The finding came in a letter to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who requested the analysis, from Stephen C. Gross, chief actuary for the agency.

It could provide a boost for the immigration bill, which has been attacked by some conservatives as overly costly, as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to take up the legislation for amendments and votes beginning Thursday. Meanwhile, a separate dispute loomed as religious leaders warned that adding a gay rights provision to the immigration legislation could cost their support.

Gross' analysis said the immigration bill would boost Social Security's coffers by more than $240 billion over the coming decade and add $64 billion in new tax revenues to Medicare. It also would increase the size of the economy by a full percentage point by 2017, and increase employment.

Gross wrote that the overall effect of the bill on the long-range trust fund balance "will be positive."

Social Security has long-term financial problems because, as more people retire and live longer, there will be relatively fewer workers paying into the system. In 1960, there were 4.9 workers paying Social Security taxes for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary, a ratio that will drop to 1.9 workers by 2035 under current law, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

The actuary's letter suggests the immigration bill would slow this trend. Under the bill, there would be nearly 6.6 million more workers paying Social Security taxes in 2024, the actuary projects. That same year, there would be an additional 683,000 people getting benefits. That's nearly 10 additional taxpayers for each new beneficiary.

The Social Security analysis is the first government analysis to quantify economic impacts from the far-reaching bill authored by Rubio and seven other senators, both Democratic and Republican.The legislation came under attack earlier this week in a disputed report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which claimed the bill would cost $6.3 trillion over 50 years as newly legalized immigrants consume government benefits without paying an equal amount in taxes.

The Social Security analysis doesn't attempt to determine the overall cost of the bill. That figure will be provided by the Congressional Budget Office, which has not yet released its projections.

But the analysis does measures some impacts of the bill, which aims to secure the border, create new avenues for workers to come legally to the U.S., ensure employers don't hire workers here without legal status, and give a path to citizenship to the millions already here illegally.

The analysis finds that of about 11.5 million immigrants here illegally who would be eligible under the bill, around 8 million would apply for and be granted legal status. Many would immediately become taxpayers, but the bill prevents them from receiving government benefits for over a decade.

In the longer term most of these new taxpayers would eventually receive benefits, but the actuary said he still expects the bill to improve the long-term health of Social Security.

The analysis also said that provisions in the bill would reduce by about a half-million per year the future number of people entering the country illegally.

On the gay rights issue, religious leaders issued a warning Wednesday about the impact on the immigration bill if Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., moves forward with an amendment to allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for U.S. residence like straight married Americans can.

"We're extremely hopeful that this bill will remain an immigration bill and not get tangled up with the issue of gay rights," Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told reporters on a conference call. "But if it did, if it did, the Southern Baptist Convention would not be able to support the bill."

Other religious leaders on the call echoed Land's warnings. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, labeled the gay rights provision "a divisive distraction that must not derail immigration reform."

The four Republican authors of the immigration bill have said that such a provision could cost their support and imperil the bill's chances.

"If that's in the bill, that will kill the bill," Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., one of the authors, said Wednesday. "We've made it pretty clear. Not pretty clear crystal clear. That'll kill the bill."

If Leahy were to offer a gay marriage amendment, attention would turn to Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to see whether they would support it. Schumer and Durbin are among Democratic authors of the bill and both sit on Leahy's committee. Both have expressed support for Leahy's goals on the gay marriage issue without saying how they would vote on his amendment.

Gay rights groups are lobbying aggressively for the gay marriage language to be included and they dispute suggestions that it would jeopardize the bill.

"It's not something that should be considered a poison pill or a hot potato," said Gregory T. Angelo, who runs the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans.

"There are 11 states and the District of Columbia that recognize relationships between committed same-sex couples," Angelo said in an interview. "These are individuals who are here legally, who are in marriages and who are denied the rights of their straight counterparts."

President Barack Obama included a provision recognizing gay partnerships in his own immigration bill, but he has made it clear in recent comments that the Senate measure meets his criteria for an immigration overhaul, even without the provision.

