AikidoSoul's Journal - Archives
God I love that woman!
Thanks to AP for the photo.
Fear of a Swine Flu Epidemic in 1976 Offers Some Lessons, and Concerns, Today
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: May 8, 2009
With fears of swine flu engulfing the nation in 1976, Janet Kinney got vaccinated to make sure she would be able to take care of her children. Instead, her children ended up taking care of her.
About a week after getting the swine flu shot, she recalled, “I was so weak I couldn’t push down the toaster button.” She spent a month in the hospital, paralyzed from the neck down, before gradually recovering.
With health authorities now gearing up for what could be a huge vaccination campaign against a new strain of swine flu, the experience of 1976 is raising a note of caution.
The feared swine flu epidemic of 1976 never materialized. And several hundred people, including Ms. Kinney, who is now 68 and lives in Gig Harbor, Wash., developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare neurological condition that causes temporary muscle weakness or paralysis. More than 30 of those people died.
Many experts say they do not think a vaccine for the new flu strain, called H1N1, would raise a similar risk for Guillain-Barré. But answering that question is difficult because to this day, no one has figured out why the 1976 vaccine caused the disease, in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks the nerves.
Indeed, some researchers still question whether the vaccine did cause Guillain-Barré, particularly since flu vaccines in other years have been linked to little or no risk of the disease.
“It doesn’t make sense that one flu strain would cause Guillain-Barré syndrome where none of the others have,” said Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Still, many experts consider the matter settled. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded after an extensive review in 2003 that the “evidence favored acceptance of a causal relationship” between the 1976 vaccine and the syndrome. It stopped short, however, of saying the evidence “established” a causal relationship.
SEE LINK FOR REST OF STORY
Are there any other Democrat reps who are not coming out for Obama?
As far as Boyd's reasons for not supporting him --- I can't get an answer from his Tallahassee office that makes any sense. The answers did however makes me suspect that it may be that special brand of Blue Dog values that includes quiet racism.
Please forgive if I've missed some discussions on this -- I've been gone from DU for months because of intense work pressures.
Something is very wrong with people who willfully continue to ignore the hard fact that we have a very serious problem with more and more damage occurring to children's brains every year. The numbers are growing rapidly.
All neurotoxins including metals, pesticides, solvents, some drugs, fluoride, and other substances are suspect.
Sometimes I think DU is infested with chem/pharm hacks because of the ad hominem attacks that seem to pop up immediately when posts appear discussing the pandemic of children's brain injury now being seen.
Anybody ignorning these problems and refusing to investigate, are willfully blindfolding themselves.
Don't try to blindfold the rest of us.
We are exposing children to too many neurotoxins -- mercury is definitely classified as a potent neurotoxin. Many children's bodies and developing brains cannot handle multiple exposures --and some children have fewer detoxification enzymes, or are deficient.
The Harvard School of Public Health announced in 2006 that are seeing a "pandemic" of brain problems in children. 1 in 6 children now have developmental disabilities. Think about that for a minute. 1 in 6 children now have learning disabilities!!
The press release is as follows:
A Silent Pandemic: Industrial Chemicals Are Impairing the Brain Development of Children Worldwide
For immediate release: Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Boston, MA – Fetal and early childhood exposures to industrial chemicals in the environment can damage the developing brain and can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)—autism, attention deficit disorder (ADHD), and mental retardation. Still, there has been insufficient research done to identify the individual chemicals that can cause injury to the developing brains of children.
In a new review study, published online in The Lancet on November 8, 2006, and in an upcoming print issue of The Lancet, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine systematically examined publicly available data on chemical toxicity in order to identify the industrial chemicals that are the most likely to damage the developing brain.
The researchers found that 202 industrial chemicals have the capacity to damage the human brain, and they conclude that chemical pollution may have harmed the brains of millions of children worldwide. The authors conclude further that the toxic effects of industrial chemicals on children have generally been overlooked.
To protect children against industrial chemicals that can injure the developing brain, the researchers urge a precautionary approach for chemical testing and control. Such an approach is beginning to be applied in the European Union. It puts in place strong regulations, which could later be relaxed, if the hazard were less than anticipated, instead of current regulations that require a high level of proof. At present in the U.S., requirements for toxicity testing of chemicals are minimal.
“The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences,” says Philippe Grandjean , adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and the study’s lead author.
One out of every six children has a developmental disability, usually involving the nervous system. Treating NDDs is difficult and costly to both families and society. In recent decades, a gathering amount of evidence has linked industrial chemicals to NDDs. Lead, for example, was the first chemical identified as having toxic effects to early brain development, though its neurotoxicity to adults had been known for centuries.
