Mitt Romney may have all but locked up the Republican nomination with his victories in the East Coast primaries this week, but Ron Paul and his army of acolytes aren’t ready to give up the fight just yet.

As the rest of the political world’s attention shifts to the general election, Paul is still quietly amassing delegates at district and county conventions, and is now poised to take a real bite — or at least a big nibble — out of Romney’s delegate total.

In just the last week, Paul locked up 49 delegates, including five in Pennsylvania and four in Rhode Island, two states thought to be firmly on Romney’s turf. In Minnesota, Paul won 20 of the 24 delegates awarded at last weekend’s district caucuses, an impressive sweep that guarantees that Paul will control a majority of the state’s delegation at the Republican National Convention.

And despite staunch opposition from the state Republican Party, Paul took 20 of the 40 delegates awarded in Missouri last weekend, according to campaign chairman Jesse Benton.

In at least five other states — Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine — Paul has done remarkably well at county and district conventions, and his supporters are expected to win a big chunk of the RNC delegates at the state conventions later this spring.

“We are very pleased with the results,” Benton told Business Insider. “We still have a long way to go, but we’ve done very, very well at the county caucuses and district conventions and that bodes well for our strength when we get to the state conventions. Now we need to keep our nose to the grindstone.”

Even Rick Santorum, who earlier in the race accused Paul of shilling for Romney, acknowledged the Texas Congressman’s impressive organization this week, telling CNN’s Piers Morgan that “Ron Paul is working the delegates hard.”

In a surprising twist, a lot of Paul’s recent success can actually be attributed to Santorum’s decision to suspend his campaign earlier this month. In many places, Santorum supporters have banded together with Paul organizers in an attempt to deny Romney delegates.

In Colorado, for example, Santorum supporters have bonded with their Paul counterparts over a shared skepticism of Romney’s conservative values. Although the Colorado GOP won’t select its RNC delegates until the state convention next month, Paul organizers have gotten many of Santorum’s pledged delegates to commit to supporting Paul over Romney.

“In Colorado, there is a real anti-Establishment sense — they want to send a very conservative delegation to the national convention,” Benton told BI. “We’re fighting it out, and we think there are enough Santorum delegates that are sympathetic to Ron Paul who will come over to us.”

In Washington, Santorum’s county caucus organizer sent an open letter to his fellow supporters urging them to vote for Paul’s delegates rather than Romney’s.

Here’s an excerpt of the letter, obtained by Business Insider:

Romney wants everybody to quit. Quitting may be his solution when his back is up to the wall, but it’s not what we want from our leaders. Our country has it’s back up against the wall! We need principled fighters and not a pretty boy in a suit. We nominate Romney and it’s the equivalent of making him the starting quarterback because he simply looks good in the uniform. He’s a defensive coordinators dream. The mere fact he wins in the same places liberals do in the general election says a lot.

At some point, and it might as well be now, people are going to reign back power from party leaders, unite and actually make something like a Paul/Santorum unity slate work. As I see it, it’s the only way to balance power, restore it back to the people and take it away from big money.

Those against such an alliance, especially elected state delegates, might want to address future problems and complaints concerning government to the person in the mirror. I fail to see the logic in people not trusting such an arrangement that both Paul and Santorum’s people have agreed to, yet they’ll trust the same people running the party for years that have helped bring us to this junction in history.

That Santorum’s supporters are taking a second look at Ron Paul rather than vote for Romney’s delegates is an indication that the former Massachusetts governor still has major problems with his party’s Republican base.

“The plurality of them just don’t want to vote for Romney,” Doug Wead, a senior advisor to the Paul campaign, told Business Insider. “A lot of people are upset that Romney has not reached out to them at all. [They feel like] ‘Why in the hell should we support him when he’s not asking for our support or doing a single thing to get it.”

Both Wead and Benton concede that it would be difficult — if not impossible — to deny Romney the delegate majority he needs to win the nomination. The goal now, Benton told BI, is “to win as many delegates as we possibly can.”

“We want to have a strong, respectful presence that says ‘We are here, we are are going to participate, and we are ready to talk about the party platform with you if you take our issues seriously,” he said. “We’re going to send a message that the liberty wing of the Republican party is strong, and that it isn’t going anywhere.”

The Romney campaign declined to comment on Paul’s delegate wins. But if Paul continues his hot streak, the presumptive nominees might not be able to ignore the libertarian iconoclast and his army of delegates by the time the national convention rolls around.

