Mexican gymnast
POPULARITY
Hosted by patricia garcia
2 episodes with patricia garcia
2 episodes with patricia garcia
6 episodes with patricia garcia
2 episodes with patricia garcia
2 episodes with patricia garcia
5 episodes with patricia garcia
3 episodes with patricia garcia
"Look, I'm just gonna go home and kill myself. You wanna share a cab?""So I can pass out and wake up *alone* on New Year's Day?"On today's episode, we're closing out the year with an absolutely appropriate pick for New Year's Eve. This film has somewhat gone lost, but is deeply beloved by a lot of folks who have seen it and that is the MTV Film, 200 Cigarettes (1999)This movie is full of a bunch of up-and-coming stars as they have one crazy NYE evening in New York City, and it's a fun, hangout type of film, in my opinion. This also has a super banging soundtrack filled with a bunch of 80s music. This film is worth a watch at this time of year, and I hope you enjoy my coverage of it!Articles Referenced:WHY 200 CIGARETTES FALLS SHORT OF CULT STATUS by Nathan Rabin, December 29, 2015, Rotten TomatoesCLICK HEREWhy 200 Cigarettes Is Still the Best New Year's Eve Movie Ever by Patricia Garcia, December 31st, 2015, VogueCLICK HEREThis 1999 Film Starring Paul Rudd with Mutton Chops Is Going for $200 on eBay by Gabrielle Sierra, January 14th, 2021, InStyleCLICK HERE----Intro/Outro Music: "Phantom Fun" by Jonathan Boyle----Show E-Mail: cultcinemacircle@gmail.com----Follow Cult Cinema Circle on Instagram, Bluesky, and Letterboxd Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
¿Eres una persona vitamina? Las personas vitamina son aquellas positivas que nos cargan de energía. La psicóloga Patricia Garcia nos lo cuenta. En el Podcast de MundoPsicologos.com dedicamos unos minutos a resolver aquellas cosas que quizá te habías preguntado, planteado o necesitabas resolver y no habías hecho. Más info en:
In the late 1960s, Air Force surgeon Dr. Kenneth Cooper was evaluating military fitness plans when he realized that aerobic activities, what we now call cardio, like running and cycling, was the key to overall physical health. His 1968 book Aerobics launched the aerobics revolution that followed, as he inspired women like Jacki Sorensen and Judi Sheppard Missett to combine dance with exercise, creating Dance Aerobics and Jazzercise in the process. I'm joined on this episode by Dr. Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, Associate Professor History at The New School and author of Fit Nation: The Gains and Pains of America's Exercise Obsession. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The episode image is: “Jacki Sorensen at an Aerobic Dancing, Inc., event in New York,” photographed by an employee of Aerobic Dancing, Inc., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Additional Sources: “The Fitness Craze That Changed the Way Women Exercise,” by Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, The Atlantic, June 16, 2019. “History of Aerobic Exercise.” “Kenneth H. Cooper, MD, MPH,” CooperAerobics. “The 75-Year-Old Behind Jazzercise Keeps Dancing on Her Own,” by Samantha Leach, Glamour, June 21, 2019. “Jane Fonda's 1982 Workout Routine Is Still the Best Exercise Class Out There,” by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, July 7, 2018. “Jane Fonda's first workout video released,” History.com. “History: IDEA Health & Fitness Association. “Interview with Richard Simmons,” by Eric Spitznagel, Men's Health, April 25, 2012. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
🏌♀ 🏌🇪🇸MARCA-GOLF DIRECTO AL HOYO⛳🇪🇸 📡📻 RADIO MARCA ASTURIAS (Gijón, 101.7 FM - Oviedo 105.0 FM), todos los viernes ⛳⏰..19h-20h 🎙🎧Armando Pandiella Ortiz y Rubén Díaz 📝🎧Actualidad en el Hoyo 19 📚⛳REGLAS ⛳🏌La sección de Manuel Mancebo➡ Árbitro Internacional. 🇪🇸🏆CAMPEONAS DE ESPAÑA DE INTERCLUBS 2022🇪🇸🏆 🎙️🏆🇪🇸MARÍA SIERRA 🎙️🏆🇪🇸INÉS FERNÁNDEZ 🎙️🏆🇪🇸ANGELA MARTÍNEZ 🎙️🏆🇪🇸PATRICIA GARCIA▶️CAPITANA DEL EQUIPO FEMENINO DE CASTIELLO 🩺⛳🏌️♀️🏌️♂️Dr.PEDRO GARCIA▶️Radiólogo,especialista en lesiones deportivas con tratamientos ecoguiados y fundador de LA CLÍNICA MOLINÓN. ⛳🏌♀🎧🎙️Golf femenino‼️Borja Martínez Labandeira➡️, Director de Comunicación de Deporte&Bussines. 📱Seguirnos en Facebook 'Directo al Hoyo', Twitter y Facebook de Radio MARCA Asturias. 📲 App, iVoox, Podcast de Radio MARCA Asturias . 👏⛳👏Gracias a todos, en especial a nuestros‼️ PATROCINADORES ‼️
On the Sixways Stadium touchline, just after Saracens lifted the Allianz Premier 15s trophy for the third time, Elma, Scaz and Mo reflect on the game and the season that was, with some of the most influential women on the pitch. Player of the match, Party Packer joins them for a pint. Her co-captain, Lotte Clapp (& Lotte's mum and fiance) pop over for a debrief and a look ahead to the Pacific Four Series in New Zealand where she'll be playing alongside her USA team mate & Exeter Chiefs back row, Kate Zackary, who also stops by. And last, but by no means least, the trio grab retiring playmaker Patricia Garcia, for a moment of gratitude for her incredible career.
WRP 116 - Semi fall out. On the pod this week, Rachael Burford the Harlequins captain & broadcaster Johnnie Hammond look back in depth at the Premier XVs (the top league in English club rugby) semi finals. "Burf's" Quins side lost to their arch rivals Saracens at The Stone X Stadium & the skipper gives her reaction to falling at this stage. Details of exactly where the game was won & lost, what Quins have learnt & reflections on the season as a whole. Praise is heaped on Saracens, with a "belief" not seen in many! The second, historic, semi final between Exeter & Bristol is also dissected. Exeter's spirit is explored & just where they found the resolve to come back at the death to win the game. Who impressed & can they go on to win the final....? As ever, there's all the news from around the world: Toulouse 7s, French & Spanish fixtures, results from South Africa & news of who are the Champions in Scotland club rugby. Plus there's a little tribute to Patricia Garcia who has announced her retirement. #WRP @podwemensrugby womensrugbypod@gmail.com Coming soon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this first episode we explore the different “Behavioural Bias” in investment decisions, from recognising them to discussing them with your clients. To learn more about Innova and how we can support your business please visit http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Patricia Garcia Director and Financial Adviser at Your Vision Financial Solutions, Co-Founder of Integrate Finance. Patricia Garcia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciagarciafinancialadviser/ Your Vision Financial Solutions Website: https://yourvisionfinancial.com.au/ Integrate Finance Website: https://integratefinance.com.au/ Dr. Katherine Hunt Lecturer in Financial PlanningLecturer in Financial Planning at Griffith University, Advisor at Little Phil. Dr. Katherine Hunt LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drkatherinehunt/ Griffith University Profile: https://experts.griffith.edu.au/8618-katherine-hunt Little Phil Website: https://www.littlephil.org/ David Bell Executive Director at The Conexus Institute David Bell LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bell-31406565/ The Conexus Institute Website: https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/ Dan Miles Managing Director & Co-Chief Investment Officer at Innova Asset Management Dan Miles LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-miles-b264358a/ Innova Asset Management Website: http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Join the XY platform: App Store: http://co.xyadviser.com/xyistore Google Play: http://co.xyadviser.com/xygplay Desktop: https://www.xyadviser.com/ General Disclaimer – https://www.xyadviser.com/disclaimer/
In this final episode rounding out the series we take on “Not So Modern” Portfolio Theory, where we discuss the Traditional Strategic Asset Allocation (or SAA) and how it compares with Dynamic or Risk Defined Portfolios, and what that means to your clients. To learn more about Innova and how we can support your business please visit http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Patricia Garcia Director and Financial Adviser at Your Vision Financial Solutions, Co-Founder of Integrate Finance. Patricia Garcia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciagarciafinancialadviser/ Your Vision Financial Solutions Website: https://yourvisionfinancial.com.au/ Integrate Finance Website: https://integratefinance.com.au/ Dr. Katherine Hunt Lecturer in Financial PlanningLecturer in Financial Planning at Griffith University, Advisor at Little Phil. Dr. Katherine Hunt LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drkatherinehunt/ Griffith University Profile: https://experts.griffith.edu.au/8618-katherine-hunt Little Phil Website: https://www.littlephil.org/ David Bell Executive Director at The Conexus Institute David Bell LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bell-31406565/ The Conexus Institute Website: https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/ Dan Miles Managing Director & Co-Chief Investment Officer at Innova Asset Management Dan Miles LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-miles-b264358a/ Innova Asset Management Website: http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Join the XY platform: App Store: http://co.xyadviser.com/xyistore Google Play: http://co.xyadviser.com/xygplay Desktop: https://www.xyadviser.com/ General Disclaimer – https://www.xyadviser.com/disclaimer/
In this episode we discuss Risk Profiling and Advisers Investment Philosophy, including where we can start, and where we should stop. To learn more about Innova and how we can support your business please visit http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Patricia Garcia Director and Financial Adviser at Your Vision Financial Solutions, Co-Founder of Integrate Finance. Patricia Garcia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciagarciafinancialadviser/ Your Vision Financial Solutions Website: https://yourvisionfinancial.com.au/ Integrate Finance Website: https://integratefinance.com.au/ Dr. Katherine Hunt Lecturer in Financial PlanningLecturer in Financial Planning at Griffith University, Advisor at Little Phil. Dr. Katherine Hunt LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drkatherinehunt/ Griffith University Profile: https://experts.griffith.edu.au/8618-katherine-hunt Little Phil Website: https://www.littlephil.org/ David Bell Executive Director at The Conexus Institute David Bell LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bell-31406565/ The Conexus Institute Website: https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/ Dan Miles Managing Director & Co-Chief Investment Officer at Innova Asset Management Dan Miles LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-miles-b264358a/ Innova Asset Management Website: http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Join the XY platform: App Store: http://co.xyadviser.com/xyistore Google Play: http://co.xyadviser.com/xygplay Desktop: https://www.xyadviser.com/ General Disclaimer – https://www.xyadviser.com/disclaimer/
In this third instalment we tackle values-based decision making, from understanding what motivates your client's actions and behaviours to finding investments that reflect your client's goals and values. To learn more about Innova and how we can support your business please visit http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Patricia Garcia Director and Financial Adviser at Your Vision Financial Solutions, Co-Founder of Integrate Finance. Patricia Garcia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciagarciafinancialadviser/ Your Vision Financial Solutions Website: https://yourvisionfinancial.com.au/ Integrate Finance Website: https://integratefinance.com.au/ Dr. Katherine Hunt Lecturer in Financial PlanningLecturer in Financial Planning at Griffith University, Advisor at Little Phil. Dr. Katherine Hunt LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drkatherinehunt/ Griffith University Profile: https://experts.griffith.edu.au/8618-katherine-hunt Little Phil Website: https://www.littlephil.org/ David Bell Executive Director at The Conexus Institute David Bell LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bell-31406565/ The Conexus Institute Website: https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/ Dan Miles Managing Director & Co-Chief Investment Officer at Innova Asset Management Dan Miles LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-miles-b264358a/ Innova Asset Management Website: http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Join the XY platform: App Store: http://co.xyadviser.com/xyistore Google Play: http://co.xyadviser.com/xygplay Desktop: https://www.xyadviser.com/ General Disclaimer – https://www.xyadviser.com/disclaimer/
In this episode we cover Goals-Based Investing, from the adviser's discussions with clients to how fund managers can take on a goals-based approach. To learn more about Innova and how we can support your business please visit http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Patricia Garcia Director and Financial Adviser at Your Vision Financial Solutions, Co-Founder of Integrate Finance. Patricia Garcia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciagarciafinancialadviser/ Your Vision Financial Solutions Website: https://yourvisionfinancial.com.au/ Integrate Finance Website: https://integratefinance.com.au/ Dr. Katherine Hunt Lecturer in Financial PlanningLecturer in Financial Planning at Griffith University, Advisor at Little Phil. Dr. Katherine Hunt LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drkatherinehunt/ Griffith University Profile: https://experts.griffith.edu.au/8618-katherine-hunt Little Phil Website: https://www.littlephil.org/ David Bell Executive Director at The Conexus Institute David Bell LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-bell-31406565/ The Conexus Institute Website: https://theconexusinstitute.org.au/ Dan Miles Managing Director & Co-Chief Investment Officer at Innova Asset Management Dan Miles LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-miles-b264358a/ Innova Asset Management Website: http://www.innovaam.com.au/ Join the XY platform: App Store: http://co.xyadviser.com/xyistore Google Play: http://co.xyadviser.com/xygplay Desktop: https://www.xyadviser.com/ General Disclaimer – https://www.xyadviser.com/disclaimer/