A developing brain is much more susceptible to the toxic effects of chemicals than an adult brain. During development, the brain undergoes a highly complex series of processes at different stages. An interference—for example, from toxic substances—that disrupts those processes, can have permanent consequences. That vulnerability lasts from fetal development through infancy and childhood to adolescence. Research has shown that environmental toxicants, such as lead or mercury, at low levels of exposure can have subclinical effects—not clinically visible, but still important adverse effects, such as decreases in intelligence or changes in behavior.
Grandjean and co-author Philip J. Landrigan, Professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, compiled a list of 202 environmental chemicals known to be toxic to the human brain using the Hazardous Substances Data Bank of the National Library of Medicine and other data sources. (The authors note that the list should not be regarded as comprehensive; for example, the number of chemicals that can cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animal tests exceeds 1,000.)
The authors then examined the published literature on the only five substances on the list—lead, methylmercury, arsenic, PCBs and toluene—that had sufficient documentation of toxicity to the developing human brain in order to analyze how that toxicity had been first recognized and how it led to control of exposure. They found a similar pattern in how the risks of each substance were documented: first, a recognition of adult toxicity and episodes of poisoning among children, followed by a growing body of epidemiological evidence that exposure to lower levels of the substances caused neurobehavioral deficits in children.
“Even if substantial documentation on their toxicity is available, most chemicals are not regulated to protect the developing brain,” says Grandjean. “Only a few substances, such as lead and mercury, are controlled with the purpose of protecting children. The 200 other chemicals that are known to be toxic to the human brain are not regulated to prevent adverse effects on the fetus or a small child.”
Grandjean and Landrigan conclude that industrial chemicals are responsible for what they call a silent pandemic that has caused impaired brain development in millions of children worldwide. It is silent because the subclinical effects of individual toxic chemicals are not apparent in available health statistics. To point out the subclinical risk to large populations, the authors note that virtually all children born in industrialized countries between 1960 and 1980 were exposed to lead from petrol, which may have reduced IQ scores above 130 (considered superior intelligence) by more than half and increased the number of scores less than 70. Today, it’s estimated that the economic costs of lead poisoning in U.S. children are $43 billion annually; for methylmercury toxicity, $8.7 billion each year.
“Other harmful consequences from lead exposure include shortened attention spans, slowed motor coordination and heightened aggressiveness, which can lead to problems in school and diminished economic productivity as an adult. And the consequences of childhood neurotoxicant exposure later in life may include increased risk of Parkinson’s disease and other neurogenerative diseases,” says Landrigan.
The researchers believe that the total impact of the pandemic is much greater than currently recognized. In supplementary documentation (see below for a link), about half of the 202 chemicals known to be toxic to the brain are among the chemicals most commonly used.
Testing chemicals for toxicity is a highly efficient public health measure. However, less than half of the thousands of chemicals currently used in commerce have been tested to assess acute toxicity and, although new chemicals undergo more thorough testing, access to the data may be restricted because companies fear exposing proprietary information. Also, current toxicity testing rarely includes neurobehavioral functions.
“The brains of our children are our most precious economic resource, and we haven’t recognized how vulnerable they are,” says Grandjean. “We must make protection of the young brain a paramount goal of public health protection. You have only one chance to develop a brain.”
To view supplementary documentation on industrial chemicals and risks of toxic effects on brain development, click here:
Support for this research was provided by the Danish Medical Research Council, the (U.S.) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
("Developmental Neurotoxicity of Industrial Chemicals," The Lancet, November 8, 2006- Vol. 368)
See the latest news from the Harvard School of Public Health .
For more information, contact:
Posted by AikidoSoul in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Mar 06th 2008, 07:07 PM
According to Richard Hayes Phillips -- county supervisors-of-elections "have a lot of explaining to do".
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
March 5, 2008
Didn't anybody notice this?
It is now 24 hours after the polls closed in Texas.
In 21 counties, with 100% of precincts reporting, Nobody voted in the Republican presidential primary.
In 3 counties, with 100% of precincts reporting, Nobody voted in the Democratic presidential primary.
In the 21 counties with NO Republican voters, there were 87,919 registered voters, and 36,239 ballots cast,
all of them Democratic.
In the 3 counties with NO Democratic Voters, there were 5,212 registered voters, and 1,865 ballots cast,
all of them Republican.
In Maverick County, ALL 9,661 ballots cast were Democratic.
In Hansford County, ALL 1,235 ballots cast were Republican.
But don't take my word for it. See for yourself.
Election officials in the State of Texas have some explaining to do.
