michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 7, 2007 12:17:58 GMT 4
Welcome to our new thread, Your Health and Wellness Part 1 of 2 I'll be posting what's good for you and what's bad for you.
Unfortunately, I must also post offical attempts and attacks on your health as in the following. The first part concerns US citizens. The second is for all Canadians...let's do hope I find opportunities for good news on these countless attempts to keep us from freedom of choice concerning our health.
THE FDA HAS BEEN WORKING OVERTIME [and it ain't in your favor]
For endless weeks, my head has been spinning trying to follow all that has been going on with the FDA using drug-related risk analysis for the safety of food and food ingredients (and thus dietary supplements). I've wanted to post info on this here at FH Forum, but I could never figure out where to put it and how to update news and public comment dates that kept changing. Hence this new thread on health and wellness.
Is the FDA trying to ban natural alternatives so that drug companies can have the full pie? People need to have the right to choose what they put in their bodies. This is not an issue that the FDA should decide. This is a matter of personal freedom. Natural alternative plays a large part in many cultures, including mine. Throughout my life I have taken very little medicine and I intend to keep it that way.
Why would the FDA go to the trouble of restating its guidelines if nothing has changed? The answer comes from the Natural Solutions Foundation: First, the term "CAM" has been redefined and is used in the Guidance to mean "Complementary and Alternative MEDICINE" rather than the more generic "Complementary and Alternative MODALITIES". The difference is significant, as we have written before, because the redefinition of these practices and the products as MEDICINE may be interpreted by an agency hostile to all competitors to drug based medicine to mean that only licensed physicians may carry out these practices. The products which support these practices, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs, juices, berries, holy water, organic foods, nuts, grapes, coconut oil, or whatever, which are used to support the procedures and intended to bring about healthy states become, under this guidance, "CAM products". As CAM products, if they are being used with the intent to bring about health impacts or benefits, they are classified as untested drugs. In the US and elsewhere, untested drugs are illegal and people or organizations selling, recommending or making claims for them are committing a crime. The "Guidance" makes it clear that "CAM products" will be classified as untested drugs if the intent behind their use is to heal, cure, treat or mitigate illness or to create health. The standard for regulation has been changed from use to INTENT! The FDA now gives itself the right to determine WHY you used, bought, recommended, provided or produced this substance.
Here's an example of what could happen: The document attempts to define how vegetable juice might be defined as a drug, "This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health, that product is a food subject to the requirements for food in the Act and FDA regulations...If the juice therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen instead of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would be subject to regulation as a drug under the Act."
The FDA defines a drug as "...(B) articles intended for the use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
What the FDA is stating is that they believe that any person (or product) that states "drink some vegetable juice to prevent [insert disease]" is actually making a drug claim; and if vegetable juice is not recognized by the FDA as a legally available drug in the United States, the person (or manufacturer) making the claim is now subject to prosecution if they are not a medical professional licensed to practice medicine.
Who is going to fund a $50,000 investigational new drug application to get carrot juice approved as a drug, or the follow-on millions in research dollars to conduct a study on the toxicity ($200,000) and efficacy of carrot juice ($3 million and up.) Keep in mind this would have to be done separately for any disease process carrot juice might have an impact on.
For your convenience, the following site has the link to the actual FDA Docket for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration".
www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/06d-0480-gld0001.pdf
This is the Agency responsible for just recently allowing 700 million tons of wheat (gluten) from China into the American pet food industry & killing our pets. Do we trust them to "Regulate" our God given Health Freedoms?
Keep in mind that the FDA is the same agency that:
* Wants to label irradiated foods as "pasteurized." * Voted to put the deadly drug Vioxx back on the market after tens of thousands of deaths, even after its own manufacturer pulled it from pharmacies. * Raided a church at gunpoint, confiscating biofeedback machines and charging that they were "practicing medicine" by counseling church members on issues like depression. * Openly allows corrupt, "on the take" experts to vote on new drug approvals, even when those experts are taking money from the same companies impacted by their votes. * Refuses to legalize stevia, the safe, natural herbal sweetener that's used virtually everywhere else in the world. The agenda? Protect the profits of aspartame and other chemical sweeteners. * Openly allows the mass poisoning of the public with cancer-causing food additives such as sodium nitrite. * Refuses to enforce its own laws regarding unsafe chemical toxins in personal care products, allowing perfume and lotion companies to continue poisoning the public with cancer-causing chemicals that don't even have to be listed on the label, nor proven safe. * Ordered the destruction of recipe books that mentioned stevia. (A campaign to keep the public ignorant of the herb.) * Does everything in its power to protect drug company profits, including discrediting herbs, supplements and alternative medicine. According to a survey published by the Consumer Reports National Research Center:
CONSUMER REPORTS SURVEY FINDS MOST U.S. CITIZENS HEAVILY DISSATISFIED WITH FDA
*4 out of 5 Americans think big pharmaceutical companies have too much control over the FDA. *96 percent believe the government should have the power to require warning labels on drugs with known safety problems. *According to Consumer Reports, "Right now, the Food and Drug Administration must negotiate safety warning labels with a drug maker." *84 percent believe that advertisements for prescription drugs with safety concerns should be outlawed. *92 percent oppose the FDA's practice of allowing drug companies to submit only positive clinical trials of new drugs while burying negative drug trial results. *93 percent are troubled by the fact that the FDA has no power to do follow-up safety studies of drugs after they have been allowed to enter the market.
OK, enough from me. Here's the skinny on the FDA and Congress. AND....there's actually some GOOD news at the end! ....MichelleUNDERSTANDING THE THREAT TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS - PART 2 (May 16) The threat is still there!By Byron J. Richards, CCN May 16, 2007 NewsWithViews.com Senators were taken off guard by the public outrage over the passing of bill S.1082 with language that can be used to seriously harass dietary supplements by enabling the FDA to apply drug-related risk analysis to the safety of food and food ingredients (and thus dietary supplements). Senators are also struggling to defend the fact they enabled the creation of the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, having been conned into believing this foundation was for the purpose of improved safety when in fact its mission is to assist the FDA to develop the next generation of drugs with drastically reduced safety or effectiveness testing. These issues are fully explained in Part 1 of this article, if you would like to know the details in greater depth. This week the Senate has unleashed a damage control campaign, sending out numerous e-mails to those who have been complaining over the past few weeks. The goal of these letters is to calm apprehensions about dietary supplements and seek to convince everyone that dietary supplements are not in any danger. I thank those of you who have sent me your Senator’s spin, and no letter was better than the one I received from my Senator, Norm Coleman (R-MN). I am taking the liberty of answering his form letter publicly, as it is reflective of the arguments the Senate is using to confuse and pacify the American public. The following Coleman statements are extracted from his e-mail. Coleman: I am very concerned with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) efficiency in reviewing prescriptions drugs as well as its track record on appropriate enforcement. Richards: Then why didn’t you vote for the Grassley and Durbin amendments that would have given some real meaning to drug safety at the FDA? And why didn’t you or any one of your colleagues raise a single question about the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA and its desire to help the FDA bring drugs to the market with far less safety and effectiveness testing? Coleman: I understand that concerns have been raised regarding the bill's proposal for the Reagan-Udall Foundation and dietary supplements. First, I want to assure you that this bill does not regulate or restrict access to dietary supplements in any way. Richards: It is true that the bill does not directly state that it intends to regulate or restrict access to dietary supplements. However, language within the section establishing the Regan-Udall Foundation grants the FDA new regulatory power to brand food ingredients (and thus dietary supplements) as unsafe utilizing the Critical Path Initiative drug-related risk assessment technology. Coleman: Second, the bill would establish the Reagan-Udall Foundation as a non-government entity that would have no control over the FDA, industry, or consumers. Richards: Excuse me Senator – did you read the bill? The board of directors is composed of the Commissioner of the FDA, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 4 representatives from Big Pharma and Big Biotech, 3 representatives from academia (which is funded by Big Pharma), 2 more from the FDA and NIH, 2 from consumers groups, and 1 from health care providers. This means that the FDA/Big Pharma/Big Biotech voting block always has 13 votes – to at the most 3. Who are you kidding? This front group foundation is run by the FDA in combination with the industry it is supposed to be regulating. This makes the FDA part of the drug business as a drug company. Coleman: Furthermore, the Foundation will not be involved in drug development but will help provide new tools for improving safety in regulated product development. Richards: Now I’m sure you didn’t read the bill. It says the Foundation will ensure that “action is taken as necessary to enable the licensing of inventions developed by the Foundation or with funds from the Foundation; and (C) executed licenses, memoranda of understanding, material transfer agreements, contracts, and other such instruments, promote, to the maximum extent practicable, the broadest conversion to commercial and noncommercial applications of licensed and patented inventions of the Foundation.” Since the Foundation is responding to the needs of the Critical Path Initiative, and that initiative is primarily about the development of new drugs, it is clear that the Foundation will not only help with drug development but it will have significant business relationships as a result. Are you not aware of the fact that non-profits are the new vehicle by which multi-national corporations shelter their inventions from international competition? Coleman: I have also heard concerns with provisions in the mission of the Foundation related to food and food ingredients. This has to do with food safety, and not with dietary supplements. As the recent disease outbreaks associated with spinach and peanut butter have shown, food safety tools are lacking. The Foundation would undertake research to help make food safer but it would have no regulatory authority. Richards: Americans do not trust the FDA. By law, dietary supplements are food and food ingredients. I am all in favor of the FDA being better able to identify contamination in food that poses a risk to human health. At least we agree on that point. The point we don’t agree on is the fact the technology in question relies on drug risk analysis and can be used to claim that a nutrient that is not in any way contaminated is unsafe, thus undermining the very foundation of food and drug law. The Foundation is being positioned as a major tool for the FDA to implement its opinionated use of this technology, which can easily be used to attack dietary supplements. Since you and every other Senator that has been questioned on this issue would like to deny there is any problem with this legislation regarding dietary supplements, why don’t you help put some language into this legislation that will satisfy all of our concerns. After all, what harm is there in taking some action to SHOW THE PEOPLE that you truly are not interested in allowing the FDA to have new power to harass dietary supplements and suppress freedom of choice relating to health care options. The following simple amendment has been prepared by noted attorney, Jonathan Emord. Read it All: www.laleva.org/eng/2007/05/understanding_the_threat_to_dietary_supplements_part_2.htmlContinued.....*************
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 7, 2007 12:26:06 GMT 4
....continued from previous postWelcome to our new thread, Your Health and Wellness Part 2 of 2Ron Paul's Given Us a Great Bill to Get Behind! Action Step: Click here (http://tinyurl.com/3xwmjm) (http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/healthfreedomusa/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11754) to tell your Congressperson to co-sponsor the Health Freedom Protection Act, H. R. 2117. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-TX) has done it again. He has introduced a great bill into the House of Representatives, The Health Freedom Protection Act, H.R. 2117. This bill is of monumental importance to your health and health freedom. Short, pithy and to the point, it allows supplements to carry scientifically justified health claims. It shifts the burden of proof to the FDA to prove that health claims are NOT scientifically warranted, rather than assuming that health claims are forbidden as advertising unless they relate directly to either structure or function. Thus, "Cherries may be good for arthritis" would be permitted since there is strong scientific evidence that they help people with joint pain. FDA Restricting Your Right to Know What Supplements Can Do For You The FDA does not want you to know how good supplements are for you. If you understand how safe, effective and inexpensive they are, why would you take drugs? When I coined the term "Nutricide" I gave it two definitions: 1. The death of a body of knowledge about the health benefits of foods 2. The death of large numbers of people through the manipulation of the food supply. The FDA is working on both the first (through tools like the recent dangerous and assaultive "CAM Guidance") and the second (through forcing Codex "HARMonization" on you and your food). It's Your Right to Have Information About Supplements Although Dr. Paul is trained as an allopathic physician, he believes in your right to use supplements and herbs which have truthful, informative health claims on their labels and in their promotional material. The FDA does not believe any such thing, of course. Their endless attacks on truthful health claims are part of a "Pharma-Phriendly", lop sided and dangerous policy designed to put drug competitors (i.e., natural products and practices) out of business. FDA policy which attempts to gag real information on natural products while colluding with dangerous drug to hide their dangers. To cite just one example of an unfolding cabinet of horrors, the FDA colluded with drug companies to allow neurotoxic, suicidality-inducing anti depressant medications (commonly known as SSRIs) to be prescribed as if they were safe and effective (despite abundant information showing they are neither) in the very young, the very old and everyone in between. The FDA resisted tooth and nails adding precautionary information ("black box warnings") to labels notifying doctors and patients that these compounds could cause death and injury in a variety of ways (e.g., suicide, homicide, cardiac death, stroke, neuroleptic crisis, etc.) and do permanent harm to anyone taking them. They also buried the information that these drugs did no better than placebo, although placebos did not lead to death or permanent physical injury. And placebos are a whole lot cheaper. Loved ones were lost, families were devastated, brains, livers and lives were injured beyond repair. Truth is Just A Bowl of [Censored] Cherries At the same time, the FDA threatened the Michigan Cherry Growers Association (MCGA) with severe legal punishment if they did not remove links from their websites to independent peer reviewed scientific studies. These studies, which the MCGA had no role in producing or sponsoring, showed that cherries were good for people who had arthritis. According to the FDA, mounting such "advertising" on their web site which then was making "health claims" TURNED CHERRIES INTO AN UNTESTED DRUG. Of course, cherries are a lot cheaper and safer than, say, Vioxx or Celebrex. Cherries have never been associated with 130,000 plus deaths from heart attacks, but, then, their profit margin is absolutely unacceptable to Big Pharma. You probably recognize this twisted, commercially engendered "logic" from the recently proposed abusive and dangerous "FDA Guidance on CAM Regulation" which proposes that same magical transition for ANYTHING whatsoever (including a needle to remove a splinter, holy water or carrot juice) used with the intent to induce health. (By the way, despite broken links and other manipulations, over 197,733 people submitted comments through our site to the FDA opposing their inaccurate "restatement of the law". One of the people who urged the FDA to back off from its intended abuse of its power was Congressman Ron Paul. But, because he realizes well that the FDA is just gearing up for another round of assaults on your health and health freedom, he did more than that. What H.R. 2177 Does to Protect Your Health Freedom Dr. Paul reintroduced his important and powerful Health Freedom Protection Act shortly after the disastrous "FDA Revitalization Act of 2007, S. 1082, passed the Senate. Congressman Paul's bill shifts the burden of proof onto the FDA whenever the agency wants to deny the public the benefit of health claims information about Dietary Supplements. And it wants to deny the public that information a lot. H. R. 2117 provides that reasonable health claims, with proper disclosure language, shall be allowed "unless the Secretary determines that -- (i) there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim; and (ii) the claim is inherently misleading and incapable of being rendered non-misleading through the addition of a disclaimer." Thus, even "a scintilla*" of scientific evidence would allow Dietary Supplements to make claims that they may be of benefit to individuals. The requirements of the bill are consistent with the law that already governs the agency's position, announced in 2004, "FDA intends to apply a standard for substantiating claims for dietary supplements that is consistent with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) standard for dietary supplements and other health related products of 'competent and reliable scientific evidence'." This policy has not been adhered to by the FDA since it attacks health claims on a regular basis and allows only so-called "structure