In another development, more than two dozen conservative leaders have signed on to a statement supporting action to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, calling the Senate bill an "important starting point."

In a statement being released Thursday, the officials said: "Simply opposing immigration reform should not be the conservative response to this problem. We believe conservatives should be leading the way on this issue by supporting legislation that upholds conservative principles."

The statement was organized by Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher and Josh Lederman contributed to this report.

"Its incredible, you just try to live an honest genuine life and the next thing you know, you've got the president calling you," he told ABC's Good Morning America on Tuesday.

Collins said President Barack Obama had been encouraging in the telephone conversation.

"He was incredibly supportive and said he was proud of me and said this not only affected my life but others going forward," he said.

Asked about the scale of reaction to his decision to come out, Collins said: "That's kind of mind-boggling... I never set out to be the first," he said.

"I'm ready to raise my hand but, you know, you still look around like, 'OK, come on guys.'

"It's time for someone else in the room to raise their hand and say: 'You know what? Yeah, so big deal. I can still play basketball. I can still help the team win, and that's what's most important,'" he added.

The 34-year-old center revealed his sexuality in an article published by Sports Illustrated on Monday and said he was glad that he was now 'out'.

"I know that I, right now, am the happiest that I've ever been in my life," he said.

"A huge weight has been lifted. I've already been out to my family and my friends, but just to, you know, sort of rip the Band-Aid off and come out on my own terms."

Collins is currently a free agent after spending last season with the Boston Celtics and Washington Wizards but said he expects future team-mates to welcome him.

"From my team-mates I am expecting support because that is what I would do for my team-mates, team is like a family and the NBA is like a brotherhood and I am looking it at that we will all support each other on and off the court," he said.

Asked about what advice he would give to a young gay man hoping to make it in the NBA, Collins said he should focus on the game.

"It doesn't matter that you are gay but the key thing is - its about basketball. Its about working hard, its about sacrificing for your team," he said.

Collins could well be the first of several gay players in top sports to come out but he said everyone's decision on how open to be was based on their own circumstances.

"I hope that every player makes a decision that leads to their own happiness. I know that I, right now am the happiest I have been in my life," he said.

(Reporting by Simon Evans, editing by Justin Palmer)

LONDON (Reuters) - Human cases of a deadly new strain of bird flu that has killed 27 people in China are likely to crop up in Europe and around the world but that should not cause undue alarm, Europe's leading flu expert said on Thursday.

In his first media interview since returning from an international scientific mission to China last week, Professor Angus Nicoll said the H7N9 flu outbreak in humans was one that should be taken extremely seriously and watched closely.

"We are at the start of a very long haul with H7N9," Nicoll told Reuters in a telephone interview from the Stockholm-based European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), where he is head of the influenza and respiratory viruses program.

He said there were many scientific questions to be answered about the new flu strain, which was first detected in patients in China in March having been previously unknown in humans.

The flu has so far infected at least 127 people in China and killed 27 of them, according to latest data from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization.

Scientific studies of the virus have established it is being transmitted from birds - probably mostly chickens - to people, making it a so-called zoonotic disease that humans catch from animals rather than from other humans.

Nicoll, who visited Beijing and Shanghai last week with a team of international scientific experts, confirmed what the WHO has repeatedly said - that there is no evidence yet of the virus efficiently passing from person to person - a factor that would make H7N9 a serious pandemic flu threat if it were to evolve.

Nicoll said the "most pressing public health question" for now was to identify the source of the circulating virus - the so-called "reservoir" - that is leading to chickens contracting it and sporadically passing it on to humans. This is likely to take time, with any results unlikely for several months.

"IMPORTED CASES"

In the meantime, Nicoll said the ECDC, which monitors disease in the European Union, and health authorities around the world should expect that "imported cases" of H7N9 flu may well begin to crop up elsewhere.

Just as Taiwan reported its first case on April 24, other countries should expect that business travelers and tourists may occasionally return from China having picked up the infection, he said.