Richard Hayes Phillips is the author of the book on the 2004 presidential election in Ohio – "Witness to a Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election." For more information: richardhayesphillips(AT)yahoo.com
(PLEASE NOTE: I had to remove the tables showing the numbers data because DU does not allow for tables).
Maybe Brad should take a look at this....
1 IN 6 CHILDREN NOW HAVE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
CONTACTS: Elise Miller, MEd - (360) 331-7904; email@example.com
Steve G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT – (206) 527-0926; firstname.lastname@example.org
PRESS RELEASE ICEH CONSENSUS STATEMENT: http://www.iceh.org/LDDI.html
Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (LDDI)
Publishes Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Factors
February 20, 2008, Seattle, WA. The Collaborative on Health and the Environment’s Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative published today the Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders (available at http://www.iceh.org/LDDI.html ).
This statement, signed by more than 50 scientists and health professionals nationally and internationally, summarizes the latest science about environmental contaminants associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disabilities and developmental delays.
The statement, which has a glossary and over 200 references, was drafted and reviewed by a prestigious committee of scientists and health professionals based in North America. They concluded: “Given the established knowledge, protecting children from neurotoxic environmental exposures from the earliest stages of fetal development through adolescence is clearly an essential public health measure if we are to help reduce the growing numbers of those with learning and developmental disorders and create an environment in which children can reach and maintain their full potential.”
“We know enough now to move on with taking steps to protect our children. This document pulls that knowledge together to further this vital effort," said reviewer Martha Herbert, PhD, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and a pediatric neurologist with subspecialty certification in neurodevelopmental disabilities at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Other researchers on the review committee underscored the cost-savings, policy-related and ethical implications of this consensus statement.
“We could cut the health costs of childhood disabilities and disease by billions of dollars every year by minimizing contaminants in the environment,” said Phil Landrigan, MD,MSc, of the Children’s Environmental Health Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. “Investing in our children’s health is both cost-effective and the right thing to do.”
“The overwhelming evidence shows that certain environmental exposures can contribute to life-long learning and developmental disorders,” noted Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, with the Science and Environmental Health Network. “We should eliminate children’s exposures to substances that we know can have these impacts by implementing stronger health-based policies requiring safer alternatives. Further, we must urgently examine other environmental contaminants of concern for which safety data are lacking. ”
“The proportion of environmentally induced learning and developmental disabilities is a question of profound human, scientific and public policy significance,” said lead author Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT, of the Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders, “and has implications for individuals, families, school systems, communities and the future of our society. The bottom line is it is our ethical responsibility to ensure all children have a healthy future.”
This document is designed for researchers, health professionals, health-affected groups, environmental health
and justice organizations, policymakers and journalists to use as a resource for understanding and addressing
concerns about links between environmental factors and neurodevelopmental disorders.
This needs to be covered by the mainstream press!
Posted by AikidoSoul in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Jan 18th 2008, 08:10 PM
but reading the posts here I see there is a good deal of worry that the masses
can and will continue to be fooled... not so much because they are blind to their
own plight, but because BushCo is so skilled at blaming others for anything that
Most of the dark mood here is partly be due to the daily disappointments, continual
bashings of the Constitution, unbridled hubris, massive greed, heinous crimes, etc., that
continue without being punished. We are like battered children having difficulty raising
our eyes toward heaven to even hope it can get better.
The notion of the sh*t hitting the fan is a vivid image, but I see it as such a very temporary
event. Will it have good results? What about their continued grip on power? BushCo
is trying to set things up so the next administration will have to bow to their policies.
Even if out of power they may rule. There is a deadly sense of foreboding that BushCo has
an iron networked grip on this country and its future and that nobody will dare try to hard
to move it in another direction due to pure terror of the kind of reprisal that may be meted
out. These people are dangerous criminals capable of anything. They have proved that.
The neocon fascists have been gaining strength for over a half century.... many of them work
behind the scenes. They are perhaps the most dangerous of all.
They are even working hard to re-write history. BushCo is spending a great deal of energy
and money to make sure that their legacy is a designer affair controlled by their own
historians. If you thought that the Reagan adoration lore is a nauseating pack of lies -- wait
'til you see the first movie of Bush depicted as the new Winston Churchill.
And people are lured and brainwashed by that crap.
I wouldn't even put book burnings past these people. These are the same people who trashed
all the libraries at the EPA to destroy and control scientific data to protect the chem/pharm
industry. What are they capable of to protect their legacy from hard scrutiny and criticism
by future generations?
Am I just waaay too cynical? I think not.