The first female known to have played rugby was Emily Valentine, an Irish schoolgirl, who played alongside her brothers in 1884. It took another 80 years for a women's team to be formed, and the first Women's Rugby Union World Cup was held in 1991. Kim Chakanetsa speaks to two women from Uganda and Spain about the game's increasing popularity and how it's changed them. Patricia Garcia is a profession rugby player who's competed for Spain in World Cups, Olympics and Test series, as well as appearing in 198 games over multiple 7s tournaments for her country. She now plays in the UK for Exeter Chiefs. She's also passionate about using the sport as positive force and has set up her own charity, PGR NGO, to promote social education and values through rugby. Winnie Atyang plays rugby in Uganda and uses the sport to support and inspire young women. Winnie became a single mother to twins when she was just 17 years old, and had to drop out of school. She says the rugby community is hugely encouraging: helping her go back to school and then find work to support her family. She also believes playing the sport gives her focus, confidence and ambition. Produced by Jane Thurlow (Image: (L) Winnie Atyang, credit Denise Namale. (R) Patricia Garcia, credit FER (Spanish Rugby Union))
Ep #040 - Welcome to the first episode of the Pitch Please University Pitch Competition. Make sure to listen and vote on the company YOU would invest in. The most investable company from each episode will move onto the finals. You have until midnight November 24th to cast your vote → https://app.sli.do/event/n7ukcp1b/embed/polls/eabc05e5-46e3-4b49-8955-836e0a93d02c On this episode we are joined by Shoaib Iqbal from RMIT University, Patricia Garcia from the University of Southern California Nikita Patil from the University of Texas at Austin. Esper Satellites founded by Shoaib from RMIT University is delivering intelligent data from space, for industrial efficiency on earth. College Thrifts founded by Patricia Garcia from the University of Southern California who is creating a platform for students to buy and resell their collegiate gear. Project Xylem founded by Nikita Patil and Shiv Bhakta from University of Texas at Austin who are converting oil rigs into hydroponic greenhouses. You can visit our website here, and follow Katie and Daniel on LinkedIN. Find Pitch Please on Twitter! You can also follow DSH Austin on Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIN and TikTok.
Patricia García Blanco, secretaria de Asuntos Políticos del Ministerio del Interior, en "Ahora Dicen", conducido por Florencia Halfon, Nicolás Fiorentino y Nazarena Lomagno en Futurock.fm.
BUILDING A LEADERSHIP PIPELINE WITH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ALAS, DR. MARIA ARMSTRONG AND SUPERINTENDENTS , DRS.. ED CORA AND PATRICIA GARCIA, INSTRUCTORS AT THEIR RECENT LEADERSHIP ACADEMY. Enjoy the online journal "EQUITY & ACCESS PREK-12" at ACE-ED.ORG
Madison and Keidyfer talk with Patricia Garcia, engineering student, Founder & CEO of College Thrifts.
It is Time to Dismantle the World Health Organization Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, April 19, 2021 The ultimate international authority for infectious diseases is the World Health Organization (WHO). Due to its widespread acceptance by the world's national governments, it has been extremely successful in assuming the helm to monitor regional and global infectious diseases and dictate medical intervention policies to international health agencies. The organization has become the final word to rule whether the spread of a serious pathogen is a pandemic or not. For the majority of the medical community, the media and the average person, the WHO is the front line command post for medical prevention (i.e., vaccination) and treatment. Consequently its rulings are often regarded as the gold standard. On matters of global health, the WHO holds dominance. For approximately a year the WHO has propagated the belief that the first line of defense for curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic is self-isolation, distancing, masks and, ultimately, vaccination. Although it approved Ivermectin as a cost-effective treatment against SARS-CoV-2 infections, it disapproved hydroxychloroquine in favor of Gilead Bioscience’s and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease’s (NIAID) Anthony Fauci’s novel and costly drug Remdesivir. Much of it’s funding efforts have been reserved for mass-vaccination with the new generation of experimental vaccines. Throughout these efforts, the WHO has allied itself with the US's and UK’s national health systems, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and his Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) initiative. Most people wrongly assume the WHO acts independently from private commercial and national government interests for the welfare of the world's population. The legitimacy of the WHO as a gold standard of health is dubious. The organization has frequently been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Gates’ Foundation, as well as being riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives. Despite it’s mega-pharmaceutical interests and consultants representing private vaccine interests, in the past the WHO has had the audacity to ridicule the pharmaceutical industry of corruption. “Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occurs throughout all stages of the medicine chain, from research and development to dispensing and promotion…. A lack of transparency and accountability within the medicines chain can also contribute to unethical practices and corruption.” These are similar charges that have been leveled against the WHO. An article in the National Review called the WHO "scandal plagued" with "wasteful spending, utter disregard for transparency, pervasive incompetence, and failure to adhere to even basic democratic standards." In his book, Immunization: How Vaccines Became Controversial, University of Amsterdam professor emeritus Dr. Stuart Blume raises the serious problem of the WHO’s most influential advisors on emergency health conditions, such as the current Covid-19 pandemic and earlier the 2009 H1N1 swine flu scare that never was, serve as consultants for the vaccine industry. During times of global emergencies and crises, the WHO confers with a separate group of advisors outside its formal sitting Strategic Advisory Group of Experts or SAGE; the names of this group’s members are not made public. We would add that the WHO’s level of incompetence has resulted in serious misinformation about pandemics, medical risks of vaccines and other health-threatening chemicals. For example, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, the organization reported it could not find any evidence of human transmission. However, the WHO has repeatedly kowtowed to China’s demands and unscrupulously accepts whatever statistics and statements the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) provides. Responding to a petition signed by over 700,000 signatories demanding the resignation of the current WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom, Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso told the Japanese parliament that the organization “should be renamed the Chinese Health Organization” for favoring China’s policy to stall and obstruct international investigations and for lauding unsubstantiated praise on the country’s transparency and handling of the pandemic. Back on December 31, 2019, Taiwan – which has been barred from WHO membership due to China’s political maneuvering – had been warning of a possible human-to-human transmission contrary to the wet-market narrative, but this was largely ignored in order to avoid upsetting the CCP. The UK’s Sunday Times reported that Chinese scientists were forced to destroy their proof of the virus shortly after its discovery. In the province of Hubei, authorities ordered the cessation of further testing and the destruction of existing samples. Other researchers who made efforts to warn the public were punished. Writing for The Hill, University of Texas at San Antonio professor Bradley Thayer wrote, “Tedros apparently turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China and… has helped play down the severity, prevalence and scope of the Covid-19 outbreak.” Thayer concludes, “Tedros is not fit to lead the WHO.” He has no formal medical training as a physician or any international management experience in global health. Many others have voiced similar criticisms pointing out Tedro’s unsuitable background. Moreover, the Director General’s conflicts of interest with China abound. Immediately before and after his tenure as the Health Minister for Ethiopia’s ruling Communist party, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, China had donated an estimated $60 million to the terrorist government and its social programs. Now heading the WHO, Tedros appears to continue lobbying on China’s behalf. In 2017, the Washington Post noted the fundamental problem: “[China] worked tirelessly behind the scenes to help Tedros defeat the United Kingdom candidate for the WHO job, David Nabarro. Tedros’s victory was also a victory for Beijing, whose leader Xi Jinping has made public his goal of flexing China’s muscle in the world.” Upon assuming his new position at the WHO, Tedros had left Ethiopia’s healthcare system in ruin. As one young healthcare worker reported, there was no “bare necessities of a health care office…. Sterile gloves, paper exam gowns and covers, cotton swabs, gauze, tongue depressors, alcohol prep pads, chemical test strips, suturing equipment, syringes, stethoscopes… were non-existent. This is a fact in most health care centers in Ethiopia.” During the more recent re-investigation of SARS-CoV-2 origins, the Chinese authorities refused to provide raw case data and created repressive conditions to curtail reliable analysis and disclosure. The WHO’s final report concluded that the virus had an animal origin and did not escape Wuhan’s high security pathogen laboratory. But there are viable reasons to discredit the report as untrustworthy at best and perhaps intentionally deceptive. First, the entire agenda of the investigation was staged theater rather than a deep investigation to uncover empirical evidence. The team simply inspected seafood and open-air markets. Consequently, the WHO team returned empty handed and without laboratory records for a proper forensic examination. To call the entire WHO effort gross incompetence would be an understatement. Based upon all the evidence that has emerged, a large number of professional medical voices are calling the entire investigation a farce. Most problematic is the appointment of Peter Daszak on the WHO’s group to carry out the investigation. Daszak, the founding president of the shadowy non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance, has headed many hunting adventures worldwide to identify the emergence of potential pathogens that could become pandemics. With the intention to divert attention away from an escaped laboratory virus, Daszak stated on a Going Viral podcast there was no evidential reason to visit and inspect the Wuhan laboratory. According to Independent Science News, despite Daszak’s denial of a lab origin, “EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research, including virus collection, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and thus could themselves be directly implicated in the outbreak.” The research at the Wuhan lab included ‘gain of function” efforts on coronaviruses, and received funds directly approved by Anthony Fauci. Newsweek reports the NIH had given a total of $7.4 million to the Chinese lab for the research. The organization has received over $100 million from a variety of sources, including the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the NIH and undisclosed amounts from the Chinese government. Daszak himself has authored 25 studies funded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, think tanks, universities, military institutions, and ministries directly connected with the Chinese Communist Party. Given the halls of power within the WHO, we are outlining some of the more salient reasons why the organization's declarations about infectious diseases, pandemics and vaccination should not be trusted. Vaccine Promotional Misconduct For many years the WHO's recommendations for certain vaccines were kept secret. Writing in a 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Marc Girard uncovered "scientific incompetence, misconduct or even criminal malfeasance" over the intentional inflation of vaccines' benefits while undermining toxicity and adverse effects. Dr. Girard testified as a medical expert for a French court in a criminal trial against the WHO after French health officials obliged the organization to launch its universal Hepatitis B vaccine campaign. The campaign resulted in the deaths of French children. Girard gained access to confidential WHO documents. He noted that the WHO's "French figures about chronic liver diseases were simply extrapolated from the U.S. reports." He further accused the WHO serving "merely as a screen for commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), which was created, sponsored, and infiltrated by the manufacturers." Now during the Covid-19 pandemic, as early as last July, the WHO approved of China’s first vaccine for emergency use, long before it had undergone proper clinical trials and much earlier than Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines’ approval. Orchestration of Pandemic Panics Before the current COVID-19 pandemic, there was the H1N1 swine flu scare in 2009. However, at the very start the WHO's fear mongering of a global contagion that could exceed the death counts of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic was solely based on false rhetoric rather than empirical evidence. The fabrications are believed to have originated from the WHO's senior consultant on viral outbreaks who happens to carry the reputation of being one of the world's leading pandemic alarmists: Dr. Albert Osterhaus, nicknamed "Dr. Flu." At the time, Osterhaus was head of the Department of Virology at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. When the swine flu scare appeared, he was also the president of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), an organization funded by the major vaccine manufacturers including Baxter, MedImmune, Glaxo, Sanofi Pasteur and others. It was also Osterhaus who transformed an otherwise potentially bad flu season into a global pandemic. The WHO has been criticized harshly in the media for changing the definition of a "pandemic" and in doing so has been charged with benefitting the pharmaceutical industry. The British Medical Journal reported that the WHO failed to report conflicts of