"I'm not sure when that will happen. But the case in Taiwan shows that it can. If that person had got on a different flight and ended up in Paris, then we would have had a scenario that we would expect people to be alarmed at," he said.

"But again we should stress that this thing doesn't seem to be transmissible from human to human, so if we get some sporadic cases appearing in Europe, that doesn't change anything."

Nicoll noted that genetic analysis studies of H7N9 samples taken from patients in China showed the virus had already acquired two genetic mutations that made it more likely to be able to become transmissible between people.

Flu experts speaking at a briefing in London on Wednesday said those mutations, together with evidence that H7N9 is still mutating rapidly and probably spreading almost invisibly among birds because it does not make them obviously sick, meant this new flu was a "serious threat" to world health.

"You can never predict anything about flu, but it is concerning to see those mutations there, Nicoll said. "That's why it's important Europe should take this very seriously."

Nicoll added that he thought the Chinese were doing an "impressive job" handling, reporting, investigating and seeking to contain the outbreak.

(Editing by Alison Williams)

The 3-day-old baby was taken to a hill in the town of Colliguay near the Chilean port of Valparaiso on Nov. 21 and was thrown into a bonfire. The baby's mother, 25-year-old Natalia Guerra, had allegedly approved the sacrifice and was among those arrested.

"The baby was naked. They strapped tape around her mouth to keep her from screaming. Then they placed her on a board. After calling on the spirits they threw her on the bonfire alive," said Miguel Ampuero, of the Police investigative Unit, Chile's equivalent of the FBI.

Authorities said the 12-member sect was formed in 2005 and was led by Ramon Gustavo Castillo Gaete, 36, who remains at large.

"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "

Police said Castillo Gaete, the ringleader, was last seen traveling to Peru to buy ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic brew plant that he used to control the members of the rite.

__

Luis Andres Henao on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LuisAndresHenao

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Funding from drug companies and other potential conflicts of interest did not influence the conclusions reached by researchers testing new cancer treatments over the past few years, according to a new analysis.

But Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, who has looked into that issue at the Harvard School of Public Health, pointed out that other studies have shown the opposite.

"One study put against the mass of data suggesting the funding of the study does relate to the outcomes I don't think changes anything necessarily," Kesselheim, who wasn't involved in the new research, told Reuters Health.

The new report, which assessed publications in major cancer journals between 2008 and 2011, found the authors of more than two-thirds of the 150 trials had at least one conflict of interest.

However, only a given trial's results - and not who funded it - influenced their conclusions, the study team wrote Monday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

One past study suggested transparency rules at medical journals were all over the map - and some didn't have clear policies about reporting conflicts of interest at all (see Reuters Health story of June 22, 2011 here: http://reut.rs/n7NxRy ).

Many journals have firmed up their policies in recent years, which the new findings suggest may be having a positive effect, Kesselheim said.

"I would agree with the authors that based on their study, the financial disclosure information that authors are now required to provide for most credible medical journals does impact their writing (and) how they present data," said Dr. David Johnson, head of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine in Dallas.

"All transparency can be beneficial," he added.

Industry affiliations may still affect what authors highlight or downplay about their findings, he pointed out, as well as whether certain trial data are published at all.

Dr. Rachel Riechelmann from the Instituto do Cancer do Estado in Sao Paulo, Brazil and her colleagues analyzed 150 trials and linked editorials on experimental treatments for a range of cancers.

Overall, just over half of those trials were funded by industry and 69 percent had a conflict of interest listed for at least one researcher.

Close to 55 percent of the trials found the experimental therapy worked. In their discussion of the findings, authors were "positive" or "highly positive" about the treatment in question for 51 to 53 percent of trials, regardless of whether they had reported a conflict of interest, Riechelmann and hear team wrote.

Unlike in some previous analyses, they said, the new data suggest conflicts of both researchers and editorial writers "did not influence their interpretation of trial results."

BE CAUTIOUS

Johnson, who wrote a commentary published with the report, said doctors should still be cautious about new research and closely evaluate how studies were conducted - whether or not they were funded by a drug company.

