Deborah Danner, 66-year-old, killed by New York police

This video from New York City in the USA says about itself:

NYPD Sergeant Shot And Killed A 66 Year Old Woman Ms Deborah Danner

19 October 2016

Protesters gathered Wednesday night after Deborah Danner was killed by a New York police sergeant on Tuesday in her Bronx apartment: here.

Four years before she was killed, Deborah Danner wrote an essay referencing the mortal dangers the mentally ill face when dealing with police: here.

In a searing, eloquent essay on living with schizophrenia, Deborah Danner agonized over the deaths of mentally ill people like her at the hands of police: here.

NYPD sergeant kills Deborah Danner, a black woman who neighbors say was mentally ill: here.

By Fred Mazelis in the USA:

Police killing of mentally ill 66-year-old Bronx, New York woman sparks outrage

21 October 2016

Protests and widespread outrage followed the police murder of Deborah Danner, an elderly woman afflicted with schizophrenia, on Tuesday, October 18 in the New York City borough of the Bronx.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, newly installed Police Commissioner James O’Neill and other officials, moving to appease public anger, quickly called the killing “unacceptable.” New York Police Department (NYPD) Sergeant Hugh Barry was stripped of his gun and badge and placed on modified duty pending an investigation. The case is being sent to the office of the Bronx District Attorney, Darcel Clark.

Barry and other cops arrived at the apartment building in which Ms. Danner lived at about 6 p.m. on October 18, in the Castle Hill section of the Bronx, after neighbors reported a problem. One neighbor told the local press that the police had been there many times before, without any difficulty in assisting Danner. This time she was holding a scissors, which she was reportedly convinced to put down, but then she picked up a baseball bat. Barry, 30 years old and an eight-year veteran of the NYPD, discharged two shots from his service revolver, killing the elderly woman. Barry was equipped with a Taser, but did not use it.

“It is hard to imagine why five police officers and a patrol sergeant would need to use deadly force to disarm an elderly woman with a baseball bat,” declared Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Ms. Danner’s neighbors, well aware of her medical problems, were angry over her death, and deeply skeptical that the promised investigation would result in anything more than the usual whitewash of epidemic police abuse and violence directed against the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the working class. Scores of people marched to the 43rd police precinct to protest on Tuesday night, blocking traffic on nearby streets.

The mayor said, “Deborah Danner should be alive right now, period.” He said the police had not followed protocol in dealing with emotionally disturbed people, a conclusion also voiced by Commissioner O’Neill. De Blasio and O’Neill said that Barry should have waited for a specially trained Emergency Service Unit of the NYPD to arrive.

Edward Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, representing Barry, denounced the statements of the mayor and police commissioner as “political expediency.” According to the report in the New York Times, Mullins said that Danner had swung the bat and that Barry was in fear for his life and those of others. He was also reported as saying, “Everyone agrees that this was a good shooting,” adding, “We could be sitting here talking about how a 66-year-old fractured his skull.”

A report in the New York Post revealed that Barry has been named in two lawsuits alleging brutal police beatings of African-American or Latino men. In one of them, 25-year-old Gregory Peters charged that Barry and other cops beat him with their fists, feet or batons in Times Square on August 22, 2010, and that the police displayed racial animus. The suit was settled for $25,000 in 2012.

The death of Ms. Danner was made all the more significant and disturbing by her own statements, in a six-page essay she wrote some four years ago, which she submitted to an attorney for the state’s Mental Hygiene Legal Service who was then representing her in a case involving legal guardianship. “We are all aware of the all too frequent news stories about the mentally ill who come up against law enforcement instead of mental health professionals and end up dead,” she wrote at that time, eloquently and also prophetically.

Official statistics put the number of calls for assistance in dealing with the emotionally disturbed in New York City at 128,000 so far in 2016. The huge and growing number is at least partly a reflection of social circumstances, both the hopelessness of the most impoverished and the abysmal shortage of adequate mental health treatment. New York City cops are supposed to receive training in dealing with the mentally ill, but officials acknowledged that only 4,400 out of the 36,000 officers on the New York force had received such instruction.