function claims", barring all other types of health claims. Kill the knowledge of health benefits of dietary supplements and you kill the market for dietary supplements. The logic is unassailable. The impact is a classic double whammy: Whammy 1: a rise in the preventable diseases of under nutrition, defined by the World Health Organization as Cancers Cardiovascular Disease Stroke Diabetes and Obesity Whammy 2: a rise in the number of deaths and serious adverse events from the use of drugs where natural, safe, effective (and cheap) treatments could have avoided this human tragedy. The Natural Solutions Foundation and our legal counsel believe that this bill would greatly enhance public access to truthful and non-misleading health information. Your right to access truthful, non-misleading health information is supported by, and is in keeping with, the US Supreme Court's dictum in Thompson v. Western States Medical Centers, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort. *** We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information. *** Even if the Government did argue t that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring ... a warning ..." Health Freedom Protection Act The Health Protection Act, H.R. 2117, is cosponsored by Congressmen Burton (R-IN), Shays (R-CT), Bartlett (R-MD), and Duncan m(R-TN). It presents a clear opportunity to enhance legal protections for Dietary Supplements and natural remedies. Its adoption would shift FDA resources from over-regulation of safe food substances (e.g., Dietary Supplements) to what should be their main task: protecting people from truly dangerous drugs and medical devices. We need to encourage other congresspeople to join as cosponsors and get behind the Health Freedom Protection Act. And, should the House equivalent to Senator Kennedy's disastrous "FDA Revitalization Act of 2007, S. 1082, be passed, we are urging your Congresspeople to act strongly to attach the whole of H. R. 2117 to it as an amendment to provide strong protective language for Dietary Supplements and their legitimate health claims. Click here to tell your Congressperson how important your health freedom is to you. (http://tinyurl.com/3xwmjm) (http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/healthfreedomusa/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11754) Yours in health and freedom, Dr. Rima Rima E. Laibow, MD Medical Director Natural Solutions Foundation www.HealthFreedomUSA.org *scintilla \sin-TIL-uh\, noun: A tiny or scarcely detectable amount; the slightest particle; a trace; a spark. The text of the bill, reintroduced on May 7, 2007, can be found at: www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2117**************** OK, Canada, here's your part of the post that I promised. I do hope you didn't skip the part on the USA's FDA because, chances are, you'll be subject to the same laws if the powers that be have their way. Read the following and you'll understand why I say this....MYummy! More pesticide (May 25, 2007) www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=ijJTL4PSIqI0KjJ&s=ikI0J7OPIiJOJaNSLpF&m=fpJQIZOxHbIUHSend your message to Stephen Harper. You can make a difference! It's hard to believe, but the Harper government, dedicated to ever greater integration of Canada into the US, wants to "harmonize" the types and levels of pesticide residue allowed on fruits and vegetables and in dairy products with those of the US and Mexico. It's part of plans being made behind closed doors to streamline Canadian standards with often lower U.S. standards, instead of improving our standards to those adopted by the European Union. Our government apparently sees regulations to protect public health as a "free trade irritant." And pesticides are just the beginning. Some 300 regulatory regimes are going through the same race-to-the-bottom process under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership - so-called "deep integration" - signed by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Please take 60 seconds to send a message to Prime Minister Harper right now urging him to put the health of people and the environment first. You can make a difference. -- Read also the Edmonton Journal editorial on this issue. HERE is an excerpt: "As understanding grows of the health risks of persistent organic pollutants -- chemical compounds that are found in at least nine common pesticides, and that accumulate on plants, in water, in the soil and, over the years, in humans and other animals -- the only reasonable action of the government would be to press for their reduced use. (...) The Harper government needs to step back from fast-tracked talks with the U.S. on a Security and Prosperity Partnership and convey to the other side that, while harmonizing standards is a good idea, dropping them to the lowest common denominator is not." Read also "Canada Plans To Raise Pesticide Residue Limits Under SPP" at stopspp.com/stopspp/?p=115 where you'll also find LOTS of info against the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 1, 2007 7:32:51 GMT 4
SOUTH AMERICA: AIDS Meds for All, But at Higher PricesBy Fabiana Frayssinet*RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 27 (IPS) - In under a decade, programmes providing universal free access to antiretroviral medicines have greatly decreased AIDS mortality in countries like Argentina and Brazil, but this progress is now threatened by the rising prices of new formulas patented by the big pharmaceutical companies.The Brazilian Health Ministry guarantees access to antiretroviral medications for all people with HIV/AIDS. According to the National Programme on Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS (PN-DST/AIDS), 180,000 people in Brazil are regularly taking these drugs, which reduce the HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) load in the body, improving quality of life and preventing opportunistic infections. Between 1996 and 2004, antiretrovirals contributed to lowering AIDS mortality by 27.5 percent, and between 1996 and 2003, AIDS-related hospital admissions fell by 80 percent. This saved the health services 635,000 hospital admissions and an estimated 1.7 billion dollars in health costs, according to official figures. The same trend is seen in Chile, which achieved universal antiretroviral coverage in the public health sector in 2003. "The effects of widespread use of these drugs can already be clearly seen, and AIDS-related health indicators have improved," Patricio Novoa, coordinator of the holistic healthcare department at Vivo Positivo (Living Positive), an umbrella group of Chilean organisations for people living with HIV, told IPS. In Argentina, the Health Ministry says that in 1996 -- before antiretroviral treatment was available -- AIDS mortality stood at 60 percent, while by 2004 mortality had dropped to 38 percent, "and the figure is doubtless even lower now," the executive director of the non-governmental Fundación Huésped, Kart Frieder, told IPS. These indicators are accompanied by other non-quantifiable benefits, says Veriano Terto, coordinator of the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA). "The big change that has occurred since antiretroviral meds became available is that as patients' quality of life has improved, the link between being HIV-positive and death has been broken, the idea that because one has AIDS one is doomed to die. AIDS and the stigma of death have been separated," Terto said. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) considers Brazil's programme one of the best and most successful in the world. Seventeen drugs are included in the anti-HIV cocktail used in this country: eight of these are imported and nine are produced locally, in government laboratories like Fiocruz. Production of generic drugs, which have the same active ingredients as patented medicines but are far cheaper, knocked down the average cost of treating one patient for one year from 6,240 dollars in 1997 to 1,336 dollars in late 2004, said Mariangela Simao, the director of PN-DST/AIDS. These savings were achieved by a combined policy of government funding for manufacturing generic medicines, and vigorous negotiation with the big transnational pharmaceutical companies to bring prices down. The negotiations were successful, for instance, when Brasilia threatened to impose obligatory licensing, a mechanism under international trade rules that in effect annuls the patent in the country where it is enacted. This persuaded Roche to reduce the price of Nelfinavir by 40 percent, leading to savings of 40 million dollars a year, and Merck to accept a 60 percent price cut for Efavirenz, saving the Brazilian state another 43 million dollars a year. The most publicised case came earlier this year, when the failure of new negotiations to cut the price of Efavirenz prompted the Brazilian government, for the first time ever, to require obligatory licensing for public, non-commercial use of the drug, a pioneering step in Latin America.
Brazil based its action on the intellectual property agreements adopted by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which established the priority of public health over patenting rights, in order to allow countries to take such measures when facing health emergencies. Buying the generic version of Efavirenz, at first from laboratories in India, will lead to savings of 30 million dollars a year in health spending, said Simao, and this money "can be invested in other measures to improve health care for people living with AIDS," she added. "UNAIDS takes a positive view of measures taken by a country to ensure universal access to medicines by its population," the agency's representative for South America's Southern Cone region, Laurent Zessler, told IPS. Brazil, "a middle-income country, has shown that it is possible to implement free distribution of medicine nationwide, and that this is associated with treatment compliance by people living with HIV," he added. The bad news, according to Simao, began in 1995 "when more patients were gradually coming forward for treatment. Then when new medicines came on the market, individual treatment costs began to rise." The greatest challenge now is not only to maintain the good results achieved so far, but to extend them further, and guarantee that they will be sustainable in future, warn non-governmental organisations like ABIA, represented by Terto. "The new medicines are increasingly expensive and increasingly heavily protected by patents, and as the number of treatment cases rises, it will be difficult for the government to maintain its programme," Terto said. The same obstacles may affect the Argentine programme, Frieder said. "New medicines have begun to appear, for which no generic versions exist, nor are they listed in pharmacopoeias. They are used to improve the patients' quality of life, for example, they involve taking one pill a day instead of six, and access to them will be more difficult," Frieder said. The price hikes are also causing concern at the international humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF - Doctors Without Borders), which treats more than 80,000 HIV-positive patients in more than 30 countries. An article published on the MSF website called attention to the "cost explosion" of antiretrovirals and said its spending on these drugs will double in the next two years, as more and more patients have to move on to more modern, second-line treatments. Around 50 pharmaceutical companies throughout the world are producing these medicines, MSF said, and new treatments and potential vaccines are being developed because they have a market in Western countries. However, the article points out that of the 40 million people infected with HIV/AIDS, 90 percent live in the developing world, and out of the six million people in developing countries who need antiretroviral drug therapy, only 440,000 are receiving it, based on UNAIDS figures from 2005. Solutions for the future, whether initiated by UNAIDS, MSF or the William J. Clinton Foundation, will have to be based on antiretroviral donations, production and technical training networks. Brazil, for instance, donates locally produced antiretroviral drugs to 11 countries: Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, East Timor, El Salvador, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Sao Tomé and Príncipe, according to Simao. In January 2006, Brazil and Argentina signed a cooperation agreement for the building of a pharmaceutical plant to manufacture medicines and diagnostic tests for several diseases, including AIDS. The plant is to be built in Argentina and will be financed by investments from both countries. Brazil coordinates an International Technical Cooperation Network on HIV/AIDS to which Argentina, China, Cuba, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand and Ukraine also belong. Its primary purpose is technology transfer for antiretroviral production. These initiatives have contributed to the sustainability of antiretroviral distribution programmes in countries like Bolivia, where for the past four years AIDS victims have had access to the medicines through departmental (provincial) health services. Brazil has donated antiretrovirals to Bolivia since 2003.
In Venezuela, all HIV/AIDS patients registered with the Health Ministry have had access to the drugs free of charge since the year 2000. Between 20 and 30 million dollars a year are spent on this programme. The 17 medicines used are bought from Cuba and India, among other manufacturing countries, and Caracas supports Latin American negotiations with the big international pharmaceutical companies to secure price reductions. The cooperation network is beginning to take shape in Paraguay, too, where 1,184 people receive the drug cocktail through the National Programme on AIDS. The mortality rate has been cut by 30 percent since 1996, programme director Nicolás Aguayo told IPS. Paraguay also participates in a Brazilian government initiative called South-South Links, under which 300 people, including 21 children, receive antiretroviral medication. (*With additional reporting from Marcela Valente in Argentina, Bernarda Claure in Bolivia, Daniela Estrada in Chile, David Vargas in Paraguay and Humberto Márquez in Venezuela.) (END/2007) Source:www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38345------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEALTH-LATIN AMERICA: Girls Living with HIV Break the SilenceBy Marcela Valente BUENOS AIRES, Apr 20 (IPS) - "I feel happy when I'm with my friends; at those times, I don't even remember that I have the infection," Keren, an 11-year-old Honduran girl living with HIV, told IPS. Her story brought home the ignored and largely invisible impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on girls in Latin America and the Caribbean. Keren was in Buenos Aires along with Victoria, a 13-year-old Uruguayan who is also living with the AIDS virus, for the Fourth Latin American and Caribbean Forum on HIV/AIDS and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), which ended Friday with a call for joint action to achieve universal access to anti-AIDS drugs. Victoria and Keren -- their last names were not divulged -- were the central figures at the presentation of "Ynisiquieralloré" (And I Didn't Even Cry), a book that presents the personal accounts of girls and teenagers living with HIV, which was published by the regional chapter of the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (ICW-Latina) with the support of UNICEF, the United Nations children's fund. "We decided to publish this book so that these girls would no longer be invisible and so that through their incredible experiences they can show us how they handle the diagnosis, which they do much better than adults, and can teach us a lesson about living," said Rosa Dunaway, with the Honduran branch of ICW-Latina. The two girls who took part in the Forum were both born with the virus. Victoria spent her first five years of life in a women's prison with her mother. There she was well taken care of, she said, but when it came time for her to begin preschool, she was rejected at first, until a school was finally found that would accept her. Keren also had a hard time enrolling in school. "I was admitted because my dad threatened them, but I was accepted on the condition that I stay in a corner, alone and without playing. But then I was taken out of that school and put in another one," she said. In the new school, some of the kids called her "sidosa" (AIDS-ridden) when she was seven. Later she found better acceptance. "They don't discriminate against me anymore. I have a lot of friends, I feel normal, just like any other girl. The infection is inside of me, not on the outside," said Keren, who added that she was "happy to visit and see Buenos Aires" and felt "calm, without any discomforts," despite the virus. Victoria also said she lives a "normal" life. "You shouldn't be afraid. I act as if there was nothing wrong with me, except that every day I take the medicines that my grandma gives me and I go to the doctor. Some of my friends know, others don't. Me and my friends from the clinic are trying to start a magazine," she said. UNICEF representative in Argentina Gladys Acosta explained to IPS that the U.N. agency agreed to support the project that gave a voice to girls living with HIV, "despite the risks of manipulation" that presenting them in public could pose. The Convention on the Rights of the Child calls for "genuine participation by children. That is why we must open up new doors, not speak for them, not be interpreters of what they feel, but allow them to express themselves, so that they stop suffering in silence," she said. AIDS is "a humanitarian emergency," and when children are involved, the priority is "to reestablish normality in their lives," and help them integrate in school and with their friends. "The book 'Ynisiquieralloré', a story of sorrow and happiness, talks about all of this," said Acosta. There was great internal debate in the ICW-Latina network, which has about 2,500 members, prior to the decision to publicise the stories and testimonies of these girls, nearly all of whom are daughters of HIV-positive women. In the end the desire to give them "prominence and visibility" was stronger than the difficulties and misgivings, ICW-Latina regional secretary Patricia Pérez told IPS. So they sought the support of UNICEF, and constantly attempted to maintain a balance between public exposure and the girls' privacy, she said. "The agreement was to fully respect their rights and needs, to go at their own pace, without forcing them, and also to listen to their demands, to what they need," said Pérez, an Argentine activist diagnosed as HIV-positive in 1986 who was nominated by Honduras as a candidate for this year's Nobel Peace Prize because of her courage and leadership in the anti-AIDS struggle. Pérez was an official Argentine delegate to the special session of the U.N. General Assembly on HIV/AIDS in 2001. Two years later, then Secretary General Kofi Annan invited her, as one of the 15 most experienced people in the world on the subject, to participate in following up on the progress made since that meeting. According to UNICEF, there are over two million children under 15 with HIV/AIDS in the world. Of these, 48,000 live in Latin America and the Caribbean, and most were infected during childbirth, a means of transmission that can now be prevented with appropriate and timely medication for the mother during pregnancy. In recent years, science has made progress on treatments. But the disease is more aggressive in childhood, when the body's natural defences are not as strong. Children need special therapy and medication to protect them from opportunistic infections, which take hold when the immune system is weakened by AIDS. Such treatments are not always available. One of the stories told by the book is that of Rosario, a 13-year-old Mexican girl who got severe lung disease when she was expelled from her school. Pressure from social organisations and the press allowed her to return to school, and since then her health has improved. The Fourth Forum drew some 3,000 people from government bodies and civil society organisations, to consider the need to strengthen prevention measures, guarantee access to anti-retroviral drugs and increase the visibility of vulnerable sectors. Among its conclusions was a declaration on the urgency of "making progress in the struggle against poverty, inequity, and gender inequality." In spite of efforts to improve regional distribution of anti-retroviral medicines, 240 people die prematurely every day, and 450 people are infected daily, many of them newborn babies or adolescents, stressed Dr. Mirta Roses, head of the Pan American Health Organisation, who gave the closing speech at the meeting. The Fifth Forum will be held in Peru, in 2009. (END/2007) Source:ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37431
