Friday, May 31, 2013

GMO's unacceptable elsewhere, good enough for Americans: Japan Suspends Some Imports of U.S. Wheat

Most US corn, sugar, canola oil and soy produced and sold in the US is genetically modified. That includes most food for human as well as animal consumption.  Monsanto has had patents on GMO wheat since the 1990s.  

However, wheat is the US' largest export crop. Rather than being fed to livestock or unwary Americans, half is shipped overseas. Because importing countries (including Europe, China and Japan) don't want GMO wheat (it still isn't approved for consumption in a single country), it is illegal in the US to grow it, outside "highly controlled" test plots.  
From the NY Times came this clumsy statement, which implies that processed foods made from GMOs are not consumed by people.  Of course they are:  an estimated 70% of processed food in the US contains GMOs.  Widespread consumer resistance to GMOs in the US has failed to impact Monsanto's influence on lawmakers.  But consumer resistance outside the US means that US farmers can't sell Monsanto's GMOs overseas, and wheat exports are critical to the US economy.  This has spared US consumers from GMO wheat, so far.
While most American soybeans and corn are genetically modified, those crops are largely consumed by animals or made into processed foods. Wheat is consumed directly by people and there has been more consumer resistance. No genetically engineered wheat has been approved in any country. Indeed, one reason Monsanto dropped its development of genetically modified wheat in 2004 was concern from American farmers that it would endanger wheat exports.  
Monsanto has now resumed research into genetically modified wheat but says it will be at least a decade before any such crop reaches the market...
In 2006, after traces of an unapproved genetically engineered rice were found in the American harvest, rice prices dropped, at least temporarily, and exports slowed.Bayer CropScience, the company that developed and field-tested the rice, agreed to pay $750 million to settle claims with about 11,000 American farmers.
However, some (how much? enough to cause the price to plummet) Monsanto-bred, US-grown wheat found its way into farmers' fields.  And experts suggest it has probably been there for awhile.

US consumer product regulation is arguably the weakest among developed countries at this point.  Fortunately for the Japanese and most Europeans, their regulators are still on the job.  And in record time, Japan and the European Union told us we could put this American wheat where the sun don't shine.

American legislators and regulators have passed legislation banning the labeling of GMO products, because they know that Americans, if warned, will shun them too. From the WP:
... Monsanto and other companies in the industry have been pressing members of Congress to vote against measures that would require disclosure for food made with genetically modified or engineered crops. Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, says that 64 countries have similar rules and that, this year, 37 bills have been introduced in 21 states proposing that genetically engineered foods be labeled in stores. 
Genetically modified crops have a history of provoking bans by trading partners. In 2006, the Agriculture Department announced that trace amounts of a regulated variety of genetically engineered rice had been commingled with supplies of conventional rice. That led several U.S. trading partners to refuse U.S. rice exports, causing losses for U.S. farmers and exporters.
And from Reuters:
... The discovery instantly roiled export markets, with Japan canceling a major shipment of wheat, a quick reminder of what is at stake - an $8 billion U.S. wheat export business. Many fear the wheat most likely has been mixed in with conventional wheat for some time, but there are no valid commercial tests to verify whether wheat contains the biotech Roundup Ready gene.  
"A lot of people are on high alert now," said Mike Flowers, a cereal specialist at Oregon State University. "We can't really say if it is or isn't in other fields. We don't know..." 
From RT:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

She's at it again! (Margaret Chen blowing smoke about the next pandemic) / CBS

Beginning in April, 2009 we heard from the talking health heads, especially WHO Director General Margaret Chen's, about the world-threatening pandemic swine flu.  Her pronouncements sold a lot of Tamiflu and vaccines.  (Probably at least 5-10 Billion dollars' worth worldwide; anyway, the price tag was so high we never got a straight answer from the USG about how much it spent.)  Most of it (both the money and the majority of the vaccine produced) went down the toilet.

No, sorry, I'm wrong:  the Pandemrix vaccines and all US swine flu vaccines shipped in multidose vials contained mercury and therefore had to be treated as hazardous waste.  This required spending significant additional money to get rid of them.  It would have been so much simpler to just put all those vaccine doses into arms.

