Evidence that the HPV vaccine may increase pre-cancerous cervical lesions by 44% ?

hpvhoax250.jpg

……this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV — Gardasil — may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.

If true, this information reveals details of an enormous public health fraud being perpetrated on the American people, involving FDA officials, Big Pharma promoters, and even the governors of states like Texas. The health and safety of tens of millions of young girls is at stake here, and what this NaturalNews investigative report reveals is that HPV vaccinations may not only be medically useless; they may also be harmful to the health of the young girls receiving them.

http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

PUBLIC SCHOOL IS NO PLACE FOR MY CHILD- PERIOD !

“Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. “Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.”

Read the rest of this  *&^%$#&^%^()&)(*% !!!!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeschool6mar06,0,7343621.story

This is a very complicated issue for there are many *needs* in play that is bringing this to a head.

1)   vaccinations

      The Us Gov wants your daughter to have the HPV vaccine. I won’t go into why, cuz it will scare you. But, they can’t really do the job they need to do if they miss homeschoolers. And, they need ALL females in the next generation for their handywork.

2)  Teachers Unions

      Don’t even start !

3)   Afraid parents will teach kids the truth. The gov can’t control them as well.

4)   If kids are in school, they are far more likely to eat and drink toxic food and sugar drinks.

      Yeah, it’s evil, but so was/is Flouride.

5)   Because on the day they call martial law, they want the kiddies nice and safe in school.

      Now, that’s the really scary part.  Think about it. you have no idea what is coming do you.

6)   The rest is so damned evil, I can’t bare to write it down.

 People, you better make your voices heard on this issue. CALL YOUR STATE REPS AND

TELL THEM YOU WANT THE RIGHT THE EDUCATE YOUR CHILD AT HOME.

THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR KIDS ! ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

Urgent action alerts and other information for the homeschool community. This publication is the foundation of the HSLDA E-lert Service and is a required publication for all subscribers.
Recent HSLDA Alerts & Information (ALL)

3/3/2008 Maryland–Calls Needed to Oppose Compulsory Attendance Bills (Number 1)
3/3/2008 District of Columbia–Attend Hearing to Protect Homeschooling Freedom in D.C.!
3/3/2008 California: Unfortunate Court Decision in California
3/3/2008 Virginia–Two Homeschool Bills Head to Governor
2/29/2008 Kansas–Battle Moves to House to Stop Greater State Control Over 6-Year-Olds

More…

Largest beef recall in history : School Lunch program

USDA Orders Nation’s Largest Beef Recall

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Sunday ordered the recall of 143 million pounds of frozen beef from a California slaughterhouse, the subject of an animal-abuse investigation, that provided meat to school lunch programs.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ib5V7z9A-ocCTOvoaRCq9Ohbl9SAD8USF7102

Parents: The Tough Decision To Homeschool Just Got Easier

 

Monsanto U: Agribusiness’s Takeover of Public Schools

 

By Nancy Scola, AlterNet
Posted on February 15, 2008, Printed on February 15, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/76804/

I’ve startled a bug scientist. “Yeah, now I’m nervous,” said Mike Hoffmann, a Cornell University entomologist and crop specialist who spends his days with cucumber beetles and small wasps. But he’s also in charge of keeping the research funding flowing at Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. What have I done to alarm him? I’ve drawn his attention to the newly released FY 2009 Presidential Budget.

Like more than a hundred public institutions of higher learning, Cornell is what’s known as a “land grant.” Dotting the United States from Ithaca, N.Y., to Pullman, Wash., such schools were established by a Civil War-era act of Congress to provide universities centered around, “the agriculture and mechanic arts.” Congress handed each U.S. state a chunk of federal land to be sold for start-up monies, and for the last 150 years, it has funded ground-breaking research on all things agriculture, from dirt to crops to cattle.

