Bug spray likely killed infant, injured 2 in SC - By SEANNA ADCOX (Associated Press Writer) - 11/2/09
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Bug spray that produces a fog to kill insects is likely to blame for the death of a 10-month-old South Carolina boy, and his 2-year-old brother was critically injured by the fumes, authorities said Monday. Anderson County Deputy Coroner Don McCown said the boys' mother had been using foggers in their single-wide mobile home in Williamston, in the northwest part of the state, because of an insect problem. Elizabeth Whitfield, 25, called 911 on Sunday afternoon to report her youngest son was having trouble breathing.
Paramedics took all three to a hospital, and Jacob Whitfield was pronounced dead. His brother, Kenneth, was flown to another hospital about 20 minutes north to Greenville, where he remained Monday on a respirator, but was starting to stabilize, McCown said.
Elizabeth Whitfield was coated in chemicals when she first arrived to the hospital and had to remove her clothes and take a shower. She was released Sunday, but was re-admitted to the ER on Monday with breathing problems, McCown said.
Investigators found seven fogger containers. She told authorities she set off three when she began renting a month ago, then continued using them when the insects wouldn't die.
"Most people put these foggers in - they do it one time a month or every couple of months. She was using two to three a week," McCown said. "She said she followed the directions, but you have to wonder. We can't attribute it to anything else."
A single fogger is typically used to treat 6,000 cubic feet and can leave an oily residue on furniture and floors. Directions call for residents to cover all furniture, vacate the home for four hours, then open windows and doors for an hour before returning, he said.
While the pesticides appear to be the cause of death, confirmation through toxicology reports could take eight weeks. Other air quality tests turned up nothing. The baby was otherwise healthy with no signs of abuse or neglect, McCown said.
He said the home was located in a rural area and "pretty infested with insects, roaches. It was her goal to get rid of all of them."
"The stuff didn't seem to have too much effect on the bugs," he said. "They're still running everywhere."
The scent at the home was so strong authorities called in a hazardous materials team before entering. One deputy complained of headaches, McCown said.
Investigators initially focused on a grease fire, but tests showed that didn't play any role in the illnesses, McCown said.
"Right now, we're just concerned about them. We're hoping the 2-year-old can make a recovery and hope the mom will be OK," said Sheriff's Sgt. Steve Reeves.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
EPA Orders Chemical Testing for Hormone Effects
EPA Orders Chemical Testing for Hormone Effects
Release date: 10/29/2009
Contact Information: Skip Anderson, anderson.skip@epa.gov, 202-564-9551, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued the first test orders for pesticide chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interact with and disrupt the hormones produced or secreted by human and animal endocrine systems, which regulate growth, metabolism and reproduction.
“After years of delay, EPA is aggressively moving forward by ordering the testing of a number of pesticide chemicals for hormone effects,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. “These new data will be carefully evaluated to help identify potential hormone disruptor chemicals.”
On Oct. 21, EPA made available the battery of scientific assays and test guidelines for conducting the assays, as well as a schedule for issuing test orders to manufacturers for 67 chemicals during the next four months. The data generated from the screens will provide robust and systematic scientific information to help EPA identify whether additional testing is necessary, or whether other steps are necessary to address potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Testing, conducted through the agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, will eventually expand to cover all pesticide chemicals. Now that screening is under way for the first group of chemicals, EPA is preparing to review the responses, evaluate the data, determine the potential of endocrine interaction, and whether additional testing is necessary to guide further regulation.
The EDSP is the most comprehensive mandated testing program for hormone effects in the U.S. The program is the result of a multi-year effort that includes validation of the science through a transparent scientific review process.
More information about the screening program: http://www.epa.gov/endo
Release date: 10/29/2009
Contact Information: Skip Anderson, anderson.skip@epa.gov, 202-564-9551, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued the first test orders for pesticide chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interact with and disrupt the hormones produced or secreted by human and animal endocrine systems, which regulate growth, metabolism and reproduction.
“After years of delay, EPA is aggressively moving forward by ordering the testing of a number of pesticide chemicals for hormone effects,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. “These new data will be carefully evaluated to help identify potential hormone disruptor chemicals.”
On Oct. 21, EPA made available the battery of scientific assays and test guidelines for conducting the assays, as well as a schedule for issuing test orders to manufacturers for 67 chemicals during the next four months. The data generated from the screens will provide robust and systematic scientific information to help EPA identify whether additional testing is necessary, or whether other steps are necessary to address potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Testing, conducted through the agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, will eventually expand to cover all pesticide chemicals. Now that screening is under way for the first group of chemicals, EPA is preparing to review the responses, evaluate the data, determine the potential of endocrine interaction, and whether additional testing is necessary to guide further regulation.
