More Studies on Radiation and Full-Body Scans
February 8, 2010
Bloomberg.com
By Jonathan Tirone
Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation, an inter-agency report said.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is “extremely small,” said the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety report, which is restricted to the agencies concerned and not meant for public circulation. The group includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.
A more accurate assessment about the health risks of the screening won’t be possible until governments decide whether all passengers will be systematically scanned or randomly selected, the report said. Governments must justify the additional risk posed to passengers, and should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
President Barack Obama has pledged $734 million to deploy airport scanners that use x-rays and other technology to detect explosives, guns and other contraband. The U.S. and European countries including the U.K. have been deploying more scanners at airports after the attempted bombing on Christmas Day of a Detroit-bound Northwest airline flight.
“There is little doubt that the doses from the backscatter x-ray systems being proposed for airport security purposes are very low,” Health Protection Agency doctor Michael Clark said by phone from Didcot, England. “The issue raised by the report is that even though doses from the systems are very low, they feel there is still a need for countries to justify exposures.”
3-D Imaging
A backscatter x-ray is a machine that can render a three- dimensional image of people by scanning them for as long as 8 seconds, the report says. The technology has also raised privacy issues in countries including Germany because it yields images of the naked body.
The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation.
European Union regulators plan to finish a study in April on the effects of scanning technology on travelers’ privacy and health. Amsterdam, Heathrow and Manchester are among European airports that have installed the devices or plan to do so.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has said that it ordered 150 scanners from OSI Systems Inc.’s Rapiscan unit and will buy an additional 300 imaging devices this year. The agency currently uses 40 machines, which cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, produced by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. at 19 airports including San Francisco, Atlanta and Washington D.C.
Click here for the full report.
Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Medical Malpractice
February 8, 2010
Chicago Tribune
By Bruce Japsen and Ameet Sachdev
The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s medical malpractice law, saying limits on damages awarded to victims of medical negligence are unconstitutional.
The much-anticipated ruling deals a blow to doctors and hospital officials who say caps on damages are a way to tame rising health care costs.
State lawmakers in 2005 passed legislation, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, that established limits on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages of $500,000 in cases against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. Illinois followed other states, such as California, that capped damages years ago.
The court said the law violates the state’s separation-of-powers clause between the branches of government by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a jury’s right to determine damages. “The crux of our analysis is whether the statute unduly infringes upon the inherent power of the judiciary,” the majority opinion said.
Justices also said they were not persuaded by arguments used in other states. “That ‘everybody is doing it,’ is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute,” wrote Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald in delivering the opinion for four siding in the majority of the seven-member court.
Justices Lloyd Karmeier and Rita Garman dissented on certain key points of the decision and expressed sympathy to providers of medical care, citing President Barack Obama’s recent address to a joint session of Congress that they said admonished the nation’s collective failure to enact health care reform.
But limiting medical liability is no silver bullet for controlling health costs. The Congressional Budget Office reported in September that reforms, such as capping non-economic damages, would lower the nation’s health care bill by only 0.5 percent.
The majority said the court’s decision was not made with Washington’s health care reform efforts in mind.
Still, the ruling could figure in the national debate of stalled health care legislation. Though Obama and Democrats have said they are unlikely to cap damages in federal health care legislation, they have been open to a compromise on liability reform.
The Obama administration, Republicans and doctor groups have made attempts to scale back the practice of “defensive medicine,” in which doctors perform medical procedures that are not necessary because of legal concerns. The CBO said recent studies have shown that liability reforms can slightly reduce the use of health care.
Thursday’s decision will not end the heated debate over whether lawsuits affect the quality and costs of medical care.
One area where there is agreement is on establishing evidence-based medicine, which offers guidelines for doctors to follow when treating patients.
“The high cost of potential damages impacts how insurers rate different types of practices,” said Larry Boress, chief executive of Midwest Business Group on Health, a coalition that represents some of the region’s largest employers. “While we encourage physicians to practice evidence-based medicine to ensure high quality medical care is provided, we know that not all of medicine has evidence-based guidelines. Our state and nation need alternative methods of addressing malpractice allegations.”
To continue reading this report, click here.
Accounting Fraud and Mismanagment in Federal AIDS Program
February 8, 2010
Washington Post
By Debbie Cenziper
Two Republican congressmen who help oversee billions of dollars for people with AIDS are asking the federal government for an accounting of fraud and mismanagement complaints leveled against AIDS programs nationwide.
Reps. Joe L. Barton (Tex.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) sent a letter Thursday to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration that raised questions about the agency’s oversight of AIDS programs. The lawmakers cited a recent Washington Post series that found the D.C. Department of Health had awarded more than $25 million, largely in federal funds, to AIDS nonprofit groups that delivered substandard services or failed to account for any work at all.