interest in its H1N1 advisory group. The journal's Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee wrote, "WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate." The former head of the prestigious Cochrane Database Collaboration’s vaccine studies, Dr. Tom Jefferson, told a Der Spiegel interviewer, “the WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies... built this machine around the impending [H1N1] pandemic. And there’s a lot of money involved, and influence and careers, and entire institutions.” When the 2009 H1N1 influenza strain appeared, the WHO rushed forward to mangle its earlier criteria that would realistically define a pandemic. The organization intentionally removed reference to a pathogen’s “severity” as a necessary requirement. “Don’t you think there’s something noteworthy,” Dr. Jefferson continues, “about the fact that the WHO has changed its definition of a pandemic?.... that’s how swine flu has been categorized as a pandemic.” Moreover, the WHO’s decision to label the outbreak as a pandemic was not based upon its own permanent vaccine experts but on the recommendations of a non-disclosed group of outside consultants. According to a financial forecast published by JP Morgan, the collaboration between the WHO and Osterhaus's ESWI to orchestrate the pandemic would have profited the pharmaceutical industry up to $10 billion. Der Spiegel reported: “The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories.... created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we’d see the whole machine roll into action.” In 2010, the EU’s Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe launched an investigation into the evidence that the WHO had created “a fake pandemic” in order to financially benefit the pharmaceutical giants’ vaccine market and to strengthen the influence private drug interests have over the health organization. The Assembly’s chairperson Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg charged the WHO’s fake pandemic as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century that resulted in “millions being needlessly vaccinated.” Epidemic of Conflict of Interests According to former World Bank geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig, about half of the WHO's budget is derived from private sources -- primarily pharmaceutical companies but also other corporate sectors including the telecommunication and agro-chemical industries. It also receives large donations from large philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI. Eleven years ago, Gates had committed $10 billion to the WHO; after the US, his Foundation is its second largest donor providing 10 percent of its funding. His financial commitment aligned with his global ambition to “make this the decade of vaccines.” Koenig also believes that Tedros’s appointment was due to Gates' influence. This may carry some truth because Tedros is a former Chair of GAVI’s Vaccine Alliance. Barbara Loe Fisher at the National Vaccine Information Center estimates that "only about 10 percent of total funding provided by GAVI ($862M) was used to strengthen health systems in developing countries, such as improving sanitation and nutrition, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines." There is also the deep personal and financial relationship between Gates and the Chinese Communist government that demands further investigation. Gates is a member of the Chinese Academy of Science. For the moment, the WHO has been advising against Covid-19 vaccine passports as a mandate to travel. Nevertheless, China has already launched encrypted digital certificates as proof of vaccination. Given Gates’ close relationship with Chinese officials, perhaps he is awaiting on China to establish a precedent for other nations to agree on a global mandate that will eventually be propagated by the Gate’s network and the World Economic Forum and its Great Reset. During a 2020 TED talk, Gates had already revealed that digital vaccine passports may be necessary; that part of his speech was edited from the original video, however, Robert Kennedy Jr. tracked down the original footage. Gates has also 1) commissioned MIT to develop injectable a quantum dot dye system for children, 2) funded MicroChips, a company developing implantable chip-based devices, and 3) purchased 3.7 million shares in Serco who is developing tracing technology to track pandemic infections and vaccine compliance. Finally, Gates shares the Chinese Communist Party’s interests in collecting and ‘mining” citizens’ DNA. A 60 Minutes expose presented the covert activities of BGI Genomics, a CCP-linked firm that has exported Covid-19 tests to “collect, store and exploit biometric information” on American citizens. Independent investigations reveal that the Gates Foundation has collaborated with BGI and it was through Gates’ influence over Obama that the Chinese company entered the US market. BGI’s RT-PCR kit was promoted by the WHO back in May 2020 for first line emergency diagnostic use. The rationale was that the test was highly sensitive, specific and user-friendly. Subsequently the EU, FDA, and the Australian, Canadian and Japanese health ministries rapidly purchased and deployed it. On its website, the Gates Foundation acknowledges its role in having the PCR tests supplied to the WHO. “Nine Chinese PCR tests were approved by WHO during 2020 under its Emergency Use Listing (EUL) mechanism, with one of the foundation’s partners supplying tests to WHO” Three months later, Sweden filed complaints after reports of a high percentage of false positives from the Chinese tests. There is in our opinion little doubt that the WHO is another one of Gates' bought off entities for furthering his personal agenda to promote vaccines, genetically modified seeds and chemical agriculture in the developing world. Vaccine Adverse Effects Monitoring System Needs Overhaul The WHO's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is the group responsible for administering vaccine programs in poorer, developing countries. It is also responsible for gathering data on incidents of vaccine injuries. Any deaths following vaccination campaigns are ignored and ruled as coincidental. This policy is based on the erroneous assumption that if no one died during a vaccine's clinical trials, then the vaccine should be regarded as automatically safe and unrelated to any deaths that might occur later. Consequently, the WHO's monitoring system is seriously flawed and requires a major overhaul. One of the more controversial incidences was the WHO's collaboration with the Bill Gates’ GAVI campaign to launch the Pentavalent vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, HIP and Hepatitis B) in Africa and later in South and Southeast Asia. In India, health officials recorded upwards to 8,190 additional infant deaths annually following Pentavalent campaign. The WHO’s response was to reclassify its adverse event reporting system to disregard "infant" deaths altogether. Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a member of the Indian government's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization concluded, “deaths and other serious adverse events following vaccination in the third world, that use WHO-AEFI classification are not recorded in any database for pharmaco-vigilance. It is as if the deaths of children in low (and middle) income countries are of no consequence.” WHO's Double Standards of Vaccine Safety A more recent scandal erupted during the WHO's Global Vaccine Safety Summit convened in December 2019. Days before the summit, one of the WHO's medical directors for vaccination, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, appeared in a public advertisement touting the unquestionable safety of vaccines and ridiculing parents who speak out against vaccination. She assured viewers that the WHO was in control of matters and monitored any potential adverse risks carefully. However, during the Summit, the same Dr. Swaminathan acknowledged vaccine health risks and stated, "We really don't have very good safety monitoring systems." Another Summit participant, Dr. Heidi Larson stated, "We have a very wobbly ‘health professional frontline’ that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the frontline professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to the person asking the questions. I mean most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you are lucky if you have half a day on vaccines.” And more noteworthy were the statements by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of the WHO's Initiative for Vaccine Research, "... I give courses every year on how do you develop vaccines, how do you make vaccines. And the first lesson is while you’re making your vaccine if you can avoid using an adjuvant please do so. Lesson two is if you’re going to use an adjuvant use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully." In other words, what the WHO presents to the public contradicts what is discussed behind closed doors, another example of the veil of secrecy the organization operates within. Now we are witnessing more countries halting further administration of AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine, a vaccine Trump had committed $1.2 billion towards its development. Subsequently the CDC paused Johnson & Johnson’s similar engineered adenovirus vaccine in order to investigate its association with an otherwise rare condition of fatal blood clotting. The WHO on the other hand has ignored these nations’ ethical responsibility to adhere to the precautionary principle. Its own review claimed there were no blood clot links to AstraZeneca’s vaccine; later the WHO changed its tune to “plausible” after EU regulators found a causal link and the New England Journal of Medicine published two studies providing specific details confirming these adverse reactions. Although acknowledging these risks, the WHO has continued to recommend that mass vaccination proceed as if there were no red alarms. WHO's Depopulation Efforts with Vaccines Without doubt, the most nefarious activity conducted by the WHO is its alleged support and distribution of vaccines to poorer developing countries that may have been intentionally designed to decrease population rates. Back in 1989, the WHO sponsored a symposium at its Geneva headquarters on "Antifertility Vaccines and Contraceptive Vaccines." The symposium presented proposals for vaccines that were later discovered to have been laced with the sterilizing hormones HCG and estradiol; the former prevents pregnancy and triggers spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, and the latter can turn men infertile. In 2015, the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops reported its discovery of a polio vaccine laced with estradiol that was manufactured in India and distributed by the WHO. A year earlier, Dr. Wahome Ngare from the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association uncovered a tetanus vaccine specifically being administered to women, also distributed by the WHO, that contained the HCG hormone. All of the polio vaccine samples tested contained HCG, estrogen-related compounds, follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones, which will damage sperm formation in the testes. Even more disturbing, this vaccine was going to be administered to children under five years of age. However, this is not the first time the WHO appears to have made efforts to use vaccination campaigns for depopulation. A decade earlier, in 2004, the WHO, UNICIF and CDC launched a vaccination campaign to immunize 74 million African children during a polio outbreak. The initiative encountered a serious obstacle. In Nigeria, laboratory tests on the WHO's vaccine samples resulted in the presence of estrogen and other female hormones. And in the mid-1990s, a tetanus vaccine being administered to Nicaraguan and Filipino girls and women in their child-bearing years was discovered to contain HCG, which accounted for a large number of spontaneous abortions that were reported by Catholic health workers. Illegal Vaccine Experiments In 2014, The Economic Times of India published a report that provided details of a joint venture between the WHO and the Gates Foundation to test an experimental HPV vaccine on approximately 16,000 tribal girls between the ages of 9 and 15 unwittingly. The experiment was conducted in 2008, and the vaccine is now what we commonly know as Gardasil. Many of the girls, the report states, became ill and some died. The following year the WHO and Gates Foundation conducted a similar experiment on 14,000 girls with the HPV vaccine Cervarix. Again "scores of teenage girls were hospitalized." Investigations led by Indian health officials uncovered gross violations in India's laws regarding medical safety. In numerous cases there was no consent and the children had no idea what they were being vaccinated for. The Indian Supreme Court has taken up a case against the duo for criminal charges. There are many other questionable activities that the WHO has been involved with over the years. However, the above provide sufficient evidence to argue the case that, at least within the upper echelons of the WHO, global health does not stand in high priority. The organization employs over 7,000 people around the world and most of these have deep concern for improving the lives of populations in poor and developing nations. On the other hand, the WHO's leaders are there largely because the powers of Washington, London and the pharmaceutical industry benefit by the organization advancing its agendas. Of course, the WHO is not the only health entity with a legacy of corruption. Corruption appears to be systemic throughout global health and national health agencies. This topic was featured last year in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Author Dr. Patricia Garcia writes, "Corruption is embedded in health systems. Throughout my life—as a researcher, public health worker, and a Minister of Health—I have been able to see entrenched dishonesty and fraud. But despite being one of the most important barriers to implementing universal health coverage around the world, corruption is rarely openly discussed." Bear in mind, the WHO, along with Bill Gates and his Foundation, and Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Disease, are leading the efforts to get the COVID-19 vaccine administered as quickly as possible. Already the Gates Foundation has given $1.75 billion for developing and distributing these vaccines. Do you believe we can trust their judgment and the intense public relations effort that will immediately follow after such a vaccine reaches the market?