The EDSP is the most comprehensive mandated testing program for hormone effects in the U.S. The program is the result of a multi-year effort that includes validation of the science through a transparent scientific review process.
More information about the screening program: http://www.epa.gov/endo
Sunday, November 1, 2009
FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken crap to cattle.
FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle - Food and consumer groups say the practice increases the risk of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease. A beef industry trade group say a ban isn't needed. By Jerry Hirsch - October 31, 2009.
A fight is brewing over the practice of feeding chicken feces and other poultry farm waste to cattle.
A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. McDonald's Corp., the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.
Members of the coalition are threatening to file a lawsuit or to push for federal legislation establishing such a ban if the FDA doesn't act to do so in the coming months.
Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates.
Using the litter -- which includes feces, spilled chicken feed, feathers and poultry farm detritus -- increases the risk of cows becoming infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union.
That's because the spilled chicken feed and the feces contain tissue from ruminants -- cows and sheep, among other mammals. The disease is transmitted through feeding ruminant remains to cattle.
"It takes a very small quantity of ruminant protein, even just 1 milligram, to cause an infection," said Steve Roach, public health program director with Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago-based animal welfare group that is part of the coalition.
Although it is rare, people can contract a fatal form of the disease by eating meat from cows with BSE.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the beef industry's main trade group, said the ban was not needed and that several FDA reviews had determined that the chance of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease from eating poultry litter was remote.
"Science does not justify the ban, and the FDA has looked at this now many times," said Elizabeth Parker, chief veterinarian for the trade group.
Parker noted that the FDA this year banned the use of certain types of tissue from any form of animal feed, even that eaten by chickens. Those tissues include brain, spinal cord material and other high-risk tissues where the pathogens believed to cause mad cow disease typically are found. The tissue ban greatly reduces chances that prions, implicated in mad cow, can find their way into the food chain, Parker said. She also said the disease was not a threat to public health.
"We have tested 800,000 cattle in recent years and have not found any evidence of BSE circulating in the herd," Parker said.
But others remain concerned.
"I still think you need to totally restrict using any ruminant protein in feed that gets back to ruminants," said Linda Detwiler, a food safety consultant and former U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian.
Prohibiting high-risk tissues as a feed source makes the chances of transmitting mad cow disease through poultry litter low but does not remove all risk, Detwiler said.
The practice also makes McDonald's, one of the nation's biggest beef purchasers, nervous. "We do not condone the feeding of poultry litter to cattle," it said in a statement.
The issue has kicked around since the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was discovered almost six years ago in an animal imported from Canada. There have been two known indigenous cases of mad cow infections in domestic cattle since then, but both were in animals born before the enactment of stricter regulation of feed.
Generally, the FDA has left the decision on whether to feed cattle poultry litter up to state regulators. California allows the practice with one exception: Poultry litter is banned in feed for lactating dairy cows.
In 2004, the FDA announced its intention to prohibit the use of poultry litter in cattle feed, but after reviewing the proposed ban decided against it. The agency said its rules prohibiting the use of high-risk tissues in all animal feed were sufficient to keep mad cow pathogens from reaching poultry feed. The FDA also said there was little risk to human or cattle health from the other components of poultry litter.
"With respect to pathogenic microorganisms, drug residues and contaminants in poultry litter, FDA is not aware of any data showing that the use of poultry litter in cattle feed is posing human or animal health risks that warrant restrictions on its use," the agency said.
But Hansen, the Consumers Union scientist, said that besides the mad cow risk, the feed can contain disease-causing bacteria, antibiotics and even foreign objects such as dead rodents, rocks, nails and glass.
Such hazards are not eliminated by any processing of the feed that might occur, he said.
Feeding farm animals feces may sound gross, but it goes back to the dawn of animal agriculture, said Dean Cliver, professor emeritus of food safety at UC Davis.
"In the old days when people had mixed farms, what came out the back end of the cows was eaten by pigs, and what came out the end of pigs was eaten by chickens. That was the natural way of farming," he said. "Anything that hit the ground was fair game." jerry.hirsch@latimes.com
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-feed31-2009oct31,0,1227725.story&ct=ga&cd=dfQ5DYmHUgM&usg=AFQjCNEsS1gMcFyHo454td84V81HQQx2Vg
A fight is brewing over the practice of feeding chicken feces and other poultry farm waste to cattle.
A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. McDonald's Corp., the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.
Members of the coalition are threatening to file a lawsuit or to push for federal legislation establishing such a ban if the FDA doesn't act to do so in the coming months.
Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates.
Using the litter -- which includes feces, spilled chicken feed, feathers and poultry farm detritus -- increases the risk of cows becoming infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union.