The land-grant system has been, in short, a high-yield investment. The scientific research that has come out of land-grant labs and fields have aided millions of farmers and fed millions of Americans. And the land-grant reach doesn’t stop at ocean’s edge. Oklahoma State, the Sooner State’s land grant, says that the public funding of land-grant research “has benefited every man, woman and child in the United States and much of the world.”

That was until America’s land-grant system met George W. Bush. Tucked into the appendix of his latest national budget is a nearly one-third cut in the public funding for agriculture research at the land grants. The size of the cut is surprising, but not its existence — it’s part of a multiyear drive by the Bush administration to completely eliminate regular public research funding. In a press briefing last week, a USDA deputy secretary illuminated the Bush administration’s rationale for the transition to competitive grant making: “That’s how you get the most bang for the buck.”

Wallace Huffman, an Iowa State agro-economist, is deeply unimpressed with Bush’s “bang” approach to land-grant research. “There’s a sense in the president’s office that you invest in research like you invest in building cars,” Huffman told me last week. Land-grant school officials are similarly skeptical. In a survey, Kansas State argued that the loss of regular funding would upend education. Minnesota complained that cuts would undermine ongoing research projects. North Dakota simply asked, “What is the future of ag research?”

Good question. A reasonable answer? The future of agricultural research at America’s land-grant institutions belongs to biotech conglomerates like Monsanto. And it seems likely that it’s a future of chemical-dependent, genetically modified, bio-engineered agriculture.

In stark contrast to how the federal government and many states are wallowing in red ink, the St. Louis-based Monsanto boasted more than $7 billion in annual sales in 2007 — simply the latest in four years of record-smashing profits. And so when our president says that the time has come for public land-grant institutions to get cracking at “leveraging nonfederal resources,” you can be sure that Monsanto’s ears perk.

But, it doesn’t take a presidential invitation to get Monsanto to sink its roots in the land-grant system. Those roots are already planted. Iowa State’s campus boasts a Monsanto Auditorium and the school offers students Monsanto-funded graduate fellowships on seed policy with a special focus on “the protection of intellectual property rights.” Kansas State has spun off Wildcat Genetics, a side company whose purpose is the selling of soybean seeds genetically engineered to survive the application of Roundup® — the result of a decades long relationship with Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker.

But don’t get the wrong idea about Monsanto’s land-grant activities. By that, I mean, don’t think the company is the only multinational biotech conglomerate firmly rooted in American land-grant soil.

Head on down to Texas A&M. There you’ll find the a chair for the “Dow Chemical Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.” Similar chairs exist at West Virginia State and Louisiana State. The agricultural college of the University of California at Davis is funded in part by DuPont and Calgene.

The University of California at Berkeley’s Plant and Microbiology Department entered into a $25 million/five-year quasi-exclusive research agreement with the Swiss-based Novartis, which then became Syngenta, which now funds the land-grant research group on soybean fungi. In 2005, Purdue, Indiana’s land-grant school, developed an application of the so-called Terminator gene pioneered by Delta Pine and Land Co.; school officials and researchers later took to the hustings when the public resisted the idea of self-sterilizing plants.

But the agricultural industry’s relationship with the land-grant system is not an entirely new development. In 1973, former Texas agricultural commissioner and activist Jim Hightower lamented the situation in his landmark report, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of America’s Land Grant College Complex.

But the world of agriculture is today a far, far different place than when Hightower wrote.

For one thing, in the early 1970s Monsanto was still a decade away from genetically modifying its very first plant cell. For another, back then the federal government was still committed to providing steady research funding.

And, importantly, it was neither possible nor profitable for our nation’s bastions of higher learning to be players in the global agribusiness. But intervening tectonic shifts in American public policy help us to understand why a public institution like Purdue would fight so darn hard to defend a biotech advance like the Terminator gene: in a manner of speaking, they own the thing.

Jump ahead to 1980, when the U.S. Supreme Court under Warren Burger decided that, as long as they’d been tweaked from their natural state, living organisms from seeds to microbes or Terminator genes could be patented just as if they were a new cotton gin or tractor blade. And in that same year, Congress gave universities a kick towards the marketplace by encouraging institutions to file patent claims on the discoveries and inventions of their faculty researchers — no matter if their work was funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars.