Recall that it was WHO/ Chen's declaration of a pandemic that triggered a "BUY" for the vaccines, based on preexisting contracts between vaccine manufacturers and national governments.

Well, now it may be time to get ready for the next pandemic pie-in-the-sky roller-coaster:  We scare you, we charge you, we inject you.  Do you feel safer now?

From CBS:


GENEVA (CBS Atlanta/AP) — The World Health Organization warns that the deadly SARS-like virus first seen in the Middle East is a global threat.
Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO’s director-general, said in a speech in Geneva Monday that the new respiratory coronavirus MERS “is a threat to the entire world.”
“Looking at the overall global situation, my greatest concern right now is the novel coronavirus. We understand too little about this virus when viewed against the magnitude of its potential threat. Any new disease that is emerging faster than our understanding is never under control,” Chan said during the 66th World Health Assembly.
Yet 8 months since it was discovered, only 44 people are known to have been affected, and only 24 have died.  Does that sound like Armageddon--no, wrong again--Pharmageddon to you? 

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Hysterical Takedown of Bioethics and Bioethicists/ Richard John Neuhaus

Neuhaus got in so many great jabs in this piece I was nearly rolling on the floor.  Though published in 2002, it is as timely today, and the players are the same, too!  Enjoy.
The Best BioethicistsThat Money Can Buy
          Richard John Neuhaus
"A bioethicist is to ethics what a whore is to sex.” That judgment by a friend who was once viewed as a pioneer of bioethics may seem somewhat harsh, but it is not entirely off the mark. This really happened: Some years ago I was on a panel at the big annual economic conference in Davos, Switzerland. Also on the panel was Nobel Laureate James Watson, then head of the Human Genome Project. I and a few others—well, I think it was one other—were pressing moral questions about the technological manipulation of human nature. Impatient with that line of inquiry, Dr. Watson—who seems not only to subscribe to but to devoutly celebrate what Jacques Ellul called the Technological Imperative—explained that nobody should worry about the morality of what they were doing since the project had allocated millions of additional dollars “to get the best ethicists that money can buy.”

Thursday, May 23, 2013

More data link increase in narcolepsy cases to Pandemrix vaccine in ADULTS aged 20-64/ AFP

From AFP:
HELSINKI — Finnish researchers unveiled new data Thursday to link the Pandemrix flu vaccine to a higher risk of the sleeping disorder narcolepsy in adults. 
Other studies had already shown a link between the drug used in the 2009-10 "swine flu" outbreak and a higher incidence of narcolepsy in vaccinated children, teens and people under 30. 
The new research, conducted by Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare, found that Pandemrix-vaccinated adults between the ages of 20 and 64 had a three-to-five times higher risk of contracting the disease than non-vaccinated people...

Tuesday, May 14, 2013
















Monday, May 6, 2013

Time to learn what is in the vaccines you receive

Two years ago a bill was brought to the Maine legislature asking for a list of ingredients to be provided to parents with each childhood vaccination.  I wrote in support of it then.

A similar bill was again presented in the legislature, and I have written again in its support.  I also enclosed a copy of the very popular CDC list of vaccine ingredients, annotated by me to identify the presence of animal or fetal-derived cells in vaccine production.  Here is the letter:

Meryl Nass, MD
Board Certified in Internal Medicine
5 Alexandra Rd.
Southwest Harbor, Maine 04679
207 522-5229 C   207 244-9165 W

May 4, 2013

Dear Maine HHS Committee Member:

I wanted to comment on LD 754, a bill that would require that a list of vaccine ingredients be provided to parents when their children are vaccinated.  I practice medicine in Maine and am an expert on anthrax vaccine. An abbreviated CV is attached.

It is important that both recipients and medical providers be well-educated regarding vaccines, in order to make wise vaccine recommendations.  I was a licensed physician for 17 years before I learned anything about the composition, testing and licensing of vaccines.  I had, at most, a one hour lecture on vaccines in medical school.  I wonder how many other doctors are equally ill-informed?