Some groups submitted employee résumés and consulting contracts with false information, including fake addresses and credentials. Others had a history of financial problems or had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on travel or executive pay.
More than 15,000 people have HIV or AIDS in the District, 3 percent of the population who are older than 12.
“Washington, D.C., has one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the nation and $25 million dedicated to help people living with HIV/AIDS has instead found its way into the pockets of those interested in making a buck,” Barton, the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said in a statement. “It’s unconscionable.”
The lawmakers’ probe focuses on federal funding provided under the Ryan White Act, which pays for medical care and support services for about 500,000 low-income people each year. The Health Resources and Services Administration, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the funding. The D.C. metropolitan region receives about $45 million annually.
Many of the troubled nonprofit groups identified by The Post had received Ryan White funding from the city, including an organization launched by a man who once ran one of the District’s largest cocaine rings. The group, which was awarded more than $1 million from the fund, had been criticized by city monitors, former clients and other AIDS groups for a lack of services and supplies, missing records and questionable expenses.
In a letter addressed to Mary Wakefield, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, Barton and Walden requested a list of programs cited by the agency in the past four years for failing to properly oversee Ryan White grants. They also asked for an accounting of complaints about AIDS fraud and documentation detailing how the problems have been addressed. The lawmakers requested a response by mid-February.
Barton said the Energy and Commerce Committee had asked in 2008 for an assessment of whether the grants had been properly monitored by the federal government. The Health Resources and Services Administration said at the time that it was conducting more site visits and enhancing training.
“Something is still very, very wrong, and we intend to find out just what it is,” said Barton, who recently supported the reauthorization of the Ryan White Act, first enacted two decades ago in honor of the Indiana teenager who died of AIDS.
Health Resources and Services Administration official Douglas Morgan said the agency would respond to the congressmen by their deadline. The agency “works with Ryan White grant recipients who have experienced difficulties on several fronts and has bolstered efforts to offer effective assistance in a number of ways,” Morgan said in a statement.
The lawmakers’ inquiry is the latest in a series of measures to shore up the District’s AIDS services. In recent months, Attorney General Peter Nickles launched a citywide investigation of troubled AIDS programs while D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) pushed to correct problems cited by federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In addition to Barton and Walden, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have called for an investigation of the city’s AIDS program.
Click here for the full report.
Doctors Explain Why You Need More Vitamin D
February 8, 2010
Huffington Post
By Dr. Andrew Weil
I am raising my recommendation of 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day to 2,000 IU per day. Since 2005, when I raised it from 400 to 1,000 IU, clinical evidence has been accumulating to suggest that a higher dose is more appropriate to help maintain optimum health.
We have known for many years that we need vitamin D to facilitate calcium absorption and promote bone mineralization. But newer research has shown that we also need it for protection against a number of serious diseases. In recent years, scientists have discovered that it may help to prevent several cancers, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, psoriasis, diabetes, psychosis, and respiratory infections including colds and flu.
To focus particularly on cancer prevention, two recent meta-analyses (in which data from multiple studies is combined) conducted by the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California at San Diego and colleagues suggested that raising blood levels of vitamin D could prevent one-half of the cases of breast cancer and two-thirds of the cases of colorectal cancer in the U.S. Discussing the breast cancer analysis, study author Cedric Garland, Dr.P.H., stated that “The serum level associated with a 50 percent reduction in risk could be maintained by taking 2,000 international units of vitamin D3 daily plus, when the weather permits, spending 10 to 15 minutes a day in the sun.”
A 50 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths would have saved the lives of more than 20,000 American women in 2009.
As these meta-analyses suggest, vitamin D deficiency is widespread. Aside from breast cancer, it is quite likely that hundreds of thousands of cancers of various kinds worldwide might be prevented each year if we all were getting enough.
We can get vitamin D through foods such as fortified milk and cereals as well as eggs, salmon, tuna and mackerel, but the amounts are not nearly sufficient to lift blood concentrations to optimal levels. Sun exposure is the best way to get it; ultraviolet rays trigger vitamin D synthesis in the skin. Factors that decrease the body’s ability to make vitamin D include dark skin, heredity, obesity and certain medications, including some anti-seizure drugs (check with your pharmacist). Most significantly, sunscreen blocks vitamin D synthesis in the skin, and in northern latitudes (above that of Atlanta, Georgia) the sun is at too low an angle for half the year to provide sufficient UV radiation.