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 6, 2007 15:16:54 GMT 4
Plague of bioweapons accidents afflicts the US12:07 05 July 2007 NewScientist.com news service Debora MacKenzie Deadly germs may be more likely to be spread due to a biodefence lab accident than a biological attack by terrorists.Plague, anthrax, Rocky Mountain spotted fever - these are among the bioweapons some experts fear could be used in a germ warfare attack against the US. But the public has had near-misses with those diseases and others over the past five years, ironically because of accidents in labs that were working to defend against bioterrorists. Even worse, they may be only the tip of an iceberg. The revelations come from Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a biosafety pressure group based in Austin, Texas, US, who after persistent requests got the minutes of university biosafety committees using the US Freedom of Information Act. The minutes are accessible to the public by law. There are now 20,000 people at 400 sites around the US working with putative bioweapons germs, says Hammond, 10 times more than before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Some scientists have warned for years that more people handling dangerous germs are a recipe for accidents.Unreported incidents? The fears have been borne out by publicised infections of lab workers with tularemia, brucellosis and Q fever. The Q fever incident took place at Texas A&M University, which has now been ordered to stop research into potential bioweapons while an investigation takes place. However, Hammond’s minutes contain further, previously unreported, slip-ups: • At the University of New Mexico, one worker was jabbed with an anthrax-laden needle, and another with a syringe containing an undisclosed, genetically engineered microbe. • At the Medical University of Ohio, workers were exposed to and infected with Valley Fever. • At the University of Chicago, there was another puncture with an undisclosed agent normally requiring heavy containment, probably anthrax or plague. • At the University of California at Berkeley, workers handled deadly Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, which spreads in the air, without containment when it was mislabelled as harmless. • At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, workers were exposed to TB when containment equipment failed. As yet, none of the accidents have been serious in outcome. But, Hammond fears, more such accidents may go unreported. "Instead of a 'culture of responsibility', the federal government has instilled a culture of denial" he says. "Labs hide problems, and think that accident reporting is for masochists" Reporting essential Without stringently enforced reporting rules, he says, labs have every reason to cover up accidents. They want to avoid losing research funds, and fear the massive official reaction to any accident – such as the imprisonment of plague researcher Thomas Butler in 2003. And he claims Texas A&M officials have said they now regret reporting the Q fever incident."I think the answer is to create a level playing field by having clear and absolutely mandatory reporting requirements," says Hammond. "Eliminate even the possibility of an institution claiming that it does not have to report infections." "The labs will say, you can't do that because then people won't report accidents," says Hammond. "Well, I think it's pretty clear that people don't report accidents as it stands." Source:www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12197
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 11, 2007 4:52:12 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300]ACTION ALERT:[/glow] Critical Situation in the House of Representatives - FDA bill on a fast-track 7/10/07 7:38:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time The rat bastards in Congress never give us enough time to respond to anything anymore.....If you read the following, this evening, you can make sure your voice is heard. If enough of you click on and send an e-mail, they'll take notice...they're just hoping you won't. You can get some background on the following here, in the first two posts I started with....Michelle 07/10/07 8:55PM House of Representatives Schedules Controversial FDA Funding Bill for a "Fast-Track" Vote Tomorrow, July 11Congress is poised once again to take action on legislation without allowing their constituents a chance to have their voices heard. No doubt due to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, Congress has put House Bill HR 2900, The FDA Revitalization Act of 2007, on a "fast track" for a vote tomorrow, July 11. (Putting a bill on a "fast track" means the bill will be voted on without any debate or chances to offer amendments, like the amendment to the Senate version of this bill that protects dietary supplements).Click here to say "no" to fast-tracking HR 2900! tinyurl.com/2xqdygHR 2900 is nominally intended to fund the FDA; however, it would also establish the Reagan-Udall Foundation, a non-profit corporation outside the FDA that would be partly responsible for the review of proposed new drugs. The board of directors of this corporation would include, among others, drug company representatives! Imagine that: making drug company representatives responsible for reviewing the very products they are eager to get on the market...Citizens for Health is opposed to the Reagan-Udall Foundation, as we are opposed to attempts to bypass the public's right to be heard. This bill will almost certainly be voted on tomorrow - unless we act now, and in great numbers.Send a letter to your Representative now. Ask him/her to urge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow HR.2900 to be brought up under a regular order so it can be fully debated and amended. This bill will be voted on tomorrow - make your voice heard today by clicking here!salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/750/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12132Thanks for taking action! The Citizens for Health Team
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 22, 2007 7:22:13 GMT 4
Don't be fooled by "all natural" claims on foods and grocery products. If you want to eat healthy, you must be ever vigilant and constantly educate yourself. The false claims made by the Food Industry are abundant! There are a few links in the following article to raw food companies. If you wish to choose the best food for your family, pick those closest to [minimal processing] or straight from Mother Nature. The author here also recommends using Celtic Sea Salt. I use this, but let me warn you, it is expensive. I pay $12 for a pound of it, but my family and myself are worth the added cost; it tastes terrific too.....
In Gratitude to Mother Earth and all she supplies, MichelleDon't be fooled by "all natural" claims on foods and grocery products. News Target July 18, 2007 Factory food manufacturers have figured out that slapping an "all natural" claim onto their processed, chemically-altered food products results in increased sales. Consumers, it seems, are trying to shop for healthier foods, and they're easily fooled by "all natural" claims, even though the vast majority of food products sporting such claims are anything but natural. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate claims of "all natural." They might claim to, but in reality, they don't. Food companies can get away with using all sorts of non-natural processes and chemical ingredients in a food product that they claim is all natural. For example, foods fried at high temperatures, resulting in the formation of cancer-causing acrylamides, are routinely labeled "all natural" in the snack section of the grocery store. And yet frying starches at high temperatures isn't natural at all -- it's a human-invented process for making boring foods like potatoes taste interesting by loading them up with fat and salt. The salt used in such foods isn't natural either. It's almost entirely processed salt, and even the products that claim to be made from "sea salt" are actually using a white, processed sea salt (not a full-spectrum brown or pink salt like you might find with Celtic Sea Salt, which is truly natural).Grocery product makers are also adding various chemical additives to their "all natural" products, hiding them under innocent-sounding ingredients that don't raise red flags with consumers. Monosodium glutamate (MSG), for example, is a neurotoxic substance classified as an excitotoxin. Consuming it causes migraine headaches, endocrine system damage, loss of appetite regulation (leading to obesity), neurological damage in fetuses (when consumed by expectant mothers) and many other problems. This is well known throughout the industry. Baby food manufacturers, for example, voluntarily removed MSG from their products decades ago following a public outcry about the dangers of MSG to babies and infants.And yet today, numerous "all natural" food companies continue to use hidden forms of MSG in their foods, hiding them under innocent-sounding ingredients like yeast extract, autolyzed or hydrolyzed proteins (all of which contain MSG). Even the companies you've grown to trust in the "natural" food business are engaged in the blatant hiding of MSG in their products. Pay special attention to vegetarian food products such as veggie burgers. Read the ingredients on everything you buy and you'll find that the largest "natural" food manufacturers still use hidden MSG.(The newest ingredient to hide MSG under is called torula yeast. Watch for it on labels.)What's the definition of all-natural, anyway?The truth is that food manufacturers can use just about any ingredients or processes they want while still claiming their foods are all-natural. They can take whole wheat berries from nature, mill them down and strip out 98% of the nutrients, bleach the flour with chemicals, "enrich" the flour with synthetic chemical vitamins, and then claim their wheat is "all natural." And why is it natural? Because it comes from the earth, they would say. It was grown by nature. Sure it was, but then it was physically and chemically modified, adulterated, contaminated and altered in ways that destroy its natural properties. The final product has no resemblance to anything truly natural. In the food industry today, there's no official definition of "all natural." It means whatever the food companies want it to mean. It can mean, for example, that all the chemicals found in the product simply aren't listed on the label. (There's no requirement for food companies to list chemical contaminants found in their foods.) A food labeled "all natural" can contain pesticides, herbicides, toxic heavy metals, trace amounts of PCBs, toxic fluoride, hidden MSG, high-temperature cooking byproducts, synthetic chemical vitamins and dozens of other non-natural substances. This is all perfectly allowed and tolerated by the FDA as well as all virtually every media outlet in the world. Cable news stations, magazines, newspapers and other media giants are all too happy to take money from junk food manufacturers and run their advertisements claiming their foods are "all natural." There is absolutely no effort to determine whether such claims are really true or even partially credible. Media companies simply take the money and run the promotions, regardless of whether such promotions tell the truth.There is little truth left in the food industryConsumers are a gullible bunch, and food manufacturers have mastered the art of selling people crap while getting them to believe it's actually good for them. There's really no effort taken by the mainstream food industry to make foods healthy; there's only an effort to make them appear to be healthy. It's all about marketing. The same junk food crap that wasn't labeled with any health claims two years ago is now labeled "all natural" and positioned in the healthy food section of the grocery store. Same ingredients, new spin. It's all about positioning.All this doesn't mean there aren't some genuinely natural products available in the marketplace today. There are, but they aren't manufactured by the big brand-name food companies. A few smaller, niche-market companies are offering real food these days, but you have to search them out. Companies like Ewehorn make honest cereals with no garbage ingredients, and there are lots of raw foods companies that produce truly outstanding food products (such as http://www.RawBakery.com). FoodsAlive (www.FoodsAlive.com) also makes real food, as do dozens of other companies I could mention. But the real secret to being a smart, skeptical consumer is to read the ingredients labels yourself. Analyze the ingredients and ignore the health claims on the front of the package. Health claims are meaningless. Visit our informative article: How to read ingredients labels to learn more. ### About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of super bright LED light bulbs that are 1000% more energy efficient than incandescent lights. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NewsTarget email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.orgSource:m1e.net/c?71018505-4dFakm1uV..lI%402624219-/MwJWrVuGq.BA
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 11, 2007 12:56:27 GMT 4
Another example of the FDA working for the pharmaceutical industry....they don't want a cure for cancer; why that would mean death to outrageous profits...they're very happy with the death of patients, after long drawn out costly drug therapies, many with severe side effects. In fact, sometimes, the cause of death is the so-called cure itself. These new treatments work with the patient's immune system, boosting it to attack only the cancer cells. This is just shameless; follow the money, folks....Michelle FDA Industry Insiders Derail Approval of New Cancer TreatmentsOctober 9, 2007 at 02:33:16 by Evelyn Pringle George W Bush's FDA, stacked with insiders from the industry that literally carried him to Washington, has stooped to a new low to protect the obscene profits of the multi-billion dollar cancer industry by blocking the approval of a new class of immunotherapies that can extend the lives of dying cancer patients with minimal side effects. In the May 14, 2007, Wall Street Journal, a former medical officer in the FDA Office of Oncology Products, Dr Mark Thornton, denounced the FDA's decisions, and stated, "May 9, 2007, should be cited in the annals of cancer immunotherapy as Black Wednesday." "Within an eight-hour period that day," he wrote, "the FDA succeeded in killing not one but two safe, promising therapies designed and developed to act by stimulating a patient's immune system against cancer." Experts say, the new immunotherapies hold promise for many forms of cancer. "FDA's hubris will affect the lives and possibly the life spans of cancer patients from nearly every demographic, from elderly men with prostate cancer to young children with the rarest of bone cancers," according to Dr Thornton. With the approval of the new therapies, the profits, along with the horrendous side effects of the only treatments now available, could become a thing of the past. "One day current treatment approaches such as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, which often kill most but not all of a cancer, could be made obsolete by a potent immune response that eradicates the cancer cells and provides subsequent protection against return and relapse," Dr Thornton wrote. As such, the new therapies pose a grave threat to the cancer industry as a whole, and the lost profits would not be limited to the sale of products. The pharmaceutical giants have spent a small fortune to gain control of every segment of the industry, from researchers to government regulators, and every year, billions of dollars flow through a nationwide network of research institutions and treatment providers under the guise of finding a cure for cancer. However, the profits up for grabs have become so enormous that critics say the goal of industry-controlled research is no longer focused on finding a cure for cancer to save lives. Instead, the focus is on thwarting the development and approval of new therapies in order to protect the profits of the treatments already on the market. The FDA's refusal to approve Provenge, a new immunotherapy vaccine manufactured by the Dendreon Corporation, has caused major outrage in the cancer community. Provenge supporters have sent thousands upon thousands of letters and other correspondence to the FDA, members of Congress, the Department of Justice and others. In addition, the Ohio-based non-profit corporation, CareToLive, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of terminal cancer patients seeking a declaratory judgment that the FDA acted "arbitrarily" and "capriciously" by denying patients access to Provenge, in violation of their constitutional right to live. Dendreon sought approval to treat late-stage androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) patients who have no other options. A study presented to an FDA Advisory Committee at a March 29, 2007, meeting showed that, after 36 months, 34% of the men who received Provenge in a clinical trial were still alive, compared to only 11% of those who received a placebo. Provenge is designed to stimulate the patient's own immune system to specifically attack only cancer cells, unlike chemo drugs that attack any fast-growing line of cells. Patients who qualify for Provenge have already had their prostates removed or have undergone radiation and hormone therapy. Eligible patients receive a one-time round of treatment consisting of 3 visits to a urologist's or oncologist's office to give blood, and 3 visits for the blood enhanced with Provenge to be infused back into the body. On September 10, 2007, CareToLive filed a motion asking the court to issue an order enjoining the FDA from denying the marketing and distribution of Provenge. The plaintiffs charge that within six months, another 15,000 patients will have died waiting for justice. The memorandum filed with the motion points out that the only available treatment approved for terminal AIPC in the last 42 years is a chemo drug, Taxotere. "The effectiveness of Taxotere," it states, "is so superficial, and the side effects so severe, that most men decline the treatment, as the risks far outweigh the benefits." According to the filing, between 300 and 600 patients per year die from the Taxotere treatment itself. "This is truly amazing," the memo states, "considering the cost of the treatment and the cost of hospitalization and that the average benefit is an increase in survival of only 2 ½ months." In contrast, the Provenge safety profile is so good that nobody has died from it and less than one in four patients experience side effects consisting of mild flu-like symptoms lasting one or two days, the memo notes. The defendants named in the lawsuit include Mike Leavitt, Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services; FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach; Dr Richard Pazdur, head of the FDA's Office of Oncologic Drug Division, and Dr Howard Scher, chosen by Dr Pazdur to serve on the advisory panel set up to review the approval of Provenge. CareToLive is represented pro bono by Attorney Kerry Donahue, of the Dublin, Ohio law firm Bellinger & Donahue, while the FDA officials are represented by a legal team of 11 government attorneys, at last count, funded by tax dollars. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the approval of Provenge and that Dr Pazdur, "purposely located two conflicted oncologists who he was sure for a variety of reasons would be anti-Provenge and he instructed them to try to derail the approval of Provenge." The plaintiffs charge that, by choosing Dr Scher, and also Dr Maha Hussain, to serve on the advisory panel, Dr Pazdur "likely found two of the most conflicted oncologists in the country to sit in judgment of Provenge, and who would both assuredly continue his plot to lobby others at the FDA to vote for non-approval." At the behest of Dr Pazdur, and for their own future political and monetary gain, the plaintiffs claim, "these two oncologists did everything they could think of to obstruct and impede the approval of Provenge." The waiver of conflicts of interest granted by the FDA to Dr Hussain, which allowed her sit on the panel, reveals that she is the lead investigator on a research contract awarded by a company that competes with Dendreon, and her husband owns stock in three competing companies valued at between $15,000 and $300,000. The lawsuit alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, on May 9, 2007, the FDA denied terminally-ill patients access to Provenge, even though the FDA Advisory Committee recommended approval, found the vaccine safe by a 17-0 vote and found there was "substantial evidence" of efficacy with Provenge by a 13-4 vote. In an attempt to derail an approval recommendation by the panel, the plaintiffs claim that, prior to the vote on efficacy, Dr Pazdur and "his co-conspirators changed the statutory question regarding efficacy from 'substantial evidence' to 'absolute certainty' of efficacy, in an effort to obtain a 'no' vote on Provenge." However, during the voting, this manipulation was discovered and promptly corrected by the FDA's Dr Celia Witten and Dr Jesse Goodman, and by an overwhelming majority, the panel voted "yes" to the revised efficacy question. "It is unprecedented for the FDA to overturn the Advisory Committee on such a positive vote when men are out of options, delaying approval and asking for more trials," according to CareToLive spokesman Mike Kearny in an August 2, 2007, press release. "Men are dying now," he states. "They do not have years to wait." In the case of Provenge's approval, the profits at stake could not be higher. Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in the US and the third most common cancer worldwide. More than one million men in the US have prostate cancer, with an estimated 232,000 new cases diagnosed each year and more than 30,000 men face death from the disease each year. As an initial treatment, when diagnosed with prostate cancer, most men have their prostate removed, or undergo radiation, which can lead to various degrees of incontinence and impotence. After the initial treatments fails, hormone therapy is given to block the production of androgens such as testosterone, needed for cancer cells to grow, and some men undergo testicle removal in an attempt to stop the androgens from spreading the cancer. With AIPC patients, prostate cancer has usually gone into remission and then returned, spreading to other parts of the body including the bones, lymph nodes, bladder, rectum, liver and lungs. All men who do not die of other causes progress to the final stage where the cells no longer respond to hormone therapy. Provenge is intended for use by patients who have already failed other types of therapy. Because Taxotere is the only approved drug, Sanofi would have suffered the greatest immediate loss had Provenge been approved. According to firm's 2006 Annual Report, Taxotere was the company's 4th best-selling product in 2006, and the US is listed as the number one country contributing to sales. As far as profits per dose, in the February 7, 2007, article, "What Does It Cost to Have Cancer?", a patient who received the chemo drug for breast cancer in 2006 reported that "each infusion of Taxotere cost over $16,000." She also stated: "That's just for the drug, not administration or anything." According to the lawsuit, defendant Dr Scher, Chief Genitourinary Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, is a scientific advisor and lead trial investigator for a competitor of Dendreon called Novacea. Under faculty disclosures at the University of Michigan, Dr Hussain is listed as an advisory board member of Novacea, and she receives research funding from Sanofi. Dr Scher also has an interest in ProQuest Investments, which stood to reap windfall profits if Provenge was not approved. ProQuest is a venture capital fund established in 1998, in large part by Michael Milken, who was given the nickname "Junk Bond King," after being indicted on nearly 100 counts of insider trading and sentenced to 10 years in prison, in addition to being barred from the securities industry for life. The ProQuest fund was established with a specific focus on prostate cancer, and SEC filings show that ProQuest and its principals are major shareholders of Novacea. Citing documents from ProQuest, the plaintiffs allege that Dr Scher is a "ProQuest Executive" and "member of the Board of Directors", ProQuest reaps millions of dollars investing in prostate cancer companies based on advice from doctors such as Dr Scher, and ProQuest own stock in direct competitors including Novacea. Dr Scher receives compensation from ProQuest as a scientific advisor recommending investments and for conducting clinical trials that result from the investments. He also holds an ownership interest in ProQuest. The lawsuit also alleges that Dr Scher receives research support from the Prostate Cancer Foundation, as well as financial benefits, as one of a consortium of members who reviews new research on cancer drugs to determine which grants should be awarded by the Foundation. The PCF, also founded by Mr Milken, is one of the largest sources of funding for the National Cancer Institute and government research programs. A following of the tangled web involved in the PCF reveals that Dr Jonathan Simons, President of the Foundation, Dr Stuart Holden, Medical Director, and Dr Howard Soule, an Executive Vice President of the Foundation, are all scientific advisors to ProQuest. Another research arm found to be infested with several of the same insiders is the Prostrate Cancer Research Program, within the Department of Defense, which since 1997 has been appropriated a total of $730 million by Congress. According to a PCRP report, "Today, the PCRP is the second leading source of extramural prostate cancer research funding in the United States." The PCRP funds a Clinical Consortium Award to support the creation of a major multi-institutional clinical trial resource, "to speed development of novel therapeutics that will ultimately decrease the impact of the disease." Here, too, Dr Scher is listed as the leader of the consortium, and the list of participating clinical sites and lead investigators includes none other than Dr Hussain. Dr Simons is listed as developing new clinical therapeutics for late-stage prostate cancer, but a review of upcoming research listed in the report shows immunotherapies are not in the cards. These consortium members are invaluable to the industry and investors due to their unique access to insider information about clinical trials and influence over the FDA approval process. Evidence of this claim came on May 30, 2007, less than 3 weeks after approval for Provenge was denied, when Novacea announced an agreement with Schering-Plough worth over $450 million, in which Schering agreed to jointly fund and develop Asentar, a competing prostate cancer drug, for which Dr Scher happens to be the lead investigator. "The partnership leverages Novacea's existing capabilities with Schering-Plough's experienced development, regulatory and commercial teams and will provide Novacea with an opportunity to support the commercialization of Asentar in the United States," John Walker, company chairman and interim CEO, stated in a May 30, 2007 press release. A May 2000 ProQuest document provides insight about the investment firm's interest in Asentar's success and states: "ProQuest Investments is a $100 million oncology-focused investment fund, partnered by Jeremy Goldberg and Jay Moorin." Mr Moorin owned 1,910,988 shares of Novacea stock at the time of a May 15, 2006, SEC filing, and the ProQuest document mentions an investment from Domain Associates, "whose general partner, Jim Blair, has also worked with the fund to plot its strategy." As it turns out, Mr Blair and Mr Moorin were both members of Novacea's board of directors when the Schering deal was set up. However, apparently their services are no longer needed, because on August 30, 2007, Novacea announced the resignation of James Blair and Jay Moorin, effective September 4, 2007, and September 19, 2007, respectively. All that said, it does not take a financial genius to figure out that this whole deal could have gone up in smoke had Provenge been approved, because there would have been a drastic drop in the enrollment of late-stage cancer patients in clinical trials as soon as they learned that there was a new vaccine that could not only increase their survival rate but allow them to live out their final days without the agonizing side effects of chemotherapy. Provenge's approval also would have caused many patients currently participating in trials to drop out. Novacea's 2006 Annual Report filed on April 2, 2007, less than 2 months before the Shering announcement, warned that the "clinical development and regulatory approval processes inherently contain significant risks and uncertainties." The report shows Novacea was going broke trying to keep the Asentar trials running, with research and development expenses associated with the drug of $12.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, up from $7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. The $5.6 million increase was due primarily to the Phase 3 Asentar trial, and the filing warns that Novacea could experience many delays in getting its product to market due to problems in trials including, "patient enrollment may be slower than expected at trial sites due to factors including the limited number of, and substantial competition for, suitable patients with the particular types of cancer required for enrollment in our clinical trials". It also notes that there "is a limited number of, and substantial competition for, suitable sites to conduct our clinical trials; clinical trial sites may terminate our clinical trials"; "patients and medical investigators may be unwilling or unable to follow our clinical trial protocols;" and "patients may fail to complete our clinical trials once enrolled." In addition, another ongoing trial is evaluating Asentar as part of a combination therapy for AIPC patients with Sanofi's Taxotere. If safety or efficacy issues arise with Taxotere, the annual report warns, Novacea could experience significant regulatory delays, and the clinical trial may need to be terminated or redesigned. Even if Asentar were to receive FDA approval, Novacea would continue to be subject to the risks that could arise with Taxotere or that Taxotere may be replaced as the standard of care for AIPC. "This could result in Asentar ™ being removed from the market or being less commercially successful," the report states. Ironically, in one of 3 derogatory letters sent to the FDA urging the non-approval of Provenge leaked to the media following the failed efforts to rig the advisory panel vote, Dr Scher discussed the same fatal effects that the approval could have on the research industry. "An approval recommendation has far reaching implications beyond making the product available that the data simply do not support or justify," he wrote. Approval would provide the Agency's endorsement of Provenge as a "standard of care" for men with AICP, he said, and by extension, elevate Provenge "to a position of being the new 'control' arm for future randomized phase 3 trials that are being designed for the regulatory approval of any new experimental agent or approach." In other words, all the billions of dollars invested in the clinical trials now underway, or set to begin, conducted in hopes of gaining FDA approval for a new ACIP treatment, could go right down the drain if Provenge is approved as the first-line treatment for this patient population. Dr Scher is probably more aware of this fact than anybody. On February 26, 2007, MedPage Today reported that in a satellite symposium titled, "Improving Upon Current Standards: The Integration of Novel Therapies in the Treatment of Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer," sponsored by Novacea, Dr Scher said Taxotere-based combination therapy is being investigated in a dozen clinical trials for ACIP patients, and he reported receiving grants and research support from both Novacea and Sanofi. Authors Bio: Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate Source:www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_071009_fda_industry_insider.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 19, 2007 7:12:29 GMT 4
ORGANIC BYTES #120 Health, Justice and Sustainability News Tidbits with an Edge!10/18/2007 Written and edited by Craig Minowa and Ronnie Cummins IN THIS ISSUEORGANIC CONSUMERS SUE AURORA DAIRY IN 27 STATES FOR VIOLATING ORGANIC STANDARDS ALERT OF THE WEEK: EPA APPROVES PESTICIDE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER & MISCARRIAGES QUICK RELATED FACT: WHO ADVISED THE APPROVAL OF NEW CARCINOGENIC PESTICIDE? USDA APPROVES CHIP IMPLANTS THAT CAUSE CANCER TUMORS QUICK RELATED FACT: WHO APPROVED TUMOR-CAUSING CHIPS? SUSTAINABILITY ALERT: PRO-ORGANIC DRAFT FARM BILL UNDER ATTACK ALERT UPDATE: RULE REQUIRING PASTEURIZATION OF RAW ALMONDS GOES INTO EFFECT STUDY OF THE WEEK: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN TOXIN AFFECTING AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS QUICK TIDBITS: E.U. BLOCKS NEW GE CROPS -- U.S. APPROVES NEW GE CROPS TALK ABOUT IT IN OCA'S WEB FORUM: NEW STUDY SAYS SOME MEAT EATING IS OKAY FOR ENVIRONMENT QUICK RELATED FACTS: YOUR DIET IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT MORE THAN YOUR CAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ORGANIC CONSUMERS SUE AURORA DAIRY IN 27 STATES FOR VIOLATING ORGANIC STANDARDSActing on behalf of organic food consumers in 27 states, class action lawsuits are being filed this week in U.S. federal courts in St. Louis and Denver, against one of the nation's largest organic dairies. The suits charge Aurora Dairy Corporation, based in Boulder, Colorado, with allegations of consumer fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment concerning the sale of organic milk by the company. This past April, Aurora officials received a notice from the USDA detailing multiple and "willful" violations of federal organic law that were found by federal investigators, specifically not providing mandatory pasture access and bringing non-organic cows onto their massive feedlots. Unfortunately the USDA gave Aurora what the OCA considers a "slap on the wrist," rather than taking away the corporation's USDA Organic certification. Commenting on this week's class action lawsuit, Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the OCA stated: "If the USDA refuses to properly enforce organic standards, then organic consumers have no choice but to act as their own enforcement body, using the courts to punish those corporations, like Aurora, that put profits ahead of organic integrity." Two weeks ago Aurora threatened to sue the OCA, Cornucopia Institute, and the Center for Food Safety if we didn't back off. Now it looks like Aurora will have to face the consequences of their "willful violations" of organic standards in court. OCA would like to thank the hundreds of organic consumers across the country who have joined in on this class action lawsuit. We would like to also thank the several hundred OCA network supporters who have sent us over the past two weeks more than $15,000 to carry on this important legal battle. But now we need your help more than ever. If you can afford to help us fight this David versus Goliath battle over organic integrity, please send us a donation now. www.organicconsumers.org/donations.htm For more information on this historic lawsuit see: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31c5x3249492&___________________________________ ALERT OF THE WEEK: EPA APPROVES PESTICIDE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER & MISCARRIAGESOn October 5, the EPA approved a new chemical fumigant for use on strawberries and other food crops across the U.S. The pesticide, methyl iodide, vaporizes quickly, causing it to drift far distances. Although the state of California has categorized it as cancer causing, and the EPA admits it causes thyroid tumors, the Bush Administration has been advocating approval of the fumigant for the better part of two years. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on September 25, the nation's leading chemists asked EPA not to approve methyl iodide without further scientific review. The chemical has been used to induce cancer in laboratory experiments and causes neurological and thyroid problems, as well as miscarriages in studies with laboratory animals. Farmworkers, families, rural workers, and the food supply will now be subjected to exposure to the carcinogen unless the EPA revokes the approval immediately. Please take action now:alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31c6x3249492& QUICK RELATED FACT: WHO ADVISED THE APPROVAL OF NEW CARCINOGENIC PESTICIDE?James L. Connaughtonwas appointed by George W. Bush as the Senior Environmental Advisor and Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before being appointed to this position, Connaughton was one of Capitol Hill's most successful lobbyists... for the mining, chemical, industrial and asbestos industries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USDA APPROVES CHIP IMPLANTS THAT CAUSE CANCER TUMORS Over the past couple of years, the OCA has reported on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a set of controversial, mandatory regulations the U.S. federal government claims to have abandoned to the states, but in fact is still pushing, specifically, in the 2007 Farm Bill. NAIS would require that all farmers and farm animal owners implant their animals with a computer chip, even those who just own a single cow, horse, chicken or other farm animal. Last week, the USDA approved the use of two new types of chips for the NAIS program. These same chips have already been planted in millions of pets and marketed to pet owners as an ID device to help find lost pets. Increasingly, these same chips are being marketed and implanted into humans. Evidence has now surfaced that a significant number of studies done in the 1990s revealed that lab animals implanted with the devices developed tumors. When the FDA approved the use of the chips for human implanting, these reports were never made public. In an interview with a retired toxicologic pathologist who studied the chips for Dow Chemical,"The transponders were the cause of the tumors." Learn more: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31c7x3249492& QUICK RELATED FACT: WHO APPROVED TUMOR-CAUSING CHIPS?The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of the original RFID chip's approval, was headed by White House appointee Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corporation, the company who designed the RFID chip. He was compensated by VeriChip with cash and stock options. In his public appearances, he continues to claim the chips are completely safe and urges all citizens get the implants for the sake of the health and safety of their families. To date, neither Thompson nor any member of his family has had the chip implanted.Source: Associated Press 9/8/200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSTAINABILITY ALERT: PRO-ORGANIC DRAFT FARM BILL UNDER ATTACKAfter a number of delays, the Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to take action on their version of the Farm Bill on Tuesday, October 23rd. Right now, many confidential negotiations and back room deals are underway in preparation for the Committee’s Farm Bill mark-up next week. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) announced today that his draft Farm Bill includes strong provisions to promote organic and sustainable agriculture, conservation, beginning farmers and better nutrition. However, various sources have indicated that funding levels remain low for many of these crucial programs. With the Agriculture Committee set to vote next week, and the full Senate vote as early as the week of October 29th, NOW is the time to act. Please contact your Senators and ask them to support increases in funding for conservation, organic agriculture, healthy food and beginning and minority farmer programs. TAKE ACTION:alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31d0x3249492& ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALERT UPDATE: RULE REQUIRING PASTEURIZATION OF RAW ALMONDS GOES INTO EFFECT Despite massive opposition from almond producers, retailers and organic consumers, the USDA has implemented its ruling to require that raw almonds be pasteurized. The rule went into effect on September 1st, and since then, all retail outlets have been forced to remove truly raw almonds from store shelves. Consumers will be misled by this action as there will still be almonds on store shelves labeled as "raw", but they will actually be pasteurized. One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a "possible human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Since the decision about the rule was made, Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has stepped down. He is temporarily replaced by Chuck Conner. This may provide a new opportunity for reversal. Please contact Conner today to ask that the rule be suspended for 6 months while the public comment period is re-opened: www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5227.cfm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STUDY OF THE WEEK: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN TOXIN AFFECTING AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS A new study in the recent issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates that a toxin in genetically engineered Bt corn is contaminating waterways near farm fields. The toxin is killing caddisflies which is a valuable food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians. This genetically engineered (GE) corn was approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a decade ago, but the agency never tested its impact on caddisflies, which are common insects in areas where these crops are grown. According to one of the study's researchers, Todd Royer, "I think probably the risks associated with widespread planting of Bt corn were not fully assessed." Since its inception, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has called for a moratorium on GE crops, based on a current lack of data regarding environmental and health safety. Learn more: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31c9x3249492& QUICK TIDBITS E.U. BLOCKS NEW GE CROPS:The European Union has blocked the approval of a genetically modified potato and three genetically modified varieties of corn. Health regulators in several European countries expressed serious concerns about scientific data suggesting possible problems with the biotech plants. All of the proposed plants are already approved for use in the U.S. Learn more: www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7617.cfm U.S. APPROVES NEW GE CROPS: The USDA has announced its plans to deregulate another variety of genetically engineered soybean. This will be the 71st genetically engineered plant the USDA has determined can forgo any and all safety and environmental regulations. The USDA will be taking comments on the proposal until December 4th. Please comment here: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31cbx3249492&------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SURVEY OF OCA READERS: IS IT OKAY TO EAT MEAT?Researchers from Cornell have published a study that reopens the debate over whether it's better for the environment to be an omnivore or a vegetarian. According to the study, a low fat carnivore diet with a limited amount of meat, dairy and/or eggs is actually a more efficient use of the land. The explanation is relatively simple: if you are trying to sustainably produce the maximum amount of food nutrients on a plot of land, the high value soil is better suited for food plants, whereas low value land can create more food via grazing livestock or wild game than by planting crops. Researchers noted that the average modern meat eater consumes levels of meat and dairy that are nearly three times what would be considered "efficient". Although specific geographical areas may result in varying equations, the study's land analysis found that the amount of omnivore intake for environmental efficiency is 2 cooked ounces per day. That amounts to around the size of two decks of cards every three days. Learn more and share your opinions about this study in OCA's web forum. Please take our quick poll there too, so we can determine how many readers are vegan, vegetarian, omnivore and carnivore: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31ccx3249492& QUICK RELATED FACTS: YOUR DIET IMPACTS ENVIRONMENT MORE THAN YOUR CAR 13 PERCENT = The percentage of greenhouse gases created by all trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and other transportation. 18 PERCENT = The amount of greenhouse gases created by livestock production. Source: United Nations Moral of the story: If you are an average U.S. meat eater, reducing your meat consumption to 2 ounces per day is roughly equivalent to doubling your vehicle's fuel efficiency, in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FIND OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR STATEWe have recently begun revamping our state pages to make them more accessible so that people can learn and share information about events, news, groups, and campaigns in their state. This week we've added an RSS feed so that you can receive your state's health, justice and sustainability news as soon as we post them. You will find an RSS link at the top of the news section. Help us make your state page dynamic and lively! Please take a moment to add an event, news story or green business by visiting your state page and clicking the “Become a news scout” link. To find your OCA state page, go to any OCA webpage and choose your state from the dropdown menu on the left hand navigation bar: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-dcx31d1x3249492&
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 31, 2007 18:24:49 GMT 4
Satan manifests itself in food with high fructose corn syrupI was glad to see the following article...high fructose corn syrup...how I hate the crap!....it's in everything! The other day, my son pointed out a bag of flour containing it....Now they're trying to short cut you even if you bake your own goods. The author doesn't mention it, but I suspect this may be the cause of our surge in juvenile diabetes. As I said, high fructose corn syrup is difficult to get away from in our so called food products....Buy products containing sugar folks, the real kind. No artificial sweeteners either! They are extremely harmful to you; I'll have more on that in an upcoming post. Anyway, you who are afraid of gaining weight and say you need sugar-free products, consider the fact that a teaspoon of white refined sugar has only 16 calories in it....not bad, uh? Just don't eat so much of it and you'll be OK. Better yet, buy products with natural whole cane sugar. And, by all means, bake your own goods...your family will love you for it! One last thing before you go on reading, the author mentions how this stuff hooks your tastebuds/body on to it....this is very true. If any of you read my Wake Up World posts, the following will be important to you: foodstuffs of this nature will also lower your vibrations.... Now go out and bake some cookies! MichelleSatan manifests itself in food with high fructose corn syrupBy: Lindsay Funston Posted: 10/26/07 There is a secret ingredient lurking in almost everything you eat. Unless you are a self-proclaimed nutrition guru, you most likely consume a food or beverage with high fructose corn syrup everyday. High fructose corn syrup sweetens products from soda - nutritionally dubbed "liquid satan" - to whole-wheat bread. The syrup, even saturating what seem like non-threatening items including ketchup, is one of the main contributors to the nation's struggle with obesity. And surprisingly, one of the least talked about. Sugar is not a diet sabotage in its raw form. It comes from a sugar cane plant and, when digested moderately in this mode, is not that bad for your body. But American food manufacturers are clever and cost-efficient. They have toyed with ways to strip sugar from its natural state and refine the sweetener to become a syrup-like substance. Subsequently, sugar-loaded foods have poor nutritional value and a lot of fat. High fructose dominated the sweetener market in the 1980s, immediately replacing traditional forms for its affordability and effectiveness. It masks the chemical flavor in Coca-Cola, enhances the addicting taste in cookies and even hides in yogurt, a food marketed as a healthy snack. Not only does this sweetener pack on pounds, but it also affects your mood. Ever wonder why after you chug a Big Gulp you experience a sugar high followed by a massive headache, energy drop and lash-outs to friends? This is the dangerous magic of the corn syrup at work. It hooks your taste buds, leaving you to crave more, even when it makes you feel like crap. Consumers must also be cautioned about the long-term effects. Studies have directly linked the artificial syrup to diabetes (a surging health crisis in our country), caloric overload and unhealthy eating habits. Fructose, a simple sugar, fails to activate the brain's trigger to alert you that your stomach is satiated. It doesn't end there. More recently, high fructose corn syrup has shown a relationship with colon cancer in women. What wonderful news. If you truly want to avoid the sweetener, don't rely on food labels stating they are 100 percent natural. 7UP tried to do this years ago despite high fructose topping its list of ingredients. Read the nutrition labels on the foods you eat and show food manufacturers that they can no longer sugar-coat foods as "healthy" if you prefer to rid the devilish syrup from your diet. lfunston@dailyemerald.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 2007 Oregon Daily Emerald Source: tinyurl.com/23vb6k
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 11, 2007 14:47:26 GMT 4
Eating shouldn't be this hazardous to usI wanted to put info up on the E. coli contamination of our food sources, but got sidetracked by other issues. Well, it can't wait any longer; the death and extreme illness of little kids due to E. coli O157:H7, a particularly virulent strain of the bacteria, has forced my attention once again on this. Notice how confirmed cases are all over the U.S.. I am particularly interested in these cases because I once made my living as a food microbiologist and sanitarian...I worked to eliminate all possible opportunities for this and if certain organisms of concern were found, I investigated to find where they came from, and to eliminate their presence everywhere from raw materials to colonization within the facility. I worked for private industry, and believe me, you did not want a government investigation; you constantly worked for consumer safety. My how this has changed, particularly since the Bush administration has put corporate heads in charge of our public watchdog institutions. At one time, the United States had the safest food production in the world...how far we've fallen. Now, 'agri-terrorists' have little worry of government interference and say to hell with public safety! And by the way, parents, some cooked beef products end up in the National School Lunch Program, which is administered by the USDA. You should also be aware of cross contamination in your kitchen if you think you're safe after cooking contaminated meat; you can transfer organisms from raw products quite easily to your hands, counter sufaces, and other foods [particularly dangerous if the food is already cooked].....MichelleEating shouldn't be this hazardous to usPublished: 11/9/2007 12:18 AM E-coli warnings were rare until after World War II, when a few companies found ways to control food and its delivery systems in post-war America, from seed to produce and meat. Now it is common to hear a food is contaminated and threatening the public. Obviously, the tightly monopolized mega-agribusiness is collapsing or its ability to provide safe food is dangerously compromised. Studies indicate eating grass beef is healthy, but eating beef fed genetically modified corn is not. Feeding modified corn and soybeans to animals increases their need for antibiotics and changes the flora of their stomachs, creating an environment ripe for passing e-coli and other diseases on to consumers.Conversely, grazing animals do not appear susceptible to mad cow or the other diseases that affect animals eating modified grains. Yesterday's farmer knew this.Where did we go wrong? It is apparent processed foods, primarily controlled by mega- agribusinesses such as Cargill Inc. and Monsanto, are not a healthy choice even though they take up most of the space on grocery shelves. Real food is good for our children, the environment and us. It is obvious the government cannot protect us. The farm bill supports mega-agribusinesses to the detriment of smaller farmers. Only the individual can be responsible for feeding themselves and their families in healthy ways.A good resource is at www.slowfoods.com. To find local farmers producing real food locally, go to www.foodroutes.com. Many farmers deliver into Chicago and its neighborhoods. Good books with many resources are "The Real Food Revival," by Sherri Vinton and Ann Espuelas, and "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver. Gail Talbot Huntley Source: www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=74041&src=------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some E. coli allowed Meat contaminated with the sometimes-fatal bacteria can be labeled "cook only" and sold for human consumption, federal inspectors say.By Stephen J. Hedges Chicago Tribune Article Last Updated: 11/11/2007 01:02:44 AM MST WASHINGTON — One federal inspector calls it the "E. coli loophole." Another says, "Nobody would buy it if they knew." The officials are referring to the little-discussed fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has deemed it acceptable for meat companies to cook and sell meat on which E. coli, a bacteria that can sicken and even kill humans, is found during processing. The "E. coli loophole" affects millions of pounds of beef each year that tests positive for the presence of E. coli O157:H7, a particularly virulent strain of the bacteria. The agency allows companies to put this E. coli-positive meat in a special category - "cook only." Cooking the meat, the USDA and producers say, destroys the bacteria and makes it safe to eat as precooked hamburgers, meat loaf, crumbled taco meat and other products. But some USDA inspectors say the "cook only" practice means that higher-than-appropriate levels of E. coli are tolerated in packing plants, raising the chance that clean meat will become contaminated. They say the "cook only" practice is part of the reason for this year's sudden rise in incidents of E. coli contamination. There is no evidence that "cook only" meat has directly sickened consumers. But some inspectors contend that the practice conceals significantly higher levels of E. coli bacteria in packing plants than the companies admit to. That's because companies that find E. coli are allowed to shift that meat into "cook only" lines, without reporting it to the USDA. The USDA regularly conducts tests for E. coli in slaughtering plants, but only on meat that packing companies have already deemed free of E. coli, the agency inspectors say. USDA officials say they do not track how much meat is put into "cook only" categories. "The government keeps putting out that we've reduced E. coli by 50 percent and all of that," said an inspector. "And we haven't done nothing. We've just covered it up."
The USDA denied this.Source: www.denverpost.com/ci_7428942------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This loophole was brought to Congress's attention years earlier, after a similar outbreak...MAudit: USDA Ignored E-Coli WarningsOctober 3, 2003Associated Press Emily Gersem WASHINGTON -- An internal audit obtained by AP was cited as finding that meat inspectors repeatedly warned the U.S. Agriculture Department that ground beef at a ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colo., was contaminated with harmful bacteria months before a food-poisoning outbreak last year, but their concerns were ignored.The audit, to be released today, stated that E. coli was a continuous problem at the plant from January 2001 until the summer of 2002, when ConAgra issued a recall for 19 million pounds of meat linked to the outbreak. Auditors were quoted as writing that if the department had evaluated the plant, it might have been able to conclude that the contamination problem at ConAgra was severe, "but FSIS did not perform any of these reviews." The story says that the audit also found that inspectors didn't perform their own tests and failed to review other test results available to them, even though law requires them to. However, the auditors blamed some of the inspectors' shortcomings on gaps in the Agriculture Department's meat safety policies. Garry L. McKee, administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Agency, was cited as saying that auditors cannot blame the entire HACCP system for the problems that led up to the ConAgra recall, adding, "While we welcome the work that went into this report, FSIS feels it reflects conditions that existed more than one year ago at a single plant. Those conditions were not reflective of HACCP enforcement at the time, nor do they bear any resemblance to the state of HACCP enforcement programs today." He said the department has corrected the problems noted in the audit, noting that the department now requires all beef plants to be subjected to government testing for E. coli. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee at the time of the recall, was cited as saying Congress should write legislation to close loopholes in the department's meat safety policies.Source: archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/fsnet/2003/10-2003/fsnet_oct_3.htm------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ After huge beef recall, child's death, health officials warn parents By Marti Davis Sunday, November 11, 2007 Does a bite of medium-rare burger sound great? Are you tempted to let your toddler pinch some pink ground beef? Don't even think about it. Health authorities say such seemingly harmless choices have led to critical illnesses, kidney failure and possibly the death of a 20-month-old child in East Tennessee in recent weeks, all caused by a virulent strain of E.coli bacteria, the cryptically named E. coli 0157:H7.On Oct. 16, 20-month-old Jaycee Burgin, of Cocke County, daughter of Joe and Leah Burgin, died at the University of Tennessee Medical Center of complications from E. coli poisoning.That same night, surgeons operated on critically ill John McDonald, 4, the son of Jim and Georgia McDonald, of West Knoxville. John spent almost a month in intensive care. Part of his lower bowel was removed and bypassed with a colostomy, which may be removed in December, his father said. Michaela McDonald, 18 months, spent about a week in UT's pediatric intensive care. Both children now are at home.