Interestingly, since the 2001 attacks, the FBI still has not listed Osama Bin Laden as being wanted for the 9/11 attacks although he is on the Top 10 list.  Others, including CBS new  have claimed Osama that bin laden has been on dialysis since 2001 when he was admitted to a UAE hospital.

Since 2001, there have been several reports that Osama Bin Ladin has died, including one from the CIA.

EXCERPT: In 2008, former CIA case officer Robert Baer asserted, “Of course he’s dead.” In 2002 and 2009, Pakistani Presidents Pervez Musharraf and Asif Ali Zardari separately stated that bin Laden was dead. In 2002, FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson stated that bin Laden “probably” was dead… read more here

Below are links to  other claims that Osama Bin Laden has been killed or died many times since 2001.

Washington Times, 2009

Veterans Today, 2009

Prison Planet, 2007

Newsbusters- September 2006

Fox News- December, 2001

Lastly, former Pakistan Prime Minister (who was assassinated) mentions Bin Laden murder in 2007.. Watch at 6:15 in video.

In what may be among the longest-running and widest-ranging cases of academic fraud, one of the most prolific researchers in anesthesiology fabricated much of the data underlying his research, said a spokeswoman for the hospital where he works.

The researcher, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist in Springfield, Mass., who practiced at Baystate Medical Center, fabricated data in some or all of the 21 journal articles dating from at least 1996, said Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health.

The reliability of dozens more articles he wrote is uncertain, and the common practice — supported by his studies — of giving patients aspirinlike drugs and neuropathic pain medicines after surgery instead of narcotics is now being questioned.

Paul Cirel, a lawyer for Dr. Reuben, said that he could not discuss the case because Baystate had investigated it as part of a confidential peer-review process. Baystate officials “were aware of extenuating circumstances,” Mr. Cirel said.

The drug giant Pfizer underwrote much of Dr. Reuben’s research from 2002 to 2007. Many of his trials found that Celebrex and Lyrica, Pfizer drugs, were effective against postoperative pain.

“Independent clinical research advances disease treatments and improves the lives of patients,” said Raymond F. Kerins Jr., a Pfizer spokesman. “As part of such research, we count on independent researchers to be truthful and motivated by a desire to advance care for patients. It is very disappointing to learn about Dr. Scott Reuben’s alleged actions.”

Drug companies routinely hire community physicians to conduct studies of already-approved medicines. In some cases, prosecutors have charged companies with underwriting studies of little scientific merit in hopes of persuading doctors to prescribe the medicines more often…read here…

It sounds like a great idea, actually: Take the excess body fat from liposuction patients and use it to power your car. That’s what a Beverly Hills doctor figured, and he even bragged about it on his website LipoDiesel.com (now shut down). It even sounds like a California trend: Get thin and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil all at the same time!

But sometimes the “cutting edge” of green goes too far, and California’s state medical authorities were not amused to learn of Dr. Bittner’s eco-friendly body fat recycling program. It is apparently illegal in the United States to use human body parts (even the parts people are throwing away) as fuel to power automobiles. I’d like to see somebody quote me any law that actually says that, by the way. Personally, I don’t believe such a law exists.

So now Dr. Alan Bittner’s clinic is closed, and liposuction patients have to get their fat sucked out somewhere else. So where, exactly, does all that excess body fat go from liposuction clinics? If you saw Fight Club, you might recall the main characters rendering the body fat into high explosives. I like the Lipodiesel idea better, because it puts the excess body fuel towards a more productive use.

Instead of shutting down this operation, the state of California should embrace it. Why not do a joint venture with McDonalds? “Eat a Big Mac. You’ll get a smile, and your car goes another mile!”……read  more here….

Dec. 19, 2008 — An 11th-hour ruling from the Bush administration gives health care workers, hospitals, and insurers more leeway to refuse health services for moral or religious reasons.

The rule, issued today, becomes effective in 30 days. Its main provisions widen the number of health workers and institutions that may refuse, based on “sincere religious belief or moral conviction,” to provide care or referrals to patients.

“This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience,” says Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in a statement.

Previous rules allow health care workers to refuse to provide abortion or sterilization services to which they are morally opposed. The new rulings give individuals and institutions much greater leeway in refusing to provide services to which they are morally opposed.