Low levels of vitamin D in the population as a whole suggest that most people need to take a vitamin D supplement. This may be especially true for seniors, as the ability to synthesize vitamin D in the skin declines with age. Always take your vitamin D with a fat-containing meal to ensure absorption.
Don’t be concerned that 2,000 IU will give you too much. With exposure to sunlight in the summer, the body can generate between 10,000 IU and 20,000 IU of vitamin D per hour with no ill effects. In addition, no adverse effects have been seen with supplemental vitamin D intakes up to 10,000 IU daily.
If you decide to have your vitamin D levels tested, look for results in the normal range, from 30.0 to 74.0 nanograms of 25-hydroxy vitamin D per milliliter (ng/mL) of blood. If you are found to be deficient, your physician can advise you on the best way to raise your blood concentration into the normal range.
Click here for the full report.
‘Not Safe for Humans’ Drug Being Fed to Livestock
February 8, 2010
Alternet.org
By Martha Rosenberg
While researchers and scientists investigate the cause of our diabetes, obesity, asthma and ADHD epidemics, they should ask why the FDA approved a livestock drug banned in 160 nations and responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown and 10 percent mortality in pigs, according to angry farmers who phoned the manufacturer.
The beta agonist ractopamine, a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis, was recruited for livestock use when researchers found the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular says Beef magazine.
But unlike the growth promoting antibiotics and hormones used in livestock which are withdrawn as the animal nears slaughter, ractopamine is started as the animal nears slaughter.
As much as twenty percent of Paylean, given to pigs for their last 28 days, Optaflexx, given to cattle their last 28 to 42 days and Tomax, given to turkeys their last 7 to 14 days, remains in consumer meat says author and well known veterinarian Michael W. Fox.
Though banned in Europe, Taiwan and China–more than 1,700 people were “poisoned” from eating Paylean-fed pigs since 1998 says the Sichuan Pork Trade Chamber of Commerce– ractopamine is used in 45 percent of US pigs and 30 percent of ration-fed cattle says Elanco Animal Health which manufactures all three products.
How does a drug marked, “Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask” become “safe” in human food? With no washout period?
The same way Elanco’s other two blockbusters, Stilbosol (diethylstilbestrol or DES), now withdrawn, and Posilac or bovine growth hormone (rBST), bought from Monsanto in 2008, became part of the nation’s food supply: shameless corporate lobbying. A third of meetings on the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s public calendar in January 2009 were with Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly–or about ractopamine.
In fact, in 2002, three years after Paylean’s approval, the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine’s Office of Surveillance and Compliance accused Elanco of withholding information about “safety and effectiveness” and “adverse animal drug experiences” upon which ractopamine was approved, in a 14-page warning letter.
“Our representatives requested a complete and accurate list of all your GLP [Good Laboratory Practices] studies involving Paylean® (Ractopamine hydrochloride), including their current status as well as the names of the respective study monitors. In response, your firm supplied to our representatives multiple lists which differed in the names of the studies and their status. In addition, your firm could not locate or identify documents pertaining to some of the studies. This situation was somewhat confusing and created unneeded delays for our representatives,” wrote Gloria J. Dunnavan, Director Division of Compliance.
Where was mention of the farmer phone calls to Elanco reporting, “hyperactivity,” “dying animals,” “downer pigs” and “tying up” and “stress” syndromes, asks the FDA letter. Where was the log of phone calls that included farmers saying, “animals are down and shaking,” and “pig vomiting after eating feed with Paylean”?
But, not to worry. Despite ractopamine’s dangers and the falsified approval documents, the FDA approved ractopamine the following year for cattle–and last year for turkeys.
According to Temple Grandin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, the “indiscriminant use of Paylean (ractopamine) has contributed to an increase in downer non-ambulatory pigs,” and pigs that “are extremely difficult to move and drive.” In Holsteins, ractopamine is known for causing hoof problems, says Grandin and feedlot managers report the “outer shell of the hoof fell off” on a related beta agonist drug, zilpateral.
A article in the 2003 Journal of Animal Science confirms that “ractopamine does affect the behavior, heart rate and catecholamine profile of finishing pigs and making them more difficult to handle and potentially more susceptible to handling and transport stress.”
Nor can we overlook the effects of “adding these drugs to waterways or well water supplies–via contaminated animal feed and manure runoff– when this class of drugs is so important in treating children with asthma,” says David Wallinga, MD of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
The FDA’s approval of a drug for food that requires impervious gloves and a mask just to handle is reminiscent of the bovine growth hormone debacle.
Like rBST, ractopamine increases profits despite greater livestock death and disability because a treated animal does the work of two in a macabre version of economies of scale.