The summed effect was that, suddenly, a public institution like Purdue had a great deal of motivation for working with Delta Pine and Land Co. to see if they might make a buck off their biotech invention in the marketplace. What’s more, the policy shift made it so individual lab geeks themselves stood to profit, eligible for a large slice of whatever windfall their discovery generated.

As the biotech industry has since exploded, the impact on the land-grant system is perhaps not unexpected. “Researchers want to be at both the cutting edge of science and the cutting edge of the marketplace,” says Andrew Neighbour, until recently the director of UCLA’s office on the business applications of faculty research. (The entire University of California system functions as that state’s “land-grant institution.”) And so the advent of patentable and profitable plants (and animals, for that matter) has meant a shift in research focus away new knowledge and towards the creation of marketable products.

The land-grant institutions find themselves in a pickle. “On the one hand,” says Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, schools pushed into the free market have developed the habit of patenting research and found a taste for private business deals. But on the other hand, “they have a public role where the information they produce should be available to all.”

As things stand, “public universities,” says Dr. Gepts, “are a contradiction.”

This embrace of patents and profits means that land-grant agricultural research centers today are not playgrounds of academic collaboration they once were. “Things have changed enormously,” says William Folk, a plant geneticist at the University of Missouri. “When I started in the ’70s,” he recalls fondly, “meetings were filled with people criticizing each other and sharing ideas.” But today, he says “if you have an idea that has any potential commercial value, you’re reluctant to share.”

Not surprisingly, school administrators argue that a negative reading of the cozy relationship between agricultural researchers and biotech corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta is hogwash. When asked, Neal Van Alfen, dean of the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, acknowledges that about 20 percent of the $165 million annual research budget is contributed by industry. But Dean Van Alfen is quick to add, “It forms just one part of who we work with.” Research conducted in conjunction with industry interests, he insists, is simply one chunk of “an awfully large amount of work.”

But numbers and percentages don’t tell the whole story, because of the way that industry engages in the land-grant system. In short, they skim. Here’s how it works: (a) federal and state governments hand over taxpayer money to build and sustain the basic infrastructure, without which research can’t hope to take place, then (b) the biotech industry injects some smaller amount of much-needed cash into the system, and then (c) agribusinesses skim off and patent the most promising (and potentially profitable) discoveries that rise to the top.

Still, administrators argue, scientific professionalism keeps industry in check — a researcher who fudges his or her findings to curry industry favor is in for a short career. But that line of reasoning misses the real concern. What’s alarming isn’t that global agribusiness conglomerates like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont are getting the answers they want from our land-grant entomologists, agronomists and plant geneticists.

It’s that at public institutions, private interests are the ones asking the questions.

What must be kept in mind is that land-grant researchers are generally expected to bring to the table their own research funding, and the situation can already be fairly dire. When UC Davis’ Paul Gepts comments on how his institution’s support is limited to a base salary, I attempt a lame joke: “They give you a desk too, right?” Yes, he responds, but a phone is another matter.

Faculty researchers are so hungry for funding that, says Missouri’s William Folk, “if companies want to entice researchers to work on their projects, all they have to do is wave a bit of money.” “The availability of funds, he says, “makes an enormous difference in what we can do.”

“We’re opportunists,” Folk says, with compassion, of himself and his fellow researchers, “we go after money where it might be.”

When it comes to how industry-university relations shape academic research, UCLA’s Andrew Neighbour is the person to talk to. While an administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, Neighbour managed the school’s landmark multiyear and multimillion-dollar relationship with Monsanto. (Note: WashU is a private institution.) “There’s no question that industry money comes with strings,” Neighbour admits. “It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by.”

And so the issue at hand becomes one of the questions that are being asked at public land-grant schools. While Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, et al., are paying the bills, are agricultural researchers going to pursue such lines of scientific inquiry as “How will this new corn variety impact the independent New York farmer?” Or, “Will this new tomato make eaters healthier?”