The McDonald children's illness and that of another unrelated Knox County teenager have been tied to a massive recall of tainted frozen ground beef patties produced by Cargill Inc.
Toxin from the children's bodies had a "DNA fingerprint" indistinguishable from that of the toxin in recalled frozen burgers, purchased by the family at Sam's Club days before the recall was announced. State investigative files, received last week by the News Sentinel, showed the toxin in them also matched that of Indiana children sickened by the recalled meat.
Illnesses caused by E.coli 0157:H7 are trending upward, according to records from the Knox County Health Department. So far this year, there are 10 reported cases, including the three linked to the Cargill recall. That's double the average number of cases reported in the past four years, said Ranee Randby, Health Department spokeswoman.Though several weeks have gone by without a new outbreak in Knox County, many of the recalled frozen hamburgers produced by Cargill were dated for use up to a year from now and were sold before they could be withdrawn from shelves at Wal-Mart, Sam's Club markets and other stores. Others went to the restaurant trade. Another huge recall of Cargill frozen burgers, nearly a million pounds, was not thought to be linked to Tennessee, according to a United States Department of Agriculture announcement, but meat-topped Totino's frozen pizzas, also recalled, may have been sold in area markets. Knox County Health Department inspectors spot-checked supermarkets for the Topps and Cargill burgers recalled several weeks ago and didn't discover any still on store shelves. They didn't run an instant check on restaurant coolers for the recalled meat, said Chief Inspector Ronnie Nease. With 10 inspectors for 3,100 Knox County food stores and restaurants, there's just not enough staff to cover them all each time a recall is announced, Nease said. Jim McDonald, father of the two sickened children, said Cargill hasn't responded to his calls and messages. The McDonalds have sued the company for damages and medical bills. They are represented by Bill Marler, a nationally known Seattle attorney. The Burgins, however, are left with no one to blame, often the case in E. coli-related illnesses. The state's investigative files, received by the News Sentinel last week, show that the family ate at a Newport restaurant shortly before their daughter became ill. The state's questionnaire indicates that Jaycee had a bite of her father's pink burger, left over from the restaurant meal and taken home. Joe Burgin developed diarrhea that evening, the records state, then recovered without treatment, as do many adults made ill by the toxin, said Randby. Despite that revelation, deputy state epidemiologist Tim Jones said at the time of Jaycee's death authorities had no reason to investigate a restaurant. Maricarmen Malagon, a pediatric nephrologist at UT Medical Center who treated Jaycee Burgin and the McDonald children, said following up such leads seems like "common sense." Instead, the epidemiologist has said he relies on tests that allow scientists to match DNA markers of E. coli toxins in patients and recalled foods. By the time victims of the toxin become ill, it's unlikely that the restaurants would still have samples of the food they ate, he explained, adding that cases of E. coli poisoning from other sources prevent state investigators from presuming that the source was ground beef. Though E. coli poisoning has been linked to drinking water, spinach, lettuce and even apple juice, all were eventually traced to contamination by animal wastes, said Marler, adding that the overwhelming majority of cases are linked to ground beef.Children under age 4 are most susceptible to the toxin and a complicating condition called HUS, or hemolytic uremic syndrome. HUS, which affected the McDonald children and Jaycee Burgin, attacks red blood cells, causing them to clot and cut off oxygen supply to vital organs. The oxygen-starved tissue dies, as it did in Burgin and in the lower bowel of John McDonald. Catherine Russe, a Maryville College senior, was 15 when she was sickened by a tainted hamburger served to her at a local hospital where she was being treated for bulimia and anorexia nervosa. She, too, developed HUS, spent more than two weeks in intensive care, and had multiple blood transfusions and lengthy dialysis. She wept when her college professors announced the death of Jaycee Burgin. "Every time I hear about a child who dies or even gets sick from HUS, I cry. The pain that one experiences during this illness cannot be described, and for a child to have to go through something such as this absolutely breaks my heart," she said.Though Russe is not currently being treated for kidney disease, her doctor believes she may have problems in the future, Russe explained. The USDA has come under harsh criticism for failing to prevent contamination or announce recalls more promptly. It has announced tougher inspection procedures in recent days, specifically stating that imported meat will be held to higher standards. Marti Davis may be reached at 865-342-6305. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.Source: www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/nov/11/if-tainted-no-morsel-is-safe/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ E. coli sickens girl from Sterling Aubrey Anderson, 5, is in critical condition at Wesley Medical Center. Her family doesn't know how she became ill.BY KAREN SHIDELER The Wichita Eagle Karen Anderson finally got to stroke her daughter's hair Wednesday.Until then, Anderson said Thursday, 5-year-old Aubrey had been too ill to tolerate touch, her senses heightened by the E. coli infection that sickened her before Halloween. Aubrey remains in critical condition in the pediatric intensive care unit at Wesley Medical Center. "She had a better day yesterday than she's having today," Anderson said. "She's able to talk to us, but she's so weak." Karen and Bill Anderson, who live in Sterling where he's principal of Sterling junior and senior high schools, don't know what might have made their youngest daughter so ill. They know only that on Oct. 28, she developed "stomach flu" symptoms. By the following day, her bloody diarrhea sent daughter and mother to the doctor, then to the hospital in Hutchinson. The next day, she was moved to Wesley. E. coli is a bacterium that causes infections in the digestive system. One type of E. coli lives in the intestines; other kinds can contaminate food or water. Some infections cause no symptoms; others cause diarrhea or vomiting, some of it severe. Many people get over the infections without treatment. The Andersons don't know what infected Aubrey or why her illness is so severe. Her older sisters, Bethany, 9, and Morgan, 7, are fine, as are her parents. Aubrey's pre-kindergarten classmates are OK, too. Karen Anderson is a nurse, and, "I knew when they said E. coli that we were going to be battling her kidneys right away." Aubrey has a complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome. It means the kidneys can't keep up with the toxins and other wastes they normally filter. Machines have taken over for her kidneys.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 8 percent of those who seek medical care for E. coli-related illness develop the syndrome. Most cases are caused by E. coli O157:H7, the strain that's been associated with outbreaks of illness and recalls of foods such as ground beef, spinach and bagged salads. How is it treated? "That's the really frustrating part," Bill Anderson said, because while E. coli is a bacterium, it can't be directly treated. "You're just chasing the bad effects of it."The effects include Aubrey's heightened reactions. She's usually laughing and sweet but has turned cranky, her parents said. They're not sure how she'll react when she finds out she missed Halloween and the chance to wear her fairy princess costume -- but they plan to let her wear it once she's home again. The Andersons, looking tired but hopeful after a week by their daughter's bedside, say they've gotten through her illness with the support of their communities and church families at Hutchinson's Grace Bible Church and Wichita's Olivet Baptist Church, the church Bill grew up in. "Our strength comes from our relationship to God" and the support of those around them, including their daughter's doctors and nurses, Bill Anderson said. "I think those two things are what have really carried us." The Andersons don't know what the future will hold, but they hope that Aubrey's body will be able to rebuild itself and that she'll suffer no long-term effects. "It could be weeks, it could be months. We don't know," Karen Anderson said. "We're hoping not months." Reach Karen Shideler at 316-268-6674 or kshideler@wichitaeagle.com.Source: www.kansas.com/188/story/222954.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted November 10, 2007 St. Norbert College hunts for source of E. coli infection 1 student taken ill, hospitalized 3 days By Kelly McBride kmcbride@greenbaypressgazette.com DE PERE — St. Norbert College temporarily has stopped serving beef and leafy green vegetables after a student there was treated for an E. coli infection, campus officials said Friday. Officials are working with the student, who has returned to class, to determine what may have caused the illness. The student, who was not identified, was hospitalized for three days, said Barbara Bloomer, director of health services for the college. "We're looking at all possible scenarios," Bloomer said Friday. "We're doing a 10-day diet food recall. … We are looking at the full spectrum of timeframe." The student regularly eats in the cafeteria on campus and lives in a campus residence hall, Bloomer said. E. coli — short for Escherichia coli — primarily is transmitted through contaminated food but can be passed from person to person. The infected student lives in a private room with a private bathroom, Bloomer said. Campus officials have contacted St. Norbert's two primary food vendors, the Sysco Corporation and Reinhart Food Service, said Matthew Doyle, associate director of dining services at St. Norbert. The two companies, along with meat processors the school buys from, have had no recent reports of illness or any recalls for the products St. Norbert uses. They continue to cooperate with school officials. "Sysco East will work closely with the health department, the (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and other governmental agencies, by providing all information to determine the potential origin of the outbreak," said Misha Siner, vice president of human resources for Sysco Food Service of Eastern Wisconsin. Reinhart Food Service officials could not be reached Friday for comment. In addition to looking at campus food sources, officials also determined the student had not eaten any of the Jeno's or Totino's pizza products that were recalled Nov. 1, Bloomer said. That's the day the student went to the hospital, but E. coli was not confirmed until Thursday afternoon. No other students have come forward with E. coli symptoms, Bloomer said. The bacteria have an incubation period of about nine days after exposure. Students were informed of the infection via e-mail Thursday, once E. coli was confirmed. About 1,300 students are on St. Norbert's meal plan, with the school serving about 2,000 meals a day, Doyle said. Source: www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071110/GPG0101/711100564/1978/frontpage
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 19, 2007 14:57:39 GMT 4
Stop the Irradiation of Supplements NOW!FDA Plots To Disolve Labelling Requirement For Irradiated Foods [see article below]Remember that now, as it has been at every point in our nation's history, if it were not for the dedication of the few, the vast majority of us would not enjoy the rights and freedoms we do. Your voice is needed now to preserve our access to food and supplements free from irradiation. Thanks for taking action, Frank Herd, Jr Executive Director Citizens for HealthOn December 17, 2007, Citizens for Health (CFH) joined with the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) in opposing a petition filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the use of ionizing radiation for the control of microbial contamination on dietary supplements and dietary ingredients. AHPA became aware of the petition when it was referenced in the preamble to FDA's final rule on current good manufacturing practice for dietary supplement on June 25, 2007. In requesting that the petition be denied, AHPA identified several concerns, including that because "proper handling of these ingredients under current good manufacturing practice is usually sufficient to ensure that dietary supplements are not subject to microbial contamination that presents any risk to the health of consumers of these products . . . there is generally no need for ionizing radiation as a treatment for this class of goods." We have joined with AHPA because we know what you do - that dietary supplements have a strong track record of safety established over years, decades, and in some cases, centuries of use by people all aorund the world. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) established that the law here in the United States affirms that supplements are considered safe unless proven otherwise. Yet the filers of the petition believe our supplements need to be bombarded by radiation at levels 3 to 30 times higher that is currently allowed for all but two food categories. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just Say "NO" to the Irradiation of Supplements!Washington, D.C., December 18, 2007 Citizens for Health has joined with the American Herbal Products Association to oppose the irradiation of dietary supplements Citizens for Health supports AHPA's opposition to this petition on the following grounds: Proper handling of dietary supplements under current good manufacturing practice is usually sufficient to ensure that they are not subject to microbial contamination that presents any risk to the health of consumers of these products If approved, the use of ionizing irradiation on herbal dietary ingredients will mask one of the factors that is currently relevant to the determination of ingredient quality, since information about microbial levels and the presence of pathogens or yeasts and molds at any time during the handling of a treated ingredient would be lost. Of particular concern are pathogens, since even if pathogenic organisms are eliminated through irradiation, pathogenic by-products such as endotoxins or exotoxins may remain in the material Irradiation is currently allowed in the United States for eleven food categories, and in proposing that the limitation of ionizing radiation for dietary supplements be established at 30 kGy, the petition is suggesting that this limit be from 3 to 30 times higher that is currently allowed for all but two food categories. Dietary supplements may be consumed in quantities of several grams per day. Thus, dietary supplement consumers will be exposed to much higher levels of any material changes that occur in a supplement’s or ingredient’s characteristics or in its consequences of use, if any, as a result of the irradiation. Send your letter to the FDA now! salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/750/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=22037Remind them that irradiation is unwelcome and unnecessary - dietary supplements are already safe! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally published December 13 2007 FDA Plots To Disolve Labelling Requirement For Irradiated Foods by Christian Evans (NewsTarget) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to relax its stance on food labeling to allow some foods which have been irradiated to be labeled as "pasteurized" instead. The proposed rule changes would allow companies to label food as pasteurized when the treatment of irradiation doesn't cause any material change in the product or any material change in the consequences that may arise from ingesting the product. This could include changes to the texture, smell, taste, and shelf life; as well as the nutritional, organic or functional properties of food. "This move by the FDA would deny consumers clear information about whether they are buying food that has been exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation. . . an industry attempt to make consumers buy products that they otherwise might avoid," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy group that "challenges the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources." Companies looking to take advantage of the new labeling allowances simply will need to prove to the FDA that irradiating food kills microorganisms as effectively as pasteurization. This proposal also allows companies to use alternate terms to describe "irradiated" foods other than the word "pasteurized." Pasteurization is the process of destroying viruses and harmful organisms like mold, yeast, protozoa and bacteria by bringing liquids to a high temperature. Irradiation, on the other hand, is a process of exposing an item to radiation - whether intentional or accidental. The only similarity between the two methods seems to be that both effectively kill germs. But the two terms are hardly synonymous. "Louis Pasteur would be rolling in his grave if he knew that the FDA was about to attach his name to a process of irradiating foods," said Mike Adams, executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.org). "This attempt by the FDA to blatantly mislead consumers by falsely labeling irradiated foods as pasteurized is just the latest example of this agency's total abandonment of its mission to protect and inform consumers about what's in their food."Irradiation is a way to control potential microbiological hazards in food and extend the shelf life of processed foods, but it can also be a dangerous practice. Food companies claim that through this radiation technique, bacteria is eliminated without making the food radioactive, but there is a substantial body of evidence they seem to be ignoring. According to an independent study detailed in Radiation Research, after having ingested irradiated sucrose solutions, a great deal of radioactivity was present in the kidneys, liver, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and blood serum of laboratory test rats, as well as in their urine and feces samples.