On today's episode Leticia is joined by her mother Patricia Garcia to dive deep into their journey of Leticia coming out to her. We often times hear about the LGBTQ+ Person's journey of coming out, but seldom do we hear the parents side. Patricia experienced her own struggles and challenges as a Christian parent who had to come out as well along side her daughter. Listen as they share their experience on this journey together.
Corey Baker, MD, Director of the Center for Neurogastroenterology and Motility Disorders, joins host Patricia Garcia, MD MPH, to discuss the neurological connection to the digestive system and symptoms where a child might need a neurogastroenterologist.
Don't miss out on the next WeAreLATech podcast episode, get notified by signing up here http://wearelatech.com/podcastWelcome to WeAreLATech's LA Tech Startup Spotlight!“The Challenge of Being A Mom In Tech”Get your very own WeAreLATech tee at http://wearelatech.com/shopWeAreLATech Podcast is a WeAreTech.fm production.To support our podcast go to http://wearelatech.com/believeTo be featured on the podcast go to http://wearelatech.com/feature-your-la-startup/Want to be featured in the WeAreLATech Community? Create your profile here http://wearelatech.com/communityGuest Host, Brian Nickersonhttps://twitter.com/briannickersonhttps://www.magiclinks.org/Guest,Patricia Garcia of Harrishttps://twitter.com/patteghttps://www.linkedin.com/in/pgarcia413/For a calendar of all LA Startup events go to, http://WeAreLATech.comTo further immerse yourself into the LA Tech community go to http://wearelatech.com/vipLinks Mentioned:Harris, https://www.harris.com/Credits:Produced and Hosted by Espree Devora, http://espreedevora.comStory produced, Edited and Mastered by Adam Carroll, http://www.ariacreative.ca/Show Notes by Karl Marty, http://karlmarty.comMusic by Jay Huffman, https://soundcloud.com/jayhuffmanShort Title: Harris
Dr. Patricia Garcia, Professor at the School of Public Health at Cayetano Heredia University (UPCH) in Lima, Peru, former Minister of Health of Peru (2016-2017), and 2018 Menschel Senior Leadership Fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health will talk with Professor Robert Blendon about the response to the coronavirus epidemic in Peru.
Don't miss out on the next #womenintech podcast episode, get notified by signing up here http://womenintechshow.comWomen in Tech: Patricia Garcia"How To Succeed As A Mom In Tech”#womenintech Show is powered by https://www.upguard.com/ - UpGuard's discovery engine brings visibility to complex IT environments, enabling teams to quickly identify risk, confirm compliance and make business safer.#womenintech Show is a WeAreTech.fm production.To support the Women in Tech podcast go to https://www.patreon.com/womenintechTo be featured on the podcast go to http://womenintechshow.com/featureGuest Host, Brian Nickersonhttps://twitter.com/briannickersonhttps://www.magiclinks.org/Guest,Patricia Garciahttps://twitter.com/patteghttps://www.linkedin.com/in/pgarcia413/In LA? Here’s some awesome resources for you to become immersed in the LA Tech scene -For a calendar of all LA Startup events go to, http://WeAreLATech.comTo further immerse yourself into the LA Tech community go to http://wearelatech.com/vipBe featured in the Women in Tech Community by creating your profile here http://womenintech.co/Links Mentioned:Harris, https://www.harris.com/Credits:Produced and Hosted by Espree Devora, http://espreedevora.comStory produced, Edited and Mastered by Adam Carroll, http://www.ariacreative.ca/Show Notes by Karl Marty, http://karlmarty.comMusic by Jay Huffman, https://soundcloud.com/jayhuffmanShort Title: Patricia Garcia
In the last few years, millennials and Gen Z-ers have changed the fashion industry by investing in used clothing. “Thrift-flopping” has even become a trend on social media platform TikTok, as people buy used clothes and give them new life with some simple handiwork. The billion-dollar thrifting industry is growing as young people intentionally make purchases to reduce waste, save money and keep up with trends. In this episode of Promo Insiders, ASI’s Eloisa Gutierrez speaks with Patricia Garcia, a student entrepreneur from Florida International University, about how Garcia tapped into the needs of college students across the country as they look for eco-friendly (and wallet-friendly) purchases. “As a student who would dread walking into the college bookstore because I knew I couldn’t afford anything,” says Garcia, “I wanted to change that.” Garcia founded College Thrifts LLC, an online platform for college students and alumni to sell their gently used university merchandise.
Olá amigos e amigas da produtividade! Bem-vindos ao BlueCast, o Podcast da Festo Brasil. Nesse episódio, Marcelo Pasqualucci conversa com Patricia Garcia e Fabrizio Centineo, da Festo Brasil, sobre engenharia avançada aplicada na criação de soluções customizadas em automação industrial. Nem sempre os "produtos de prateleira" atendem a necessidade do cliente. Nesses casos, entra em ação a equipe de especialistas em Customer Solutions. Confira esse episódio!
The Queen of Spanish rugby, Patricia Garcia is our guest this week. The Spanish international at XVs and 7s, is the driving force behind the game in Spain. She chats about the growth of the game in her country, how this is being achieved and her role in that. Also hopes of qualification for next year's World Cup and what she loves about our great game. Plus we bring you all the latest news and signings and an update on Burf's efforts at carpentry!!! Why not have a listen to some of our back catalogue, which includes chats with players from all over the world plus the biggest names in rugby including Emily Scarratt, Heather Fisher, Sarah Hiring, Sharni Williams, Jade Kronkel, Katie Sadleir and Gill Burns MBE.
Why the World Health Organization Deserves Our Distrust Richard Gale & Gary Null PhD Progressive Radio Network, May 8, 2020 Many more questions are being raised than there are answers being discovered concerning the recent strains of coronavirus. Where and how did it originate? Was it the result of human engineering and manipulation or is it a strain that mutated naturally? What are the best tests to determine exposure and infection? Why are so many infected individuals asymptomatic? Are all elderly people equally susceptible to infection and how much do co-morbidities determine outcomes? These are just several of the important questions that still require definitive answers. The ultimate international authority for infectious diseases is the World Health Organization (WHO). Because of its acceptance by the world's national governments, it has been extremely successful in its mission. The WHO is the final word in determining whether the spread of a serious pathogen is ruled as a pandemic or not. For the majority of the medical community, the media and the average person, the WHO is the front line command post for medical prevention (i.e., vaccination) and treatment. Consequently it's rulings are often regarded as the gold standard by which many nations design their health policies and intervening protocols to protect their citizens. On matters of global health, the WHO holds dominance. We are currently being told by the Director General of the WHO that the solutions for curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic are self-isolation, distancing, masks, and, for those in acute stages of infection, ventilation. To date there is no drug that has been found to be universally safe and effective. Therefore, all efforts, with massive funding, are being devoted to rapidly get a coronavirus vaccine on the market. And in this effort, the WHO is a close ally and advocate in the US's federal health system, notably the CDC and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Most people assume the WHO acts independently from private commercial and national government interests for the welfare of the world's population. However, at best this is an assumption. Moreover, the very legitimacy of the WHO as a gold standard of health is questionable. The organization has been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as being riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives. An article in the National Review called the WHO "scandal plagued" with "wasteful spending, utter disregard for transparency, pervasive incompetence, and failure to adhere to even basic democratic standards." We would also add that its level of incompetence has resulted in serious misinformation about the medical risks of vaccines and other health-threatening chemicals. For example, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the organization reported it could not find any evidence of human transmission. Now we know it is perhaps the most transmittable respiratory viral infection encountered in modern medical history. Given the halls of power within the WHO, we are outlining some of the more salient reasons why the organization's declarations about infectious diseases, pandemics and vaccination should not entirely be trusted. Vaccine Promotional Misconduct Very few will know that for a long time, the WHO's recommendations for certain vaccines were kept secret. Writing in a 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Marc Girard uncovered "scientific incompetence, misconduct or even criminal malfeasance" over the intentional inflation of vaccines' benefits while undermining toxicity and adverse effects. Dr. Girard was called upon as a medical expert by the French courts in a criminal trial against the WHO after French health officials obliged the organization to launch its universal Hepatitis B vaccine campaign. The campaign resulted in the deaths of French children. Consequently, Girard gained access to confidential WHO documents. He notes that the WHO's "French figures about chronic liver diseases were simply extrapolated from the U.S. reports." He further accused the WHO serving "merely as a screen for commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), which was created, sponsored, and infiltrated by the manufacturers." Orchestration of Pandemic Panics Before the current COVID-19 pandemic, there was the H1N1 swine flu scare in 2009 that came and went as a church mouse. However, at the very start the WHO's fear mongering of a global contagion that could exceed the death counts of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic was based on false assumptions. The fabrications are believed to have originated from the WHO's senior consultant on viral outbreaks who happens to be one of the world's leading pandemic alarmists: Dr. Albert Osterhaus who carries the nickname "Dr. Flu." Osterhaus is head of the Department of Virology at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. At the time of the H1N1 pandemic, he was the president of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), an organization funded by the major vaccine manufacturers including Baxter, MedImmune, Glaxo, Sanofi Pasteur and others. It is ESWI's agenda to vaccinate the entire world against the swine flu. It was also Osterhaus who transformed an otherwise potentially bad flu season into a global pandemic. The WHO has been criticized harshly in the media for changing the definition of a "pandemic" and in doing so has been charged with benefitting the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, the British Medical Journal reported that the WHO failed to report conflicts of interest in its H1N1 advisory group. The journal's Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee wrote, "WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate." According to a financial forecast published by JP Morgan, the collaboration between the WHO and Osterhaus's ESWI to orchestrate the pandemic would have profited the pharmaceutical industry up to $10 billion. The popular German magazine Der Spiegel reported: “The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories.... created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we'd see the whole machine roll into action.” Epidemic of Conflict of Interests According to former World Bank geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig, about half of the WHO's budget is derived from private sources -- primarily pharmaceutical companies but also other corporate sectors including the telecommunication and agro-chemical industries. It also receives large donations from large philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is believed, according to Koenig, that the appointment of the WHO's current Director General, Dr. Tedro Adhanom, was due to Gates' influence. Tedros is the former Chairman of Gates funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance. GAVI's sole mission is to vaccinate every child in the world. The WHO and the US and British governments are the primary partners and the largest funder is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There is in our opinion little doubt that the WHO is another one of Gates' bought off entities for furthering his personal agenda to promote vaccines, genetically modified seeds and chemical agriculture in the developing world. Barbara Loe Fisher at the National Vaccine Information Center estimates that "only about 10 percent of total funding provided by Gavi ($862M) was used to strengthen health systems in developing countries, such as improving sanitation and nutrition, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines." The WHO as America's Poodle According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's fact sheet for the US government and WHO, the US is the largest contributor to the global organization. The CDC also provides its technical support and has liaisons at the WHO's Geneva headquarters and regional offices. In summary, there is a strong rationale to suggest that the WHO, aside from its global health programs in other countries, is largely doing the bidding of the US government to advance corporate interests and American neoliberal hegemony. Vaccine Adverse Effects Monitoring System Needs Overhaul The WHO's Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is the group responsible for administering vaccine programs in poorer, developing countries. It is also responsible for gathering data on incidents of vaccine injuries. Any deaths following vaccination campaigns are ignored and ruled as coincidental. This policy is based on the erroneous assumption that if no one died during a vaccine's clinical trials, then the vaccine should be regarded as automatically safe and unrelated to any deaths that might occur. Consequently, the WHO's monitoring system is seriously flawed and requires a major overhaul. One of the more controversial incidences is the WHO's collaboration with the Bill Gates funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance campaign to launch the pentavalent vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, HIP and Hepatitis B) in Africa and later in South and Southeast Asia. In India, health officials recorded upwards to 8,190 additional infant deaths annually following pentavalent vaccination. The WHO response was to reclassify its adverse event reporting system to disregard "infant" deaths altogether. Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a member of the Indian government's National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization concluded, “deaths and other serious adverse events following vaccination in the third world, that use WHO-AEFI classification are not recorded in any database for pharmacovigilance. It is as if the deaths of children in low (and middle) income countries are of no consequence.” The WHO's Director General's Troubled Past Given the enormous number of experts in infectious disease and control, it is astounding that the WHO's current Director General is Dr. Tedros Adhanom Gebreyesus. He was a leading politician in the militant communist Tigray People's Liberation Front that ruled Ethiopia between 1991 to 2018. Tedros served dual roles as the country's Health and Foreign Minister. According to the British journalist Thomas Mountain, who has lived in neighboring Eritrea for many years and has reported on the corrupt Tigray regime, Tedros had a direct role in the atrocities alleged to have been committed by the government. It was Tedros who has been reported to have been responsible for the removal of the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders following Ethiopia's brutal massacre of Ogaden citizens in Somalia, which was immediately followed by a cholera outbreak. As noted above, his approval to head of the organization may likely have been vetted by Bill Gates. Looking back at his past three years at the WHO, Mountain remarks, "For almost three years he remained quiet about the almost total lack of preparation at the WHO for what numerous panels had warned was inevitable, a highly contagious and deadly virus quickly spreading across the world." WHO's Depopulation Efforts with Vaccines Without doubt, the most nefarious activity conducted by the WHO is its alleged support and distribution of vaccines to poorer developing countries that may have been intentionally designed to decrease population rates. Back in 1989, the WHO sponsored a symposium at its Geneva headquarters on "Antifertility Vaccines and Contraceptive Vaccines." The symposium presented proposals for vaccines that were later discovered to have been laced with the sterilizing hormones HCG and estradiol; the former prevents pregnancy and triggers spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, and the latter can turn men infertile. In 2015, the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops reported its discovery of a polio vaccine laced with estradiol that was manufactured in India and distributed by the WHO. A year earlier, Dr. Wahome Ngare from the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association uncovered a tetanus vaccine specifically being administered to women, also distributed by the WHO, that contained the HCG hormone. All of the polio vaccine samples tested contained HCG, estrogen-related compounds, follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones, which will damage sperm formation in the testes. Even more disturbing, this vaccine was going to be administered to children under five years of age. However, this is not the first time the WHO appears to have made efforts to use vaccination campaigns for depopulation. A decade earlier, in 2004, the WHO, UNICIF and CDC launched a vaccination campaign to immunize 74 million African children during a polio outbreak. The initiative encountered a serious obstacle. In Nigeria, laboratory tests on the WHO's vaccine samples resulted in the presence of estrogen and other female hormones. And in the mid-1990s, a tetanus vaccine being administered to Nicaraguan and Filipino girls and women in their child-bearing years was discovered to contain HCG, which accounted for a large number of spontaneous abortions that were reported by Catholic health workers. Illegal Vaccine Experiments In 2014, The Economic Times of India published a report that provided details of a joint venture between the WHO and the Gates Foundation to test an experimental HPV vaccine on approximately 16,000 tribal girls between the ages of 9 and 15 unwittingly. The experiment was conducted in 2008, and the vaccine is now what we commonly know as Gardasil. Many of the girls, the report states, became ill and some died. The following year the WHO and Gates Foundation conducted a similar experiment on 14,000 girls with the HPV vaccine Cervarix. Again "scores of teenage girls were hospitalized." Investigations led by Indian health officials uncovered gross violations in India's laws regarding medical safety. In numerous cases there was no consent and the children had no idea what they were being vaccinated for. The Indian Supreme Court has taken up a case against the duo for criminal charges. WHO's Double Standards of Vaccine Safety A more recent scandal erupted during the WHO's Global Vaccine Safety Summit convened in December 2019. Days before the summit, one of the WHO's medical directors for vaccination, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, appeared in a public advertisement touting the unquestionable safety of vaccines and ridiculing parents who speak out against vaccination. She assured viewers that the WHO was in control of matters and monitored any potential adverse risks carefully. However, during the Summit, the same Dr. Swaminathan acknowledged vaccine health risks and stated, "We really don't have very good safety monitoring systems." Another Summit participant, Dr. Heidi Larson stated, "We have a very wobbly ‘health professional frontline' that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the frontline professionals are starting to question or they don't feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to the person asking the questions. I mean most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you are lucky if you have half a day on vaccines.” And more noteworthy were the statements by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of the WHO's Initiative for Vaccine Research, "... I give courses every year on how do you develop vaccines, how do you make vaccines. And the first lesson is while you're making your vaccine if you can avoid using an adjuvant please do so. Lesson two is if you're going to use an adjuvant use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is if you're not going to do that, think very carefully." In other words, what the WHO presents to the public contradicts what is discussed behind closed doors, another example of the veil of secrecy the organization operates within. Suppression of the Dangers of Depleted Uranium The use of depleted uranium pervades military missiles and bombs. Tons of depleted uranium were deployed during the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is estimated that the US fired over 300,000 rounds of depleted uranium, or 1,000 tons, during the 2003 Iraq war. In both countries, the WHO has been very active in providing health needs to the populations affected. However, in regions where bombing was most intense, such as in Fallujah Iraq, there has been a high prevalence of congenital birth defects. This was uncovered by an on-the-ground investigation conducted by the Brussels Tribunal. According to a BBC documentary, there is no longer any doubt about depleted uranium's association with genetic damage and birth defects. According to an article published in the British Medical Journal in 2013, the WHO intentionally suppressed the scientific evidence . The question remains why? Hans von Sponeck, a former Assistant Secretary General for the United Nations has suggested that "the US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where DU has been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers." Here we find a likely case of the WHO doing the bidding of the US government and its military adventures in regime change. There are many other questionable activities that the WHO has been involved with over the years. However, the above provide sufficient evidence to argue the case that, at least within the upper echelons of the WHO, global health does not stand in high priority. The organization employs over 7,000 people around the world and most of these have deep concern for improving the lives of populations in poor and developing nations. On the other hand, the WHO's leaders are there largely because the powers of Washington, London and the pharmaceutical industry benefit by the organization advancing its agendas. Of course, the WHO is not the only health entity with a legacy of corruption. Corruption appears to be systemic throughout global health and national health agencies. This topic was featured last year in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Author Dr. Patricia Garcia writes, "Corruption is embedded in health systems. Throughout my life—as a researcher, public health worker, and a Minister of Health—I have been able to see entrenched dishonesty and fraud. But despite being one of the most important barriers to implementing universal health coverage around the world, corruption is rarely openly discussed." Bear in mind, the WHO, along with Bill Gates and his Foundation, and Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Disease, are leading the efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Do you believe we can trust their judgment and the intense public relations effort that will immediately follow after such a vaccine reaches the market?
Connecticut Children's developmental-behavioral specialist Robert Keder, MD, joins Patricia Garcia, MD, to discuss attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Dr. Keder explains how doctors identify if a child has ADHD or an another behavioral condition. Additionally, Dr. Keder discusses common parenting concerns and offers guidance to ensure that the child is successful both academically and socially.
La Abogada Familiar Patricia Garcia BillingsFacebook.com/lawyerbillings/lawofficeofpatriciabillings.com (281) 540-1529
Connecticut Children's Division Head of Adolescent Medicine, Alyssa Bennett, MD, joins host Patricia Garcia, MD MPH, to discuss abnormal uterine bleeding The condition is common—affecting about 1 in every 100 people with a menstrual cycle—and fortunately there are multiple treatments. Drs. Bennett and Garcia also talk with Morgan, a 16-year-old patient who experienced abnormal periods. Morgan shares her perspective as a high school student and the method of treatment that worked best for her.
.
In honor of Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, host Patricia Garcia, MD MPH, sits down with Natalie Bezler, MD, a hematologist and oncologist at Connecticut Children's, to discuss leukemia and its symptoms, diagnosis and treatment. The mom of one of Dr. Bezler's patients also gets on the mic to talk about the diagnosis and treatment process from a patient and parent perspective.
Connecticut Children's cardiologist Seth Lapuk, MD, joins host Patricia Garcia, MD, to discuss heart murmurs. The two physicians are joined by Hannah, a patient, and her family to discuss their experience at with the Division of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery.
Host Dr. Patricia Garcia is joined by Connecticut Children's sleep psychologist, Dr. Lynelle Schneeberg, to discuss common sleep issues. Dr. Schneeberg talks about what you should and shouldn't keep in your child's bedroom, how to structure bedtime, and her forthcoming book called Become Your Child's Sleep Coach. The episode also includes a discussion with Chloe, a former patient of Dr. Schneeberg, and her mom, Samantha.
Josie Goytisolo interviews Patricia Garcia, a Senior at the Honors College at Florida International University majoring in mechanical engineering. During her time at FIU among the many awards and scholarships she has received, she has also been awarded research position at MIT, Duke University, and University of Southern California. Patricia shares the tools that helped her on her journey of success in STEM.
50th Episode Special: The Catholic Herald podcast has come along way since the early days of recording in a soundproof closet! In this episode, Ann Augherton highlights several of the most popular episodes as well as the latest diocesan news. Staff writer Zoey Maraist interviews Fr. Stephan Starzynski, a hospital chaplain, about a miracle involving a patient with brain abcesses. Also, in the lead up to World Communication Day May 13, George Goss, the Herald's multimedia journalist, talks with Patricia Garcia, the USCCB's director of the Catholic Communication Campaign.
La nueva temporada textil estará protagonizada por los tejidos denim o vaqueros, las rayas en todos sus formatos, las flores y el color, mucho color. Con la participación de 39 comercios y más de una decena de nuevos diseñadores, el público podrá contemplar en el museo Artium las prendas que ya se empiezan a ver en los escaparates.