It seems far more likely that the questions that multinational biotech conglomerates are willing to pay to have answered run along the lines of “How can we keep growing our own bottom lines?”

I put it to Dr. Folk. “The companies are there to make money, no doubt,” he responds.

What suffers for falling outside the scope of industry interest? Organic farming, for one. The Organic Farming Research Foundation was founded in the 1980s after, Executive Director Bob Scowcroft tells me, farmers interested in weaning themselves from chemical dependence approached their local land-grant outreach agents for help for pest management. As Scowcroft tells it, their advice was invariably in the spirit of, “Well, sure, I can tell you what to spray.”

OFRF began arming land-grant researchers with modest grants but found that academics interested in conducting organic-related research faced obstacles beyond funding.

“Coming out of the organic closet could be the beginning of the end of your career,” says Scowcroft. Looking outside biotech agriculture is, he says, “like throwing 30 years of the Green Revolution in your boss’s face.” Today, says John Reganold, an OFRF grantee and apple researcher at Washington State University, academics interested in organic farming “just don’t have the money to do what we need to do.”

Also the subject of minimal industry attention: so-called orphan crops, like sorghum and cassava, which feed millions of people in the developing world but aren’t considered patentable or profitable. UC Davis’ Paul Gepts is working to breed a disease-resistant variety of the East African common bean, an important protein source for AIDS sufferers. He’s turned to an English charitable group for funding, and all involved have agreed to resist patenting the plant — once a useful variety is developed, the science will be left in the public domain.

While it’s clear that funding cash is the carrot used by agribusiness to entice researchers into asking the questions industry is most interested in having answered, there is a stick involved: corporately held patents used to block them from asking others.

That’s certainly been Paul Gepts’s experience, when he thought he might tackle the question of gene transfer in Mexican maize varieties. The question, though, is a sensitive one for Monsanto, as one of the arguments against transgenic crops is the difficulty in containing their spread — raising the specter of a threat to the world’s biodiversity. As the maize he was interested in was patented by Monsanto, Gepts asked the company for some samples. Their response: no way.

When I asked Gepts for his take on Monsanto’s motivation for the refusal, I hadn’t yet finished the question when he answered: “Avoiding scrutiny,” he said. Missouri’s Folk seconds the contention that such private claims on science impede research, saying, “Our ability to do science is constrained by the patents held by agribusiness.”

All this said, it’s not fair to say that there hasn’t been resistance against public land-grant schools mutating into institutions of private science. After Novartis had become involved in UC Berkeley’s Department of Plant and Microbiology, the school ordered an internal review by the academic senate, which ultimately deemed the relationship “a mistake.” Lawrence Busch, a Berkeley faculty member who headed the review said at its conclusion: “I think it is high time for serious discussions of what the devil we want our universities to be.”

When Mike Hoffmann — the Cornell entomologist I startled by sharing Bush’s proposed budget cuts — recovers from his shock, he offers his take on “what the devil” our universities should be. The principle that should guide Cornell, Berkeley, Missouri and our other land-grant institutions is simple, he says: public funding for the public good. The mission of America’s centers of agricultural learning is, he concludes, “to produce new knowledge for the public benefit. That’s why we have the land-grant system, and I think it’s pretty important.”

Nancy Scola is a Brooklyn-based writer who has in the past served as the chief blogger at Air America, an aide to former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, as he explored a run for the presidency, and a congressional staffer on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76804/

HUCKABEE AND MCCAIN ON HOMESCHOOLERS AND MANDATED VACCINES

1118170505_5c399e0372.jpg

Maryland and New Jersey recently set the Bar. Vaccines WILL be mandated and if you don’t like it, you can take your kids out of school. We’ll get to you later. Vaccines will be the delivery system for the worst kind of genetic manipulation this world has ever known. Mothers everywhere know it, and it’s solid in the numbers I ran. HPV being the worst of them. DO NOT GIVE YOUR DAUGHTERS THIS VACCINE. Did you know that there are men on this planet who not only hate women, but view them only as wombs? Nothing like a Tailor Made Womb for thier future warriors, progammed with hate (in advance) and worse. I’m sorry, but you will have to wake up. Do it now.

