiro de Sevens, os 140 garotos integrantes do Projeto Rugby Social além de participarem como torcedores farão parte das equipes de apoio da organização do evento. O Projeto Rugby Social é realizado em parceria do São José Rugby Clube com a CCR/Nova Dutra através do CMDCA. Integram o projeto 140 garotos de bairros carentes da cidade, selecionados em Escolas Municipais, que duas vezes por semana participam dos treinamentos com direito a alimentação e transporte. Os garotos que se destacam são encaminhados para as equipes que representam a cidade em competições.

 Destaque do Rugby Social, Danilo Leandro Campos, de nove anos que há dois anos treina na modalidade. “Titico” como é conhecido entre os atletas, já atua na categoria M-13 e tem como espelho seus irmãos Saulo e Daniel que disputam nas categorias (M-17) e (M-15).

 As equipes do São José Rúgbi são mantidas com recursos próprios da Prefeitura, Veibrás e Val Du Lion através da LIF (Lei de Incentivo Fiscal) do município, CCR/Nova Dutra através do CMDCA e com patrocínio das empresas Dutrafer, Nova Freitas Imóveis, Sygma, Hotel Confort e Aliança Francesa.

Notícia enviada por Ana Amélia Andrade.

Iată câteva citate ale unor oameni de ştiinţă şi descoperitori importanţi, care, studiind şi fiind zi de zi aproape de ştiinţă, au ştiut cui să dea slavă pentru tainele descoperite de ei. Putem spune că minţile lor mai deschise spre cunoaştere (acest lucru este dovedit de rezultatele studiilor lor), au realizat existenţa Cuiva mai inteligent, mai complex şi mai mare decat noi. Fiindcă cuvintele lor au mai mare greutate decat ceea ce pot spune eu, iată ce gănduri au lăsat în urmă:

Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630 )

Este autorul celor trei legi ale miscarii planetare.

Cred numai si numai in slujirea lui Hristos . Intentionam sa devin teolog , dar vad acum ca prin stradaniile mele Dumnezeu este slavit si in astronomie , intrucat “cerurile spun slava lui Dumnezeu”.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727 )

A fost unul dintre cei mai mari oameni de stiinta , descoperitor al legilor gravitatiei , miscarii si al calculului matematic, a studiat in amanunt Biblia si profetiile din Daniel si Apocalipsa.

Studiez zilnic Biblia . Acest sistem extraordinar al soarelui , planetelor si cometelor poate izvori doar din stapanirea unei Fiinte inteligente care guverneaza toate lucrurile … ca DOMN al tuturor .

Michael Faraday ( 1791 – 1867 )

Pionier al studiului electricitatii , inventatorul generatorului electric , al primului motor electric si al transformatorului electric , a fost un crestin cu viata impregnata de puterea lui Dumnezeu , a ramas un om smerit desi lua masa cu regina Victoria, a fost prezbiter in biserica sa si predica Evanghelia ori de cate ori i se ivea ocazia . Întrebat de un reporter despre viaţa de după moarte, a răspuns:

Stiu in Cine am crezut si sunt incredintat ca El are puterea sa pazeasca ce I-am incredintat pana in ziua aceea.

Samuel Morse (1791 – 1872)

Este inventatorul telegrafului si al codului Morse. Primele cuvinte transmise OFICIAL de el prin intermediul telegrafului au fost:

Ce lucruri mari a facut Dumnezeu – Numeri 23,23  … Este opera LUI … nu noua , ci Numelui Tau , Doamne , dam slava.

James Joule (1818 – 1889 )

Realizeaza legatura dintre caldura si miscarea mecanica , ofera bazele primei legi a termodinamicii , este unul dintre crestinii a caror credinta era binecunoscuta . Face parte dintre cei 717 oameni de stiinta care , la Londra , in 1864 , semneaza manifestul intitulat “ Declaratia studentilor in stiinte naturale si fizica “ , in care marturiseste :

Dupa cunoasterea si implinirea voii lui Dumnezeu , urmatorul meu tel este sa cunosc cat pot de mult despre atributele Sale – intelepciunea Sa , puterea si bunatatea Sa , asa cum sunt ele aratate de lucrarea mainilor Sale.