"I think we should always maintain a level of healthy skepticism when new reports emerge about a new therapy," he told Reuters Health.

Johnson said doctors and researchers should wait for second and third studies backing up the first before moving forward with a new treatment - and then "remain vigilant" for any worrisome findings that may come later.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/ZU7Yeu Journal of Clinical Oncology, online April 29, 2013.

268 Billy Horschel (U.S.)67 71 66 64

269 D.A. Points (U.S.) 66 68 70 65

271 Kyle Stanley (U.S.)72 67 65 67

273 Bobby Gates (U.S.) 67 70 70 66

Lucas Glover (U.S.)65 67 70 71

274 Boo Weekley (U.S.) 65 68 73 68

Harris English (U.S.)68 70 69 67

275 Aaron Watkins (U.S.) 71 69 70 65

John Peterson (U.S.) 71 67 70 67

Nicolas Colsaerts (Belgium)70 68 70 67

Lee Dong-Hwan (South Korea)70 70 68 67

Luke Guthrie (U.S.)67 71 69 68

Kevin Stadler (U.S.) 68 72 65 70

Jimmy Walker (U.S.)67 71 66 71

276 Bubba Watson (U.S.)73 65 72 66

Ernie Els (South Africa) 67 69 72 68

Peter Tomasulo (U.S.)73 67 68 68

Justin Rose (Britain)68 69 70 69

Nick Watney (U.S.) 69 69 69 69

Henrik Norlander (Sweden)71 70 65 70

277 Brandt Jobe (U.S.) 70 70 69 68

Retief Goosen (South Africa) 71 70 68 68

Steve LeBrun (U.S.)70 68 72 67

Morgan Hoffmann (U.S.) 66 69 73 69

Richard Lee (U.S.) 70 69 69 69

Chris Kirk (U.S.)67 72 69 69

David Hearn (Canada) 71 69 68 69

Joey Snyder III (U.S.) 72 67 72 66

Ken Duke (U.S.)70 69 68 70

Ken Looper (U.S.)73 66 67 71

278 Luke List (U.S.) 71 70 68 69

279 Ryan Palmer (U.S.) 70 70 69 70

Fabian Gomez (Argentina) 71 70 68 70

Doug LaBelle II (U.S.) 70 67 73 69

Brian Davis (Britain)68 69 73 69

Brendan Steele (U.S.)70 71 70 68

Stephen Ames (Canada)67 72 69 71

Matt Every (U.S.)68 72 71 68

Rickie Fowler (U.S.) 67 73 71 68

Matt Jones (Australia) 67 71 73 68

Tommy Gainey (U.S.)68 71 73 67

280 Jeff Overton (U.S.)73 68 69 70

Rod Pampling (Australia) 71 70 67 72

Jason Dufner (U.S.)70 71 67 72

Scott Brown (U.S.) 69 71 72 68

Ricky Barnes (U.S.)64 76 66 74

281 Andrew Svoboda (U.S.)70 70 69 72

Sean O'Hair (U.S.) 70 70 70 71

Roberto Castro (U.S.)71 70 68 72

Derek Ernst (U.S.) 73 67 70 71

Jerry Kelly (U.S.) 70 67 71 73

George McNeill (U.S.)74 67 70 70

Hunter Haas (U.S.) 72 69 70 70

Stuart Appleby (Australia) 70 70 71 70

Michael Letzig (U.S.)72 68 72 69

Jason Bohn (U.S.)68 71 73 69

David Toms (U.S.)72 68 73 68

Graham DeLaet (Canada) 68 71 74 68

282 Chad Campbell (U.S.) 68 71 72 71

Jason Kokrak (U.S.)68 71 73 70

Chris DiMarco (U.S.) 68 70 75 69

283 J.J. Henry (U.S.)68 72 72 71

284 Jeff Maggert (U.S.)70 67 73 74

285 Gary Woodland (U.S.) 68 70 73 74

286 Steven Bowditch (Australia)73 67 71 75

Greg Chalmers (Australia)70 71 71 74

Trevor Immelman (South Africa) 68 73 71 74

287 Lee Williams (U.S.)70 71 73 73

288 Colt Knost (U.S.)72 68 74 74

289 Jonas Blixt (Sweden) 71 69 74 75

292 Guan Tianlang (China)72 69 77 74

Karlyn Tilley, a spokeswoman for the Golden Fire Department, tells The Denver Post (http://bit.ly/10EYRgW ) the man was climbing with his two adult children while using technical gear at a popular cliff about 20 miles west of Denver. She says he fell at about 1 p.m. Saturday.