1.  Medical providers are required by federal law to give parents or recipients a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS), a 2 page informational sheet prepared by CDC, with each of the following vaccines administered:

Ø     DTaP (includes DT)
Ø     Td/Tdap
Ø     Hib
Ø     hepatitis A
Ø     hepatitis B
Ø     HPV
Ø     influenza (inactivated and live vaccines)
Ø     MMR and MMRV
Ø     meningococcal
Ø     pneumococcal conjugate
Ø     polio
Ø     rotavirus
Ø     varicella 

The VIS mentions some, but not all, risks related to vaccines.  For example, the VIS for Hepatitis B vaccine mentions a potential allergy problem due to the presence of yeast in the vaccine, but does not mention that soy is also present, and it too is a common allergen.

Some vaccines contain eggs, which occasionally cause serious allergic reactions.  Some vaccines contain gelatin (prohibited for kosher Jews); others are made in [aborted] fetal cells or their derivatives, and some people may choose to avoid a vaccine for that reason.

Listing vaccine ingredients may not be necessary all the time.  But remember that FDA considers it important enough to require food manufacturers to list all ingredients on their packaging.  This enables consumers to choose which ingredients to avoid, whether due to allergy, a religious dictate or for any other reason.

2.  Hundreds of vaccines are in development, and they contain an array of new ingredients to stimulate increased immunity.  These ingredients do not have to be tested for their "stand-alone" toxicity:  their only required testing occurs during a clinical trial of the complete vaccine.  Most human vaccine studies

last only one month.  If no serious side effects are identified within that period, the candidate vaccine may be licensed.

However, this testing is insufficient to identify whether the vaccine or its components may cause or promote cancers.  (Many vaccines have never been tested for carcinogenicity, for example, although many contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.)  

Vaccine testing can miss birth defects that might be related to vaccination.  This is because pregnant women are not included in vaccine trials.  The HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved after a six-month, "fast-track" review by FDA.  Merck, the manufacturer, was asked by FDA to collect information on possible birth defects after approval.  The VIS for Gardasil vaccine says,

"Any woman who learns she was pregnant when she got this HPV vaccine is encouraged to contact the manufacturer’s HPV-in-pregnancy registry at 800-986-8999. This will help us learn more about how pregnant women respond to the vaccine."

3.  In 2009-10, swine flu vaccines were made with and without novel adjuvants (new additives used to enhance the immune response), using abbreviated testing.  Novel adjuvants had not been used in previously licensed US vaccines.

Here is an important example of how an ingredient list would be beneficial to vaccine recipients:

The 2009 Pandemrix swine flu vaccine caused narcolepsy (at a rate 12 times greater than expected) in hundreds of children and young adults, and some other swine flu vaccines caused seizures.  Their use in children was stopped in some countries (Finland, Ireland and Australia).

Pandemrix used a novel adjuvant (named ASO3) to increase the vaccine's effectiveness.  ASO3 had not been used in children before, nor had it ever been used in the US.  It probably contributed to narcolepsy. A vaccine containing ASO3 is under consideration now by FDA for avian flu. I think it is very important that parents be informed when a vaccine that will be given to their child contains ASO3.
4.  Consider the difference between ingesting food and injecting vaccines.  Food has to pass through the gastrointestinal tract, which acts as a barrier against noxious substances entering the body, protecting us from harm.

Injections bypass all skin and mucosal barriers, overriding important protective mechanisms.  Substances injected into us therefore need even more careful vetting than is given to foods. Vaccines should be at least as safe as foods, and their components should be equally transparent.

5. Providing a list of ingredients at the time of inoculation will not add a large burden to medical providers or manufacturers.  The Vaccine Information Statement is already given out with most inoculations. An ingredient list is part of the vaccine package insert, which is included with each bottle of vaccine sold. This package insert or the list of vaccine ingredients it contains could easily be included along with the Vaccine Information Statement, when vaccinations are administered. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this piece of legislation.

Meryl Nass, M.D.