FDA: Flu Drugs Affecting Kids' Behavior
WASHINGTON -- Government health regulators recommended adding label precautions about neurological problems seen in children who have taken flu drugs made by Roche and GlaxoSmithKline.
The Food and Drug Administration on Friday released its safety review of Roche's Tamiflu and Glaxo's Relenza. Next week, an outside group of pediatric experts is scheduled to review the safety of several such drugs when used in children.
FDA began reviewing Tamiflu's safety in 2005 after receiving reports of children experiencing neurological problems, including hallucinations and convulsions.
Twenty-five patients under age 21 have died while taking the drug, most of them in Japan. Five deaths resulted from children "falling from windows or balconies or running into traffic."
There have been no child deaths connected with Relenza, but regulators said children taking the drug have shown similar neurological problems.
The FDA also stated that ".... it isn't clear whether the problems are directly related to the drugs", and recommended advising physicians who prescribe Tamiflu and Relenza of possible side effects. FDA also stated that, "Besides being a drug side effect, the agency said the behaviors alternately could result from an unusual strain of flu or a rare genetic reaction to the drug."
The LA times could not reach company reps for comment.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Nov. 13, 2007
Contacts: Connie Mabin, USW, 412-562-2616 or email@example.com, Judy Braiman of Empire State Consumer Association, 585-383-1317; or Dr. Kathleen Burns of Sciencecorps, firstname.lastname@example.org
Kids’ Bracelet Contains Extremely Toxic Cadmium
CSPC not interested in “new public health threat”
PITTSBURGH - The United Steelworkers (USW) today said the latest toxic toy discovery – extremely high levels of poisonous cadmium in an imported kids’ charm bracelet – is more proof that the nation’s failed trade policies and a broken regulatory system are putting children at risk and must immediately be fixed.
The troubling discovery is the latest in a toxic import crisis in which dangerous products such as poisoned pet food, lead-laced baby bibs and toys, red-leaded steel and counterfeit electrical circuit breakers have flooded North America. More than 30 million toys alone have been recalled this year because of high levels of lead.
“It is appalling that another imported product could be poisoning our children. Lead, cadmium - no toxins have any place in our children’s products. This toy needs to be immediately recalled, but until our failed trade policies are remedied, our families are going to remain endangered,” said USW President Leo W. Gerard. His union has been screening toys for lead in the United States and Canada as part of the “Protect Our Kids – Stop Toxic Imports” campaign.
The USW was made aware of the metal bracelet by Dr. Kathleen Burns, a toxicologist who reviewed test results for Empire State Consumer Association, which has been evaluating toy safety since 1971. The laboratory test results documented small beads on the bracelet contained 227,000 parts per million of cadmium.
The Chinese-made bracelet was sold at Dollar Tree under the “Sassy Chic” brand name. According to the package, its item number is 873089 and it is distributed by Greenbrier International Inc. of Chesapeake, Va.
The U.S. Environmental Protective Agency’s standard for cadmium in drinking water is less than 1 part per million. And European law bans electronic products containing more than 100 parts per million of cadmium.
Cadmium is a toxic metal that can cause cancer, birth defects and damage to the reproductive system. Like lead, cadmium builds up in the body over time, causing cumulative damage, and is harmful even in low concentrations.
Dr. David O. Carpenter of the Institute for Health & the Environment at the University at Albany-SUNY said the toy that’s nearly 25 percent cadmium “raises a new public health threat.”
“The presence of such a high concentration of cadmium in a small bead that can be easily swallowed is clearly very dangerous. As with lead in toys and children's jewelry, attention needs to be given to the content of other toxic metals," Carpenter said.
Dr. Burns, director of the Massachusetts-based Sciencecorps, said, “Cadmium is a widely recognized hazardous metal that isn’t necessary in toys and shouldn’t be there. It can harm the workers who make the toys, children who play with them, and contaminate the area where the toys are disposed of.”
Gerard added, “What makes me even angrier is the inaction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which instead of working to immediately recall this product gave the Empire State Consumer Association a bureaucratic run around when they tried to report this disturbing discovery. How many more toxic toys have to end up on our store shelves and in the hands of our kids and grandkids before our government stops protecting big business and does something about this crisis?”
Judy Braiman, founder of the Empire State Consumer Association, tried to alert the CPSC about the cadmium finding and was told she could submit the results, but that the agency does not test for cadmium or consider it as toxic as lead. In fact it is very toxic, and the EPA has a limit on cadmium that is three times more stringent than the limit on lead in drinking water. Past cadmium poisoning incidents indicate that only a quarter of a gram may be fatal in child. Further analysis is necessary to determine the harm that could result from consuming the toy bracelet.
