Back in February, 2008, I blogged about Islam and Brain Damage. I offered evidence that the Islamic custom of proving one’s piety by slamming one’s head into the floor is dangerous to one’s mental and physical health. That blog post continues to draw occasional comments and considerable traffic.
The unwisdom of this activity should be so obvious as to need no explanation, but apparently those who have already spent their lives bashing their heads into the floor may be impervious to further attempts at reason.
…and to the health of your offspring
In a nutshell, the problem is that both the cultural traditions in Islamic lands, and Islam itself, encourage inbreeding.
Suffice it to say that there are excellent reasons why the descendents of the royal families of Europe no longer intermarry as they once did, and why some States in the USA ban first-cousin marriage. The Orthodox Christian Church takes it further, prohibiting marriage between first or second cousins. Yet cousin marriage remains customary, not only within Muslim countries, but also among expatriate Muslim populations elsewhere.
Charles II of Spain, mentioned in the article below, suffered throughout his short life from severe mental and physical disabilities.
…What’s the negative? Pedigree collapse. I’ve been talking about marriages between first cousins throughout this post, but that’s really a small issue next to this. Even first cousin marriages produce individuals with a fair amount of inbreeding. I ran a test for runs of homozygosity in my 23andMe genetic profile and I got 3 hits, while a friend whose parents are first cousins got ~70 (the parameters for the test aren’t important, just giving a relative sense). For inbred clans it gets much worse because people are related in many different ways, and genetically are far closer than first cousins. That is what happened to the Spanish Hapsburgs. As you can see from the pedigree of Charles II his parents were closer than typical first cousins. The Samaritans of Israel are a religious sect which seems to be going through pedigree collapse. Some of them are proactively marrying outsiders to prevent their extinction through high infant mortality rates. Others, “traditionalists,” oppose exogamy because intermarriage within the group is the custom, and diseases are God’s will.
The Samaritans are an extreme case. But we may be seeing a thousand Samaritan flowers blooming across the Middle East. From what I know cousin marriage in the Middle East is not limited to Muslims, Christians and Jews practice it as well. But among many Muslims it has some cachet because of particular hadiths which point to this practice as preferred. Setting religion aside, there are also social reasons why this practice is common. As I noted above sex segregation means that you may not know women outside of your family well, and in some societies where veiling is practiced it may be that you do not see many women you are not related to (even if veiling occurs at puberty, you may have seen your cousin at a younger age). Marriages are bonds which may tie a family into one operational social unit, and so produce a powerful inbred clan. This illustrates the cross-purposes of a cultural unit of selection vs. the individual unit of selection. In a society where clan vs. clan competitions are critical sorting mechanisms consanguineous marriages may serve as beneficial cross-linkages. Balanced against this of course are marriages across clans. On an individual level a first cousin marriage reduces the reproductive fitness, but higher potential reproductive fitness of two individuals who have no social support because of ostracism may be a moot point.
By Tazeen Ahmad
Last updated at 11:11 AM on 23rd August 2010
Sitting in the family living room, I watched tensely as my mother and her older brother signed furiously at each other. Although almost completely without sound, their row was high-octane, even vicious.
Three of my uncles were born deaf but they knew how to make themselves heard. Eventually, my uncle caved in and fondly put his arm around his sister.
My mum has always had a special place in her family because she was the first girl to live beyond childhood. Five of her sisters died as babies or toddlers. It was not until many years later that anyone worked out why so many children died and three boys were born deaf.
Today there is no doubt among us that this tragedy occurred because my grandparents were first cousins.
My grandmother’s heart was broken from losing so many daughters at such a young age. As a parent, I can’t imagine what she went through.
My family is not unique. In the UK more than 50 per cent of British Pakistanis marry their cousins – in Bradford that figure is 75 per cent – and across the country the practice is on the rise and also common among East African, Middle-Eastern and Bangladeshi communities.
Back when my grandparents were having children, the medical facts were not established. But today in Britain alone there are more than 70 scientific studies on the subject.