The killing of Deborah Danner recalled the death in almost identical circumstances of another elderly Bronx woman, Eleanor Bumpurs, 32 years ago. Police were called to the victim’s apartment in the west Bronx after she fell four months behind in her rent and reportedly resisted attempts to evict her. In that case also the cops claimed that they feared for their lives at the hands of a mentally ill woman in her late 60s. The fate of Eleanor Bumpurs provoked anger and protests not only in New York but elsewhere as well. The police officer who was eventually charged with manslaughter was acquitted in 1987.

The rich also have their share of the emotionally disturbed, but only very rarely are they reported as the victims of police shootings. It is not a matter of training, but of the role of the police force itself. It is the lives of the poorest sections of the working class, of all races, that are considered expendable by the capitalist state and its armed men.

Big Pharma, ex(?)-nazi doctors, abused healthy German orphans as guinea pigs

This video says about itself:

5 Most Evil Nazi Human Experiments

28 June 2015

Nazi human experimentation or nazi medical experiments was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners (including children), largely Jews from across Europe, but also Romani, Sinti, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs and disabled Germans, by Nazi Germany in its concentration camps mainly in the early 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust.

During World War II, a number of German physicians conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.

Prisoners were forced into participating; they did not willingly volunteer and no consent was given for the procedures. Typically, the experiments resulted in death, trauma, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such are considered as examples of medical torture.

After the war, these crimes were tried at what became known as the Doctors’ Trial, and revulsion at the abuses perpetrated led to the development of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics.

Now, from Hitler’s Third Reich to the time after it.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV:

Drugs tested on healthy German orphans

Today, 14:16

In German orphanages widespread drug trials were conducted on children. Research has shown that hundreds, perhaps thousands of orphans have been administered drugs while they were not sick.

The tests took place from 1950 to 1975 in orphanages in the states of Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia.

So, in what was then the German Federal Republic (West Germany). Maybe in West German state Bremen as well. See also here.

It is mainly about vaccines and psychotropic drugs which at that time really only were prescribed to mentally severely ill patients. Researcher Sylvia Wagner in pharmaceutical journals of that time found evidence for at least 50 of such experiments.

Smallpox vaccine

It these journals was written openly about drugs that were given to the children. “A realization that what they did was wrong, seems not to have existed,” says Wagner.

In an orphanage in Düsseldorf for example, a smallpox vaccine was tested in 1954 on at least 50 children who were younger than 2 years. After the test, the children got painful bone marrow aspirates to see what the vaccine had done. The vaccine was found to have damaged their bone marrow severely.

There was also the Dipiperon medication in a psychiatric hospital in the form of juice for at least thirty children.

That Dipiperon was made and supplied by the Janssen corporation.

According to Wagner these surely were experiments, not treatment. “That on such a large scale children suffered from such serious illnesses that they needed these drugs is unlikely.”

How many victims there are exactly is unclear. Many of the children do not know they have been guinea pigs. The German broadcaster WDR spoke with a victim who remembers the experiments. He still suffers from them and takes antidepressants.

He had then realized that something was amiss. “The first time you swallow the pill just like that, but then, if you find that it is not good for you, you, as a child, revolt. You try to refuse, but that really was not an option.”

It turned out in Ms Wagner’s research that the doctors in these post-1950 experiments in the ‘democratic’ German Federal Republic had often been nazi party members during Hitler’s rule and had committed crimes against humanity then. According to Ms Wagner, p. 28, part of the money for the experiments came from the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung. Fritz Thyssen had been one of the first Big Businessmen to finance Hitler, already in 1923. When in 1945, Hitler’s Third Reich was almost finished, a scion of the Thyssen dynasty was hostess to an ‘entertaining’ massacre of Jews.

Sylvia Wagner writes (her summary, pp. 46-47):


In the years from 1950 to about 1975, beside the medicine study in the Neu-Düsselthal orphanage, which according to the final report of the RTH was the only known experiment so far, there were on a much larger scale experiments on German children and adolescents in homes in the Federal Republic of Germany. Eg, vaccines, psychopharmaceuticals and libido inhibiting drugs were tested.