Braiman’s group today filed a complaint with the New York Attorney General’s Office and hopes to have the product immediately recalled. “I’m extremely angry because our government is very negligent in carrying out their responsibilities to protect people. Businesses must ensure the safety of their products and be held accountable for unsafe products. We should be making more children’s products in the United States,” Braiman said.
Burns said failures at the CPSC and the Centers for Disease Control to regulate product safety is a “near breakdown of public health protections from hazardous products. I hope that every one who cares about children will demand action on this public health problem.”
Since its launch in September, the USW’s “Stop Toxic Imports” campaign has helped hundreds of families screen toys and other products for lead. The campaign also aims to spread awareness about the toxic trade cycle that is endangering children and threatening jobs. More information is available at www.stoptoxicimports.org .
The USW represents 850,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada employed in the industries of metals, rubber, chemicals, paper, oil refining and the service sector. For more information: www.usw.org /
In lieu of federal action, health organizations are testing children’s products to assess lead and other hazards. Last week a toy with 23% cadmium (by weight) in small easily ingested beads was identified and composition was confirmed on retest. Other metals included lead, arsenic, chromium, manganese, vanadium, and thallium, though in smaller quantities. CPSC was unresponsive to my call and to a call by the director of the organization that sponsored the testing and has supplied the Agency with results used as the basis for product recalls over the last 30 years. The USW was responsive and their press release below gives product details.
Minimal NLM, CDC, or Poison Control data are available on oral acute toxicity, but the lethal dose appears to be approximately 25 mg/kg (less than one quarter of a gram for a small child). The cadmium in a single bead may pose an acute toxicity risk, depending on bioavailability (which cannot be readily determined) and other factors. The CDC’s long-term exposure MRL is 0.0002 mg/kg (maximum two millionths of a gram per day for a 10 kg child). Cadmium accumulates in the body and damages multiple organ systems, most prominently the kidneys (proximal tubules). Extensive data are available on moderate to low level cadmium exposure effects via NLM and summary publications. We have some recent publications not accessible through NLM, including WHO’s 2003 review, and an EU report on the toxicity and bioavailability of elements in toys - provided on request. Testing methods and results also supplied if you are working on this problem.
We don’t know how many products contain cadmium or other highly toxic metals, since cadmium testing began recently and there is not broad chemical screening of toys. Agressive international actions have reduced cadmium use and controlled its distribution so that availability has declined in most areas. But it remains available as a byproduct of zinc mining and component of waste shipped to Asia and Africa for scrap recycling.
This posting is both an alert and request for information unavailable via standard publications:
- poisoning reports with quantified oral exposures (not already published)
- current paths of cadmium entry into the stream of commerce
- other reports of cadmium in toys or inadvertently in consumer products (e.g., not in pigments or batteries)
If you send information, please specify whether it can be made public. Collaboration on testing and evaluation is welcome. This is currently being done without any funding, but with the help of an accredited lab that offers discounted testing to nonprofits.
Kathleen Burns, Ph.D.
Lexington, Massachusetts, USA
Just picture the impeachment proceedings beginning.... and suddenly we see bombs being dropped on Iran... to distract the public, and to punish the "weak" Dems who are "soft on terrorism". They will probably also fake another Gulf of Tonkin type incident to further distract and to try to get the public on their side.
This is exactly the kind of thing these thugs are capable of. They are two dangerous criminals....
changed "people" to "thugs"
Posted by AikidoSoul in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Oct 30th 2007, 07:33 PM
A new member of DU (lame54) has done a fabulous job with this HELP US AL GORE! video. It was posted within Gore theme threads but deserves its own thread. Thank you lame54!!!! Beautifully done!!!!
You'd have to be blind and deaf to not know that there's a growing "Draft Al Gore" movement in the U.S. If you want to participate you can do something simple...write a note to Mr. Gore telling him that you would like him to run for president.
Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620 Nashville, TN 37203
Thank you for all of us who want a future for the United States, its people, and the world!
And as for you lame54.........
from C-130 type cargo planes at Palmerolla AFB in Honduras during the 1980s. I lived there with my spouse and worked under the auspices of the American Embassy. The work situation was paid by a corporation that was under contract with the military, Dod, and NSA at different times during that period.