About a dozen climbers who were nearby helped with the rescue and brought the man off the mountain within an hour of the fall.

Tilley says the man was unresponsive and not breathing when paramedics arrived.

___

Information from: The Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com

I can understand that broad sentiment, since our tech pundits often seem to come in only two varieties: wild-eyed optimists and alarmist skeptics. Each responds to the ideas of the other with maximum hyperbole: optimists are branded nave or delusional, skeptics swiftly labeled luddites and enemies ofprogress. We could use a less hysterical approach. Instead, Morozov belittles both sides, repeatedly and caustically, in his new book To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. Arriving on the scene of a brawl, he breaks it up with a flamethrower.

Thats too bad, because scattered among the sneering potshots and distracting takedowns are a number of potentially useful ideas that never quite get fully explored. Broadly, Morozov finds most public thinkers on matters of technology and the Internet whether utopian or alarmist think too narrowly. His wider perspective, grounded in something closer to philosophical inquiry than traditional punditry, leads him to question what we even mean by technology and the Internet.

That sounds obtuse, but its actually important to his most consistent theme, which is that we often ascribe a kind of independent agency to what are in fact tools and systems shaped by human decisions. The Internet is often believed to possess an inherent nature, a logic, a teleology, and that nature is rapidly unfolding in front of us, he writes, sketching out the problem with this point of view: We can just stand back and watch; the Internet will take care of itselfand us. If your privacy disappears in the process, this is simply what the Internet gods wanted all along.

Pushing back against this fatalism is, to me, Morozovs most crucial message. I happened to pick up his book just as Google was settling a case brought against the company by 38 states, admitting to violating the privacy of computer users by collecting data available over unencrypted WiFi networks via its Street View program. Did this happen simply because technology is what it is, or because of how someone chose to use technology without any prior debate? As The Times observed, this effort (greenlighted by a midlevel engineer) exemplified the mantra common among tech companies whose profitable pursuits bump up against social norms. That strategy is certainly better for those companies particularly, as in this case, when forgiveness can be had for $7 million and a promise to take privacy more seriously but is it better for the rest of us? (And by the way, would we want, say, pharmaceutical companies to operate under this ethos?)

Morozovs other arguments about the danger of believing in the Internet (he always puts it in quotes) as some sort of independent and un-shapeable entity move in many directions too many to summarize here. In some cases his examples are lucid, as when he addresses the search and trending topics algorithms of Google and Twitter: While they produce results that appear to be beyond question, they are in fact merely the byproduct of algorithms shaped by one group of people, gamed by others and (despite their potential public impact) proprietary and non-transparent to everyone else.

He also makes useful points about solutionism, a term he borrows from the planning and design world to describe a tendency to identify problems solely through what can be drastically changed by using the latest tools at hand. (So if Wikipedia seems more efficient than government, maybe government should be more like Wikipedia!) Morozov is effective in undercutting that sort of thinking. But in other cases he raises provocative ideas without really making a persuasive case. This is where his penchant for eviscerating other commentators, as the book grinds on, gets in the way. If youre going to argue for the important roles that subjectivity, inefficiency, and ignorance play in culture, take the time to back it up convincingly, over more than a couple of paragraphs. If youre going to ask Why alter our conception of privacy if we can regulate Facebook and Google?, then work through what that might actually look like. And ease up on the one-liners about Jeff Jarvis.

