To The Daily Sun,
Some thoughts and comments regarding rail transportation in N.H.
I suggest an account to be set up, at a local bank, for deposits to be sent to. This money would be used for funding rail transportation from Laconia to Nashua and Boston, with stops in Concord, Manchester, and Salem. The Hobo Railroad runs from Lincoln to Laconia and there are many businesses that will benefit from the rail transportation in addition to those communities to and from Boston. Perhaps N.H. Motor Speedway, Gunstock, Loon Mountain, Cannon Mountain, etc, could attract customers and arrange for their pickups in a company vehicle?
Businesses and individuals could be asked to make donations to the bank account to help fund it. Perhaps those who donate could be issues discounts or rail tickets. Any donations would certainly reduce the cost to the state. The request for donations should be sent to a bank with a check mad but to N.H. Rail Transportation authority or N.H.R.T.A.
Having rail transportation would greatly benefit this state in many ways: increased tourism, skiers, race car enthusiasts, possibly an increase in new businesses in N.H., retaining highly qualified workers, and an increase in highly qualified workers commuting from Mass.
I live in Loudon and would love to be able to commute from Concord to Boston's North Station. Traffic on Rte. 106 headed south in the a.m. and north in the p.m. is extremely heavy and the rail would certainly lighten the load. Also, it would probably ease the traffic during race weekends.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:31
To The Daily Sun,
In a recent letter, Russ Wiles accuses me of an unprovoked attack on him and Dr. Moneysmith, two freedom-loving Americans. Wrong again Russ, the attack was on lies, lies about vaccines that put people and children in our community at risk.
You claim that you only want parents to be informed about vaccines but the majority of the medical community and the scientific community support my side, as does history. On your side are a bunch of quacks and nuts. You, Russ continue to lie about the dangers and effects of vaccines. You are like the wizard in the "Wizard of Oz" — blusterous and a blowhard basking in your own feeling of self importance, until the curtain is pulled back revealing a cowardly man.
I think you lie, Russ. Remember when you said, "Our mad president wants to bring hordes of Ebola patients to our shores." A complete lie. I am not sure if you lie because of a lack of morals, or you lie our of ignorance.
Let's look at your most recent letter. Look up vaccination in any medical dictionary, and you will see immunization right next to it. Look up Immunization and you will see vaccination next to it. Vaccines are indeed immunizations, Russ not very hard to understand. Yes Russ your comment, "vaccines are not immunizations " is totally ridiculous and ignorant.
Your next lie has to do with the recent outbreak of measles at Disneyland in California. You say that vaccines do not protect, because only 28 of 80 people were unvaccinated, meaning that 52 people who got measles had been vaccinated. This is a total fabrication of the facts. The reports from the California Public health Department do mention the 28 unvaccinated measles victims, but those were among the first 54 patients identified. Of those 54 patients, only 34 could have their vaccination records verified. Of those 34, 28 were unvaccinated, 80 percent were unvaccinated. Look it up, then please tell us were you got your statistics from.
As recently as February, the California Public Health Department revised those figures. Of the now 125 cases from the Disney exposure, 45 percent were unvaccinated, 5 percent had only one vaccination, only 6 percent had both vaccinations and 47 percent had unknown vaccination records. A far greater majority of the measles victims were unvaccinated. Again, ignorance or willful misinformation on your part Russ.
In Europe a study of 30,000 cases of measles in 2011, found that 82 percent were unvaccinated, and 13 percent had only one vaccination. The MMR is a very good vaccine with a very rare complication rate. The statistics paint a far different picture than the junk you are trying to sell us.
Next, I have to comment on your "CDC" whistleblower. Like a child opening a box of Crackerjacks thinking that the toy in the box is a diamond ring, you feel that this whistleblower is the next big thing. All you anti-vaccinators are going to be severely disappointed, I'm afraid. Dr. Thompson, your whistleblower, was referring to a study done in 2004. This study found no link between the MMR vaccination and autism. Dr. Thompson had a question regarding a small subgroup of patients in the study who seem to have a slight increase in autism following the MMR vaccination. He wanted the authors to reinvestigate these numbers to see if a possible link occurred. These were African American boys ages 3-5 years old. You state that it showed a 340 percent increase of autism in African American children. Again that's not true. There was a 2.4 fold increase in these young boys. What does this mean? If 1 in 100 had autism in a control group, then a 2.4 fold increase means, the number was 2.4 per hundred in this group. Statistically significant? I think not.
