By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
April 24, 2010
One does not know what to expect from the scientific community. It has been so discredited lately, that any warning seems to be too far out there. This is so, especially when it comes to associating global warming, or what fake environmentalists now call Climate Change to appearance of disease. Recently, a scientist from Duke University of North Carolina, points out that climate change is ‘possibly’ contributing to making a fungus more deadly than it would originally be.
Edmond Byrnes, the leader of the study says: “This novel fungus is worrisome because it appears to be a threat to otherwise healthy people.” According to Byrnes, Cryptococcus gattii, usually only infects transplant and AIDS patients and people with otherwise compromised immune systems, but the new strain is genetically different. “The findings presented here document that the outbreak of C. gattii in Western North America is continuing to expand throughout this temperate region,” researchers conclude in their report, which was published in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Pathogens.
The report highlights:
In macrophage and murine infections, the novel VGIIc genotype and VGIIa/major isolates from the United States are highly virulent compared to similar non-outbreak VGIIa/major-related isolates. Combined MLST-VNTR analysis distinguishes clonal expansion of the VGIIa/major outbreak genotype from related but distinguishable less-virulent genotypes isolated from other geographic regions.
When I followed the links they provide to support the claim that climate change is probably worsening the appearance and virulence of disease, the first link took me to two different pages, the first to Nature Magazine and the second to PubMed.gov. None of those pages had any information that substantiated the claims the scientists made. The second link, also referring to Nature Magazine pages, did not have any scientific report either, simply a title to an article. Find the two links posted next.  
See, the problem with the kind of claims scientists always make is that they expect people to believe them just because they are scientists, or because they get published. I personally don’t believe them and so decided to find the articles they intended to provide as proof of their findings. The first was hidden behind Nature’s $32 fee to have access to it. The second, a study by KE Jones and Nikkita G. Patel, among other scientists, also from Nature Magazine, required the same fee in order to be read. In searching for other articles that could support the theory that climate change accelerates the appearance and virulence of disease, I came across with another study from the Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School dated August 7, 2001, but it was also blocked by a membership fee.
Further research took me to a website called Annual Reviews, an apparently non-for profit organization. Their article titled: “The Effects of Changing Weather on Public Health” began with an abstract full of errors and disinformation or obvious statements that don’t require a Harvard degree to figure out. The Duh’s are in black. The errors are in various colors. Read for yourself:
Many diseases are influenced by weather conditions or display strong seasonality, suggestive of a possible climatic contribution. Projections of future climate change have, therefore, compelled health scientists to re-examine weather/disease relationships. There are three projected physical consequences of climate change: temperature rise, sea level rise, and extremes in the hydrologic cycle. This century, the Earth has warmed by about 0.5 degrees centigrade, and the mid-range estimates of future temperature change and sea level rise are 2.0 degrees centigrade and 49 centimeters, respectively, by the year 2100. Extreme weather variability associated with climate change may especially add an important new stress to developing nations that are already vulnerable as a result of environmental degradation, resource depletion, overpopulation, or location (e.g. low-lying coastal deltas). The regional impacts of climate change will vary widely depending on existing population vulnerability. Health outcomes of climate change can be grouped into those of: (a) direct physical consequences, e.g. heat mortality or drowning; (b) physical/chemical sequelae, e.g. atmospheric transport and formation of air pollutants; (c) physical/biological consequences, e.g. response of vector- and waterborne diseases, and food production; and (d) sociodemographic impacts, e.g. climate or environmentally induced migration or population dislocation. Better understanding of the linkages between climate variability as a determinant of disease will be important, among other key factors, in constructing predictive models to guide public health prevention.
Unfortunately for me, the article was only available for privileged people who can pay the fees of a non for profit organization. But if you want to find out how this abstract is false or misleading, please watch the documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, for free on Google video.
So how are we, the people, supposed to trust studies that do not allow us to see the proof that supports the claims? Didn’t the scientists from East Anglia University have outstanding degrees and published papers as well? However, they have turned out to be a bunch of cheaters and liars. I, as a citizen of the world prefer to have unequivocal proof something is true, before making up my mind. I don’t believe Nature, PubMed.gov, Duke or any other organization.
Are changes in climate, natural and otherwise, influencing the appearance of disease? Of course. Those changes are also influencing the disappearance of disease. It happens every time the Earth goes through its natural climate cycles. The difference between now and say 500 or 1000 years ago is that back then there were not fear mongers who wanted to blame humans for every single problem and much less for natural changes in the planet’s climate. Should scientists warn us about possible disease and their consequences? Sure, that is why they are funded. Should they make the evidence available for all to see? Absolutely. The time when we trusted scientists at face value is part of the past.