The ruling, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, covers an estimated 571,947 “entities” including doctors’ offices, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, medical and nursing schools, diagnostic labs, nursing homes, and state governments..…read more here..

By Shannon Brownlee and Ezekiel Emanuel
Sunday, November 23, 2008; B03

With Congress ready to spend $700 billion to prop up the U.S. economy, enacting health-care reform may seem about as likely as the Dow hitting 10,000 again before the end of the year. But it may be more doable than you think, provided we dispel a few myths about how health care works and how much reform Americans are willing to stomach.

1. America has the best health care in the world.

Let’s bury this one once and for all. The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed countries on virtually every health statistic you can name. Life expectancy at birth? We rank near the bottom of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, just ahead of Cuba and way behind Japan, France, Italy, Sweden and Canada, countries whose governments (gasp!) pay for the lion’s share of health care. Infant mortality in the United States is 6.8 per 1,000 births, more than twice as high as in Japan, Norway and Sweden and worse than in Poland and Hungary. We’re doing a better job than most on reducing smoking rates, but our obesity epidemic is out of control, our death rate from prostate cancer is only slightly lower than the United Kingdom’s, and in at least one study, American heart attack patients did no better than Swedish patients, even though the Americans got twice as many high-tech treatments.

Moreover, the quality of health care is different in different parts of the country. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have issued a list of 26 measures of quality, such as making sure that heart-attack patients being discharged from the hospital get a prescription for a beta blocker or aspirin to help reduce the risk of a second attack. It turns out that quality is all over the map, and it isn’t necessarily better in the places we might expect, such as academic medical centers. Worse still, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), there appears to be no connection between how much Medicare and other payers spend on patients in different parts of the country and the quality of the care the patients receive. You are no more likely to get that beta blocker or aspirin in Los Angeles than in Portland, even though Medicare spends twice as much per beneficiary in Los Angeles.

2. Somebody else is paying for your health insurance.

Nope. Even when your employer offers coverage, he isn’t reaching into his own pocket to cover you and your fellow employees; he’s reaching into your pocket, paying you lower wages than he would if he didn’t have to pay for your health insurance.

Rising health-care costs are partly to blame for stagnant wages. Over the past five years, health insurance premiums have risen 5.5 times faster on average than inflation, 2.3 times faster than business income and four times faster than workers’ earnings. Four times. That’s why wages have been nearly flat since the 1980s, even as U.S. productivity has been going up. In effect, about half the money you should be earning for being more productive is being sucked up by ever more expensive health-insurance premiums.

If you pay taxes, you’re also paying for the health care provided through state and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and the military. All told, the average family of four is coughing up $29,000 a year for health care through taxes, lower wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

3. We would save a lot if we could cut the administrative waste of private insurance.

The idea that we could wring billions of dollars in savings this way is seductive, but it wouldn’t really accomplish that much. For one thing, some administrative costs are not only necessary but beneficial. Following heart-attack or cancer patients to see which interventions work best is an administrative cost, but it’s also invaluable if you want to improve care. Tracking the rate of heart attacks from drugs such as Avandia is key to ensuring safe pharmaceuticals.

Let’s just say that we could wave a magic wand and cut private insurers’ overhead by half, to what the Canadian government spends on administering its health-care system — 15 percent. How much would we save? Not as much as you may think. Private insurers pay a little more than a third of what we spend on health care, which means that we’d cut a little more than 5 percent from our total budget, or about $124 billion. That’s not peanuts, but it’s not even enough to cover everybody who’s currently uninsured.

More to the point, we only get to save it once. That’s because administrative waste isn’t what’s driving health-care costs up faster than inflation. Most of the relentless rise can be attributed to the expansion of hospitals and other health-care sectors and the rapid adoption of expensive new technologies — new drugs, devices, tests and procedures. Unfortunately, only a fraction of all that new stuff offers dramatically better outcomes. If we’re worried about costs, we have to ask whether a $55,000 drug that prolongs the lives of lung cancer patients for an average of a few weeks is really worth it. Unless we find a cure for our addiction to the new but not necessarily improved, our national medical bill will continue to skyrocket, regardless of how efficient insurance companies become.

4. Health-care reform is going to cost a bundle.

Only if you think that covering the uninsured is our only priority. Yes, making health care available to all citizens is the right thing to do. But it isn’t the only thing to do. We also have to fix the spectacularly wasteful and expensive way doctors and hospitals deliver care.