That's because the spilled chicken feed and the feces contain tissue from ruminants -- cows and sheep, among other mammals. The disease is transmitted through feeding ruminant remains to cattle.
"It takes a very small quantity of ruminant protein, even just 1 milligram, to cause an infection," said Steve Roach, public health program director with Food Animal Concerns Trust, a Chicago-based animal welfare group that is part of the coalition.
Although it is rare, people can contract a fatal form of the disease by eating meat from cows with BSE.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn., the beef industry's main trade group, said the ban was not needed and that several FDA reviews had determined that the chance of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease from eating poultry litter was remote.
"Science does not justify the ban, and the FDA has looked at this now many times," said Elizabeth Parker, chief veterinarian for the trade group.
Parker noted that the FDA this year banned the use of certain types of tissue from any form of animal feed, even that eaten by chickens. Those tissues include brain, spinal cord material and other high-risk tissues where the pathogens believed to cause mad cow disease typically are found. The tissue ban greatly reduces chances that prions, implicated in mad cow, can find their way into the food chain, Parker said. She also said the disease was not a threat to public health.
"We have tested 800,000 cattle in recent years and have not found any evidence of BSE circulating in the herd," Parker said.
But others remain concerned.
"I still think you need to totally restrict using any ruminant protein in feed that gets back to ruminants," said Linda Detwiler, a food safety consultant and former U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian.
Prohibiting high-risk tissues as a feed source makes the chances of transmitting mad cow disease through poultry litter low but does not remove all risk, Detwiler said.
The practice also makes McDonald's, one of the nation's biggest beef purchasers, nervous. "We do not condone the feeding of poultry litter to cattle," it said in a statement.
The issue has kicked around since the first U.S. case of mad cow disease was discovered almost six years ago in an animal imported from Canada. There have been two known indigenous cases of mad cow infections in domestic cattle since then, but both were in animals born before the enactment of stricter regulation of feed.
Generally, the FDA has left the decision on whether to feed cattle poultry litter up to state regulators. California allows the practice with one exception: Poultry litter is banned in feed for lactating dairy cows.
In 2004, the FDA announced its intention to prohibit the use of poultry litter in cattle feed, but after reviewing the proposed ban decided against it. The agency said its rules prohibiting the use of high-risk tissues in all animal feed were sufficient to keep mad cow pathogens from reaching poultry feed. The FDA also said there was little risk to human or cattle health from the other components of poultry litter.
"With respect to pathogenic microorganisms, drug residues and contaminants in poultry litter, FDA is not aware of any data showing that the use of poultry litter in cattle feed is posing human or animal health risks that warrant restrictions on its use," the agency said.
But Hansen, the Consumers Union scientist, said that besides the mad cow risk, the feed can contain disease-causing bacteria, antibiotics and even foreign objects such as dead rodents, rocks, nails and glass.
Such hazards are not eliminated by any processing of the feed that might occur, he said.
Feeding farm animals feces may sound gross, but it goes back to the dawn of animal agriculture, said Dean Cliver, professor emeritus of food safety at UC Davis.
"In the old days when people had mixed farms, what came out the back end of the cows was eaten by pigs, and what came out the end of pigs was eaten by chickens. That was the natural way of farming," he said. "Anything that hit the ground was fair game." jerry.hirsch@latimes.com
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-feed31-2009oct31,0,1227725.story&ct=ga&cd=dfQ5DYmHUgM&usg=AFQjCNEsS1gMcFyHo454td84V81HQQx2Vg
Losing our Food Freedom.
Losing our Food Freedom - by Sheila Velazquez / October 31st, 2009
Food Security Now is circulating a petition to be presented to President Obama. I have signed and passed it on to growers and supporters of organic and sustainably grown food. If you want control of our food supply in the hands of corporate agricultural, stop here. If you want our food supply to become safer and more secure, read on and sign the petition.
Dear President Obama,
We urge you to withdraw the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator and to reconsider your support of Roger Beachy as director of the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Siddiqui is CropLife’s current vice president of science and regulatory affairs, and until last month, Beachy was the head of Monsanto’s de facto nonprofit research arm. As two textbook cases of the “revolving door” between industry and the agencies meant to keep watch, Siddiqui and Beachy’s industry ties demonstrate that both men are too beholden to corporate agriculture to serve the public interest.
Appointing Siddiqui to this critical post within the U.S. Trade Representative’s office sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. plans to continue down the worn and failed path of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture by pushing pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade arrangements on nations that do not want and can least afford them. Siddiqui’s professional record is revealing on several points:
Siddiqui was a paid lobbyist for 3 years for Croplife America, which represents the chemical pesticide and ag biotechnology interests. Members include Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta.