We know the children of first cousins are ten times more likely to be born with recessive genetic disorders which can include infant mortality, deafness and blindness.
We know British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community.
Despite overwhelming evidence, in the time I spent filming Dispatches: When Cousins Marry, I felt as if I was breaking a taboo rather than addressing a reality. Pakistanis have been marrying cousins for generations.
The effects of inbreeding are not limited to the incidence of obvious birth defects. Even those offspring who do not have overt congenital defects will, on the average, have lower intelligence and less ability to deal with life in the modern world.
Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings
The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. In order to keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule. Another historical example is the royal houses of Europe where royal families often married among each other because tradition did not allow them to marry people of non-royal class.
The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.
The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants”
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequenses greatly. … Low intelligence
Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
“Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.
IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.” (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children“).
The article “Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices” concludes that “Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status.” (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).
Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: “The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage.” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation“). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that “The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages.”
…as I pointed out in my previous article, Another hidden zinger in Obamacare. But the inevitability of ‘death panels’ and ‘administrative euthanasia’ to ration government-controlled health care funds should have surprised nobody. It always happens with socialized medicine. It has already happened in the UK; just for starters, see This is your future under Obamacare.
With Obamacare, the government saves money every time it declares a drug ineffective…
Nick Allen in Los Angeles and Andrew Hough Published: 10:07PM BST 16 Aug 2010
A decision to rescind endorsement of the drug would reignite the highly charged debate over US health care reform and how much the state should spend on new and expensive treatments.
Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread.
It costs $8,000 (£5,000) a month and is given to about 17,500 women in the US a year. The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. However, two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month.
The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited “effectiveness” grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that “cost effectiveness” was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.
If the approval of the drug is revoked then US insurers would be likely to stop paying for Avastin.
Andy Griffith, the former TV Sheriff of Mayberry and guardian of small town America, is now the national spokesman for ObamaCare. More specifically, this venerable gentleman is the spokesman for the new Medicare. Apparently Griffith is under the naïve belief that ObamaCare is a genuinely good thing for seniors. As much as it pains me to say this, Griffith is dead wrong. ObamaCare is a fatal bargain for seniors, and all Americans.
Although media reports covering ObamaCare have centered mainly on the health insurance mandate and hidden tax increases, the real danger of ObamaCare lies in the official sanction of “mercy death” for America’s seniors as a means of reducing federal medical outlays. No, ObamaCare doesn’t say this outright. It simply limits hospital readmissions for those using Medicare, thereafter automatically committing said Medicare recipients to hospice facilities, called “community-based care.”
Obamacare opponents need to protest as vociferously as possible!
Why? Because, at least some of the time, it works.
Obama wasn’t the first corrupt Chicago politician to pay a price for tampering with America’s health care. Obama failed to learn from the example of Dan Rostenkowski. By their efforts to force Americans into socialized medicine, both have revealed their arrogant and self-serving natures, and both have permanently alienated many supporters that neither could afford to lose.
Angry protesters shouted down Democrats at public events from Texas to Pennsylvania over the weekend, leaving the party only one real hope for getting its message out over recess: a backlash. In Austin, Texas, Rep.Lloyd Doggettwas drowned out by a group of noisy, sign-waving demonstrators who shouted, “Just say no” as he tried to talk abouthealth care reform. … In Morrisville, Pa., Rep. Patrick Murphy was forced to scrap plans for a one-on-one meet-the-congressman session when people in the crowd started shouting. Murphy switched to a town hall format mid-event and even then had to ask the audience at times to “be respectful.” And at a healthcare event in Philadelphia, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were repeatedly interrupted by booing and heckling. “We can shout at one another, or we can leave the stage,” Sebelius said at one point. “It’s up to you.”
The 1988 Catastrophic Act focused on providing protection against catastrophic medical expenses under Medicare. Specifically, the Act expanded the Medicare program to provide protection against catastrophic medical expenses and for the first time, provided coverage under the Medicare program for prescription drugs. To pay for these benefit expansions, a new supplemental premium tax on all persons eligible for Medicare was enacted.
Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Dan Rostenkowski lead the charge for the 1988 Act and paid a price. The Chicago Tribune from August 19, 1989 tells the story:
Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, one of the most powerful politicians in the United States, was booed and chased down a Chicago street Thursday morning by a group of senior citizens after he refused to talk with them about federal health insurance. Shouting “Coward,” “Recall” and “Impeach,” about 50 people followed the chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee up Milwaukee Avenue after he left a meeting in the auditorium of the Copernicus Center, 3106 N. Milwaukee Ave., in the heart of his 8th Congressional District on the city’s Northwest Side.
Eventually, the 6-foot-4-inch Rostenkowski cut through a gas station, broke into a sprint and escaped into his car, which minutes earlier had one of the elderly protesters, Leona Kozien, draped over the hood. Kozien, one of more than 100 senior citizens who attended the gathering, said she had hoped to talk to Rostenkowski, her congressman, at the meeting.
But Rostenkowski clearly did not want to talk with her, or any of the others who had come to tell their complaints about the high cost of federal catastrophic health insurance. “These people don’t understand what the government is trying to do for them,” the 61-year-old congressman complained as he tried to outpace his pursuers. [PB: I think they understood all too well.]
In Fundamentally Transforming the United States, Phyllis Schlafly explains how the Democrat party voter base is founded upon those who get (or hope to get) their livelihood from the federal government. It goes much further than Chicago-machine patronage politics writ large; the federal government is deliberately destroying the family structure so as to make people more dependent on the federal government and the Democrat party. Unmarried mothers are a key part of Obama’s voter base. Thus, it is in his interests to discourage men and women from getting and staying married.
How do the Democrats go about attacking the family structure? The attacks go much further than promoting gay marriage and abortion on demand, or free condoms and salacious “sex education” in the public schools. Detrimental as those things are, at least they are visible. It’s the progressives’ stealth jihad against the family that I’m talking about here.
Check out this hidden zinger in Obamacare:
Marriage Penalty in Health Care
A huge marriage penalty is hidden in Obama’s Health Control Law. This law is another federal program providing financial incentives to subsidize marriage avoidance and illegitimate offspring.
Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse, and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage. This isn’t any accident; it is a central part of the Democrats’ political strategy that produced 70% of unmarried women voting for Obama for President in 2008.
Here is the approximate cost in the Health Control Law for an unmarried couple who each earn $25,000 a year (total: $50,000). When they both buy health insurance (which will be mandatory), the combined premiums they pay will be capped at $3,076 a year. But if the couple gets married and has the same combined income of $50,000, they will pay annual premiums up to a cap of $5,160 a year. That means they have to fork over a marriage penalty of $2,084.
The marriage penalty is the result of the fact that government subsidies for buying health insurance are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines. Couples that remain unmarried are rewarded with a separate health care subsidy for each income.
When the Wall Street Journal reporter quizzed the Democratic authors of the health care bill, they made it clear that this differential was deliberate. The staffer justified the discriminatory treatment because “you have to decide what your goals are.” Indeed, the Democrats have decided what their goals are. They know that 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama in 2008, and the Democrats plan to reward this group with health insurance subsidies.
The House staffer told the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Democrats can’t make the subsidies neutral towards marriage because that would give a traditional one-breadwinner married couple a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income level. Horrors! The Democrats certainly are not going to allow traditional marriage to be preferred over couples who just shack up!
Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously and accurately explained the disastrous results of welfare back in 1965. The welfare system created a matriarchy with millions of children lacking their father in the home. It’s no wonder illegitimate birthrates are soaring and unmarried mothers now give birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States.
Means-tested welfare programs already cost taxpayers close to $1 trillion a year (even more than national defense!), and Obamacare is projected to add another $2.5 trillion after all its provisions take effect. There’s no end in sight to the increasing costs of these entitlements. In one year, the Obama Administration will spend more taxpayers’ money on spreading the wealth to non-taxpayers than George W. Bush spent on the entire Iraq war.