Our physicians are working within a truly dysfunctional, often chaotic system that prevents them from caring for us properly. Between 50,000 and 100,000 patients die each year from preventable medical errors. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 1.7 million Americans acquire an infection while in the hospital and nearly 100,000 of them die from it. Laboratory imaging tests are routinely repeated because the originals can’t be found. Patients with such chronic illnesses as heart failure and diabetes land in the hospital because their physicians fail to monitor their condition. When patients have multiple doctors, there’s often nobody keeping track of the different medications, tests and treatments each one prescribes.

Our doctors and hospitals are failing to provide us with care we need while delivering a staggering amount that we don’t need. Current estimates suggest that as much as 20 to 30 percent of what we spend, or about $500 billion, goes toward useless, potentially harmful care.

There are two bright spots. One: We can improve the quality of care and cut costs without rationing. There are models out there for how to do it right — the Mayo Clinic, the Geisinger Clinic in Pennsylvania, the Cleveland Clinic and California’s Kaiser Permanente are just a few of the organized group practices that are doing a better job for less. Their doctors are better than average at using the best medical evidence available. They’re more likely to be using electronic medical records, which can help keep track of patients who have multiple physicians and need complex care. And they’re less likely to provide unnecessary care.

Two: Even moderate reform of the delivery system would improve care and save money. The Lewin Group’s analysis shows that a bill proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, calling for a more comprehensive overhaul of the health-care system than either McCain‘s plan or Obama‘s could actually insure everyone and save $1.4 trillion over 10 years. More reform is cheaper.

5. Americans aren’t ready for a major overhaul of the health-care system.

We may be readier than you think. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 7 percent of Americans rate our health-care system excellent. Nearly 40 percent consider it poor. A whopping 70 percent believe it needs major changes, if not a complete overhaul.

Now is not the time to think small, to cover a few million Americans and leave the bigger job of controlling costs and improving quality for another day. We can’t afford not to reform the delivery system as soon as possible. At 17 percent of gross domestic product, health care is the biggest single sector of the economy, and it’s consuming a larger and larger proportion every year. According to CBO projections, health care will account for 25 percent of GDP by 2025 and 49 percent by 2082. That’s simply unsustainable. Any plan that reforms health care has to do more than simply cover the uninsured. The nation’s health and wealth depend on it.

brownlee@newamerica.net

Shannon Brownlee, a visiting scholar at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, is the author of “Overtreated.” Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and author of “Healthcare, Guaranteed,” is chairman of the center’s Department of Bioethics. The views expressed here are the authors’ own.

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

August 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The commencement of a massive, mandatory vaccination program in Brazil has raised suspicions among international pro-life activists, who note that the program is similar to others in recent years that have included a hidden sterilizing agent in the vaccines.

The campaign, which was begun last week by Brazil’s pro-abortion Health Minister, Jose Gomes Temporao, claims that its goal is to annihilate rubella in the South American nation.

Temporao, who has expended considerable energy to legalize abortion, claims he is concerned about the fact that 17 Brazilian children each year suffer birth defects from the disease, in a nation of more than 180 million people.  Rubella is normally little more than a nuisance for those who contract it, with symptoms that pass in a matter of days or weeks.

Although the number of children affected by Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) is less per capita than that of both the United Kingdom and Australia in the 1990s, Temporao is heading a mandatory program to vaccinate 70 million Brazilians, which would make it the largest vaccination in history. ….read more here..

WASHINGTON (AP) — If there ever is another anthrax attack, a letter carrier may deliver antibiotics to those who might be infected.

Federal health officials are beginning a project in Minneapolis-St. Paul to let letter carriers stockpile personal supplies of emergency antibiotics so they are protected and ready to deliver aid to the rest of the city.

The project seeks to overcome a big hurdle of emergency planning. The government has many drugs stockpiled in case of bioterrorism but few ways to get them quickly to people who need them.

Carriers could provide “a front-end quick strike,” said William Raub, senior science counselor to Michael O. Leavitt, health and human services secretary.

Test projects in Seattle, Philadelphia and Boston over the past two years paired carriers with police officers on holidays. Carriers volunteered to do double routes, delivering empty pill bottles along with fliers explaining what was happening. In Philadelphia, 50 carriers reached about 53,000 households in eight hours, Mr. Raub said…...read rest of story……