Editorials / Opinions

On July 24th President Trump tweeted that (contrary to his recent denials) Russia is indeed meddling in the 2018 elections-- only to benefit the Democrats! Really? Let's look at the reality here:

First, Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat up for re-election, was the target of a confirmed Russian hacking attempt. Hard to see how they intend to benefit her with this.

Second, there is an online Republican propaganda campaign called #Walkaway, featuring people announcing that they've left the Democratic Party. It turns out that none of the people pictured are actual Democrats who've left! They're stock images from an online service called "Shutterstock". It's a fraud! Typical.

Anyway, it turns out that Russian bots (online automated personae) have been busy repeating these online ads to make them more trending. Is this to help the Democrats?

The quandary remains unresolved. Does Russia have blackmailable information on our leader? Or is he voluntarily a puppet for Putin? Let's hope Mueller gets to the bottom of it before the corrupt Republicans in Congress can cover it all up.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck, Rushville, PA

At a recent listening session conducted by the Farm Women United group, I was asked to address past pricing schemes that were used to price milk to the majority of dairy farmers across the USA.

Some people wanted to hear about "make allowances" and how it affected prices paid to dairy farmers.  I began by explaining the parity pricing system that was used to protect dairy farmers' prices for their milk.

For many years, the US Secretary of Agriculture could establish the parity level between 75 and 90%. However, during the late 70's and early 80's, we were successful in having the Secretary of Agriculture raise the parity level up to 80%, and then, we were able to have the US Congress raise the level up to 85%. Under the same Congress, they directed that the Secretary of Agriculture would adjust the parity price on April 1, and again in the fall of the year.

However, effective April 1, 1981, Congress froze the support price at $12.60 per cwt. (hundredweight or hundred pounds of milk) and prevented any upward adjustment. In different times, Congress lowered the support price down to $9.90 per cwt. (Parity pricing means the value that dairy farmers should be receiving for their milk. 100% parity would mean the full, or right price.)

When the Secretary established the support price, at any level, what he really did was announce the value of cheese, butter and powdered milk, which was geared to be the price at which he would purchase the products, and then hopefully, the marketplace would follow his price. Sometimes it did and sometimes it didn't. Because the processors, both co-op and proprietary handlers, could not negotiate the price, the Commodity Credit Corporation would pay for their product. (Actually it was frozen at the level of parity the Secretary established.)

So, contained in the support price was the famous "make allowance" that was placed in the final price, by the processors so they could cover their cost. To me, this was a reasonable program. When the Secretary would announce the price he would pay for the dairy products, the make allowance was included in that price. Therefore both the co-ops and the proprietary handlers would have their full costs covered for the value of their milk products.

A book could be written how one State took advantage of this program and (allegedly) dairy farmers in that State were taken advantage of, as they had to pay an additional make allowance that went to their handlers. (Double payment?)

Present pricing formula: it was established when the current consolidation of Federal Orders took place.

Please remember the value of milk that is used to manufacture dairy products is the same price in all Federal Orders. However, also contained in the pricing system is the make allowance, similar to what was used in the support price. But in the support program, the cost was ultimately used in the formula by the Secretary of Agriculture when he would pay for the products.

Who was actually paying for the make allowance under the price support program? That should be easy to figure out. The big question is, why don't all general farm organizations question this program?

Of course now, the make allowance is really covered by the dairy farmers. Is this fair? If the processors needed the make allowance, then why can't dairy farmers receive the cost of production in the same formula for their milk?

Some people would say you can't pay dairy farmers on their costs, because different dairy farmers have a different cost of production. True, but remember all dairy farmers now under the present pricing formula are receiving the same price for their milk used for manufacturing dairy products.

The manufacturer of dairy products is willing to place their products on the market and I would assume that different manufacturers have different costs of operation, the same as dairy farmers do. This certainly is a very questionable way to be paid for their milk. It's time for everyone to re-think their position on make allowances. If processors can have a make allowance which covers their cost, then why can't dairy farmers have a price formulated to cover their cost?

Now it's time for the dairy farmers to wake up, or the dairy farmers will be saddled with this pricing formula forever. To allow this to happen will guarantee thousands more dairy farmers will be forced out of business.

The choice is up to the dairy farmers. They must stand up and shout! Otherwise, there will be nothing to shout about.