At first we thought the contractors had to be mistaken about what they had seen, but they insisted it was cocaine. There were three contractors who reported this over a period of two years. These were wide-eyed young guys had high ideals. They had initially been wooed by companies working as contractors for DoD, NSA and the U.S. military and were convinced that they were working for the highest ideals of the United States of America. What was so striking about their descriptions of what they saw -- cocaine cargo loaded and unloaded -- were their shaky, disturbed utterings. They were obviously shattered by what they saw. They were sick with disgust and worry... and became increasingly disturbed over the course of their tenure there. One of them was pale and had tears when he described what he saw happen. They all ended up quitting. It was apparent to me that they had no choice because of the sheer emotional impact this had on them and their pre-conceived notions of what the United States stood for.
Since we did not witness these events with our own eyes, we made note of what they said and filed it away. We considered it here-say simply because we could not directly corroborate it -- but the fact that three persons reported the same thing had a great impact on us.
It took one more experience to radicalize us forever.
It was another U.S. instigated horror (purposeful devaluation of the Honduran Lempira currency with the prior knowledge of the rich elite -- who used this knowledge to kill off the middle class. Rich Honduran elites purchased millions of $$$ and stored them in Miami banks so they could swoop down on the newly evolved middle class that was wiped out by the Honduran currency devaluation. These predators fed on the new struggling middle class like vultures, buying up their new businesses and homes for pennies because the evolving middle class could no longer afford them.
We knew about this because a very rich Honduran (our landlord) told us how he had taken all his Lempira and purchased U.S. dollars and then put his dollars safely in Miami banks ...just like the rest of the very rich Hondurans. These creeps had all been alerted about this plan. He talked blithely about it because he thought we were in on it!
We were sickened by it. We immediately decided to quit and never work as contractors for the U.S. government again. It was over.
We went into our own business. Not only that but we became radicalized by our experiences. Totally, thoroughly radicalized.
It wasn't until years later that the reports by those young contractors about the cocaine shipments in Honduras -- were corroborated by Mike Levine in his book "The Big White Lie".
Later it was Gary Webb and his series at the San Jose Mercury News. At first Webb's editors backed him up until huge pressure from the CIA was exerted on them and they turned on Webb -- who eventually committed suicide, or possibly was suicided.
We'll probably never know the truth about what really happened to Gary Webb.
Here's a description yanked from the web on two Levine books about the CIA and drug smuggling, and bout the complicity of the U.S. government in ALLOWING drugs to be smuggled as long as it SUPPORTED its agenda (right wing control and subjugation of leftists, and continued support of right-wing agendas):
Levine, Michael. The Big White Lie: The CIA and the Cocaine/Crack Epidemic -- An Undercover Odyssey. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993. 472 pages.
And from WikiPedia (this checks out fine):
Michael Levine is a former senior United States law enforcement agent and has been called "America's top undercover cop for 25 years" by 60 Minutes. A 25 year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) he has gained much attention for his criticisms of the CIA and the DEA. He has even gone as far as claiming the CIA created La Corporacion, the "General Motors of cocaine".
Levine has testified as an expert witness in 500 civil and criminal trials internationally and domestically. He is a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement. <1>
Since 1995, he has hosted "The Expert Witness Radio Show" on the flagship station of the Pacifica Radio Network, WBAI-FM in New York. http://www.expertwitnessradio.org
Michael Levine's earlier book, Deep Cover, occasionally mentioned CIA double-dealing in the war against drugs. Now this theme is his central thesis. Levine is a 25-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration, whose career included undercover work in Argentina at the time of the 1980 "Cocaine Coup" in Bolivia. In this book Levine places his anti-drug war in its proper context, and concludes that it was futile. In Argentina the CIA was assisting a brutal junta, which was responsible for "disappearing" its own citizens, and in Bolivia the scheming of longtime CIA asset Klaus Barbie helped put Luis Arce Gomez into power. To top it off, the well-connected Argentinean and Bolivian fascists behind it all just happened to be some of the same people that boy scout Levine was trying to bust. Needless to say, he didn't get his merit badge, and was ordered back to headquarters.
Back in the U.S. by early 1982, working out of DEA headquarters, Levine was disillusioned. DEA was harassing him with a nit-picking internal affairs investigation while drug lords were running governments. Levine settled for working a sting to entice Bolivia's queen of cocaine, Sonia Atala, into a U.S. prison. But she too was CIA-protected, and ended up in the witness protection program, waiting to return to Bolivia with all of her vast property holdings intact.
Kick and recommend.
This is a VERY hot thread.
except maybe the military industrial complex. They are similar in important ways.
Let's please mention up front that top FDA officials regularly go to work for Big Pharma, and are rewarded handsomely for decisions made while they "regulating" Pharma's products.
I don't call it BigPharma, but rather the Chem/ Pharm industry, because every pharma company I've researched also manufactures, or has subsidiaries that manufacture, highly toxic chemicals.