First, these boys received their first MMR vaccination at either 24 or 36 months of age. The recommendation is to receive the first vaccination at 12 months of age. Secondly, these boys were involved in a developmental program which required participants to be vaccinated before entering the program. Many of these children were vaccinated after being admitted into the program.
Russ, did you even look at this? This came out in August 2014. Nothing has been done because there is no cover up. In fact, Russ, I'll remind you about that in August 2015 when still nothing will be done. In fact this is a quote from Dr. Thompson in a letter put out by his lawyer: "I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continued to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parents avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by the individual and societal benefits."
Does this sound like a whistleblower, who is upset about the CDC. He goes on to say, "My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public." Does this sound like the CDC is trying to cover something up Russ? In fact the CDC wrote him welcoming a reanalysis of the initial study. The re-analysis showed no problem with the initial study findings. But you would not know this, spending all your time on the quack blogs you appear to frequent.
Your straw dog Andrew Wakefield, was expelled from the General Medical Counsel in Great Britain, and stripped of his medical license. He is no longer a doctor. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers, of ethical, medical and scientific misconduct. What a guy, right.
You do know that his co-authors have disavowed him and the study. The data he presented was found to be fraudulent. One author had this to say about Mr. Wakefield. "The autism-vaccine connection is perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years." Numerous studies have failed to show any connection between autism and the MMR vaccine. One cohort study can be found on Pub Med. If you are so inclined to Russ, looked at the data of over 1 million children found no connection at all. You want to inform parents, this is the information they need, not the nonsense you peddle.
A study by the Public Health Department from University of Pittsburgh published in NEJM this past November, looked at over 80 million infectious diseases from surveillance records from the 1870s to 2011. They concluded that vaccines for the eight most common diseases during this time saved 75 million to 125 million infections pretty impressive.
If you want to inform parents give the true facts. Facts Russ, something you seem to be immune from.
Mirno C. Pasquali
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:26
To The Daily Sun,
I enjoy reading the letters to the editor in The Sun, especially those of late from Mr. Veverka and his respondents. I have read all the submissions made by Mr. Danforth concerning the United States as being founded on Christian/Judean principles. I found his arguments to be well researched, factual and very compelling. I was informed that Mr. Danforth is a 100 percent disabled veteran, a Marine who has a graduate degree in constitutional law, a real one, not one from Harvard.
Mr. Veverka on the other hand is a self described "Godless Secular Progressive" who apparently becomes very emotional when faced with irrefutable evidence of the religious leanings of the Founding Fathers. He stated that anyone could find numerous quotes supporting any position you desire concerning the intent of designers of the Constitution and freedom of religion. I find that to be an opinion not supported by the facts or quotes and merely the wishful thinking of a godless secular progressive.
I myself know that many of founders were religious, they believed in a supreme being and followed a deist philosophy based on Christian/Judean beliefs. Others were members of organized religious groups and most were members of the Masonic Order. It is natural that they should be intent on ensuring the freedom to worship as they pleased. This is particularly important since many of the original colonists came to America to escape the religious persecution that was pervasive throughout Europe.
Mr. Veverka neither found nor produced any credible evidence to the contrary. It is unfortunately a misinterpretation of the constitutional intent that is fueling the present anti-Christian persecution we are experiencing throughout this country. The argument for the separation of church and state is based on history other than ours. It was common in Europe for clergy to be political appointees who supported their patron with tax receipts and soldiers to enforce whatever tyrannical desire they may have. The result was an English Civil War and the dissolution of a Roman Catholic oligarchy throughout Europe. The Founding Fathers took all this into account when considering the proposition of freedom of religion by stating the Government shall not declare a state religion.