CropLife America’s regional partner had notoriously “shuddered” at Michelle Obama’s organic White House garden for failing to use chemical pesticides and launched a letter petition drive, urging the First Lady to consider using insecticides and herbicides in her garden.
CropLife America has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken and thwart international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins.
Siddiqui’s past service at the USDA included overseeing the initial development of national organic food standards that would have allowed GMOs and toxic sludge to be labeled “organic”— until over 230,000 consumers forced their revision.
As the global food crisis deepens and we head into the Doha round of trade talks at the WTO, the U.S. needs a lead negotiator who understands that the current configuration of trade agreements works neither for farmers nor for the world’s hungry. All eyes are on the U.S. to demonstrate international leadership in this arena by withdrawing support for an industrial model of agriculture that imperils both people and the planet, by undermining food security and worsening climate change.
In his capacity as director of NIFA, Roger Beachy will be in charge of the nation’s agricultural research agenda and purse strings for the next six years. Given Beachy’s previous career running the Danforth Plant Science Center, a nonprofit closely linked to and funded by Monsanto, we believe that billions more in government funding will be funneled into genetic engineering and chemical pesticide research. Meanwhile the real solutions to our growing agricultural problems, provided by sustainable and organic agriculture research, will suffer from a lack of federal funding and attention.
Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, agricultural biotechnology—of the kind aggressively promoted and marketed by CropLife— has failed to deliver on any of its promises of higher yields for U.S. farmers, “enhanced nutrition” or drought-resistance for developing country farmers. What Monsanto’s research agenda has yielded is skyrocketing herbicide use, resistant “super-weeds”, rising debt for farmers, polluted waterways, threats to the health of farmworkers and rural communities, and unparalleled corporate consolidation in the agrochemical and seed industries. The top 10 agribusinesses control 89% of the agrochemicals market, 66% of the modern biotech market and 67% of the global seed market.
With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Industrial agriculture—and Roger Beachy, Islam Siddiqui and CropLife in particular—favor none of these solutions.
While we appreciate your Administration’s recent gestures in support of local food systems, we fear these initiatives will not fulfill their potential unless the monopolistic power and political influence of the agricultural input industry is directly confronted. We therefore respectfully ask you to withdraw your appointments of Siddiqui and Beachy, and replace them with candidates who have a sustainable vision for U.S. agriculture and trade.
As parents, farmers, advocates, scientists and people who eat food, we remember your promise on the campaign trail: “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. It’s the Department of Agriculture. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.” We, the undersigned, are writing to hold you to that promise. http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/losing-our-food-freedom/
............................................................................
Learn How To Kill Pests Without Killing Yourself Or The Earth - http://www.thebestcontrol2.com
Food Security Now is circulating a petition to be presented to President Obama. I have signed and passed it on to growers and supporters of organic and sustainably grown food. If you want control of our food supply in the hands of corporate agricultural, stop here. If you want our food supply to become safer and more secure, read on and sign the petition.
Dear President Obama,
We urge you to withdraw the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator and to reconsider your support of Roger Beachy as director of the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Siddiqui is CropLife’s current vice president of science and regulatory affairs, and until last month, Beachy was the head of Monsanto’s de facto nonprofit research arm. As two textbook cases of the “revolving door” between industry and the agencies meant to keep watch, Siddiqui and Beachy’s industry ties demonstrate that both men are too beholden to corporate agriculture to serve the public interest.
Appointing Siddiqui to this critical post within the U.S. Trade Representative’s office sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. plans to continue down the worn and failed path of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture by pushing pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade arrangements on nations that do not want and can least afford them. Siddiqui’s professional record is revealing on several points:
Siddiqui was a paid lobbyist for 3 years for Croplife America, which represents the chemical pesticide and ag biotechnology interests. Members include Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta.
CropLife America’s regional partner had notoriously “shuddered” at Michelle Obama’s organic White House garden for failing to use chemical pesticides and launched a letter petition drive, urging the First Lady to consider using insecticides and herbicides in her garden.
CropLife America has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken and thwart international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins.
Siddiqui’s past service at the USDA included overseeing the initial development of national organic food standards that would have allowed GMOs and toxic sludge to be labeled “organic”— until over 230,000 consumers forced their revision.
As the global food crisis deepens and we head into the Doha round of trade talks at the WTO, the U.S. needs a lead negotiator who understands that the current configuration of trade agreements works neither for farmers nor for the world’s hungry. All eyes are on the U.S. to demonstrate international leadership in this arena by withdrawing support for an industrial model of agriculture that imperils both people and the planet, by undermining food security and worsening climate change.