Today we are spotlighting Patricia Garcia of Harris. Patricia shares her experience being a mom in tech & some insights on being a UX designer. Get your very own WeAreLATech tee at http://wearelatech.com/shop - Connect with us at wearelatech.com/podcast and tweet @WeAreLATech and @EspreeDevora. https://www.harris.com/ https://twitter.com/wearelatech https://twitter.com/espreedevora
Today we get to know Patricia Garcia of Harris Corporation. Patricia shares her experience being a mom in tech & some insights on being a UX designer. This episode is powered by UpGuard.com, UpGuard's discovery engine brings visibility to complex IT environments, enabling teams to quickly identify risk, confirm compliance and make business safer. Tweet @womenintechshow and @EspreeDevora https://www.linkedin.com/in/pgarcia413/ http://twitter.com/womenintechshow https://twitter.com/espreedevora
The Internet plays an essential role in our modern society and yet the way the Internet will be governed is still unclear. In anticipation of an impending Federal Communications Commission vote to reverse the so called “net neutrality” regulation implemented during the Obama administration, we look at the law which the FCC is trying to enforce. We also examine our current lawmaker’s plans for Internet governance by listening to highlights of three hearings featuring testimony from lawyers from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills H.R. 3989: Amend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 S. 652 (104th): Telecommunications Acto of 1996 Additional Reading Article: House foreign surveillance turf war heats up as law sunset nears by Daniel R. Stoller, Bloomberg, December 1, 2017. Article: Colorado warns families to be prepared in case congress doesn't come through on CHIP funding by Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner, November 27, 2017 Article: Congress confronts jam-packed December with shutdown deadline looming by Mike Debonis and Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post, November 26, 2017 Article: States prepare to shut down children's health programs if congress doesn't act by Colby Itkowitz and Sandhya Somashekhar, The Washington Post, November 23, 2017. Article: Here's how the end of net neutrality will change the internet by Klint Finley, Wired, November 22, 2017. Article: What is net neutrality? by Aaron Byrd and Natalia V. Osipova, NY Times, November 21, 2017. Article: Will the Telecommunications Act get a much-needed update as it turns 21? by Richard Adler, Recode, February 8, 2017. Article: Cable tv price increases have beaten inflation every single year for 20 years by Nathan McAlone, Business Insider, October 31, 2016 Article: 20 years after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rekindling Congress's political will by Stuart N. Brotman, The Hill, February 8, 2016. Article: The city that was saved by the internet by Jason Koebler, Motherboard, October 27, 2016. Article: This was 1995: A pop culture snapshot by Patricia Garcia, Vogue, September 1, 2015. Article: Why your internet prices are bound to go up by Brian Fung, Washington Post, July 23, 2015. Report: In a nutshell: Net neutrality, CBS News, March 1, 2015. Report: AT&T buys DirectTV for $48.5 billion by Roger Yu, USA Today, May 18,2014. Article: Federal appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules by Brian Fung, Washington Post, January 14, 2014. Article: Legal gymnastics ensue in oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC by Jennifer Yeh, Freepress, September 10, 2013. Report: Comcast completes NBC Universal merger, Reuters, January 29, 2011. References Bill Resources: H.R.1555 Communications Act of 1995 Bill Roll Call: H.R. 3989 Vote Roll Call FCC Resources: Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mission Statement: AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby Network Map: Community Networks Publication: Public Law 104 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Publication: The USA Liberty Act Report: Akamai's State of the Internet 2017 Report: FCC Fact Sheet Support Page: AT&T HBO Channels Visual References Cable Prices vs. Inflation, 1995-2015 Sound Clip Sources Senate Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (Senate Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. 2:19:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (AR): Do you see an equivalency between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Russian Intelligence Services? Sean Edgett: We’re not offering our service for surveillance to any government. Cotton: So you will apply the same policy to our Intelligence Community that you apply to an adversary’s intelligence services. Edgett: As a global company, we have to apply our policies consistently. Cotton: This reminds me of the old line from the Cold War, of one who did not see a distinction between the CIA and the KGB on the other hand, because the KGB officer pushed an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, and the CIA officer pushed the old lady out from the path of the oncoming bus, because they both go around pushing old ladies. I hope that Twitter will reconsider its policies when it’s dealing with friendly intelligence services in countries like the United States and the U.K. as opposed to adversarial countries like Russia and China. House Select Intelligence Committee: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Election Interference; November 1, 2017 (House Social Media) Witnesses: Kent Walker - Google Senior Vice President & General Counsel Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President & General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel 39:05 Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ): Social-media platforms have the responsibility of striking a balance between removing false information and preserving freedom of speech. Can you give us some brief detail of how each of your companies plan to target perceived false news while protecting the robust political discourse? Kent Walker: Let me take that because that was the sort of next stage to my answer to Mr. Shift’s question. We are taking a number of different steps beyond advertising to focus on fake news. We are working to improve our algorithms, to provide additional guidance and training to the Raiders who provide quality feedback for us, and to look at a wider variety of signals to improve the ranking of authentic and genuine news on our sites and to demote sites that we feel are deceptive or misleading. We are also making broader use of fact-check labels, working with third parties, for both Google Search and Google News. And when it comes to advertising, we’ve taken steps to disallow advertising on sites that misrepresent their nature or purpose, and to add to our policies around or against hate speech, incitement of violence, and the like. Colin Stretch: I would group our efforts with respect to false news into three buckets. First, we find that most false news is financially motivated, and we’re making efforts to disrupt the financial incentives. That, we think, will make a big dent in it. Second, we’re looking to stop the spread of it. So when we have information that’s been disputed by independent fact-checkers, we limit the distribution and we alert users who are attempting to share it that it has been disputed. And third, we’re engaged in a number of user-education efforts to help, particularly around the world, users approach some of the content they see with a more discerning eye. Sean Edgett: We’re tackling this challenge in a few ways, and I think the way this was characterized is correct: it’s a balance between free speech and what’s real and what’s false. And we often see there’s a lot of activity on the platform to correct false narratives, and one of those things, for example, is the text-to-vote tweets that we turned over to you, which we took off our platform as illegal voter suppression. The number of tweets that were counteracting that as false and telling people not to believe that was, like, between eight and 10 times what we saw on the actual tweets. But we’re working on the behavior. That’s where we’re focused right now. We’ve had great strides in focusing on that for things like terrorism and child sexual exploitation. We’re trying to figure out how we can use those learnings to stop the amplification of false news or misinformation, and think we’re making great strides there, but it’s a definite balance. We also have work we’ve done, just like my peers, around ads transparency that, I think, is going to help educate the consumer about who’s paying for an ad, what else they’re running, what they’re targeting, what they’re after—especially around electioneering ads, who’s paying for it, how much they’re spending. We are also working with third parties. We have a Trust and Safety council of experts, academics, around the world who are helping us think through the things that we’re trying to employ to tackle these issues and how they will impact the debate and free speech on our platform. So we’re working hard on this, but it’s a challenge. 59:39 Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL): I submit to you that your efforts have to be more than just about finding malicious and deceptive activity, that you have a responsibility—all of you have a responsibility—to make sure that we are not adding to the problem by not being as rigorous and as aggressive as we can in terms of vetting the content and in terms of making sure that we are being really dynamic in doing that. And I also want to just say that I think it’s ridiculous that a foreign entity can buy a political ad with rubles but can’t give a political contribution to me—a Russian person can’t give me a political contribution. There seems to be some legislation that needs to be had here, is all I’m saying. 1:16:05 Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): Let’s look at unpaid content for a second. Sometimes these fake accounts are pulled down, but the fake story takes the false claims of widespread voter fraud, for example, generated by these accounts have spread thousands of thousands of times, often picked up by legitimate news accounts. What do you do to flag that? What do you sense is your responsibility? And before any of you answer, let me just notice this, that if we’re asking is, are we still in this situation? As of just a short time ago—and I’m talking about when this meeting started—on Twitter, if you clicked on the hashtag “NYCTerroristAttack,” which is “trending,” marked with a red button saying “live,” the top tweet links to an Infowars story with the headline, “Imam: I Warned De Blasio About New York City Terror; He was Too Busy Bashing Trump.” This is a real-time example of when we talk about this information being weaponized. How quickly can you act, and what’s your responsibility to set the record straight so that the people who saw this know that it’s fake news and at least at some point in time it can’t keep spreading like some sort of virus through legitimate world? Sean Edgett: That’s something we’re thinking about all the time because it’s a bad user experience, and we don’t want to be known as a platform for that. In your example, in for instance, the system self-corrected. That’s not—that shouldn’t be the first tweet you see anymore. It should be a USA article, the last time I checked. Quigley: But you saw this. Edgett: USA Today. At lunch I did, yeah, and I also saw the system correct it. Quigley: Can you give me a really good guess on how long it was top? Edgett: We can follow up with you and your staff on that, and I don’t have the stat in front of me. Quigley: Yeah. Edgett: So I don’t know. But we are, like we said earlier, trying to balance free speech with making the information you see on the system—especially around trends that we direct you to, so if you’re clicking on a hashtag, we want to make sure you’re seeing verified accounts and accurate information and reporting. Sometimes it doesn’t work as we intended. We learn from those mistakes and tweak and modulate going forward. Quigley: Beyond the correction, do you have a responsibility to flag something as “this was fake news”? Edgett: We see our users do that a lot. We’re an open, public platform with respect to journalists and other organizations who point these things out. You may have seen that on this instance, for example. Quigley: Yeah, if someone’s breaking the law, you’ve got to feel like you have a responsibility to do something about that. It’s not—as you said, this is a—with this extraordinary gift, this platform of free expression, comes the responsibility you all talked about. So, if you know something’s illegal, you know you have the responsibility to do something. At what point does this become something where you can’t just correct it; you’ve got to say to the public, this isn’t true. Edgett: Right. And we take swift action on illegal content, illegal activity, on the platform. A good example of this is the text to vote, voter suppression tweets that we’ve turned over to this committee. We saw swift action of the Twitter community on disputing those claims; and Twitter actively tweeted, once it discovered these things were on the platform, to notify our users that this was fake information, that you could not, in fact, vote by tweet, and pointing people to a tool that would allow them to find their nearest polling place. That tweet— Quigley: Is this [unclear] because that was illegal activity, or is this—if something’s just fake, do you think you have an equal responsibility? Edgett: We took that down because it was illegal voter suppression. We are actively working on, how do we balance what is real and fake, and what do we do in the aftermath of something being tweeted and re-tweeted, like you said, and had people even seen it and how do we make sure that they’re seeing other view points and other facts and other news stories. Quigley: Do you have a policy right now where if you know something’s out there that’s not true, of saying so? Edgett: We do not. We have a policy that fosters the debate on the platform. We have a policy that takes down a lot of that content because it comes from automated malicious accounts or spammers. That stuff we’re removing and acting on as quickly as we can. Quigley: And I understand how you’re trying to distinguish that, but the fact is if something’s fake, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a fake account or some bot or something. If it’s just not true and it’s wildly obvious, before it goes viral and gets picked up legitimate, you must feel like you have some responsibility. Edgett: We are—we are deeply concerned about that and figuring out ways we can do it with the right balance. 1:57:39 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): RT, Russia Today, on your platform, has 2.2 million subscribers. Fox News, on your platform, has 740,000 subscribers. CNN has 2.3 million subscribers. The Intelligence Community assessment that was made public in January spoke about RT, and it said, “RT conducts strategic messaging for Russian government. It seeks to influence politics and fuel discontent in the United States.” So my question to you is, why have you not shut down RT on YouTube? Kent Walker: Thank you, Congresswoman. We’ve heard the concerns, and we spoke briefly about this previously. We recognize that there’re many concerned about RT’s slanted perspective. At the same time, this is an issue that goes beyond the Internet to cable, satellite television and beyond. We have carefully reviewed RT’s compliance with our policies. We’ve not found violations of our policies against hate speech and incitement to violence and the like. Speier: It’s a propaganda machine, Mr. Walker. The Intelligence Community—all 17 agencies—says it’s an arm of one of our adversaries. Walker: And we agree that— Speier: I would like for you to take that back to your executives and rethink continuing to have it on your platform. Walker: Yes. We agree that transparency’s important for all of these different sources of information. We are working on additional ways to provide that for all government-funded sources of information, including Al Jazeera and a range of government organizations. 