ANTIMEDIA | June 28, 2017

 

Middletown, Ohio — As states across the country struggle to combat the rising opioid epidemic, one city in Ohio is considering a highly controversial strategy.

In Middletown, the crisis has reached such proportions that a councilman wants to introduce a three-strike rule when it comes to treating opioid overdoses. Under the proposed plan, EMS workers would only be allowed to render aid to patients twice. If someone overdosed a third time, they would be on their own.

“If the dispatcher determines that the person who’s overdosed is someone who’s been part of the program for two previous overdoses and has not completed the community service and has not cooperated in the program, then we wouldn’t dispatch,” Councilman Dan Picard told local media.

“We’ve got to do what we’ve got to do to maintain our financial security,” said Picard, adding that dealing with the crisis is “just costing us too much money.”

Last year in Middletown, there was a total of 532 opioid overdoses, and there have already been 577 so far in 2017. These increases hit the city wallet hardest in the realm of medication. So far this year, the town of 50,000 has spent three times more on Narcan, the drug used to treat opioid overdoses, than it did in all of 2016.

No one argues that Picard’s assessment of the situation is incorrect, but Robert Haley of Cognitive Healthcare Opportunities In Constructive Environmental Settings (CHOICES) says frustration over the growing problem is no excuse to essentially let people die in the streets.

“Since when does a city start endorsing death and since when does a city develop a measure that would knowingly result in death?” he asked while speaking to Ohio’s Journal-News.

Still, Haley says Picard’s extreme proposal has “projected the high level of stress and frustration that’s present at this time” and that the councilman “has a right” to be grasping at straws in an attempt to fight the deadly — and continually growing — opioid epidemic.

Last year, for instance, there were 74 overdose deaths in Middletown. There have already been 51 so far this year. After analyzing data from health agencies around the country, the  New York Times wrote earlier this month that drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for people under the age of 50.

    Source: ANTIMEDIA

Politicians and mainstream media are praising the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as head of an investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump. But Mueller’s poor handling of the 2001 anthrax attacks should give many cause for concern.

Robbie Martin | May 31, 2017 

 

OAKLAND (Analysis) — Amidst the overwhelming bipartisan praise given to former FBI Director Robert Mueller for his appointment as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation, few media outlets have voiced concern over his credentials. Mueller’s unforgivably poor performance during an investigation into the 2001 anthrax scare should give pause to those who hope to find out the truth about Russia’s alleged involvement in U.S. politics.

In October 2001 – less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks – weaponized anthrax spores were sent through the U.S. mail system to prominent politicians and journalists. The anthrax attacks generated hysteria and panic, as well as created the perception that terrorism was going to remain a major threat, with 9/11 representing just the first wave.



The anthrax attacks also provided the George W. Bush administration with the opportunity to create a three-way connection in the public consciousness between the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax attacks, and Saddam Hussein. The “WMD lies” that would lead the U.S. into war in Iraq were hatched from one initial lie: that the anthrax mailings had fingerprints that could be traced back to the Iraqi government’s biological weapons program and that they represented a second wave of terrorism.

Major players in the U.S. government made strong efforts to link the anthrax attacks to the Iraqi government – efforts that Mueller played no part in. But in the following six years, Mueller did participate in a public disinformation campaign that muddied the waters regarding the 2001 anthrax attacks.

He and his bureau were in a position to unravel the underlying rationale for mounting an illegal invasion that left over a million Iraqi civilians dead. Instead, they worked to bury that rationale and stoke fears that would help to prop up public support for the invasion. Looking back at the way in which the case was handled, it is clear that Mueller may not be the most suitable candidate for heading the ongoing investigation into “Russiagate.”

.. Read the full article at MintPress News