In his capacity as director of NIFA, Roger Beachy will be in charge of the nation’s agricultural research agenda and purse strings for the next six years. Given Beachy’s previous career running the Danforth Plant Science Center, a nonprofit closely linked to and funded by Monsanto, we believe that billions more in government funding will be funneled into genetic engineering and chemical pesticide research. Meanwhile the real solutions to our growing agricultural problems, provided by sustainable and organic agriculture research, will suffer from a lack of federal funding and attention.
Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, agricultural biotechnology—of the kind aggressively promoted and marketed by CropLife— has failed to deliver on any of its promises of higher yields for U.S. farmers, “enhanced nutrition” or drought-resistance for developing country farmers. What Monsanto’s research agenda has yielded is skyrocketing herbicide use, resistant “super-weeds”, rising debt for farmers, polluted waterways, threats to the health of farmworkers and rural communities, and unparalleled corporate consolidation in the agrochemical and seed industries. The top 10 agribusinesses control 89% of the agrochemicals market, 66% of the modern biotech market and 67% of the global seed market.
With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Industrial agriculture—and Roger Beachy, Islam Siddiqui and CropLife in particular—favor none of these solutions.
While we appreciate your Administration’s recent gestures in support of local food systems, we fear these initiatives will not fulfill their potential unless the monopolistic power and political influence of the agricultural input industry is directly confronted. We therefore respectfully ask you to withdraw your appointments of Siddiqui and Beachy, and replace them with candidates who have a sustainable vision for U.S. agriculture and trade.
As parents, farmers, advocates, scientists and people who eat food, we remember your promise on the campaign trail: “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. It’s the Department of Agriculture. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.” We, the undersigned, are writing to hold you to that promise. http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/losing-our-food-freedom/
............................................................................
Learn How To Kill Pests Without Killing Yourself Or The Earth - http://www.thebestcontrol2.com
Dangers of Swine Flu Vaccine.......
If you didn't believe what's being said about the dangers of swine flu vaccine and the intent to reduce the world's population by two-thirds maybe you might believe the Minister of Health for Finland - who is naming names such as Rumsfeld. Hopefully this should help convince you.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTgyakGAddM
.................................................................................
Read How To Cure Disease -
http://www.stephentvedten.com/41_How_to_cure_disease.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTgyakGAddM
.................................................................................
Read How To Cure Disease -
http://www.stephentvedten.com/41_How_to_cure_disease.pdf
Friday, October 30, 2009
Vaccines in the News.
Nurses Got Sick From the Swine Flu Vaccine in Sweden
• UPDATE – 190 Adverse Reactions 1 Suspected Death
http://farmwars.info/?p=1783
Yesterday 30 people had been reporting to the authorities in Sweden that they experienced such severe side effects that they felt the need to contact a hospital. Today the number is 140. The swedish newspaper Expressen is the only one in Sweden reporting on these cases and as usual this is most likely only the tip of a rather large iceberg. UPDATE: According to Dagens Nyheter, the number of reported side effects are now a few hours later 190. 1 person dies after the injection but “no direct relation with the injection has been established”. The biggest medical scandal in the history of Sweden has just started...................
.......................................................................
Lots of accredited, certified health professionals speak out against vaccines in this 6 minute video --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctP8NnDhdn8
• UPDATE – 190 Adverse Reactions 1 Suspected Death
http://farmwars.info/?p=1783
Yesterday 30 people had been reporting to the authorities in Sweden that they experienced such severe side effects that they felt the need to contact a hospital. Today the number is 140. The swedish newspaper Expressen is the only one in Sweden reporting on these cases and as usual this is most likely only the tip of a rather large iceberg. UPDATE: According to Dagens Nyheter, the number of reported side effects are now a few hours later 190. 1 person dies after the injection but “no direct relation with the injection has been established”. The biggest medical scandal in the history of Sweden has just started...................
.......................................................................
Lots of accredited, certified health professionals speak out against vaccines in this 6 minute video --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctP8NnDhdn8
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
MONSANTO'S MUTATED WORLD AND THE FDA'S HUMAN EXPERIMENT.
MONSANTO'S MUTATED WORLD AND THE FDA'S HUMAN EXPERIMENT.
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
October 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
America’s sugar crop is under GMO assault and the FDA has begun a new era of human experimentation. America is in dire need of a new super hero – and he has arrived. It is Larry Leptin, defending your right to be healthy.
See Larry Leptin’s first episode: Halloween fun as he takes on the GMO mutated sugar beets.
Monsanto’s Toxic and Mutated World – Is Sugar Safe to Eat?
