What does it take to re-awaken a sleeping giant?
Folks, I just can't say enough about the sad state this
country is in when it comes to preparedness for a biological,
radiological or chemical terror attack at the hands of our
sometimes nameless, faceless enemies. And some alarming new
research shows just how bad the situation is... According to a recent Partnership for Public Service report
(the third such warning in just the last month), the federal
government - even under the watchful eye of the well-funded
Department of Homeland Security - is woefully lacking in
biological weapons experts. And to make matters worse, dozens
of these already scarce authorities are scheduled to retire
in just the next few years. What's more, a recent Council on Foreign Relations report
concluded that local agencies were almost universally under-
equipped to mount even a minimally effective response to a
terrorist attack - and that's judging by the government's own
horrifically lax standards. I don't know whether to be glad
or dismayed about this, though - because if you ask me, many of
the policies currently favored by the Feds (and most of the
states) would likely do more harm than good in the event of
such an attack. It may actually be a blessing that these
programs aren't fully operational! But all this begs the question: What have we REALLY done in
the past two years to protect ourselves against terrorist
attacks? Hired a mob of new government employees to paw
through innocent citizens' luggage at the airport? (I
recently ran afoul of this ridiculous new airport policy
myself - and actually spent a night in jail!) What else? Gathered together and renamed a bunch of already-superfluous
and largely ineffective government agencies under a flashy
new name? The bottom line is this: We aren't doing nearly enough, even
after two years. I know, because I well remember how our
great nation responded the last time we were attacked on our
own soil - December 7, 1941. In the two years following that
aggression, we galvanized, mobilized, and achieved a level of
civic, industrial, and governmental commitment to the war
effort that this world had never before seen. That's what
Admiral Yamamoto had foreseen when he said, "I fear we have
awakened a sleeping giant... " And while our brave servicemen and women are half a world
away, tensely patrolling a hostile nation with bulls-eyes on
their backs and no resolution in sight, our country's "giant" -
the pride, gumption, self-sacrifice, technology, and economic
might of the American people and their elected leaders -
slumbers on as we sip our Starbucks coffee and watch our
reality TV shows... ************************** Prostate progress - well, sort of...
Hallelujah! The mainstream may finally be forced to grapple
with the reality that the PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen)
test for prostate cancer is completely bogus! Get this... A newly published study in the New England Journal of
Medicine concluded that the PSA - heretofore mainstream
medicine's standard method for detecting prostate cancer in
men - is woefully inaccurate, missing 82 percent of cancerous tumors in men under the age of 60. That's right - the PSA readings of more than 6,500 KNOWN
CANCEROUS male subjects under the age of 60 turned up
perfectly healthy in more than 8 out of 10 tests! The PSA
fares little better in men over 60, either - missing cancer
65 percent of the time. It boggles my mind to think that the vast majority of
conventional doctors rely on this test instead of the ultra-
reliable AMAS test as a means for detecting prostate cancer.
With numbers like these, it borders on malpractice! (For more information
on the AMAS test, contact Oncolab Inc. at 617-536-0095 or visit
www.amascancertest.com.) But leave it to the mainstream to stare the truth right in
the face and blink. Instead of this study's results prompting
a movement to outlaw the PSA, it has only spurred some in the
mainstream to consider simply lowering the test's "risk"
threshold from 4 to 2.6. What would this accomplish? Well,
for one thing, they'd probably detect prostate cancer at a
slightly better rate (how could it get much worse, right?). But then again, thousands (maybe millions) of perfectly
healthy men would end up undergoing painful, invasive
biopsies just to prove that they DON'T have cancer after this
newly revised PSA threshold sounded a false alarm... That doesn't sound like very good trade - off, does it? Alerting you to ALL types of terror,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