Pro-Ag can be reached at 570-833-5776.

Sincerely,

Arden Tewksbury, Manager of Pro-Ag

In Pfizer's stable of pharmaceutical drugs, Lipitor is its Secretariat easily outpacing its nearest competitor. The drug has a 20-year winning streak of being the top money-maker for Big Pharma. Since Lipitor came on the market in 1996, it has earned $150 billion. Nevertheless, placing your money on the favorite may be a losing bet.

Lipitor belongs to a class of drugs known as statins, which are used to lower serum cholesterol and thus prevent cardiovascular disease. But this claim appears to be more hype than hope.

According to the prevalent hypothesis, an elevated level of serum cholesterol is the primary culprit of cardiovascular disease. Theoretically, reducing blood cholesterol should result in a commensurate lowering of heart attacks and strokes.

Good theory. Makes sense. All that's needed are the facts to support it, and they've been missing for the past 50 years.

Therein lurks the deception. Lipitor does lower cholesterol, of that there is no doubt. But heart attacks stubbornly remain the No.1 killer. Could it be that high cholesterol does not cause heart problems? Have we been chasing the wrong villain all these years?

In 1966, there was a study involving1,000 patients who had hypercholesterolemia, a condition of extraordinarily high blood cholesterol (400+) and equally concerning, high LDL or Low-Density Lipoprotein (350+). Astonishingly, there was no evidence that their lifespan was shortened.

The study concluded, "On the contrary, they show that high levels of serum cholesterol are clearly compatible with survival into the seventy and eighty decades" with no medical intervention. A fluke perhaps?

A more recent study in Norway (1992-2010) consisting of 4,700 participants with hypercholesterolemia came to the same conclusion: "No significant difference in all-cause mortality between participants with hypercholesterolemia and the general public, except for the age group 70-79 in which [fatal cardiovascular events] was significantly lower."

These dissident studies are brushed aside while other reviews are claiming break-through successes for Lipitor. But after examining these Lipitor victories, we find no cause for cheering.

But there is a way using statistical sleight-of-hand to turn failure to success.

The ASCOT study was a randomized, double-blind trial involving 10,300 participants. They were divided into two groups, 50 percent were given Lipitor, the other half took a placebo.

In the Lipitor group, the survival was 98 percent while in the placebo group the survival was 97 percent: a 1 percent difference. Next problem: changing a disappointing 1 percent to an encouraging 33 percent that could be cited in the promotional literature. Here's how.

Divide the 1 percent survival benefit in the Lipitor group by the 3 percent drop in survival in the placebo group: divide .01 by .03 = 0.33 or 33 percent.

Of course, it's all deceptive nonsense. The only number that matters is the statistically insignificant 1 percent, but that doesn't sell.

The same trick was used in the Jupiter trial. It, too, was double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigating Lipitor.

After five years the survival with Lipitor was 98 while with the placebo group it was 97. The Jupiter result was similarly manipulated with numerical magic. The 1 percent loser was transformed to a 33 percent winner.

Lastly, erasing all doubt of Lipitor's ineffectiveness, a Lipitor-based, meta-analysis of 11 double-blind, randomized controlled trials involving 65,000 participants was examined. The conclusion: the "analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy."

Your body always has your back. It will make any adjustment necessary for its survival. Oft time this survival mechanism is an elevation of the crucially important hormone, cholesterol. Cholesterol is not the problem: high cholesterol is a remedial reaction to the problem.

That problem is not a lack of Lipitor: it is the consequence of poor dietary habits and a lack of exercise. The real mischief-maker is sugar and flour products that are quickly digested to sugar. Cross them off the shopping list. Skip sugary fruits and drinks such as sodas and fruit juices: they are toxic beverages. And imitation sugars are even more harmful than the real thing.

Enjoy real food, the kind our ancestors relished: eggs (no limit), butter, meat, cheese; for cooking oil use coconut oil or lard and forget about cholesterol. If you ingest too much, your body will produce less.

As for exercise, a brisk walk, jog, rebounding, weights, almost any activity is beneficial if regularly done.

Length prevents me from listing the sideshow of horrors produced by statin drugs. Search YouTube for power-point presentations by recognized authorities to answer questions you may have.

Lastly, an important caveat: never change the dosage of a prescription drug: it could be the last mistake you will ever make.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins, New Milford, PA