It should come as no surprise when a Monsanto product poisons the earth and our food. Our planet has never recovered from the forty-year Monsanto-led PCB contamination that was banned in the U.S. in 1977. To this day environmental PCBs continue to degrade into highly toxic furans and dioxins, wreaking all manner of human health problem. The new case in point involves several aspects: 1) the bizarre alteration of the nature of food itself by splicing viral, bacterial, and other life forms into the DNA of food (GMO seeds and crops), and 2) the massive increase in the use of glyphosate pesticide (Round Up), which is polluting the water, soil, and food across the globe. Both issues are extremely problematic to human health.
On September 21, 2009 a stunning shot was fired across the bow of Monsanto and its new legion of Frankenfood sugar beet growers. Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco said the Agriculture Department should have done an environmental impact statement as required by law. He said it should have assessed the consequences from the likely spread of the genetically engineered trait to other sugar beets or to the related crops of Swiss chard and red table beets. He said that the potential elimination of farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food constituted a significant effect on the environment that necessitated an environmental impact statement. The case is ongoing, with the next phase scheduled for October 30.
Meanwhile, Monsanto is attempting damage control during the second growing season of this genetic monstrosity masquerading as food. The judge hasn’t banned the current year’s crop or the sale of Halloween candy which is now full of GMO sugar. Of course, GMO sugar, like other GMO “foods,” doesn’t need to be labeled as such (because nobody in their right mind would buy it if it were). Half the refined sugar in the U.S. is from beets – and insiders say the industry has quickly converted to the GMO Frankenfood beets, estimating up to 95% of farmers are now using them.
Beet sugar is often mixed with cane sugar, meaning that unless a product lists the ingredient as cane sugar or organic cane sugar then it now likely contains GMO mutant beet-derived sugar.
Only the biotech industry and its financially-associated friends believe GMO Frankenfoods are safe to eat. The despicable management at the FDA approved them, while squashing and hiding from public view the numerous safety objections of their scientific staff. Common sense will tell virtually anyone that having foreign organism DNA spliced into the essence of food is an atrocity.
Earlier this year the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid genetically modified foods and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system…There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation.”
All of these Round Up ready Frankenfood crops are leading to unprecedented use of Round Up (glyphosate). In 1994 glyphosate pesticide use was 7.9 million pounds. By 2005, with the widespread use of Round Up, that number jumped to 119.1 million pounds. This is breeding super weeds that require ever increasing amounts of Round Up, not to mention other new “super toxic” pesticides just to keep up with the war on weeds. The environmental impact of glyphosate overuse has been reviewed in an article published by Organic Consumers Association.
In August of 2009 French researchers reviewed the evidence showing how glyphosates disrupt human reproductive hormones (androgens and estrogens). Their data indicates that glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed, and the environment should be considered and classified as carcinogens and reproductive toxins – not unlike the PCBs of years gone by. Once again Monsanto sits in the middle of the controversy with human health hanging in the balance.
Does anyone trust Monsanto?
Avoid GMO food like the plague. Don’t buy any product made with GMO food or any product made by a company that uses any GMO food. Demand that GMO food be labeled so that consumers have a clear choice. And look out for sugar, the latest food to undergo Frankenfood mutation.
The FDA’s Peramivir H1N1 Swine Flu Experiment
The FDA has now opened the door for widespread human experimentation during this year’s flu season, allowing an antiviral drug called Peramivir to be used even though it has not passed traditional standards of safety testing. Ever since the FDA crafted its Critical Path agenda it has been looking for excuses to expose vulnerable Americans to toxic drugs under the false pretense of the greater good for all. The H1N1 Swine Flu fear-mongering is providing the cover that the FDA needs to unleash an experiment. The new Obama FDA administration has accepted the baton pass from the recently departed Bush FDA management team (von Eschenbach, et al.).
Hypocrisy at the FDA runs deep in their culture. The organization fails to warn the public of the known immunosuppressive effects of commonly used drugs such as antacids and statins – drugs that have been shown to increase the risk for infection. At the same time, the FDA has branded all nutrition as fraud. What right does the FDA have to brand nutrition as fraud? Nutrition has been battling influenza since humans have been around. Without nutrition humans would have never survived any flu pandemic. Nutrition is harmless to human health and invaluable to survival. In the FDA’s mind it is illegal. Rather, human experimentation is now deemed legal by the FDA. It’s all about protecting and expanding the profits of Big Pharma and Big Biotech.
Like Tamiflu and Relenza, Peramivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor. Neuraminidase (the N part of H1N1) is a viral protein that must be active in order for new viruses to emerge from a virally infected cell. If it can be blocked, then viral spreading can be reduced.