Chem/Pharm is extremely powerful -- and regularly destroys the reputations of scientists, doctors and researchers who attempt to bring chemical injury into the forefront of public discussion.
This industry has been extremely aggressive in corrupting science and the medical profession in general, so that at this point it is seen by many as a criminal enterprise.
See a long list of titles below that are a partial listing of the documentation of corruption in this industry -- with tentacles in every area of science, politics and medicine.
The links here are partial because I don't have time to click on each one and post the URL separately (mine are all hyperlinks). The titles of the articles and reports are highly searchable by title and can be found in major medical / science journals, the Wall St. Journal, Alliance for Human Research Protection, The Lancet, and others:
Conflict of Interest: Profits vs Safety Congressional Investigations -- http://www.ahrp.org/ethical/CongInvestigat...
US Senators Pharmaceutical industry holdings, 2004: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/...
Oct 12: How Did the Vioxx Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php
Oct 4: Op Ed: Psychiatry on the Ropes--WP / Evidence-based Psychiatry -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/04.php
Oct 3: BBC PANORAMA TONIGHT - Taken on Trust - 13 years-Medical Deception -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/03.php
Sep 30: GSK Sales Reps told NOT to Divulge Paxil Data / Merck Withdraws Vioxx -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/30.php
Sep 28: SEC Focusing on Drug Makers Disclosure_ Continuing Medical Ed Changes http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/28.php
Sep 16: Black Box Warnings for Antidepressants - What's Next? http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/16.php
Sep 16: Tell the Truth About Antidepressants On Drug Labels & in Medical Journals http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/16a.php
Sep 14: AHRP Press Briefing Re: Antidepressant Drug Risks http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/12.php
Sep 8: FDA Forced Wyeth to REMOVE Suicide Warning from Effexor Label http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/08.php
Sep 2: Antipsychotic Drug Use Doubled since 1996 in Tennessee Children - Why? http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/09/02.php
Aug 13: Time for a Drug Test Registry_Marcia Angell_Why NIH is Not Up to the Task http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/13.php
Aug 13: Bradshaw cancels appearance after SSRI-Citizen Press Release Announced Protest http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/13a.php
Aug 5: Spitzer Expands drug Probe: Johnson & Johnson / New FDA analysis Confirms SSRI Risks to Kids - WSJ http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/05a.php
Aug 4: FDA Approves Lilly's Cymbalta for Depression Despite Risk of Suicide http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/04.php
Aug 3: Drug safety Hearings-Sept-Congress/ FDA - Lilly Plans to Disclose Data http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/08/03.php
Jul 27: Bill Moyers: the Real Show...Congressional hearing was abruptly cancelled http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/27a.php
Jul 26: Mosholder Suppressed Report Posted/ Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits - NYT -- http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/26.php
Jul 22: Concealed Drug Trial Results Mislead Doctors & Put Children's Lives at Risk - NYT http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/22.php
Jul 21: Cong Greenwood's version http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/21a.php
Jul 21: Hearing on Antidepressants Canceled - Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...
Jul 20: Corruption of Cong by Pharma: Greenwood offered job / drops Pharma hearing http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/20.php
Jul 19: Clinical Trials Controversy Spotlights Flawed System - Psychiatric News http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content...
Jul 14: Statin-Cholesterol Guidelines--Industry influenced? http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/14.php
Jul 9: FDA Squelches an Article Raising Doubts on Safety Of Device to Repair Artery - WSJ http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/09.php
Jul 9: Paxil for Children: Safety, Efficacy Aren't Established - Letter WSJ http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/09a.php
July 7: Pharma Influence: Penn Psychiatrist Files Whistleblower Lawsuit - Investigtion Confirms Medicare Chief Lied to Congress
Jul 6: FDA Failed to Enforce Law Requiring Drugmakers to Disclose Test Data - WashPost http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/06.php
June 30,2004: NYS AG Expands Pharmaceutical probe - Forest Labs http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/30.php
June 30, 2004: Response to Washington Post Editorial "Missing Drug Data" http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/30a.php
Jun 28. 2004: Scientists Decode Secret of Getting NIH Grants - WSJ http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/28.php
Jun 27, 04: NIH Under Fire: Longtime Favorite of Congress - Wash Post / WSJ http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/27.php
Jun 26: Forest Labs Admits Concealment of data - Congressional Probe Expands http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/06/26.php
Jun 23: AHRP: Published NIMH Funded Prozac Trial Report Concealed Suicide Attempts by Teens http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/blogcatego... /
Jun 21: Antidepressants - USA Today Editorial / AHRP OpEd/ WSJ Editorial Bashes Spitzer
Jun 20: HMO physician applauds Spitzer's focus on information bias / NYT blind spot
Jun 7: Paxil induced suicides in US quantified - Glaxo Faces criminal action in UK over "suicide"
pills - Times
Jun 6, 2004: NY Times Editorial Gets it Right: When Drug Companies Hide Data
Jun 5: "Black Hole" of medical research--Negative Results Don't get Published - JAMA, WSJ
Jun 2, 2004: NYS Attorney General files suit against GlaxoSmithKline
Jun 2: NY Times Does it Again - Drug Advertisers Get Front Page Coverage to Boost SSRI Market
May 25, 2004: FDA role in suppressing damaging data - WSJ
May 24, 2004: More than 100 top regulatory officials represented industry as lobbyists, lawyers - Denver Post
May 18, 2004: Lawmakers accused leaders of the NIH of encouraging "the option of corruption."