Like rBST, food consumers are metabolic, neurological and carcinogen guinea pigs so that agribusiness can make a profit.
And like rBST, “Mothers Of Growing Children” was not marked as a visiting group on the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s public calendar next to the ag lobbyists.
Click here for the full report.
New Superbugs Coming from China
February 8, 2010
Telegraph.co.uk
By Peter Foster
Chinese doctors routinely hand out multiple doses of antibiotics for simple maladies like the sore throats and the country’s farmers excessive dependence on the drugs has tainted the food chain.
Studies in China show a “frightening” increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as staphylococcus aureus bacteria, also know as MRSA . There are warnings that new strains of antibiotic-resistant bugs will spread quickly through international air travel and internation food sourcing.
“We have a lot of data from Chinese hospitals and it shows a very frightening picture of high-level antibiotic resistance,” said Dr Andreas Heddini of the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control.
“Doctors are daily finding there is nothing they can do, even third and fourth-line antibiotics are not working.
“There is a real risk that globally we will return to a pre-antibiotic era of medicine, where we face a situation where a number of medical treatment options would no longer be there. What happens in China matters for the rest of the world.”
Particular alarm has been raised by resistance rates of MRSA in Chinese hospitals, which has more than doubled from 30 per cent to 70 per cent, according to Professor Xiao Yonghong of the Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at Beijing University.
Last year researchers found a new strain of MRSA in Chinese pigs imported into Hong Kong and called for urgent new studies into its potential to infect humans after an infection of the new strain was confirmed in Guangzhou, where many of the pigs were farmed.
A Beijing-based health expert with access to unpublished surveys showed that the situation in China was actually worse earlier studies had indicated.
“The Chinese Ministry of Health has all the data,” the expert warned, “but they seem unable or unwilling to believe it. The situation has global implications and is highly disturbing.”
The Chinese Ministry of Health failed to respond to requests for an interview or information by phone, email and fax over a three-day period.
New prescription guidelines to restrict antibiotic use being issued by the Chinese Ministry of Health in 2004.
“The guidelines are not being followed effectively,” added Professor Xiao, “over just the last five years, for example, our studies show the rate antibiotic-resistant E.coli has quadrupled from 10 per cent to 40 per cent.”
Public health experts say the rampant over-use of antibiotics in China is primarily caused by China’s under-funded healthcare system where hospitals derive up to half of their operating income from selling drugs. In some cities, such as Chongqing, almost half of all drugs sold are antibiotics.
“In Chinese hospitals our data shows that 60 per cent of in-patients are being prescribed antibiotics compared with the WHO guideline of 30 per cent,” added Professor Xiao who also heads China’s National Antibiotic Resistance Investigation Network.
China’s State Food and Drug Administration bans the sale of antibiotics without prescription but a survey by the The Daily Telegraph found the drugs were still easily obtainable over-the-counter.
Three out of five chemists agreed to sell antibiotics after a cursory consultation with the ‘patient’ who complained of a sore throat.
At one outlet a pharmacist handed over a course of the second-generation antibiotic, Cefuroxime Axetil, with minimal hesitation.
Asked if the sale could “get her into trouble” she said that the pharmacy would get a doctor to write the prescription later to cover their sales records. She added that even doctors from the nearby Capital Institute of Pediatrics came to buy antibiotics without prescription.
“When the surveillance is strict, we won’t risk selling antibiotics,” Ms Zhang added. Asked to elaborate, she explained, “For example during the 2008 Olympic Games period, we didn’t sell them”.
Click here for the full report.
New Plant-Based ‘Eco-Atkins’ Diet
February 8, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Researchers have found evidence that it may be possible to use a version of the Atkins diet to improve health, rather than harming it — a vegetarian version dubbed the “Eco-Atkins” diet.
The Atkins diet is a form of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet that was popular in 2003 and 2004. Many health professionals blasted the diet as dangerously high in fat, and research indicated that although it lowered levels of blood triglycerides and raised levels of HDL (“good”) cholesterol, it also raised levels of the dangerous LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.
In the current study, conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers fed 22 overweight adults with elevated LDL cholesterol levels a low-carbohydrate diet high in proteins from gluten (wheat), soy, nuts, cereals, vegetable oils, fruits and vegetables. They were compared with 22 people who ate a diet low in fat and high in carbohydrates, with high levels of low-fat dairy and whole grains.
All participants were fed only enough good to meet 60 percent of their estimated daily calorie needs, and lost an average of 8.8 pounds. Participants in the “Eco-Atkins” group had lower levels of LDL and blood pressure than those in the control group, however.