Tamiflu and Relenza only bind to neuraminidase for a brief period of time, limiting their biological activity against a virus. In contrast, Peramivir binds very tightly to neuraminidase and is longer lasting – meaning it is a much more potent drug. The FDA has approved it for use in advanced Swine Flu cases that are not responding to Tamiflu or Relenza.
On the one hand, this sounds like a reasonable approach to helping people with extreme Swine Flu. What is likely to happen in actual practice is another matter entirely. Doctors will hear on the grapevine how well Peramivir seems to work and it will be used on more and more patients. And what’s wrong with that?
It is a human experiment. Human experiments are against the Nuremberg code, which has been agreed to by the world following the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Human experiments run counter to the basic decency and morality of any culture – except the culture of the FDA and its profit-driven pharmaceutical allies.
The problem with neuraminidase blocking is that there are four known human genes that utilize neuraminidase for normal and healthy cell function (NEU1, NEU2, NEU3, NEU4). The next problem is that these genes are not passive and secondary in cellular function. They regulate carbohydrate-related communication taking place on human cell membranes (glyconutrition and glycobiology). In other words, they are instrumentally involved in how cells talk to each other, as well as in many processes of a cell’s internal communication. Any neuraminidase blocking drug runs the risk of interfering with general communication needed for healthy cell function.
The adverse side effects of Tamiflu are in many cases rather extreme and include panic attacks, delusions, delirium, convulsions, depression, loss of consciousness, and even suicide. Oxford researchers have publicly warned that Tamiflu is not for children. Tamiflu is a relatively weak binder of neuraminidase.
What is going to happen when a strong binder of neuraminidase, Peramivir, latches on to the human cellular communication system based on neuraminidase genes? The FDA has no idea, but their unelected bureaucratic management team has decided in their infinite wisdom that the benefits outweigh the risks, even though they have no way of knowing. The era of sanctioned human experimentation is upon us.
What if there was a substance that blocked neuraminidase regarding viral activity and left human neuraminidase alone? Wow, what a breakthrough that would be. Welcome to the world of nutrition. The real fraud can be found in the management team of the FDA.
Sign up for Byron’s free e-newsletter and be in the know.
© 2009 Wellness Resources, Inc. - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron186.htm
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
October 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
America’s sugar crop is under GMO assault and the FDA has begun a new era of human experimentation. America is in dire need of a new super hero – and he has arrived. It is Larry Leptin, defending your right to be healthy.
See Larry Leptin’s first episode: Halloween fun as he takes on the GMO mutated sugar beets.
Monsanto’s Toxic and Mutated World – Is Sugar Safe to Eat?
It should come as no surprise when a Monsanto product poisons the earth and our food. Our planet has never recovered from the forty-year Monsanto-led PCB contamination that was banned in the U.S. in 1977. To this day environmental PCBs continue to degrade into highly toxic furans and dioxins, wreaking all manner of human health problem. The new case in point involves several aspects: 1) the bizarre alteration of the nature of food itself by splicing viral, bacterial, and other life forms into the DNA of food (GMO seeds and crops), and 2) the massive increase in the use of glyphosate pesticide (Round Up), which is polluting the water, soil, and food across the globe. Both issues are extremely problematic to human health.
On September 21, 2009 a stunning shot was fired across the bow of Monsanto and its new legion of Frankenfood sugar beet growers. Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco said the Agriculture Department should have done an environmental impact statement as required by law. He said it should have assessed the consequences from the likely spread of the genetically engineered trait to other sugar beets or to the related crops of Swiss chard and red table beets. He said that the potential elimination of farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food constituted a significant effect on the environment that necessitated an environmental impact statement. The case is ongoing, with the next phase scheduled for October 30.
Meanwhile, Monsanto is attempting damage control during the second growing season of this genetic monstrosity masquerading as food. The judge hasn’t banned the current year’s crop or the sale of Halloween candy which is now full of GMO sugar. Of course, GMO sugar, like other GMO “foods,” doesn’t need to be labeled as such (because nobody in their right mind would buy it if it were). Half the refined sugar in the U.S. is from beets – and insiders say the industry has quickly converted to the GMO Frankenfood beets, estimating up to 95% of farmers are now using them.
Beet sugar is often mixed with cane sugar, meaning that unless a product lists the ingredient as cane sugar or organic cane sugar then it now likely contains GMO mutant beet-derived sugar.
Only the biotech industry and its financially-associated friends believe GMO Frankenfoods are safe to eat. The despicable management at the FDA approved them, while squashing and hiding from public view the numerous safety objections of their scientific staff. Common sense will tell virtually anyone that having foreign organism DNA spliced into the essence of food is an atrocity.
Earlier this year the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid genetically modified foods and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system…There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation.”