Other independent and governmental studies have linked irradiation to cancer, severe internal bleeding, vitamin deficiency, lack of blood clotting, marked edema, loss of coordination or movement, chromosome damage and death.However, the proposed rule is making some large industrial groups, such as the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association, very happy about the switch. Groups like these believe the term "irradiated" gives treated food a negative connotation and acts as a warning label to consumers. However, they are misleading American consumers as to exactly what happens to food during the process of eliminating germs. "Consumers are justifiably wary of foods bombarded with nuclear waste or powerful x-rays or gamma rays, since irradiation destroys essential vitamins and nutrients, creates unique radiolytic chemical compounds never before consumed by humans, and generates carcinogenic byproducts such as formaldehyde and benzene," according to the Organic Consumers Association."Although irradiation, except for spices, is banned in much of the world, and prohibited globally in organic production, U.S. corporate agribusiness and the meat industry desperately want to be able to secretly 'nuke' foods in order to reduce the deadly bacterial contamination that is now routine in industrial agriculture and meat production." In 1984, the FDA proposed allowing certain irradiated foods to be sold without being labeled as such. This action garnered more than 5,000 comments to the agency and, within two years, the FDA required all FDA-regulated irradiated foods to be labeled with the radiation symbol or similar identification. Now, the agency seems to be changing its position once again. According to the World Health Organization (WHO): "Irradiating can bring about chemical transformations in food and food components resulting in the formation of potential mutagens, particularly hydrogen peroxide and various organic peroxides. . . In view of the serious consequences to the human population which could arise from a high level of induced mutations, it is desirable that protocols for irradiated food should include in vivo tests on mammals for possible mutagenicity."The FDA acknowledges that allowing companies to describe irradiation in alternative ways may confuse consumers. "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading," according to the new FDA rule proposal. The FDA has posted the proposed revisions to the rules on food irradiation and is accepting public comments on their website regarding this proposal for 90 days from the date it was first posted (April 4). "The proposed rule would apply only to foods regulated by the FDA. However, if and when the rule is finalized, the Department of Agriculture could undergo a similar process to change the irradiation labeling requirements for the food it regulates, including meat and poultry," said Amanda Eamich, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. Irradiation seems to be a good enough reason to stay away from processed foods entirely; as sticking with local and organic foods may prove to be the best idea of all.About the author Christian Evans is a freelance journalist with a passion for promoting the "Natural Health Paradigm". He enjoys reviewing products by up and coming natural health companies and has espoused a natural lifestyle and a diet of primarily raw foods. In his spare time, Christian enjoys surfing, fly fishing, and observing nature.Source: www.newstarget.com/z022380.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 7, 2008 12:33:31 GMT 4
Bristol-Myers Squibb to Pay Half a Billion Dollars to Settle Doctor Kickback Charges and Avoid ProsecutionBristol-Myers Squibb was voted as one of the World's Most Admired Companies in 2007. But then again, this same group voted for Walmart as one of the top 20 Most Admired Companies. [money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/globalmostadmired/2007/snapshots/64.html] Big Business has deep pockets to pay off and avoid prosecution charges and to keep their reputations squeaky clean. Now I'm just wondering here, Bristol-Myers Squibb is paying the government a half billion to avoid prosecution and then they're free to do the same again; doesn't that seem like a wonderful setup for the government who appears to be watching out for our safety and companies who don't bat an eye at such a large amount of money? No, criminal prosecution is the only way to stop this unethical, immoral, and dangerous behavior by Big Business...Michelle Bristol-Myers Squibb to Pay Half a Billion Dollars to Settle Doctor Kickback Charges and Avoid Prosecutionby David Gutierrez Originally published January 3 2008 (NewsTarget) The pharmaceutical company Apothecon and its parent, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, have agreed to a comprehensive settlement in a variety of federal and state lawsuits that accused the companies of myriad degrees of financial misconduct. The settlement was announced by U.S. attorney Michael J. Sullivan, who also said that the government will not pursue criminal charges against the company. This will enable Bristol-Myers Squibb to avoid criminal sanctions or having its relationship with state and federal governments threatened. Among the many allegations against the company, the federal government charged that Bristol-Myers Squibb paid out illegal gifts to doctors and health-care providers between 2000 in 2003 to encourage them to promote and prescribe the company's drugs. The company was also accused of artificial and fraudulent price inflation in order to defraud public health-care programs on prescription costs and of paying wholesalers and retailers to stock Bristol-Myers Squibb drugs. In addition, the government charged the company with illegally promoting the prescription of Abilify, an atypical antipsychotic, for non-approved, "off-label" use on children and dementia patients."Kickbacks are especially nefarious when they are used as part of a marketing effort to convince physicians to prescribe drugs for uses that the FDA has not determined to be safe and effective," Sullivan said. As part of the settlement, Bristol-Myers Squibb will pay out $515 million to various plaintiffs. In addition, the company has agreed to a five-year "corporate integrity agreement" with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General. Under this agreement, the company is required to maintain certain compliance programs for all its U.S. business dealings. "This settlement allows Bristol-Myers to escape the repercussions of being convicted on criminal charges," explained Big Pharma critic Mike Adams. "It's business as usual in America today: Drug companies commit fraud, get caught, then settle without admitting any wrongdoing. The very next day, they're back at it, engaged in the same kind of kickback schemes and price fixing frauds. Drug companies have learned it pays to engage in fraud, because settlement fees are dwarfed by the profits reaped from their criminal behavior," Adams said.Only three months ago, the company avoided going to trial on federal conspiracy charges by agreeing to certain probation conditions. In that unrelated case, federal prosecutors alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb had exaggerated its revenue by $2 billion in order to induce wholesalers to buy more of its products than could actually be sold. Source: www.newstarget.com/z022449.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ More detail on the drug Abilify and Bristol-Myers Squibb push for use on children and the elderly:Bristol-Myers Squibb Fined AgainPosted by Jacob Goldstein September 28, 2007, 3:59 pm Bristol-Myers Squibb is paying the government more than half a billion to settle charges that the company inflated the prices of its drugs, paid kickbacks to doctors and promoted its anti-psychotic drug Abilify for unapproved uses.[/b] The broad outlines of the settlement were announced last December, but the specific accusations weren’t laid out until today. Here’s the AP story. Given all the recent attention to industry money and off-label uses of atypical antipsychotics, we were particularly struck by the Abilify issue. The drug is approved only for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in adults, but the Department of Justice accused the company of promoting its use for children and for elderly patients with dementia. In a press release issued today, DOJ said: BMS directed its sales force to call on child psychiatrists and other pediatric specialists, and the sales force then urged physicians and others providers to prescribe Abilify for pediatric patients. BMS also created a specialized long term care sales force that called almost exclusively on nursing homes, where dementia-related psychosis is far more prevalent than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The release also notes that the drug’s label carries a black-box warning highlighting the increased risk of death for elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis who are treated with atypical antipsychotics.The company has spent a lot of time in the doghouse in recent years. It paid $300 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit in 2004, spent the past two years in a deferred-prosecution agreement and paid a $1 million fine earlier this year to settle the generic Plavix debacle. Bristol-Myers didn’t admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement announced today. The Health Blog reached a company spokesman who wouldn’t comment on the specific allegations in the case. Source: blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/09/28/bristol-myers-squibb-fined-again/
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 11, 2008 16:56:35 GMT 4
The Poor Get Diabetes, the Rich Get Local and OrganicI have been advising people for years to buy organic, when possible. The levels of vitamins and minerals in organic produce compared to non-organic is unquestionably higher. Organic produce tastes better too...just as I remember from childhood, before they started screwing with our food, big time! Plus, you don't have pesticides and other chemicals lurking in your food. Organic farmers practice sustainable methods, so organic is good for Mother Earth too. I am mindful about excess packaging on many organic products which is a downfall when you look at them in terms of sustainable living....excess waste and little product for your money....I don't buy these.
I must also add caution in selecting brands and country of origin when it comes to packaged/processed food, however. I tend to buy from the companies who have been in the organic business since the beginning. With 'organic' and 'all natural' buzz words being all the rage now, one has to be careful since the big food corporations hemmed in on organics. Their farms may be just another factory farm with a high incidence of pollution to the surrounding environment and inhumane raising and slaughter of stock. So, I don't buy from those big corporations. I've also have started seeing organic products from China, a country who's known to use abusive labor practices and much of their environment is toxic.
As the following article highlights, buying organic can be quite expensive and availability is scarce to none in lower income neighborhoods. In my area a trip to the city of Pittsburgh is necessary for a wide range and availability of organic products and produce. This travel and cost of gasoline determent force me to buy from 'the only game in town', grocery monopoly holder, Giant Eagle, who price gouge on everything they sell! During the warmer months, I grow as much as I can and experiment continuously with different crops and various types of the same vegetable. I also save my seeds from year to year.
I am beginning to notice that smaller stores are cautiously adding organic produce/products, but it seems that economically disadvantaged shoppers aren't aware of the benefits of these products or the price deters them from buying. On that note I must add that prices of all groceries have increased dramatically [something which never happened before the creation of the Federal Reserve and their creation of inflation] and 'organic' has become similar in price to non-organic....something to think about there.
You are what you eat, MichelleThe Poor Get Diabetes, the Rich Get Local and OrganicBy Mark Winne, Beacon Press. Posted January 9, 2008. From the War on Poverty to new farmers' markets, a food expert tackles America's dangerous dietary split. The following is an excerpt from Mark Winne's new book, Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty: www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1870As a class, lower income people have been well represented in some of the best-covered food stories of our day, particularly hunger, obesity, and diabetes. As these issues have faded in and out of the public's eye over the last 25 years, another food trend was rapidly becoming a national obsession -- namely, local and organic. At about the same time that Berkeley diva Alice Waters was first showing us how to bestow style and grace on something as ordinary as a local tomato, the Reagan administration's anti-poor policies were driving an unprecedented number of people into soup kitchens and food banks. And as organic food advocates were putting the finishing touches on what was to become the first national standard for organic food, supermarket chains were nailing plywood across their city store windows bidding farewell to lower income America. Organic food and agriculture had barely climbed out of the bassinet in 1989 when 60 Minutes ran its now famous Alar story. The exposure it received before 40 million television viewers ignited a firestorm of consumer reaction that eventually made organic food the fastest growing segment of the U.S. food industry. Yuppie families reacted first. Like every parent since time immemorial, these parents wanted what was best for their children, and the emerging evidence that our food supply was tainted accelerated their desire for the healthiest and safest food possible. Though the research surrounding the health and safety attributes of various foods remained foggy, competing claims opened up a never ending number of consumer options. One's food choices may be vegetarian, vegan, organic, grass-fed, free-range, humanely raised, or some combination of these. As to the source of this food, it could range from "generally local when it's easy to get" to "obsessively local and will eat nothing else." In low-income circles, however, such food anxieties got little traction. Between getting to a food store where the bananas weren't black and having enough money to buy any food at all, low-income shoppers had little inclination to parse the differences between grass-fed and grass-finished. But this didn't imply that their awareness of organic food was non-existent, nor did it mean that low-income consumers were less likely to buy organic if they had the chance.Low-Income Shoppers Speak To better understand a variety of issues, the Hartford Food System, a Connecticut-based non-profit organization that I directed for 24 years, would often meet with low-income families to get their point of view. On one such occasion, we asked eight members of Hartford's Clay/Arsenal neighborhood to discuss local and organic food. Like other impoverished urban neighborhoods, Clay/Arsenal was entirely devoid of good quality food stores, and their residents experienced hunger, obesity, and diabetes at rates that were two to three times the national average. This group was comprised exclusively of Hispanic and African American residents. First off, the group expressed an immediate consensus that fresh, inexpensive food -- the food they generally preferred -- was unavailable in their neighborhood. Everyone agreed that traveling to a full-line supermarket was a hassle because it required one or two long bus rides or an expensive taxi fare. As a result, they did their major shopping once or twice a month, and when they shopped, price was their most important consideration. When asked what the word organic meant to them, the residents answered "real food," "natural," "healthy," and "you know what's in it." While they believed that organic food was preferable to food they described as "processed," "full of chemicals," or "toxic," they said that buying organic food wasn't even an option, because it was simply not available to them. One young woman made a point of saying that she didn't trust the environment where she lived or the food she ingested. "Everything gives you cancer these days," she said. Conversely, there was an underlying tone of confidence in the safety and healthfulness of food that they could identify as local and organic. Their awareness of the benefits of local and organic food was very high. For the elderly, there was the nostalgic association with tastes, places, and times gone by. For those with young children, there was an apprehension that nearly everything associated with their external environment, including food, was a threat. Like parents of all races, education levels, and occupations, these moms wanted what was best for their children as well, even when they knew that what was best was not available to them. Local and Organic Go Mainstream "In a burst of new interest in food," spouted Newsweek's 2006 food issue, "Americans are demanding -- and paying for -- the freshest and least chemically treated products available." Whole Foods' John Mackey told the Wall Street Journal, "The organic-food lifestyle is not a fad ... It's a value system, a belief system. It's penetrating into the mainstream." As we cast our eye over the sheer effulgence of American food, there appears to be no limit to the type and number of food products for those who are motivated by taste, environmental concern, animal welfare, political correctness, or simple virtue. Niman Ranch produces a pork to die for, and costs significantly more than the factory-farmed alternative. Don't want to spend the "best four years of your life" eating swill from the college cafeteria trough? Select from any of hundreds of colleges and universities that are now featuring "sustainable dining" (some inspired by master chef Alice Waters). And when you just can't find anything that satisfies your organic lifestyle where you live, you can always pack up and leave. The New York Times style page featured a number of families who had the financial wherewithal to escape from New York City to the Hudson River valley. Once there, the families "began eating strictly organic foods." One couple said they had moved because the wife was pregnant with their second child and "we decided that the children needed to be in nature." Sounds pretty good. In fact, it just may be the latest incarnation of the American dream. But what about those who can't escape or afford to eat "strictly organic" or for whom "buying local" means the past-code date, packaged baloney at the neighborhood bodega? How do we fulfill the desire for healthy and sustainably produced food that is increasingly shared by all?There are two general directions that have shown promise in closing this food gap: one is through private, largely non-profit projects and the other is through public policy. At the Hartford Food System we founded the Holcomb Farm Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Farm that made an explicit commitment to distribute about 40 percent of its local and organic produce to the city's low-income community. Using a hybrid method of funding, CSAs like the Holcomb Farm (Just Food in New York City and the Western Massachusetts Food Bank in Hadley are other examples) have been organized around the country to ensure that CSAs are not solely the province of a white, bright elite. Other models like the People's Grocery in Oakland are using mobile markets to bring high quality, healthy food into communities that are underserved by supermarkets. Public policy advocacy has leveraged federal and state funding to provide special farmers' market vouchers to low-income women, children, and elders (Farmers Market Nutrition Program). These small denomination coupons have opened an increasing share of the nation's 4,500 farmers' markets to a wider demographic of shoppers. Along the same lines, a small but steady stream of farmers' markets are installing swipe card machines to enable food stamp recipients to use their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards to buy local food. And in what might be the biggest breakthrough yet, the national Women, Infant, and Children Program (WIC) will be implementing a new fruit and vegetable program that is potentially worth hundreds of million dollars to lower income consumers and local farmers. While it may be some time before we see a Whole Foods open in East Harlem, non-profit organizations like the Philadelphia-based Food Trust have secured millions of dollars in state financing to develop food stores in underserved urban and rural Pennsylvania communities. As part of an overall economic development strategy, these stores are not only providing new sources of healthy and affordable food to low-income families, they are also expanding employment opportunities and the local property tax base. These projects and policies have inched us closer to bridging the divide between the haves and have-nots, but unless every segment of society rejects the notion that there is one food system for the poor, and one for everyone else, these gains will remain marginal.Mark Winne was the executive director of the Hartford Food System for 25 years. His first book "Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty" was published by Beacon Press in January 2008.Source: www.alternet.org/story/72417/