Louis Pasteur ( 1822 – 1895 )

A pus bazele microbiologiei si bacteriologiei , a inventat vaccinarea , imunizarea si pasteurizarea.

Cu cat studiez mai mult natura , cu atat sunt mai uimit de lucrarea Creatorului meu . Stiinta ar trebui sa-i apropie pe oameni de Dumnezeu , pentru ca pretutindeni in natura exista dovezi ale unui “proiect divin “.

William Thomson ( Lord Kelvin ) 1824 – 1907

Descoperitorul scarii absolute , a patentat in timpul vietii sale 70 de inventii , este cunoscut si pentru puternica credinta pe care o avea in Dumnezeu .

Pretutindeni in jurul nostru se afla dovezi coplesitoare ale unui proiect divin si binevoitor . Conceptia ateista mi se pare atat de lipsita de sens incat nici nu o pot exprima in cuvinte .

Fleming – pionierul electronicii

Exista dovezi abundente ca Biblia , desi scrisa de oameni , nu este produsul mintii omenesti si trebuie venerata ca fiind cuvintele transmise noua de catre Creatorul Universului .

Ce tome 3 vient conclure le récit de la vie d’Alan Ingram Cope qu’Emmanuel Guibert avait commencé à nous raconter en avril 2000.

Alan est un américain qui vit en France. De sa rencontre avec Emmanuel Guibert est né ce récit sur la deuxième guerre mondiale tel qu’il la vécue. Une guerre, pour lui, non pas de tant de bruits et de fureurs, car il a débarqué à Dunkerque en février 45, le jour de ses 20 ans. Mais une guerre faite de petits événements précieux, de moments inattendus, d’amitiés et de rencontres perdues, retrouvées, qui font se dévoiler autrement la vie.

L’amitié qui lit les deux hommes est palpable dans la qualité, la finesse et l’intimité de l’approche d’Emmanuel Guibert. Ses planches ont la retenue et l’élégance d’un respect pour cette vie qui s’éclot avec étonnement.

Graphiquement c’est une belle leçon, très riche dans la variété de ses approches : tout un art du récit !

La Guerre d’Alan – 3 tomes (scénario et dessins d’Emmanuel Guibert, d’après les souvenirs d’Alan Ingram Cope), L’Association, collection « Ciboulette », mars 2008, 122 pages

Como havia escrito no artigo “Estão acabando com a arbitragem de rugby no Brasil“, não errei por muito.

Leiam as cartas enviadas pela Comissão Disciplinar e tirem suas próprias conclusões.

Saudações Ovaladas.

Carta assinada pelos Senhores Membros da Comissão Disciplinar da ABR

Carta assinada pelo Sr. Aubrey Friedman, membro da Comissão Disciplinar da ABR

O motivo das cartas acima

In discussing experiments, it must be mentioned that frequently experiments are improved upon after they’re finished.  Ideally, you would be able to foresee all problems with an experiment before you begin, but that’s not always the case.  Sometimes you think you’ve done something wonder and had the results published, only to find out later that someone else sees a flaw in your work.  Maybe someone else continues your work and publishes their findings.  Let’s look at a case that is rooted in Biology’s history: spontaneous generation.  For centuries, people have realized the correlation between sex and reproduction in humans.  But some living things were thought to come to life on their own–to spontaneously generate.  In other, living organisms came to life from nonliving matter.

In 1668, an Italian physician named Francesco Redi came up with a hypothesis to disprove the idea of spontaneous generation–specifically, the thought that maggots could come to life from meat.  Redi observed that after meat sat out, flies would be attracted to it, and a few days after that maggots would appear.  Redi thought that maggots were from fly eggs too small to be seen.  Redi set up an experiment–with the control and variable groups–to prove his hypothesis that flies produce maggots.  In the experiment, the control group was a piece of meat in an uncovered jar.  The variable group was a piece of meat in a jar covered with gauze; the gauze allowed air through, but not the flies.  After a few days, Redi observed that the control group had maggots on the meat and the variable group didn’t. He then concluded that maggots only form when flies come in contact with meat and that spontaneous generation is not at play.

