What next for Venezuela?

Very very strange how a few south american heads of state or high up government officials contracted cancer in the last few years and were all, surprisingly, opponents of the US regime and it's foreign policy, especially those carried out during the term of office of george wubya war mongering bush.
 
B77":b8u1ph9k said:
Very very strange how a few south american heads of state or high up government officials contracted cancer in the last few years and were all, surprisingly, opponents of the US regime and it's foreign policy, especially those carried out during the term of office of george wubya war mongering bush.

Would the US have been interested in Venezuela if it didn't have vast oil reserves? I think not
 
B77":3oiqyn4q said:
Very very strange how a few south american heads of state or high up government officials contracted cancer in the last few years and were all, surprisingly, opponents of the US regime and it's foreign policy, especially those carried out during the term of office of george wubya war mongering bush.


images
 
Ah ha the old tinfoil hat. They don't work.


Given how the US has consistently engineered the world political stage, getting Saddam into power, supplying arms to the Taliban to fight the russians (the same arms that are being used to kill british, american, french, australian etc troops) Reagans terroist atrocities that were perpetrated under the name 'the war on drugs' and the fact that Venezuela was instrumental in getting oil to be allowed to be traded in euros instead of dollars which in turn caused many countries to follow suit which caused a massive decline in the US revenue that it recieved by selling dollars to those buying oil, I wouldn't put it past the yanks to pull something like this.




The point made by Hugo Chávez is not that a disproportionate number of current Latin American heads of government have developed cancer in their lifetime.

What he actually meant is that the number of prominent Latin American leaders who have been in political conflict with the governments of the United States in the latest years have developed cancer in the latest years unusually often.

The alleged cancer "epidemic" has apparently started with Fidel Castro in 2006. The time interval to take into account is 2006 to 2011.

Let's list the Latin American countries with a left-leaning anti-US government that took part in the ALBA alliance promoted by Chávez and Castro:

Venezuela, led by Hugo Chávez.
Cuba, led by Fidel Castro, then Raúl Castro.
Ecuador, led by Rafael Correa.
Nicaragua, led by Daniel Ortega.
Bolivia, led by Evo Morales.
Honduras, led by Manuel Zelaya, then overthrown by a pro-US coup.
Dominica, led by Roosevelt Skerrit.
San Vicente and the Granadines, led by Ralph Gonsalves.
Antigua and Barbuda, led by Baldwin Spencer.
Beside the ALBA countries, it makes sense to add the following South American governments who are unanimously regarded as friendly towards the ALBA and somewhat conflictual with the United States:

Brazil, led by Lula Da Silva, then Dilma Rousseff.
Argentina, led by Nestor Kirchner, then Cristina Kirchner.
Paraguay, led by Fernando Lugo.
Uruguay, led by José Mujica.
We have 16 candidates for the "cancer attack". 6 of them (Chávez, Fidel Castro, Lula, Roussef, Cristina Kirchner, Lugo) were diagnosed with cancer in the time interval. One of them died of heart failure, another one was removed with a coup.

Birth year of the people mentioned above:

Fidel Castro 1926.
Raúl Castro 1931.
Mujica 1935.
Ortega 1945.
Lula 1945.
Gonsalves 1946.
Rousseff 1947.
Spencer 1948.
Nestor Kirchner 1950.
Lugo 1951.
Zelaya 1952.
Christina Kirchner 1953.
Chávez 1954.
Morales 1959.
Correa 1963.
Skerrit 1972.
The males had an average age of 58 in 2006, the two women of 56. We can find out the incidence rate of cancer for US residents that age and sex at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/selections.php, which should give a hint at the typical values. The latest data (200:cool: give an yearly incidence rate lower than 1% for males, lower than 0.8% for females. Since we are talking about 6 years (2006 to 2011), this means that less than 6% of men that age and less than 5% of women that age are expected to be diagnosed with cancer. In this sample, it happened to 29% of males and 100% of females. The sample is very small but the mismatch with the usual values is very high.

It sounds like Cavez could have some grounds for his suspicions.
 
ok, but then you've used stats for us cancer incidence, what about using south american stats? no time and no idea myself, but interested.
 
It seems to be quite difficult to get figures that are wholly accurate as there are many indigenous peoples that just don't get into the system, the best that is out there seems to be this one....

http://www.paho.org/english/ad/dpc/nc/p ... et-LAC.pdf

I think the reason that US stats were used is because the US has very good records of cancer cases.

There's this from the Huffington post....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/2 ... 73242.html

Seems a little too pat

And this....

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/8/1893.full


Given the figures, I'm tending to agree with Chavez


Actually getting back on topic. It's going to be interesting to see what will happen now, will a pro american president get into power ? Given the love of the Venezuelan populace for Chavez it seems unlikely.
 
I watched this when it first broadcast and found it amazingly interesting. In particular the way the media can be used as a weapon. Worth the watch and possibly goes some way to explaining Chavez's mis-trust of the US. Or maybe this was propaganda too...ahhh my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id--ZFtjR5c
 
Back
Top