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a liberal firm that consults for clients such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry, admitted: “Unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate . . . leading the charge for fundamental change in health care.”
It used to be that a husband was responsible for the financial support of his wife and children, but the feminists’ agenda calls for replacing husbands with Big Brother Government. The feminists call their movement “women’s liberation,” and Obamacare is one more way to help them achieve their goal.
Feminists keep tightening their control over the social policies of the Democratic Party, and Obamacare will be his third payoff to the feminists. The first bill Obama signed as President, the LillyLedbetter Act, enables women to sue employers years many years after any alleged workplace discrimination (when no one is still alive to defend against allegations), and the second payoff was getting Obama to give the majority of taxpayer-paid Stimulus jobs to women even though men have suffered the big majority of job losses.
I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a “policy wonk” (whatever that is supposed to be). Sorting through the huge pile of paperwork that makes up the Obamacare bill, or for that matter, the recent financial regulatory bill, and piecing together the hidden “zingers” that are poised to harm each sector of our economy and society, is beyond my capabilities. This is not a one-person job. I would like to urge everyone who is able to do so, to help complete this task by researching how those bills will affect their community and their sector of the economy, and submit that information to 2.0: The Blogmocracy.
The scavenger hunt is on, and the only prize is preserving your freedom.
The American citizen and taxpayer is being raped. It’s as simple as that. It’s Chicago-style political thuggery writ large. Once this parasite takes hold of any part of the economy or the body politic, it uses every stratagem to bleed its host until nothing is left. Even if someone, somehow, manages to stop the “euthanasiator” from forcing through this particular round of national socialist “health care” legislation, it will keep coming back around again and again and again, because the system is broken.
What to do? The options are capitulation to tyranny (unacceptable to me), violence (counterproductive, in that it gives the tyrants more excuses for repressive measures), and departure from the totalitarian state.
Departure en masse means secession. True, it was thwarted – temporarily - in the US in the 1860s, but much more recently it succeeded, without bloodshed, with the “Velvet Divorce” in Czechoslovakia. If sufficiently many citizens of sufficiently many states want it, it’ll happen.
Don’t let the leftists fool you! The growing demand for secession in the US has nothing to do with bringing back slavery. Quite the contrary; secession has everything to do with protecting ourselves from being enslaved to a tyrannical federal government.
I have posted some tea party, state sovereignty, and Southern regional links in the 1389 Links blogroll in the sidebar of this log. The movement has been quite active in South Carolina and elsewhere. If you have any more links, by all means, post them here and let me know. There’s still time to get involved.
Departure as an individual means expatriation. That’s a drastic measure, but if you have some marketable skills and some ability to acquire another language, there are some options. If you think you might be interested, read the articles here and here.
We will be blogging more about secession at 1389 Blog.
How did Parviz Khan get that bruise on his forehead?
Parviz Khan is one of nine defendants on trial in the UK for a terrorist plot against the British military. Family Security Matters has been following the trial:
Those shrill cries claiming persecution can now be exposed as false. A trial is currently taking place in Leicester Crown Court. And it is only now revealed that 37-year-old Parviz Khan, one of the nine people arrested in late January and early February 2007, has pleaded guilty to plotting to kidnap and decapitate a British Muslim soldier.
Khan, an “unemployed charity worker,” admitted his guilt earlier this month, but the news was suppressed until a trial involving two other individuals, Amjad Mahmood, 33, and Zahoor Iqbal, 31, began. These two denied involvement in the plot.
But did he get the bruise while in custody?