To some extent, government agencies and institutions were at least by their knowledge of the experiments, by their consent (eg, polio vaccination in West Berlin in 1960, chlorprothixene in Neu-Düsselthal in 1966) and in one case even by commissioning by the Federal Health Authority (smallpox vaccination 1954) co-responsible for the experiments. In addition, often the responsible doctors and officials used to be high level Nazi officials. …

With the orphanage children who, as inmates of a “total institution”, had no possibility to represent themselves, or have themselves represented, to the outside world, a “vulnerable” group was added to the experiments. This chapter of the history of the orphanages is another act of violence against children living there, which has so far not received attention and opens up a new perspective on the theme.

Nuclear disaster, Fukushima, Japan babies die

This video says about itself:

22 June 2015

Neonatal Mortality Rate

Infant death under 28 days of life per 1000 live Birth Annually / per year

Important causes:

1. Septicemia & Pneumonia (50%)

2. Birth Asphyxia (20%)

3. Prematurity (20%)

4. Congenital Malformations & Others (10%)

Neonatal Mortality Offen occurs in Low Birth Weight infants (2500gm)

NB: Asphyxia is defined as lack of oxygen in respired air = hypoxia = hypercapnia

By Hagen Heinrich Scherb, Dr rer nat Dipl-Math, Kuniyoshi Mori, MD, Keiji Hayashi, MD:

Increases in perinatal mortality in prefectures contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan

A spatially stratified longitudinal study

September 2016


Descriptive observational studies showed upward jumps in secular European perinatal mortality trends after Chernobyl. The question arises whether the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident entailed similar phenomena in Japan. For 47 prefectures representing 15.2 million births from 2001 to 2014, the Japanese government provides monthly statistics on 69,171 cases of perinatal death of the fetus or the newborn after 22 weeks of pregnancy to 7 days after birth.

Employing change-point methodology for detecting alterations in longitudinal data, we analyzed time trends in perinatal mortality in the Japanese prefectures stratified by exposure to estimate and test potential increases in perinatal death proportions after Fukushima possibly associated with the earthquake, the tsunami, or the estimated radiation exposure.

Areas with moderate to high levels of radiation were compared with less exposed and unaffected areas, as were highly contaminated areas hit versus untroubled by the earthquake and the tsunami. Ten months after the earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent nuclear accident, perinatal mortality in 6 severely contaminated prefectures jumped up from January 2012 onward: jump odds ratio 1.156; 95% confidence interval (1.061, 1.259), P-value 0.0009. There were slight increases in areas with moderate levels of contamination and no increases in the rest of Japan.

In severely contaminated areas, the increases of perinatal mortality 10 months after Fukushima were essentially independent of the numbers of dead and missing due to the earthquake and the tsunami. Perinatal mortality in areas contaminated with radioactive substances started to increase 10 months after the nuclear accident relative to the prevailing and stable secular downward trend.

These results are consistent with findings in Europe after Chernobyl. Since observational studies as the one presented here may suggest but cannot prove causality because of unknown and uncontrolled factors or confounders, intensified research in various scientific disciplines is urgently needed to better qualify and quantify the association of natural and artificial environmental radiation with detrimental genetic health effects at the population level.

Ryuichi Yoneyama, a doctor-lawyer who has never previously held office, won the race for governor of Niigata on Sunday. He ran on the platform that he would not allow the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power station, owned by Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO (9501.Japan), to restart operations: here.

Facebook censors burn injuries survivor

Burn injuries survivor, censored by Facebook

The translation from Dutch of this picture says:

Collection 9/15 October

`Thanks to your small change I am still alive`. Kim

Dutch burn injuries foundation

Recently, Facebook censored a photo of a burn injuries survivor. The famous photo showed then little Vietnamese girl Kim Phuc, very badly burned by the napalm of the United States Pentagon’s war in Vietnam. Facebook censored even the (conservative) Prime Minister of Norway because of that photo.

In the case of Kim Phuc, Facebook used the pretext that the napalm survivor was pictured while naked.