2:05:27 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Is it constitutionally protected to utter an intentionally false statement? Colin Stretch: So, it depends on the context, but there is recent Supreme Court precedent on that. On Facebook— Gowdy: On which side: that it is or is not? Stretch: That it is, in most cases, protected. However, on Facebook, our job is not to decide whether content is true or false. We do recognize that false news is a real challenge. The way in which we’re addressing it is by trying to disrupt the financial incentives of those who are profiting from it, which is where most of it comes from. Most of this, most of the fake-news problem is coming from low-quality websites that are trying to drive traffic on every side of every issue, and by disrupting the financial incentives, we’re able to limit the distribution. We’re also trying to make sure that users do know when a story has been disputed by a neutral third party and alerting users to that fact— I’ll stop. I’ll stop there. Gowdy: Well, I’m smiling only because on the last break a couple of my colleagues and I were wondering who those neutral fact-checkers are, and I really do appreciate your desire to want to have a neutral fact-checker. If you could let me know who those folks are, I’d be really grateful, because people in my line of work might take exception with the neutrality of some of the fact-checkers. So, if I understand you correctly, the authenticity of the speaker is very important; the accuracy of the content, less so. Stretch: That’s how we approach it. That’s exactly right. Gowdy: All right. For the life of me, I do not understand how a republic is served by demonstrably, provably, intentionally false information. And I get it, that you don’t want to be the arbiter of opinion—I don’t want you to be, either—but today’s not Thursday, so if I say it is, I swear I don’t understand how my fellow citizens benefit from me telling them something that is demonstrably false, and I am saying it with the intent to deceive. I just—for the life of me, I don’t get it, but I’m out of time. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation; October 31, 2017 (Social Media) Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow 38:25 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair. Colin Stretch: Senator, our commitment to addressing this problem is unwavering. We take this very seriously and are committed to investing as necessary to prevent this from happening again. Absolutely. Whitehouse: Mr. Edgett? Sean Edgett: Absolutely agree with Mr. Stretch, and this type of activity just creates not only a bad user experience but distrust for the platform, so we are committed to working every single day to get better at solving this problem. Whitehouse: Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: That’s the same for Google. We take this very seriously. We’ve made changes, and we will continue to get better. Whitehouse: And ultimately, you are American companies, and threats to American election security and threats to American peace and order are things that concern you greatly, correct? Stretch: That is certainly correct. Edgett: Agree. Salgado: That’s right. 52:15 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA): Mr. Salgado, why did Google get preferred status to Russia Today, a Russian propaganda arm, on YouTube? Richard Salgado: There was a period of time where Russia Today qualified really because of algorithms to participate in an advertising program that opened up some inventory for them, subjective standards around popularity and some other criteria to be able to participate in that program. Platforms or publishers like RT drop in and out of the program as things change, and that is the case with RT. They dropped out of the program. Feinstein: Well, why didn’t you revert RT’s preferred status after the ICA came out in January 2017? It took you to September of 2017 to do it. Salgado: The removal of RT from the program was actually a result of, as I understand it, is a result of some of the drop in viewership, not as a result of any action otherwise. So, there was nothing about RT or its content that meant that it stayed in or stayed out. 2:03:15 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So, Mr. Stretch, you said that there are 150 people at Facebook just focused on the content of what’s on your platform. How many people do you have, Mr. Edgett, at Twitter to concentrate on the content and ferretting out the kind of content that would be deemed unacceptable, divisive? I realize there are a lot of First Amendment— Sean Edgett: Right. Hirono: —complicated issues, but how many people do you have? Edgett: Well, we harness the power of both technology, algorithms, machine learning to help us, and also a large team of people, that we call our Trust and Safety team and our User Services team, it’s hundreds of people. We’re at a different scale than Facebook and Google, obviously, but we’re dedicating a lot of resource to make sure that we’re looking at user reports about activity on the platform that they think is violent or activity on the platform they think is illegal, and prioritizing that accordingly. Hirono: So, you have fewer people than Facebook. Facebook has 150; you said you have hundreds. Edgett: Yeah, we have hundreds— Hirono: Hundreds. Edgett: —across User Services and Trust and Safety, looking at the issues of content on the platform. Hirono: What about you, Mr. Salgado? Richard Salgado: Google has thousands of people. There’s many different products, and different teams work on them, but internally we’ll have thousands of people working on them. We also get a good deal of leads on content that we need to review for whether it’s appropriate or not that come from outside the company as well. Hirono: You have thousands of people just focused on the content— Salgado: On various types of content. Hirono: —as Mr. Stretch indicated to us that he has at Facebook? You have thousands of people dedicated? Salgado: We have thousands of people dedicated to make sure the content across our—and remember, Google has many different properties within it—but, yes, the answer is we have thousands that look at content that has been reported to us as inappropriate. Hirono: So, in view of that, Mr. Stretch, do you think 150 people is enough people? Stretch: Senator, to be clear, the 150 people I mentioned earlier is people whose full-time job is focused on addressing terrorism content on Facebook. In terms of addressing content on the site generally, we have thousands. And indeed, we have a Community Operations team that we announced earlier this year that we were going to be adding additional thousands to the several thousands that are already working on this problem every day. Hirono: I think it’s pretty clear that this is a whole new sort of use, or misuse, of your platform, and you may have various ways to address terrorist content, but this is a whole other thing. 2:32:10 Clint Watts: Account anonymity in public provides some benefits to society, but social-media companies must work to immediately confirm real humans operate accounts. The negative effects of social bots far outweigh any benefits that come from the anonymous replication of accounts that broadcast high volumes of misinformation. Reasonable limits on the number of posts any account can make during an hour, day, or week should be developed and human-verification systems should be employed by all social-media companies to reduce automated broadcasting. 2:33:07 Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. 2:44:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Watts, you’ve been a U.S. Army infantry officer, you’ve been an FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, you’ve been executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and you’ve been a consultant to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and National Security Branch, so you clearly take American national security very seriously. It is, and has been, your life’s work. So, when you say, ”The Kremlin disinformation playbook,” which we’re talking about here, “will also be adopted by authoritarians, dark political campaigns, and unregulated global corporations who will use this type of social-media manipulation to influence weaker countries; harm less-educated, vulnerable populations; and mire business challengers,” you’re not just talking about the Russian election-manipulation operation getting worse and having to be contained. You’re talking about it as if it’s a technology that other bad actors can adopt and have it metastasized entirely into new fields of dissimulation, propaganda, and so forth. Clint Watts: Yes. Whitehouse: Correct? Watts: Everybody will duplicate this if they don’t believe in the rule of law, if they want to destroy democracies from the inside out. Anyone with enough resources and time and effort, if they put it against us, they can duplicate this. I could duplicate it if I chose to. Whitehouse: So, if we don’t stop it now, it’s going to get exponentially worse. Watts: Yes. And I think the one thing that we should recognize is even in the U.S. political context, if we don’t put some sort of regulation around it, if bodies like this don’t decide how we want American politics to work, everybody will be incentivized to use this same system against their political opponents, and if you don’t, you will lose. 2:51:35 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): The First Amendment implications of all of this concern me as well. I mean, what’s fake news? What do you think fake news is? Clint Watts: Fake news, over the years since I’ve been involved and talking about this, is any news the other side doesn’t like, doesn’t matter what side it is. Kennedy: That’s right. Michael Smith: Senator, if I may. I’m teaching undergrads a course at Georgia State University this semester titled Media, Culture, and Society; and we’re about to start classes focused on fake news later this week. I would submit that fake news might best be defined as deliberate mis- or disinformation, which is tailored or engineered to achieve a particular outcome in the way of behaviors, to persuade perceptions in a manner that lead to behaviors such as perhaps a vote for or against somebody. Kennedy: Well, that’s a good definition, but I’ll end on this: in whose opinion? Watts: But I think there are parameters that we could come around. I mean, reporting versus opinion is a key point of it. I think also in terms of fact versus fiction, I’ve actually set up rating systems on foreign media outlets before the U.S. Government’s paid me to do that, you know, in the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns. House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee: FCC Oversight; October 25, 2017 Witnesses: Ajit Pai: FCC Chairman 14:00 Rep. Greg Walden: Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on both sides. And I’ve been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage in the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. Love to see that change, by the way. Door remains open. We’re willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem. I don’t think we need Title II to do that. 1:31:45 Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH): Voice-activated virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway to the Internet. Some day soon they might even become consumer-preferred interface with the Internet, leaving the age of the desktop Google Search behind. You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers’ access to other Internet content is limited or completely blocked. It’s the question of, who answers Siri’s question when you ask Siri something? Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? Ajit Pai: Congressman, under our current Internet regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 1:36:12 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA): Will you commit to us that you’ll apply or consider applying broadcast-transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? Ajit Pai: Congresswoman, thank you for the question. As I under— Eshoo: Uh-huh, you’re welcome. Pai: As I understand the law— Eshoo: Uh-huh, mm-hmm. Pai: —there is no jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the FCC to a certain jurisdiction. Eshoo: But what about those that have a license and carry them? Do you have—doesn’t the FCC have any say so in that, or is this, as the Intelligence Community said, that they are a principle international propaganda outlet? So are they just going to operate in the United States no matter what? Pai: Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking and doing an investigation of that kind. If you’re privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has, obviously, a direct interest in the issue—and we’re, obviously, happy to work with them—but at the current time, as I’ve been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to— Eshoo: Well, First Amendment applies to free speech in our country. It doesn’t mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. I just—I don’t know if you’re looking hard enough. 1:40:05 Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): In 2013, and I was one of the households affected by this, there was a carriage dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable. And CBS blocked Time Warner Cable Internet customers from viewing its shows online through a CBS.com website. So I couldn’t get any of CBS or SHOWTIME or any of that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was our cable provider and Internet service provider, you couldn’t go to CBS.com—it was blocked. Or SHOWTIME to watch any of the shows that was coming out. And that was when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. But some members of Congress said, bring this up, and I think Chairwoman Clyburn was acting chairwoman at the time and said that she didn’t believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene in this situation. And Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar case? Ajit Pai: Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not changed to the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party is acting in bad faith in the context of retransmission dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absence to such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn’t take further action. Guthrie: But currently the Title II, open Internet, is still in effect. Is that—how would that affect it? Pai: Oh, currently, yes. Just to be clear, I should have added was well then, our Internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content to the extent you’re talking about, the blocking of online distribution of [unclear]. Guthrie: Because it only applies to the service provider, not to the content provider? Pai: That is correct, sir. Federal Communications Commission: Open Internet Rules; February 26, 2015 (Open Internet Rules) Witnesses: Agit Pai: FCC Commissioner 38:05 Ajit Pai: For 20 years, there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Democratic president and Republican Congress enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market “unfettered by federal and state regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton administration, every FCC chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves. But today the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct to direct where Internet service providers, or ISPs, make their investments and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have serviced so well over the past two decades, it is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC itself made just last May. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only: President Obama told us to do so. Barack Obama: I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. Pai: On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. And given this order’s many glaring legal flaws, they’ll have plenty of fodder. 40:46 Ajit Pai: This order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have. Accordingly, I dissent. 1:03:15 Ajit Pai: And I’m optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, but I do believe its days are numbered. Telecommunications Bill Signing: February 8, 1996 (Bill Signing) 4:59 Vice President Al Gore: I firmly believe that the proper role of government in the development of the information superhighway is to promote and achieve at every stage of growth, at every level of operation, at every scale, the public interest values of democracy, education, and economic and social well-being for all of our citizens. If we do not see to it that every project, every network, every system addresses the public interest at the beginning, then when will it be addressed? How can we expect the final organism to express these values if they are not included in its DNA, so to speak, at the beginning? For that reason, in 1993, on behalf of the president, I presented five principles that the Clinton administration would seek in any telecommunication reform legislation: private investment, competition, universal service, open access, and flexible regulations. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 12, 1995 (Conference) 22:15 Rep. Rick Boucher: In the very near future, most homes are going to have two broadband wires that will offer the combination of telephone service and cable TV service. One of those will have started as a telephone wire; the other will have started as a cable television wire. The programming that is affiliated with the owners of those wires obviously is going to be available to consumers in the homes, but other programmers may very well be denied access. And if access to other programming is denied, consumers will be deprived of video offerings to which they should be entitled. Telecommunications Act Conference: December 6, 1995 (Conference) 27:14 Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL): No one has a right to give pornography to children. While we have not previously criminalized this area on the federal level, it’s necessary to do so now. This is because of the advent of the Internet, which enables someone in one location to instantly send or make available pornography to children in every city in America. Children don’t have the right to buy pornography in any store in America, yet some would argue there’s a right to give it to them free, delivered to their home by computer. Telecommunications Act Conference: Telecommunications Reform Act of 1995; October 25, 1995 8:58 Sen. John McCain: I believe the Senate bill in its present form is far too regulatory. Any bill that gives 80 new tasks to the Federal Communications Commission, in my view, does not meet the standard that we have set for ourselves of trying to allow everyone to compete in a deregulated—in an environment that is changing so quickly that none of us predicted five years ago that it would look like it is today. And today we have no idea what the industry will look like in five years. 32:00 Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN): One thing that does please me is when I think about one of the last renaissance of electricity, electricity goes to the big cities and leaves out the rural areas, and then we have to come up with the REMCs. When we move America to the World Wide Web, though, we’re not allowing cherry-picking and to move to the great resources in the big cities, but the rural areas will be included in the World Wide Web. And so I congratulate both of you to making sure that that happens, that some of the strength of this country lies in the heart of America, and I think that’s pretty exciting. House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance: Telecommunications Act Part 1; May 11, 1995 1:25:36 Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO): Unlike the case for telephone service, every American household has access to at least one, and soon many more, competitive video providers today. The case simply has not yet been made that the federal government has a duty to do anything other than provide for access to alternative in the case of a purely entertainment service like the upper tier of cable. We have provided that access. We will expand that access in this bill. It is time we focus on the real issues addressed by 1555, the building of advanced broadband networks and the benefits that it will bring to all Americans. House Energy & Commerce Committee: Cable Television Deregulation; February 2, 1994 Witnesses: Bill Reddersen - Bell South Corporation Senior Vice President Jeffery Chester - Center for Media Education Executive Director Edward Reilly - President of McGraw-HIll Broadcasting 7:27 Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): As telephone companies are able to offer cable TV service inside their telephone-service areas, they’ll have the financial incentive to deploy the broadband technology that will facilitate the simultaneous transport of voice and cable TV service and data messages, building out the infrastructure, creating the last mile of the information highway, that distance from the telephone company’s central office into the premises of the user homes and businesses throughout the nation. 24:36 Bill Reddersen: It is our goal to have you pass legislation this year that enables us to deploy a second broadband network that will compete effectively with cable and bring consumers new and innovative educational healthcare information and entertainment services. 25:12 Bill Reddersen: However, unless you eliminate the competitive advantages this bill confers upon cable companies, our industry will not be able to compete effectively against companies that already have a dominant, if not monopoly, position in programming markets, nor will the bill encourage telephone companies to make or continue the substantial investments required for widespread development of broadband networks. Cable companies are formidable competitors and do not need protection. Cable is a 21-billion-dollar-a-year-gross business, passing over 90% of U.S. homes. According to a recent survey, only 53 out of over 10,000 cable systems compete against a second cable operator. Cable has vertically integrated and diversified into multi-billion-dollar programming and communications businesses. Cable companies and the emerging cable telco alliances clearly do not need protection from telephone companies that currently have no video programming market share, virtually no broadband facilities to the home, and little or no operational experience in the video marketplace. 37:55 Jeffrey Chester: While we share the goal of this committee that every community be served by at least two wires, there are no guarantees that this will be achieved in the near future, even with the proposed legislation. We are also troubled by the unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions taking place in the media industries. Serious concerns are raised by the emergence of new media giants controlling regional Bell operating companies, cable systems, TV and film studios, newspapers, broadcasting properties, and information service providers. Without federal intervention, control of the nation’s media system will be in the hands of fewer and less-accountable companies, possessing even more concentrated power. 40:45 Bill Reddersen: Just as we have established private librar—public libraries—and public highways, we need to create public arenas in the electronic commons in the media landscape. A vibrant telecommunication civic sector will be an essential counterbalance to the commercial forces that will dominate the information superhighway. 2:24:38 Bill Reddersen: The common carrier requirements of this legislation are essentially, if executed the way they have in the telephone industry, the second model that you articulated, and that is that if additional capacity was required and someone shows up, we build. Okay? That is the fundamental premise underlying common carrier regulation. 2:30:04 Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH): Does it really matter if BellSouth builds the wire, the limitless wire, or the cable industry builds the limitless wire if indeed it is essentially a limitless technology that is open to everyone who wants to sell his or her product, including Mr. Reilly, on that particular technology? If you have the common carrier status and you have the ability to deliver your programming, is it really relevant whether BellSouth owns the wire or Mr. Angstrom owns the wire, and if it is indeed relevant, why is it relevant, Mr. Reilly? Edward Reilly: Well, it’s relevant in any instance where the company that owns the wire is also engaged in the programming business at all. If someone is prepared to build a wire and agree that they would never want to be in the programming business, and that we were given very strong safeguards— Oxley: Why is that a problem? Reilly: Well, because we end up inevitably competing with our programming— Oxley: Of course you do. Reilly: —against someone who owns both the wire and the programming content that goes on that wire. Reilly: Why is it relevant, though, if BellSouth owns the wire and you’ve got limitless access and limitless capacity, why does it make any difference that the people who supposedly own the wire are competing against you? They’re competing head to head. You are simply paying the same shelf space for your product as the owner of the product that’s providing that kind of service. Oxley: Well, we have—we believe that there is ample opportunity in that type of environment for a number of anti-competitive activities that would certainly damage our ability to try and be an equal player. Where we get positioned on the wire, what comes up when the menu first comes up, how the billing is organized—there’s a whole host of issues that go along with owning the wire and setting up the infrastructure that can create a significant competitive advantage to someone who chooses to use that for their own program service. 2:38:47 Rep. Billy Tauzin (D-LA): I think the key for us here is to guarantee that there are comparable providers of services and how they get it to us, as long as it’s comparable and we have choice and all people have access to it. If we guarantee that kind of policy for America, we don’t much have to worry about the risk. Consumers take over from there as long as we guarantee, if we do have common carriage on a line, that the owner of the line can’t discriminate; can’t play games with the competitors who own that line; that you can’t play bottleneck games, as publishers are complaining about in the other bill we’re going to debate pretty soon on MMJ; that, in fact, there’s fairness on the playing field. Here’s a question for you in regard to that fairness: If the telephone companies or the utility companies can in fact do what you can’t do—produce their own programs and send them over those lines, even if we restrict them in the number of channels they can use, which I really have a problem with, as Mr. Boucher does—are we going to make sure that the same provisions of program access apply to those producers of programs that we’ve applied to the cable producers? You raised the issue in your testimony. You talked about the problems we had in cable where they own both the software and the hardware—in essence, the content and the conduit—and the problems consumers had as a result of that. Are we going to require the cable companies make 75% of their channels available to competitors? Are we going to require that the utility companies, when they build lines, fiber optic lines, are going to be similarly required to make access available to their competitors? If we’re talking about a real competitive world here, are we going to build a world where some have obligations others don’t have? Some must carry and some don’t? Some must give access to their programs to competitors, as cable is now required to do because of the bill we successfully passed over the president’s veto last year, and over cable’s objection? Are we going to make that same requirement now available—enforced upon other competitors who build wires, or who build some other systems, who decide to deliver it under some particle-beam technology we haven’t dreamed of yet, or the satellite delivery systems that are coming into play? Are we going to create some real equality in this competition, that’s going to give consumers comparable choices? That’s the key word to me—comparable choices. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to dictate the technology, confine you to so many channels, not require you to carry what others have to carry, put requirements on one competitor—the cable company can get on the telephone company’s lines, but the telephone company can’t get on the cable system’s line? Come on. It seems to me if we’re going to build policy that gets consumers real, comparable choices out there, we have to answer all those questions. Video: What the world looks like without net neutrality Video: Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tongight with John Oliver Special Thanks! To Adam Hettler for performing The Most Dangerous time of the Year! See more of Adam here! Background music for The Most Dangerous Time of the Year. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
En el programa de esta semana hemos vuelto a dar la vuelta a la semana. Hemos entrevistado a Patricia Garcia, gerente de Gasteiz ON, para saber más sobre la Primera Quincena de la Cuchara que esta teniendo lugar en Vitoria-Gasteiz. Hemos repasado cuantas bicicletas se han robado en nuestro Ranking semanal. Y en la ultima parte del programa, en nuestra sección historia El Astrolabio, hemos ido hasta el museo del naipe de Gasteiz donde están celebrando el centenario del nacimiento de Heraclio Fournier, el creador de la baraja de cartas española.
En el programa de esta semana hemos hablado con Patricia Garcia, gerente de GasteizON, para saber de esta próxima edición de ArdoAraba. También hemos entrevistado a Enrriko, batería de Vendetta minutos antes de su actuación en la sala Jimmy Jazz de la capital. En el ultimo tramo hemos puesto en marcha nuestro Astrolabio para ir directos al siglo trece para ver dos de los desaparecidos monasterios gasteiztarras.
King Holmes (director, Center for AIDS and STD, University of Washington; past president of the IUSTI) talks to Patricia Garcia (dean of the School of Public Health, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Peru; regional director for IUSTI in Latin America and the Carribbean) about the progress in treating STIs in Latin America and the Caribbean.Professor Garcia discusses what a recent survey by The Latin American and Caribbean Association for the Control of Sexually Transmitted Infections (ALAC-ITS) revealed about STI programmes in the region, including rapid needle testing in Brazil and Peru’s national AIDS STI programme.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