All of these Round Up ready Frankenfood crops are leading to unprecedented use of Round Up (glyphosate). In 1994 glyphosate pesticide use was 7.9 million pounds. By 2005, with the widespread use of Round Up, that number jumped to 119.1 million pounds. This is breeding super weeds that require ever increasing amounts of Round Up, not to mention other new “super toxic” pesticides just to keep up with the war on weeds. The environmental impact of glyphosate overuse has been reviewed in an article published by Organic Consumers Association.
In August of 2009 French researchers reviewed the evidence showing how glyphosates disrupt human reproductive hormones (androgens and estrogens). Their data indicates that glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed, and the environment should be considered and classified as carcinogens and reproductive toxins – not unlike the PCBs of years gone by. Once again Monsanto sits in the middle of the controversy with human health hanging in the balance.
Does anyone trust Monsanto?
Avoid GMO food like the plague. Don’t buy any product made with GMO food or any product made by a company that uses any GMO food. Demand that GMO food be labeled so that consumers have a clear choice. And look out for sugar, the latest food to undergo Frankenfood mutation.
The FDA’s Peramivir H1N1 Swine Flu Experiment
The FDA has now opened the door for widespread human experimentation during this year’s flu season, allowing an antiviral drug called Peramivir to be used even though it has not passed traditional standards of safety testing. Ever since the FDA crafted its Critical Path agenda it has been looking for excuses to expose vulnerable Americans to toxic drugs under the false pretense of the greater good for all. The H1N1 Swine Flu fear-mongering is providing the cover that the FDA needs to unleash an experiment. The new Obama FDA administration has accepted the baton pass from the recently departed Bush FDA management team (von Eschenbach, et al.).
Hypocrisy at the FDA runs deep in their culture. The organization fails to warn the public of the known immunosuppressive effects of commonly used drugs such as antacids and statins – drugs that have been shown to increase the risk for infection. At the same time, the FDA has branded all nutrition as fraud. What right does the FDA have to brand nutrition as fraud? Nutrition has been battling influenza since humans have been around. Without nutrition humans would have never survived any flu pandemic. Nutrition is harmless to human health and invaluable to survival. In the FDA’s mind it is illegal. Rather, human experimentation is now deemed legal by the FDA. It’s all about protecting and expanding the profits of Big Pharma and Big Biotech.
Like Tamiflu and Relenza, Peramivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor. Neuraminidase (the N part of H1N1) is a viral protein that must be active in order for new viruses to emerge from a virally infected cell. If it can be blocked, then viral spreading can be reduced.
Tamiflu and Relenza only bind to neuraminidase for a brief period of time, limiting their biological activity against a virus. In contrast, Peramivir binds very tightly to neuraminidase and is longer lasting – meaning it is a much more potent drug. The FDA has approved it for use in advanced Swine Flu cases that are not responding to Tamiflu or Relenza.
On the one hand, this sounds like a reasonable approach to helping people with extreme Swine Flu. What is likely to happen in actual practice is another matter entirely. Doctors will hear on the grapevine how well Peramivir seems to work and it will be used on more and more patients. And what’s wrong with that?
It is a human experiment. Human experiments are against the Nuremberg code, which has been agreed to by the world following the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Human experiments run counter to the basic decency and morality of any culture – except the culture of the FDA and its profit-driven pharmaceutical allies.
The problem with neuraminidase blocking is that there are four known human genes that utilize neuraminidase for normal and healthy cell function (NEU1, NEU2, NEU3, NEU4). The next problem is that these genes are not passive and secondary in cellular function. They regulate carbohydrate-related communication taking place on human cell membranes (glyconutrition and glycobiology). In other words, they are instrumentally involved in how cells talk to each other, as well as in many processes of a cell’s internal communication. Any neuraminidase blocking drug runs the risk of interfering with general communication needed for healthy cell function.
The adverse side effects of Tamiflu are in many cases rather extreme and include panic attacks, delusions, delirium, convulsions, depression, loss of consciousness, and even suicide. Oxford researchers have publicly warned that Tamiflu is not for children. Tamiflu is a relatively weak binder of neuraminidase.
What is going to happen when a strong binder of neuraminidase, Peramivir, latches on to the human cellular communication system based on neuraminidase genes? The FDA has no idea, but their unelected bureaucratic management team has decided in their infinite wisdom that the benefits outweigh the risks, even though they have no way of knowing. The era of sanctioned human experimentation is upon us.
What if there was a substance that blocked neuraminidase regarding viral activity and left human neuraminidase alone? Wow, what a breakthrough that would be. Welcome to the world of nutrition. The real fraud can be found in the management team of the FDA.
Sign up for Byron’s free e-newsletter and be in the know.
© 2009 Wellness Resources, Inc. - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron186.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