Evidently not. Dymphna at Gates of Vienna explains that this bruise is nothing unusual among devout Muslims:
What I hadn’t been able to find is any commentary on Mr. Khan’s bruised forehead. Had the police been having a go at him with billy clubs, perhaps? Why no mention of it by the MSM? Strange that it would go unremarked…
Well, sorry, this is nothing as pedestrian as torture. What creates these Muslim stigmata is the effect of devout head-pounding fervor. Fundamentalist Muslims do not touch their head to the ground in prayer. Instead, they bounce their cranium forcefully onto the stone floors on which they kneel. Performing this act of adoration five times a day will get you that prune-shaped hematoma our head-banger suspect now sports. By their bruises you shall know them.
And these people have the nerve to complain about Gitmo…
A prayer bump, also known as a prayer scar, or a zabiba or zebiba (raisin) in Arabic is a mark on the forehead of a pious muslim, caused by rubbing the forehead against a prayer mat. Islam requires its adherents to pray five times a day (known as salah), which involves kneeling on a prayer mat and touching the ground with one’s forehead. When done for extended periods of time, a prayer bump may develop. Devout Muslims consider the presence of a prayer bump to be a worthy sign of religious dedication and piety.
The prayer bump can take the form of a discolouration of the skin, caused by repeated chafing and the build-up of callous. In extreme cases, the callous can be thick enough to create a real bump that portrudes from the forehead. Prayer bumps are common in Islamic countries such as Egypt, where they are colloquially called a ‘zabiba’ (raisin).
Could he have gotten a deep bruise like this merely from rubbing his forehead on a mat?
A mark from dirt, yes. Chafed skin, maybe. A callus, possibly. But a deep bruise? No. Rubbing the surface of the skin against a flat surface does not cause bruising in a normal individual. A bruise is evidence of a strong enough impact to break blood vessels below the surface.
Now I’m not a neurologist, but…
Repeated blows to the head can cause permanent damage to the brain. Any brain function can become impaired when the brain is damaged – motor and sensory capabilities, regulation of internal body processes, sleep and wakefulness, emotional states, memory, reasoning, judgment, personality, and character. The dangers of concussion are well known from studies of athletes, soldiers, and others who have suffered such trauma.
Thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may be risking permanent brain damage by returning to combat with relatively minor but undiagnosed concussions, often caused by bomb blasts, military researchers say.
Doctors say they are only now understanding the scope of the problem. Researchers screening returning soldiers and Marines at four military bases found that about 10% suffered at least a minor brain injury during combat. About 20% of troops in front-line infantry units suffered such injuries.
The injuries frequently go undiagnosed because troops have no visible wounds or may not know they suffered a concussion, doctors say. Medics and field doctors often aren’t aware of what happened during fighting.
Sports-Related Recurrent Brain Injuries – United States
An estimated 300,000 sports related traumatic brain injuries, TBIs, of mild to moderate severity , most of which can be classified as concussions, (i.e., conditions of temporary altered mental status as a result of head trauma, occur in the United States each year. The proportion of these concussions that are repeat injuries is unknown; however, there is an increased risk for subsequent TBI among persons who have had at least one previous TBI. Repeated mild brain injuries occurring over an extended period (i.e., months or years can result in cumulative neurologic and cognitive deficits, but repeated mild brain injuries occurring within a short period (i.e., hours, days, weeks) can be catastrophic or fatal. The latter phenomenon, termed “second impact syndrome” has been reported more frequently since it was first characterized in 1984. This page describes two cases of second impact syndrome and presents recommendations developed by the American Academy of Neurology to prevent recurrent brain injuries in sports and their adverse consequences.
Hits To Boxers’ Heads Cause More Chemical Markers For Brain Injury
(WebMD) A blow to the head may do more than just make you feel woozy.
A new study shows repeated blows to the head cause an increase of chemicals in the fluid that circulates around the brain and spinal cord. These chemicals are markers for brain and nerve cell injury. The rise of these chemicals of the brain may also help explain what is commonly known as “punch drunk” syndrome, with symptoms of long-term neurological damage.