More and more families are choosing to homeschool for THIS REASON ALONE.  They are saying NO to vaccines, and they are saying it with their wallets/jobs and their political clout. ENTER MIKE HUCKABEE.

Mike Huckabee is the ONLY candidate talking about protecting the right of parents to homeschool their kids. Make no mistake, the powers that be, WANT TO INJECT BS into your daughters ! The intention is not just about greed, sadly. It’s way worse than that. This is an educated opinion, based on research I have done for two years, and on the numbers I have run. Even Bipolar disorder is a product of genetic manipulation, through food, water and air, and more. Whether they intended to drive our youth insane, I don’t know, but they are messing with our biology and the freak results are not being discussed. Let’s save the FLOURIDE conversation for another day.

Mike Huckabee understands the desire for homeschooling, and he will uphold parents rights. There is NO MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE TO ME PERSONALLY. I don’t hear anyone else talking about it, or this insane MANDATE FOR VACCINES. When push comes to shove, I have to seriously consider what is most important to me. IT’S THE CHILDREN. 

I am not alone. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, learned the hard way. PARENTS WILL FIGHT. Unfortuanatley, the nation was fast asleep to the vaccine debacle in Maryland, and those childen and families lost the fight. It’s now precedent. You will soon learn what I am talking about. If you have kids under 15, be prepared to surrender their arms and bottoms to the state !

Mike Huckabee is a compassionate conservative. More conservative than I like, but THIS is an important issue to our family. Big Time. So, I am looking at him more closely, despite the other issues we part on.  Mitt Romney has already shown he has no respect for the lives of little people, of any age. He remains silent on the BLACKWATER killings of women and children.  John McCain had better start speaking to MANDATED VACCINES AND THE RIGHTS OF HOMESCHOOLERS AND PARENTS, or I have a brand new topic to rant on.

Go here and bookmark this site: get their newsletter and donate to their cause /our cause:

http://www.nvic.org/

Please understand who is in control of the FDA, the CDC, the National Institutes of Health and more. It’s not good.

PARENTS IN MARYLAND FACE JAIL FOR NOT VACCINATING THEIR KIDS !!!!

 No Law Says Parents Have To Get Their Children

Vaccinated

THIS IS ALSO A MAJOR STORY ON CNN THIS MORNING AS MARYLAND PARENTS ARE JAILED FOR NOT ALLOWING THEIR CHILDREN TO BE VACCINATED.
Government and media propaganda hoax continues as parents in Maryland hoodwinked and threatened into believing it is the law to vaccinate kids, error-strewn Fox news report relays disinformation

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, November 14, 2007

 

News networks and state authorities are once again engaging in mass public deception by claiming that vaccines for children are mandated by law and that parents will go to jail if kids do not take their shots. In reality, there is no law that says you have to vaccinate your children and waiver forms for personal or religious exemptions are freely available.

A situation in Prince George’s County, MD. has attracted media attention and once again provided the platform for a propaganda push that falsely implies it is the law for children to be vaccinated with mass produced big pharma shots that are often not stringently tested and have been linked with dangerous side-effects.

More than 2300 children in Prince George’s County have been expelled from school for up to a month and a half because they have not received their shots for chicken pox and hepatitis B. This Saturday the parents of more than 1600 children have been ordered to attend Circuit court, where medical officials will be on standby to forcibly inject their children in a scenario befitting of a science fiction horror movie.

PLEASE PASS THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

School officials have said the parents will receive a verbal reprimand from the judge and be ordered to have their children immunized in the courthouse. The students would then be allowed to return to school. Parents who refuse to comply will get fines and could be jailed for ten days.