However, sometimes Facebook does not need a pretext like that for its banning policies. Like in this new case, about another Kim.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV:

Facebook refuses ad with picture of burn victim

Today, 18:43

Facebook has banned an ad from the Burns Foundation picturing a burns victim. Images that display a body as perfect or quite the contrary, undesirable, are not allowed according to the rules of the company.

The Burns Foundation has tried to get in touch with Facebook, but that did not work. “I immediately sent you a message asking whether you really mean that Kim has an undesirable body type. 0 responses,” writes an employee in an open letter to Facebook [boss Mark Zuckerberg]. …


The advertisement is an announcement of the upcoming collection. “The collection today is still extremely important for the training of burn nurses and aftercare, prevention and research,” the employee wrote.

According to regional broadcaster NH the woman [Kim] shown in the ad was shocked when she saw that the campaign had been banned. “It just hit me hard, but later I only found it ridiculous,” she says.

Human evolution, fire and smoke

This video says about itself:

Smoking Causes Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema

20 jul. 2012

This 3D medical animation created by Nucleus Medical Media shows the health risks of smoking tobacco.

ID#: ANH12071


Every time you smoke a cigarette, toxic gases pass into your lungs, then into your bloodstream, where they spread to every organ in your body. A cigarette is made using the tobacco leaf, which contains nicotine and a variety of other compounds. As the tobacco and compounds burn, they release thousands of dangerous chemicals, including over forty known to cause cancer. Cigarette smoke contains the poisonous gases carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, as well as trace amounts of cancer-causing radioactive particles. All forms of tobacco are dangerous, including cigars, pipes, and smokeless tobacco, such as chewing tobacco and snuff.

Nicotine is an addictive chemical in tobacco. Smoking causes death. People who smoke typically die at an earlier age than non-smokers. In fact, 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States is linked to cigarette smoking.

If you smoke, your risk for major health problems increases dramatically, including: heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung cancer, and death from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Smoking causes cardiovascular disease.

When nicotine flows through your adrenal glands, it stimulates the release of epinephrine, a hormone that raises your blood pressure. In addition, nicotine and carbon monoxide can damage the lining of the inner walls in your arteries. Fatty deposits, called plaque, can build up at these injury sites and become large enough to narrow the arteries and severely reduce blood flow, resulting in a condition called atherosclerosis. In coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis narrows the arteries that supply the heart, which reduces the supply of oxygen to your heart muscle, increasing your risk for a heart attack. Smoking also raises your risk for blood clots because it causes platelets in your blood to clump together. Smoking increases your risk for peripheral vascular disease, in which atherosclerotic plaques block the large arteries in your arms and legs. Smoking can also cause an abdominal aortic aneurysm, which is a swelling or weakening of your aorta where it runs through your abdomen.

Smoking damages two main parts of your lungs: your airways, also called bronchial tubes, and small air sacs called alveoli. Cigarette smoke irritates the lining of your bronchial tubes, causing them to swell and make mucus. Cigarette smoke also slows the movement of your cilia, causing some of the smoke and mucus to stay in your lungs. While you are sleeping, some of the cilia recover and start pushing more pollutants and mucus out of your lungs. When you wake up, your body attempts to expel this material by coughing repeatedly, a condition known as smoker’s cough. Over time, chronic bronchitis develops as your cilia stop working, your airways become clogged with scars and mucus, and breathing becomes difficult.

Your lungs are now more vulnerable to further disease. Cigarette smoke also damages your alveoli, making it harder for oxygen and carbon dioxide to exchange with your blood. Over time, so little oxygen can reach your blood that you may develop emphysema, a condition in which you must gasp for every breath and wear an oxygen tube under your nose in order to breathe.

Chronic bronchitis and emphysema are collectively called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. COPD is a gradual loss of the ability to breathe for which there is no cure.

Cigarette smoke contains at least 40 cancer-causing substances, called carcinogens, including cyanide, formaldehyde, benzene, and ammonia. In your body, healthy cells grow, make new cells, then die. Genetic material inside each cell, called DNA, directs this process. If you smoke, toxic chemicals can damage the DNA in your healthy cells. As a result, your damaged cells create new unhealthy cells, which grow out of control and may spread to other parts of your body. Cigarettes can cause cancer in other parts of your body, such as: in the blood and bone marrow, mouth, larynx, throat, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, bladder, uterus, and cervix.