The issue comes up when a clergyman who had heard the Congress were discussing how to ensure we would enjoy a freedom of religion unlike any other country. Jefferson replied to his inquiry by assuring him that the Congress was ensuring a separation of church and state. In 1947 there was a challenge to the implied government support of religion, the court did not know how to respond to this as there was no precedence as this issue had never come up before. The court fell back on the historical intent of Congress and decided to use Jefferson's response to the clergyman's inquiry discounting all evidence to the contrary to make their decision.
So here we are today when any mention of public prayer, public display of religious artifacts or public celebration immediately becomes a target for atheists and the ACLU. The secular progressives are winning a war on religion that has in fact used the separation of church and state to cause the state to enforce atheism as the state religion. Does it not make sense that in every case where the courts support atheism over any religion particularly the Christian faith atheism becomes the default state religion something congress never envisioned.
As I interpret freedom of religion we should be able to display the Ten Commandments, a menorah, a creche or wican display on any public property so long as it does not interfere with the public business of governance. Establishing a government policy under force of law, that ensures the practice of all religions exercised publicly without interference from any party or government entity, only then will we again have the freedom of religion envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
George A. Clarke
Lieutenant Colonel, Army (Ret.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:21
To The Daily Sun,
In Wednesday's issue of The Daily Sun, Jonathan Hoyt opined that there should be a non-partisan panel to fact check letters before they are allowed to be printed in the newspaper. I am amazed at how many of those on the left have written to the paper with similar requests. It seems like they would like to amend the First Amendment clause that reads ". . . or abridging the freedom of speech, . . .", and get rid of that little word "or" that starts the clause.
I do find it perplexing as to how many people so casually want to remove "free" from our freedoms. Not for themselves of course, just for those with a different opinion. As I've said before, free speech can be good, bad, or ugly . . . that's what makes it free.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:06
To The Daily Sun,
After reading Mr. Hoyt's letter in Wednesday's Sun, I felt compelled to answer his inane and thoughtless suggestion.
First, letters that appear here in The Sun or any other newspaper are considered opinions. They are not news articles, scientific or policy papers requiring deep background, fact checking, or peer review.
Second, one's opinion is protected by both the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions, something which Mr. Hoyt seems to have forgotten. If I were to opine that I think Mr. Hoyt is a horse's patoot, I am not required to prove that he is with fact checking by an impartial panel. I would base my opinion upon his letters published here in The Sun. Would my opinion be correct? Who would care, other than Mr. Hoyt?
What if Mr. Hoyt got his way and every letter submitted to The Sun had to go through a vetting process and it was found that none of his was factually accurate, and therefore would not be published, would he accept the "impartial" panel's finding, or would he bleat about the unfairness of the panel's decision to stifle his freedom of speech? Frankly, I think his reaction would be the latter, as would mine.
Do I like Mr. Hoyt's condescending opinions of those who disagree with almost every aspect of his "I know better than you do" point of view? No, I do not. They signify to me someone with a closed mind who is incapable of having any original thoughts of his own and must rely on the morally bankrupt and historically corrupt philosophies of a progressive movement that does not have everyone's best interests at heart.
Do I think his or anyone else's letters be subject to review by a panel that may start out as impartial, but will likely devolve into an ideological clearing house (left or right) that will decide who has the right to express their opinions? No, I do not, and that is one of the biggest differences between me and Mr. Hoyt. He wants conformity of opinion, so only those who agree with him will have the freedom to have their letters published. He may not come right out and state that, but from reading many of his previous letters, I believe that is his aim. I, on the other hand, want to see a wide range of opinions because opposing viewpoints can reveal things that we might not have ever thought about before, even those with which I disagree.
As an aside, I am a firm believer in Lord Keynes' aphorism which states, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?" From my reading of many of Mr. Hoyt's letters over the past few years, it appears he prefers to flee from the facts that are in opposition to his beliefs and is incapable of changing his mind. Could that be why he wants letters to the Sun to be reviewed? Does he need to be protected from opinions that are diametrically opposed to his?
I have a better solution for him if he doesn't want to be exposed to opposing viewpoints in the pages of The Sun: Stop reading them and leave the rest of us alone.
Dale Channing Eddy
Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 10:01