(Article continues below)

“If the child is not here Saturday, then we will move on with the process, meaning that the PPWs and the counselors will put together the packet to take before the state’s attorney’s office, asking, requesting that criminal charges be implemented,” Dr. Betty Despenza-Green, the chief of student services, said from the courthouse Tuesday.

“We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way, but it’s going to have to get done. I’m willing to move forward with legal action.” said State Attorney Glenn Ivey.

Letters ordering the parents to show up at Prince George’s Circuit Court for a court hearing and a free vaccine have been issued with the warning “unexcused absences by your child may subject you to a criminal charge.”

Watch a Fox News report:

This report is completely riddled with errors and distortions from beginning to end.

The Fox reporter states “A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine”. This is completely untrue. The vaccine has been mandated by the state but there is no law in the U.S. that requires mandatory vaccinations of any kind. The report mentions the waiver forms only after claiming that it is the law. How can there be a waiver form that allows someone to break a law?

This is why the parents who do not comply will be charged not under vaccination laws (because there aren’t any) but under truancy, neglect or child in need of supervision laws, which state that the parent is culpable after 30 days of a child’s unexplained absence from school.

The school itself triggered the truancy violation by unfairly kicking the kids out of school, and failing to inform parents about vaccine waiver forms.

The news report quotes befuddled members of the public, who claim that kids not getting vaccinations endangers those that have had them. How on earth can that be the case if the vaccination is supposed to provide immunity against the disease? In reality, the vaccinated kids are more dangerous to others, considering the plethora of cases where vaccines have induced debilitating side-effects as levels of autism soar to unprecedented levels.

There is no law in America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says you or your child has to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order, requirement, mandate or policy dictates, there is no situation where you can go to prison for refusing a government vaccine under the U.S. constitution and the law of the land.

As in the case of all other vaccines, executive orders and court mandates merely state that the vaccine is “recommended,” yet the mass media drumbeat constantly conditions people to believe that if they don’t take their shots they will be kicked out of school, arrested and thrown in jail. This trick will continue to hoodwink Americans into taking all manner of dangerous and untested vaccines, the number of which rises every year, until they realize that there is no law that forces them to take any vaccine.

Here is an example of a vaccine waiver form, this particular one is for Maryland, the state in question in this case, proving that enforced vaccination is not the law and that personal and religious objections are applicable.

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/statevaccexemp.html – Here you can find vaccine exemption forms online by state or country.

The good news is that concerned parents across the U.S. are leading a nationwide revolt against unnecessary, untested and dangerous vaccines as CDC records show a growing amount of religious exemptions on vaccine forms.

Earlier this year we reported on the furor surrounding the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed as untested and has continues to be linked to dangerous side-effects. A media propaganda campaign along with an executive order issued by Texas governor Rick Perry has had parents in Texas and other areas of the country fooled into believing the vaccine is now the law and young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals are capitalizing on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick Perry, while children are put at risk.

Vaccines and drugs that are not stringently tested and are instead foisted upon populations for the purposes of making obscene profits have a clear history of deadly consequences.

Consider the case of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, who deliberately dumped a vaccine that was known to be contaminated with AIDS virus on the European and Latin American market after it killed people in America. Thousands died from an action that the U.S. government allowed to happen through the FDA.

Peruse the plethora of examples where vaccines containing mercury, live HIV virus, live cancer and other horrors have wrought misery after victims were bullied into taking them by government mandates that they were deluded into thinking was the law.

The history alone, a legacy that led former director of the National Institute of Health Dr. James R. Shannon to state, “The only safe vaccine is one that is never used,” implores us to stand up and expose this hoax and ensure that similar executive orders and mandates are not passed elsewhere in the country as a result of cynical greed driven lobbying and corporate crony payoffs.

More parents across the country should rally to denounce this development, which sets the pretext for the state to dictate the health of their children, as well as moving us closer to legislation which would allow Americans to be forcibly vaccinated at gunpoint against their will during a time of manufactured crisis, such as in the case of a human to human bird flu pandemic.