In the 1700s, an English scientist proposed that spontaneous generation was possible and performed an entirely different experiment that he suggested proved it.  Later, another Italian scientist, improved on that experiment and concluded that Redi was indeed correct the first time.  So for almost 200 years after Redi, there was still much debate as to whether or not spontaneous generation could happen.

Until there was Pasteur.  Louis Pasteur, in 1864, settled the argument once and for all.  Taking the basic idea of the two scientists from the 1700s and answering critics that said air was necessary for life, Pasteur developed a special flask.  It had a curved neck that allowed air in, but would trap any microorganisms and not let them contaminate his findings.

Click for full image

Pasteur showed that his flask was free from microorganisms, even though it was open to the air.  For a year, there was no microbial growth. Until Pasteur broke the neck of the flask.  And when microorganisms appeared, he proved to the world that life could only come from other life.  Because of his findings in this and many other experiments throughout his life, Louis Pasteur is considered one of the greatest Biologists in history.

Lors D'Une Manifestation

‘’God Hates Fags’’
‘’God Hates America’’
‘’Thank God For The Killer Typhoons & Landslide In Philippines !’’
‘’Fags Are Nature Freaks’’

Voici des paroles d’un groupe assez spécial de Chrétiens : le Westboro Baptist Church [WBC].

Je trouve personnellement que c’est une secte de fous !

Le WBC a été fondé par le pasteur Fred Phelps, au Kansas. Je me demande bien ce que les gens fument, là-bas…

Ils sont particulièrement contre les homosexuels. Leur raison ? Ils nuisent à leur nation, à l’avenir du monde. Surtout à cause du SIDA qui, en passant, n’est pas seulement la faute des homosexuels. En plus, ils remercient Dieu de tuer tant de soldats, car ça montre au monde qu’Il est en colère contre nous et qu’il faut se réveiller.

Vraiment n’importe quoi !

En plus, ça dit qu’on devrait plus entendre ‘’God Hates Fags’’ qu’on a besoin d’oxygène pour respirer !! Ben oui, juste pour vous haïr plus !

Évidemment, ça dit que les ‘’tapettes’’ vont aller en Enfer. Au pire, c’est leur problème ! Arrêtez de nous achaler avec ça pis tant pis s’ils vont en Enfer ! Vous n’êtes même pas touchés par ça, à ce que je sache.

Ah, c’est vrai, ce n’était pas assez de juste haïr les gays, il faut aussi haïr les Juifs. Parce que les Juifs auraient tué Jésus… Oui mais Jésus était lui-même Juif, non ? Dans le fond, c’est un manque de respect envers Jésus aussi !

Qu’est-ce qui est drôle, c’est que ça dit de tuer tous les Juifs, après ça dit qu’il faut bannir  et tuer tous les nazis… Il me semblait que les plus grands tueurs de Juifs étaient les nazis ?

Ensuite, les attentats du 11 septembre sont considérés comme un cadeau de Dieu. Wow, y’est généreux, lui ! Apparemment, ça servait à se débarrasser du mauvais monde et à réveiller le peuple. Dommage que cette secte-là ne se soit pas détruite en passant.

Dernière chose : Dieu hait le monde. D’accord, alors pourquoi l’avoir créé ? S’il est SI intelligent que ça, Il aurait pu prévoir que notre monde allait devenir comme ça, non ?

Vous voyez [j’espère] que c’est vraiment du lavage de cerveau ! Tout ça est insensé. Y’a des limites quant à être homophobe et de dénigrer pleins de choses comme ça !

Je pourrais chialer encore longtemps comme ça, mais ça serait perdre mon temps. Tout ce que je pense d’eux, c’est que ce sont des fous sans but dans la vie. Ils ont le droit de dire ce qu’ils pensent, nous sommes libres, mais il y a des limites !