Researchers studied a group of amateur boxers and found those who had recently suffered repeated blows to the head during a recent boxing match had higher-than-normal levels of certain chemicals in their cerebrospinal fluid (fluid that circulates around the spinal cord and brain). These chemicals, known as neurofilament light protein and total tau, have also been shown to be increased in some neurologic disorders with damage of brain neurons and cells.
Researchers say about 20 percent of professional boxers develop chronic traumatic brain injury as a result of years of repeated blows to the head during their careers in the ring. But little is known about the brain injury risks faced by amateur boxers who must wear protective headgear and compete in shorter bouts.
ScienceDaily (May 5, 2000) — SAN DIEGO, CA – The first scientific survey of head injuries in professional football players suggests that head trauma from the sport may lead to later neurological problems.
The Bulletin issued by the VMA’s (Military Medical Academy) Permanent Medical Council on the health condition of His Holiness Serbian Patriarch Pavle on the 21st of December, 2007, states:
The tendency towards a slight improvment of His Holiness’ health condition continues, with vital functions remaining stable.
Treatment, intenive monitoring and a rehabilition program are maintained.
Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Church
(AP) BELGRADE, Serbia: The health of the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Pavle, has worsened, doctors said Monday.
The 93-year-old patriarch is suffering from heart and other problems due to his age and is being treated at the Belgrade Military Hospital.
Patriarch Pavle has “heightened temperature, followed by respiratory and urinary infections,” doctors said in a statement. No other details were released.
Serbian media have reported in the past month that the patriarch’s life is in danger.
Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Coast, has been appointed to assist Patriarch Pavle, who is hospitalized.
Amfilohije, as the oldest member of the Holy Synod, will help in the discharge of daily duties at the Synod, Serbian Patriarchate Managing Board and the Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovac.
The Serbian Orthodox Chuch said in a statement that the decision had been made by the Holy Synod, which also appointed Bishop Atanasije of Hvostan to assist Metropolitan Amfilohije in church affairs.
The statement said that Church regulations did not mention the term deputy and added that it was “clear that in the case of the Patriarch’s illness somebody has to replace or assist him.”
The statement said that this “does not prejudice the future election of the Patriarch in any way.”
From: Fr. Nektarios Serfes [mailto:father@serfes.org] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:44 PM To: Archbishop Jovan (arhiepohrid@mt.net.mk) Cc: sparta; St. Anthony’s G. O. Monastery; St Paisius Monastery (stpaisius@aznex.net); St. Herman Brotherhood; Teresa A, Polychronis Subject: Patriarch Pavel very ill let us all pray our God to comfort him….
Beloved in Christ our Lord, Evlogeite! May our Gracious God always bless you! I have just learned that His Holiness, Patriarch Pavel is very ill and in the hospital in Serbia. Let us all pray for this Christ-loving soul Patriarch Pavel that our Lord will comfort him during his time of illness. We have all been ever blessed with this unbelievable and gracious soul especially his love for the church and for us all!
Peace to your soul!
Humbly in Christ our Lord, +Very Rev. Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes Who prays for you!
ATLANTA (AP) - A mutated version of a common cold virus has caused 10 deaths in the last 18 months, U.S. health officials said Thursday. Adenoviruses usually cause respiratory infections that aren’t considered lethal. But a new variant has caused at least 140 illnesses in New York, Oregon, Washington and Texas, according to a report issued Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDC officials don’t consider the mutation to be a cause for alarm for most people, and they’re not recommending any new precautions for the general public.
“It’s an uncommon infection,” said Dr. Larry Anderson, a CDC epidemiologist.
The illness made headlines in Texas earlier this year, when a so- called boot camp flu sickened hundreds at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. The most serious cases were blamed on the emerging virus and one 19-year-old trainee died…
US military officials are working on a vaccine for the mutant adenovirus that will be given to US troops.
Here’s the official CDC MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report):
Pelosi had no business going to Syria, undermining Bush Administration foreign policy, and giving an undeserved PR boost to Bashar Assad in the first place. She had to compound that error by wearing the symbol of a religion that she (supposedly) does not believe in, and by embracing a symbol for the oppression of women. But then, tasteless behavior and bad judgment is exactly what one would expect from a liberal Democrat, especially one from California. (See Syrian Reformists: The Damage from Pelosi’s Visit Will Be Felt for Years.)