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 19, 2008 2:52:49 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300]ACTION ALERT![/glow] Here come the Clones....and More NewsSubject: FDA Approves Food from Clones Date: 1/18/2008 5:17:08 PM Eastern Standard Time From: info@citizens.org FDA Approves Sale of Meat and Milk from Cloned Animals - But There's Still a Chance to Act!Washington, DC, January 15, 2008 - Today the Food and Drug Administration announced its determination that milk and meat from cloned animals are safe for sale to the public. In addition, the FDA is requiring no tracking system for clones or labeling of products produced from clones or their offspring. This action comes at a time when the U.S. Senate has voted twice to delay FDA's decision on cloned animals until additional safety and economic studies can be completed by the National Academy of Sciences and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Sign the Center for Food Safety's "Clone-Free Pledge", and let food companies know you won't buy food from clones!ga3.org/campaign/clone_pledge/8ue78en4f75bmjxm?Citizens for Health joins with the Center for Food Safety and dozens of other food industry, consumer, and animal welfare groups in blasting this decision as insensitive as well as irresponsible, since it flies in the face of opinion polls showing that the majority of Americans do not want milk or meat from cloned animals in their food. A December 2006 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers were uncomfortable with animal cloning. A national survey conducted this year by Consumers Union found that 89 percent of Americans want to see cloned foods labeled, while 69 percent said that they have concerns about cloned meat and dairy products in the food supply. A recent Gallup Poll reported that more than 60 percent of Americans believe that it is immoral to clone animals, while the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy milk from cloned animals. As a Citizens for Health member, you know we are committed to defending your right to the information you need to make your own health and wellness choices. That is why we are particularly disappointed that the FDA also failed to require labeling of food from clones, effectively preventing consumers from making educated decisions about what they put into their bodies. In response to FDA's pending approval, US Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has introduced Senate Bill S.414, the Cloned Food Labeling Act, and U.S. House Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced an identical bill, H.R. 992, in the House just a few weeks later. Protect Your Right to Know - Send an email in support of labeling food from clones!salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/750/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11137Thanks for taking action! The Citizens for Health Team ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ORGANIC BYTES #126 Health, Justice and Sustainability News Tidbits with an Edge!1/18/2008 Written and edited by Craig Minowa and Ronnie Cummins IN THIS ISSUE: ALERT OF THE WEEK: PUT THE NATURAL BACK IN MEATS LABELED AS "NATURALLY RAISED" WEB PROGRAM OF THE WEEK: ORGANIC GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD? SUSTAINABILITY NEWS OF THE WEEK: THE TOP AGRICULTURAL BREAKTHROUGHS OF 2007 HEALTH NEWS OF THE WEEK: WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN THE FIRST HOUR OF DRINKING A COLA? DESPITE CONSUMER OPPOSITION FDA APPROVES FOOD FROM CLONES ACTIVIST HIGHLIGHT OF THE WEEK: MOTHER OF FOUR BECOMES LEADING EXPERT ON ADDITIVES & ALLERGIES RELATED TIP OF THE WEEK TEN FOOD-BASED STEPS TO TAKE TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY'S HEALTH THIS WEEK'S HOT TOPICS IN OCA'S WEB FORUM ALERT OF THE WEEK: PUT THE NATURAL BACK IN MEATS LABELED AS "NATURALLY RAISED" Polls indicate that the average consumer believes meat labeled "Naturally Raised" comes from animals that have spent their drug-free lives freely roaming the pastures of a family farm, eating grass and hay, and being (at least somewhat) humanely slaughtered. A 2007 Consumer Reports survey found that 83% of consumers assume a "naturally raised" label means it came from an animal raised in a natural environment. In stark contrast, the USDA, bowing, as usual, to pressure from corporate agribusiness, has released a standard for "Naturally Raised" meats that is so weak and misleading it would apply to a cloned animal, weaned on pig or cow blood plasma, raised in the confines of a factory farm, and fed a steady diet of genetically engineered grains. The public comment period on this labeling standard only lasts until January 28, so take action now before yet another fraudulent label becomes as ubiquitous as corporate lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Take action: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-fdx31fdx3249492& _______________________________ We need your support today to protect the rights of organic consumers and family farmers. www.organicconsumers.org/donations.htm ________________________________ WEB PROGRAM OF THE WEEK: ORGANIC GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD?Even if you're not from the Northland, Canada's #1 highest rated food podcast is worth a listen to. The weekly program "Deconstructing Dinner" covers just about every issue that you read about in Organic Bytes, it and can be listened to on your ipod or computer. Listen to this week's program to hear about the future path of organics. If big agribusiness has its way, it won't be long before you can buy "organic genetically engineered food." Listen: cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/podcasts.htm___________________________________ SUSTAINABILITY NEWS OF THE WEEK: THE TOP AGRICULTURAL BREAKTHROUGHS OF 2007 Although the biotech industry and our indentured corporate mass media would have us believe that recent scientific advances in food and farming are derived from genetic engineering and chemicals, according to UK-based GM Watch, the real breakthroughs in farming in 2007 came from organic and sustainable agriculture: 1) In 2007 a deluge of new scientific studies from a wide variety of institutions indicate that in comparison to genetically modified (GM) crops, organic agriculture can better feed the world, reduce global warming, provide greater nutrition, and boost the economy. Digesting new research on the topic, the United Nations announced that organic agriculture is the best way to feed the world and help stabilize the climate. 2) A wide range of new, non-GM crops over the last year are bringing hope to farmers around the world. Some of these include: - A wheat variety that can withstand high salinity in soil, thereby opening up vast tracks of land previously considered "dead". - Non-GM corn and rice varieties that can tolerate droughts. - Indian farmers find traditional cotton varieties to be much more stress-resistant than GM cotton. - Iron fortified non-GMO maize strain reduces anemia rates in children. -Discovery of non-GM variety of allergen-free peanut. Learn more: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-fdx3200x3249492& __________________________________ HEALTH NEWS OF THE WEEK: WHAT HAPPENS WITHIN THE FIRST HOUR OF DRINKING A COLA? -10 minutes: 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system, which is 100 percent of your recommended daily intake. You'd normally vomit from such an intake, but the phosphoric acid cuts the flavor. -20 minutes: Your blood sugar skyrockets. Your liver attempts to maximize insulin production in order to turn high levels of sugar into fat. -40 minutes: As your body finishes absorbing the caffeine, your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, and your liver pumps more sugar into the bloodstream. -45 minutes: Your body increases dopamine production, tricking you into feeling pleasure and adding to the addictiveness of the beverage. -60 minutes: The sugar crash begins. Source: Dr. Mercola: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-fdx3201x3249492& ___________________________________ DESPITE CONSUMER OPPOSITION FDA APPROVES FOOD FROM CLONESOn January 15, the FDA announced its final approval of meat and milk from cloned animals. OCA's action alerts on this issue last year generated tens of thousands of letters to the FDA, but the agency has not changed its mind. OCA's biggest concerns with this issue are the lack of proof regarding the safety of cloned food as well as issues relating to sustainability and animal welfare. On a sustainability level, a healthy population of any animal or plant requires genetic diversity to prevent an entire population falling to one disease outbreak, for example. In regards to animal welfare, the majority of cloned cattle and other animals are born with painful birth defects. The upside of this announcement is that it will likely be several years before any of these food products hit the market, due to high costs of cloning. In addition consumers can avoid food from cloned animals by purchasing certified organic foods, which ban cloned ingredients. For more information on cloning see the OCA website:alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-fdx3202x3249492& ___________________________________ ACTIVIST HIGHLIGHT OF THE WEEK: MOTHER OF FOUR BECOMES LEADING EXPERT ON ADDITIVES & ALLERGIES Despite spending most of her life believing food allergies were some kind of psychosomatic fabrication, Robyn O'Brien was forced into acknowledging otherwise when she became the mother of four children with adverse reactions to various foods. Motivated by the desire to better understand how to keep her kids healthy, O'Brien began researching the ever-tangling history of food allergies, synthetic ingredients and the ties between the industrial food complex and the U.S. government. Last year, O'Brien launched what has now become one of the most popular web resources for parents of children with food sensitivities. The fact that major media outlets, such as ABC, CNN and the New York Times, see O'Brien's work as an important news story is no mystery considering one out of every three American children has allergies, asthma, ADHD or autism. Speaking about O'Brien's single-minded research, noted activist Erin Brockovich said of her new friend and colleague "Frankly, I think it takes a little bit of being crazy to make a difference in this world." Learn more: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-fdx3203x3249492&___________________________________ RELATED TIP OF THE WEEK TEN FOOD-BASED STEPS TO TAKE TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY'S HEALTH1) Reduce consumption of processed foods. 2) Eat food with ingredients your grandmother would have used. 3) Purchase organic eggs and of course other organic products. 4) Cook with olive oil instead of butter, margarine or vegetable oil. 5) Avoid conventional soy and corn products (most of it is genetically engineered). 6) Avoid meat raised with antibiotics and/or synthetic hormones. 7) Avoid exposing kids under 12 months to non-fermented soy. 8) Consume organic foods during first 12 weeks of pregnancy. 9) Look for organic milk or milk labeled as being made without rBGH. 10) Thoroughly research any vaccines you are considering. Source: alerts.organicconsumers.org/trk/click?ref=zqtbkk3um_1-fdx3204x3249492& ___________________________________ THIS WEEK'S HOT TOPICS IN OCA'S WEB FORUMOCA's new web forum now has over 1,500 members! Have you joined the action yet? If not, here is a ranking of the hottest topics in the forum this week. 1) Poll: Vaccines: Are They Good? Are They Bad? 2) Chemtrails 3) 'Clone-free' Milk Could Get Label 4) Electromagnetic Radiation 5) Meats Enhanced With Even More Chemicals Click here to read more and join in the discussions: organicconsumers.org/forum/index.php (to join in discussion with one of the specific topics above, simply cut and paste the words into the search box at the top of the forum web page). ___________________________________ FIND OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR STATEOnly the OCA provides a nationwide network with health, justice and sustainability news on global, national, and local levels. Check out the new state pages on our website to find news and events near you. We want your help in keeping the state pages as relevant and up to date as possible. We are striving to organize or publicize 50 new state campaigns each month, but we can't do that without your help. You can help by becoming a writer for OCA. Please email us campaign updates. You can also send us ideas for campaigns if you are not sure how to write them up for the site, and we will work with you to develop a campaign update. Email your ideas to volunteer@organicconsumers.org Please visit your local OCA webpage today by choosing your state in the dropdown menu in the left-hand navigation bar and clicking on the "Become a news scout" link on your state page. www.organicconsumers.org
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 26, 2008 14:45:17 GMT 4
Stacking of the Supreme Court has paid off handsomely for those who wish to turn a profit without regard for life's safety, wellbeing, or even continuation.....MichelleU.S. Supreme Court Poised to Strip Consumers of Right to Sue over Deadly Pharmaceuticals Tuesday, February 26, 2008 by: Mike Adams [NaturalNews] In arguments and discussion for Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent heard today, Justices are proposing that consumers should not be able to sue pharmaceutical companies for damages from side effects because some people might be helped by those same drugs. Forget all the technical legalities -- this argument is absurd from the outset. Here's why: If Ford makes a defective car with a poorly-designed gasoline tank that explodes and kills someone, that person's family has a right to sue Ford, correct? But the U.S. Supreme Court is now effectively arguing that Ford should be granted immunity to all lawsuits because its cars provide benefits to other drivers. In other words, the fact that Ford cars don't kill some consumers somehow makes up for the ones killed by those defective cars. (In this case, Ford is just an example. There is no pending legislation against Ford that involves the U.S. Supreme Court.) That argument is absurd. If put in place, it would mean that individuals no longer have the right to sue companies for defective products, and the very definition of "harm" is no longer measured on an individual basis but rather by some sort of yet-unstated collective scorekeeping that says no company can be sued if its products provide benefits to somebody. Of course, this is all being selectively applied only to the pharmaceutical industry at the moment, but if this line of thinking is allowed to continue, it could very quickly lead to blanket immunity for virtually all corporations against any consumer lawsuits. After all, the argument being made to protect Big Pharma is that even though drugs kill lots of people, the fact that they help some people who aren't killed outweighs the liability from the dead people. Should this also apply to automobiles? Fireworks? Roller coasters? At what point does the U.S. Supreme Court think corporations should actually be held liable for the harm caused by their products?The abandonment of corporate responsibility and the surrender of consumer rightsApparently, some Justices believe corporations should never be held liable for harmful products, even if they committed fraud in getting their products approved by regulatory agencies such as the FDA. It's true: At least one Supreme Court Justice is now arguing that even in cases of drug companies defrauding the FDA and lying about the safety of their drugs, the public should still have no right whatsoever to sue over the damage (or death) caused by those drugs.And how about collapsing bridges and buildings? According to the U.S. Supreme Court's current thinking, people who are killed in a collapse of a defective bridge or building should have absolutely no legal recourse. Why? Because that same bridge or building provided benefits to other people who were not killed! Thus, the Supreme Court is actually following a line of flawed reasoning that would deny consumers the right to sue corporations for practically anything! This is why I have come to the commonsense conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court has surrendered the rights of the American people to greedy corporations that will soon, it seems, have no incentive at all to make safe products.By the way, notice too that Big Tobacco was ultimately granted blanket product immunity under a complex settlement that essentially involved paying off U.S. States with a portion of the revenues generated by tobacco products that openly kill people. Thus, Big Tobacco was allowed to stay in business, producing products that directly kill millions of people each year around the world. This bring up an important law of every capitalist society: No sufficiently profitable industry will ever be brought to justice, even if its products destroy the health and lives of consumers. There's simply too much profit at stake, and money has an insidious way of influencing regulatory and judicial decisions while negating whatever imaginary rights the citizens once believed they were entitled to. Why consumer lives are worth nothing to corporationsUnder the protection of blanket immunity, corporations consider the lives of consumers to be worth exactly zero dollars, and thus the normal equations of safety costs vs. liability risk are thrown out the window, replaced with a new equation of maximizing profits by minimizing expensive safety precautions. The only reason corporations currently place any value at all on the lives of consumers is because there are financial costs associated with harming or killing people (thanks to product liability lawsuits). Take away those financial costs, and the corporations will then consider consumer lives to be worthless in any way other than the fact that consumers might be worth something if they live long enough to keep buying more products. What's obvious in all this is that the U.S. legal system has devolved into such a morass of fictitious legal technicalities that it no longer has any concept of commonsense reality. There should be no argument necessary at all in this case: Of course consumers have the right to sue companies over pharmaceuticals (or cars or bridges) that directly harm them! And the fact that the FDA or some other corrupt (or incompetent) government agency slaps its approval onto a product should in no way grant the manufacturer complete immunity from the very real effects caused by its products. Pharmaceuticals kill people. It's a simple fact. And Big Pharma should be held responsible for the harm caused by its products. But the Supreme Court is now looking for ways to weave complex legal technicalities into a convenient but entirely dishonest shield that allows drug companies to literally get away with murder.An era of unbridled madnessIf you were looking for evidence of why the United States of America has gone mad, look no further than the regulatory and legal fabrications surrounding pharmaceuticals. Not only do we now have a system of organized medicine that operates as organized crime by protecting monopoly prices, engaging in routine scientific fraud, and drugging children with powerful psychotropic chemicals without even a single shred of real evidence that those children are "diseased," but now we have a legal system that seems poised to hand Big Pharma unlimited permission to manufacture and market extremely dangerous chemicals with impunity. The consumer has now been relegated to the role of "useless eater," with zero rights and zero value. The corporations are in charge, and the corrupt judicial system is now protecting the profits of these corporations by selling out the people. A new era of corporate-sponsored chemical destruction is spreading like a dark shadow over the future of the American people, and the highest court in the land has declared its loyalty to the corporate Kings who rule over American consumers as tyrants over peasants.### About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. He's also author of numerous health books published by Truth Publishing and is the creator of several consumer-oriented grassroots campaigns, including the Spam. Don't Buy It! campaign, and the free downloadable Honest Food Guide. He also created the free reference sites HerbReference.com and HealingFoodReference.com. Adams believes in free speech, free access to nutritional supplements and the ending of corporate control over medicines, genes and seeds. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org Source: www.naturalnews.com/022722.html
|
|