Smoking can cause infertility in both men and women. If a woman is pregnant and smokes during pregnancy, she exposes her baby to the cigarette’s poisonous chemicals, causing a greater risk of: low birth weight, miscarriage, preterm delivery, stillbirth, infant death, and sudden infant death syndrome. Smoking is also dangerous if a mother is breastfeeding. Nicotine passes to the baby through breast milk, and can cause restlessness, rapid heartbeat, vomiting, interrupted sleep, or diarrhea.

Other health effects of smoking include: low bone density and increased risk for hip fracture among women; gum disease, often leading to tooth loss and surgery; immune system dysfunction and delayed wound healing; and sexual impotence in men.

From Leiden University in the Netherlands:

Are modern humans simply bad at smoking?

Published on 21 September 2016

Scientists looked for the genetic footprint of fire use in our genes, but found that our prehistoric cousins – the Neanderthals – and even the great apes seem better at dealing with the toxins in smoke than modern humans.

Mixed blessing

The art of making and using fire was one of the greatest discoveries ‘ever made by man’, wrote Charles Darwin. Besides providing protection against cold temperatures, the use of fire in food preparation and the introduction of energy-rich cooked foods in our prehistoric diet had a major impact in the development of humankind. However, fire use comes at a cost. Exposure to the toxic compounds in smoke carries major risks for developing pneumonia, adverse pregnancy outcomes in women and reduced sperm quality in males, as well as cataracts, tuberculosis, heart disease, and chronic lung disease. In short, the use of fire is a mixed blessing.


This mixed blessing, however, put researchers at Leiden University and Wageningen University on the trail of finding genetic markers for the use of fire in prehistoric and recent humans. The use of fire is notoriously difficult to ‘see’ for archaeologists, and this has led to strong disagreement over the history of its usage. A very early start is advocated by Harvard primatologist Richard Wrangham, who argues that our Homo erectus ancestors were already using fire around two million years ago. However, numerous excavations and intensive research carried out by archaeologists in Europe and the Near East suggest that control of fire occurred much later, around 350,000 years ago.

Genetic markers for fire use

In order to bring fresh data into this ‘hot’ debate, the Leiden/Wageningen team studied the biological adaptations of prehistoric and recent humans to the toxic compounds of smoke: fire usage implies frequent exposure to hazardous compounds from smoke and heated food, which is expected to result in the selection of gene variants conferring an improved defence against these toxic compounds. To study whether such genetic selection indeed occurred, the team investigated the gene variants occurring in Neanderthals, in Denisovans (contemporaries of the Neanderthals, more related to them than to modern humans), and in prehistoric modern humans.


Single nucleotide variants in 19 genes were tested that are known from modern tobacco-smoking studies to increase the risk of fertility and reproduction problems when exposed to smoke and hazardous compounds formed in heated food.

These genes were compared with variants observed in Neanderthals and their Denisovan cousins, and were also studied in chimpanzees and gorillas, two closely related species that are obviously not using fire, and are therefore not exposed to smoke on a regular basis.

Neanderthal more efficient in handling smoke?

In a study now published in PLOS ONE, the team shows that Neanderthals and the Denisovan predominantly possessed gene variants that were more efficient in handling the toxic compounds in smoke than modern humans. Surprisingly, these efficient variants were also observed in chimpanzees and gorillas, and therefore appeared to be evolutionary very old (ancestral) variants.

Plant toxins

The less efficient variants are observable from the first modern human hunter-gatherers for which we have genetic information onward, i.e. from about 40,000 years ago. The efficient defence against toxic compounds in chimpanzees and gorillas may be related to the toxins in their plant food. Smoke defence capacities in humans apparently hitchhike on those adaptations, developed deep in our primate past. Our prehistoric ancestors were probably already good at dealing with the toxic compounds of smoke, long before they started producing it through their campfires. What allowed for the emergence of less efficient hazardous chemical defence genes in modern humans is a question for future research.