Morozov is extremely erudite, and when focused on making a sustained argument on a specific subject, he can be brilliant: Hisfor The New Republic is probably the best thing Ive ever read about Apple, and thats saying something. But I cant imagine To Save Everything, Click Here changing many minds, let alone the terms of the discussions we ought to be having about technology. See, for example, Morozovs recent debate with Farhad Manjoo on Slate: Over the course of four long posts, the two simply talk past each other, agreeing only on a dislike of Jeff Jarvis. Depressing.

Theres nothing wrong with exposing the weaknesses in others arguments on the way to making your own. Despite Morozovs talent as an original thinker, he seems more interested here in his talent as a crafter of zingers, which eventually feel less like a means than an end. While we cant rid the world of people who want to fix politics, he observes at one point in the book, we can at least ridicule those who want to do so by subjecting politics to lessons learned from Wikipedia. Okay, but framing the choices as getting rid of opponents or ridiculing them pretty much guarantees that the debate will slog along just as before, as un-grand as ever.*.

King continues:

“The Greensboro gathering had other organizations involved who demand that more be done to put an end to Childhood Sexual Molestation to include Guardians of the Children, a biker group that helps protect child victims, and Fighters Against Child Abuse and Bullying, North Carolina-East Coast.

“Mrs. Sonys McTillmon was the coordinator for Greensboro which was one of 200+ cities, representing all 50 states, that took part in this initial nationwide endeavor.

“Bee Wise Kids is looking forward to connecting with as many MACA city organizers as possible to help put in place our program nationwide to ensure that prevention will be the priority in each city that hosted a MACA event and bring greater awareness to the Bee Wise Children’s Critical Life Skills Curriculum.

According to King:

“Childhood Sexual Molestation has now reached epidemic proportions around the world, greatly assisted by the modern Internet as pedophiles and child traffickers are better able to stay ahead of authorities, yet despite the heightened danger, most Childhood Sexual Molestation is still predicated not by strangers lurking in the shadows, but, sadly, primarily by trusted relatives, authority figures and family friends.

“Parents and leaders are often not aware of the dangers children face and are not aware of how to educate their children in how to protect themselves, and that is what the Bee Wise Kids curriculum addresses.

“I believe that it is this practical ‘educating and enabling’ factor of the BEE WISE KIDS education curriculum that is drawing the attention and support of parents and religious leaders from across the nation, to include Raleigh’s Pastor Shirley Caesar, ‘Queen of Gospel Music’, (), who are willing to challenge the traditional ‘veil of silence’ to educate children, parents and institutions in an effort to combat this ever present danger to children.”

About BEE WISE KIDS’ Creator, Raymond King:

Raymond S. King Jr. and his wife, Susan King, felt a special calling to develop the BEE WISE KIDS program after recognizing the destruction to people’s lives caused by Childhood Sexual Molestation. He is active as a public speaker, traveling regularly across the US to address audiences of both young people and adults. He can be heard on his weekly radio program at

King actually lives a “double life” as a religious educator and an entrepreneur, owner of Products Plus, a manufacturing company for natural-based personal care products to include Ultimate Desire for Men ED formula, Simplee Natural Moisturizing Crème and IPF Pain Relief Lotion, all available from Amazon. Part of the profits from his product sales goes to support his ministry.

Contact:

Raymond King / Bee Wise Kids

Tel 336-215-7978

1315 Headquarters Dr

Greensboro, NC 27405

info(at)beewisekids(dot)org

About Lexis Global Marketing:

Lexis Global Marketing LLC (LGM) works with client companies to develop and implement their marketing programs, strategies and reputation management, both domestically and internationally.

LGM is a supporter of Raymond King’s BEE WISE KIDS program and applauds its ability to make a positive difference in so many people’s lives through its ground-up approach to reach and educate parents and local leaders, and to empower the children themselves.

Lexis Global Marketing LLC

David Amos, Director

Tel 336-817-7376

email: CustomerService(at)LexisGlobalMarketing(dot)com

319-B S Main St #154

Kernersville, NC 27284

www.LexisGlobalNews.comLexis Global News336-817-7376