Covering the cranium to cuddle up to CAIR
Bush officials don the hijab for the rededication ceremony of The Islamic Center in Washington June 27, 2007. They took some heat in the blogosphere for that. Here again, they had no business attending such a gathering at all.
Did Laura Bush get the take-home lesson?
Photo op: Touring the Middle East for breast cancer awareness
Laura Bush departs Saturday on a six-day tour of the Middle East, with stops planned in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. The White House says the first lady plans to meet with government officials and leaders of medical and women’s groups during her overseas trip.
Given that the first lady wore a headscarf when she visited a Jewish holy site in Jerusalem and a mantilla when she met with Pope Benedict XVI, we asked if Bush will be wearing some sort of abaya while she’s in Saudi Arabia. “No,” Sally McDonough, the first lady’s spokeswoman, tells USA TODAY’s David Jackson, adding: “they do not expect nor encourage it” of Western visitors.
There’s nothing wrong with working for improved detection and cure of breast cancer, or any other type of cancer. I’m all for that, and you may recall that I have blogged about cancer both here and on the 1389 Message Blog. But some have questioned Laura Bush’s priorities in taking that quest to the Muslim world, where there are more severe and immediate threats to females’ health and survival. To put it bluntly, too many girls will not live long enough to be at much risk for a disease that mainly afflicts mature women.
But that’s not all:Laura Bush went back on her word about not wearing the abaya, as you can see from the photo above.
“So she’s wearing an abaya. Why does this matter?”
Why does breast cancer goes untreated in the Middle East?
Evidently, Laura Bush donned the abaya because it was a gift and she felt that it would be appropriate to be photographed in it. Unfortunately, this was a setup that sends exactly the wrong message, on so many levels!
In a nutshell, when women are veiled and kept in seclusion according to Islamic principles, how likely are they to go out and get proper medical care, which would include screening for, and treatment of, breast cancer? In Saudi Arabia, women still aren’t allowed to drive. Many Muslim women are unwilling to be examined by male doctors. Girls are too often discouraged from becoming educated in medicine or anything else.
And don’t forget that the country that is responsible for the bulk of the advances in medical treatment in the Middle East is, of course, Israel. But Israeli physicians are not welcome in the Muslim Middle East.
Poor Longevity for Saudi Women
Stein hoist to mean Gene on LGF for the above link and for these statistics:
I often use the CIA World Fact Book’s stats about demographics.
In regards the “kingdom,” the stats show an incredible drop off in women after age 15….
0-14 years: male 5,369,285 female 5,162,585
15-64 years: male 9,316,694 female 7,089,370
What does this picture reveal?
In this picture, Laura herself is unveiled, but she is seated between two veiled breast cancer survivors. If women like these were free to seek whatever medical care they needed, without the necessity of wearing veils, of finding a male relative to drive them, and finding a female doctor to examine them, wouldn’t their chances of early detection and remission be far better?
It’s about CANCER, not photo ops and protocol!
By wearing an abaya to meet with dignitaries, Laura Bush is promoting the anti-woman Islamic ideology that is causing the problem in the first place!
Updated 10/27/07: Accepting such “gifts” means accepting Islamization!
The handlers for the Bush entourage should have made it clear, before the trip, that gifts of an Islamic nature should not be given and cannot be accepted. The Saudis don’t even allow Christian or Jewish items into the Tragic Kingdom at all!
Update (10/28/07): Laura Bush missed a great opportunity to keep quiet
Note: wearing the abaya in Saudi Arabia is not a “choice.” It’s mandatory for all women when they are in public. If they show even a little bit of ankle, they’re subject to being beaten and arrested by the Saudi religious police (mutaween).
Does Laura Bush really think those women will be honest about their opinions on this misogynistic practice?