In an accompanying commentary, Katherine Tuttle and Joan Milton of Washington School of Medicine said that the research might provide a safer way to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, but stopped short of recommending it without larger, long-term studies on the potential risks.
High-protein, low-carbohydrate diets can lead to excessive water loss and kidney damage.
Dr. Dean Ornish said that the diet used in the study was quite similar to the diet he advocates, although slightly higher in vegetable fat. He objected to calling it a version of the Atkins diet, however, for fear that it might encourage people to eat the more traditional, meat-based version.
“People so badly want to believe that Atkins is good for them that they stretch things beyond credibility,” Ornish said. “What it’s going to be is confusing to people, and that’s why I have a problem with it.”
Click here for the full report.
Chevron Hires 12 Public Relations Firms to Discredit Plantiffs in Lawsuit
February 8, 2010
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
In response to an environmental lawsuit filed against the oil giant, Chevron has fortified its defenses with at least twelve different public relations firms whose purpose is to debunk the claims made against the company by indigenous people living in the Amazon forests of Ecuador. According to them, Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon between 1964 and 1990, causing damages assessed at more than $27 billion.
The company is being criticized by people and organizations from across the social and political spectrum for its unethical behavior in regards to the case. Originally filed in U.S. federal district court back in 1993, the lawsuit was eventually moved to courts in Ecuador at Chevron’s behest. Having initially lauded Ecuador’s legal system in an effort to have the case moved there, Chevron later changed its mind and began attacking the system when that system found the company liable for damages.
Shareholders are also upset with Chevron for its gross mismanagement of the case in which it has sidestepped the rule of law and employed guerilla-style tactics in a last ditch effort to fend off an unfavorable ruling. Part of this includes hiring Hill & Knowlton, the same firm that represented the tobacco industry during its indictment over tobacco causing cancer, to perform the same task concerning toxic oil contaminants.
Evidence presented at Chevron’s trial included over 50,000 chemical samples taken by the company itself which proved that all of its former oil drilling sites are contaminated with toxic byproducts that cause cancer. Many of these wells have contaminated rivers, streams, and other water sources which natives use for drinking water. Despite all the undeniable evidence, Chevron is working hard to cover up the facts and dismiss its responsibility in the matter.
Speaking of responsibility, Chevron’s other hired firms are trying to claim that the company worked out a deal with the government in Ecuador back in the mid-1990s that released it from cleanup responsibility. However the terms expressed in the current case regarding cleanup are exempt from the former agreement which, in and of itself, was determined to be fraudulent. Two former Chevron lawyers and a handful of former government officials were indicted because of that agreement which makes it ludicrous to try to use the incident as a defense in the current case.
A final ruling on the case is set to be made sometime this year. Most likely, Ecuadorian courts will find Chevron guilty as charged despite its lobbying efforts.
Click here for the full report.
Abuse of Prescription Drugs a Rising Problem
February 8, 2010
Top News
By Amit Pathania
Prescription drugs can be purchased legally, but the fact that they are so easily available is now taking a dangerous and deadly turn. There is a rapidly growing black market for prescription medicines, and youngsters are the most common and frequent buyers.
As has been shared by the US Health Department, about 7 million Americans abuse prescription drugs, which is much beyond the combined total number of people who abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy and inhalants.
Also, there are growing concerns about who is being all the illegal selling.
Authorities have shared that the abuse of these drugs is also directly resulting in an increase in criminal activities.
“Because most of these people paying $80 on the street for one pill don’t have a job to support that habit. They’re breaking into your houses and stealing your stuff and writing bad checks to your business”, said Adams County Sheriff Kimmy Rogers.
Click here for the full report
Major Celebrities Backing up Dr. Wakefield, Fighting Against Vaccines
February 8, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
When it comes to vaccines, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey get it. They see how the pharma industry is engineering a campaign to silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield in order to suppress the publication of startling new evidence linking vaccines to severe neurological damage.
At great risk to their professional careers, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have found the courage to dare to tell the truth about vaccines and autism. Despite the vicious attacks by the pro-vaccine zealots who will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who challenges conventional vaccine mythology, McCarthy and Carrey have issued a powerful, inspired statement that reveals the truth behind the Big Pharma smear campaign that is intent on destroying the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield before he can publish the final results of this important new study.
NaturalNews reprints that statement here, unedited:
A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.
The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.
Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield’s original paper (http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf…) regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet’s retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.
Dr. Wakefield is one of the world’s most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers (http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publ…) since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.
For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.
Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.
Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.
The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/prim…), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.
There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.
Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.
The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield’s mock trial, have been characterized. Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.
What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act? Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?
We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?
The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to our children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.
Click here for the full report.