May 17, 2004: Paxil Sales Plummet in UK (372K PDF)
May 16: Pfizer Admits Guilt in Promotion of Neurontin--Agrees to Pay $430 Million
May 7, 2004: NIH Panel Recommendations Fail to Resolve Conflicts of Interest
May 6, 2004: Interview with Shannon Brownlee (NPR)
Apr 13: Doctors Without Borders: Why you can't trust medical journals anymore
Mar 25: Antidepressant Controversy: Media Conflicts of Interest - New York Times
Mar 2, 2004: Ethics Policy Announced for NIH Officials - LAT
Jan 29, 2004: Antidepressant Makers Withhold Data on Children - Washington Post
Jan 25, 2004: ACNP Summary Report Criticized as "Junk Science"
Jan 21: ACNP - a pharmaceutical industry funded association of psychiatrists - claims SSRI Antidepressants don't increase suicidal behavior
Jan 7, 2004: FDA Sham Conflicts of Interest Policy
Dec 7, 2003: Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Medical Research at NIH - LAT
Aug 15, 2003: Almost 1/2 of faculty on IRBs have ties to industry - Harvard Partners
Aug 3, 2003: Psychiatrist's Undisclosed Financial Ties Prompt Reproval - NYT
June 20, 2003: Time to put drug giants on trial - Scotsman (UK)
April 5, 2003: AHRP Comments: DHHS COI Guidance for Human Subject Protection
March 30, 2003: CNN: Drug Argument Embroils Psychiatrists, Pharma Companies
March 19, 2003: Conflicts of Interest Taint UK Gov panel investigating SSRI
November 22, 2002: Tonight PBS Is Science for Sale?
September 30: Ritalin Outrage: Congress_ Big Media Under the Influence of Big Drugs
August 25, 2002: Integrity in Scientific Research : Peer review ineffective - Institute of Medicine / Lancet / Science
August 1, 2002: Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence Biased Psychiatry, an original article by David Healy MD, MRCPsych in which he challenges the scientific assumptions about the value of evidence obtained from randomized controlled clinical trials.
July 15, 2002: The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. By Irving Kirsch, Thomas J. Moore, and Alan Scoboria and Sarah S. Nicholls.
A meta-analysis of efficacy data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the six most widely prescribed antidepressants approved between 1987 and 1999. They report that, although the difference in drug versus placebo response was statistically significant, approximately 80% of the medication response was duplicated in the placebo control. The accompanying expert commentaries reflect the broad range of reactions that such findings provoke. http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5...
Response to the commentaries Antidepressants and Placebos: Secrets, Revelations, and Unanswered Questions http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5...
July 15, 2002: Short Drug Tests, Fatal Flaws. Thomas J. Moore. Op Ed. Boston Globe
July 14, 2002: Corporate influence on medicine, budgets & investors
June 13, 2002: When Money Corrupts Medicine - Deaths Occur
June 13, 2002: In 1984 the NEJ M became the first of the major medical journals to require authors of original research articles to disclose any financial ties with companies that make products discussed in papers. In accordance with the NEJM policy, editorial reviewers could have no financial ties to the companies. In 2002, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, the journal's new editor, abandoned the Journal's policy of containing conflicts of interest, claiming "it is becoming tough to find doctors to write such articles." The change, Drazen wrote in the June 13, 2002 issue of the Journal, is designed "to enhance the depth and breadth of the journal's content while ensuring that the articles we publish are not influenced by financial interests.'' The Boston Herald indicated that Drazen claimed: "We're strengthening the journal.'' But Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the NEJM, blasted the new policy.
June 8, 2002: Fraudulent Conduct that Takes Lives: Why Criminal Prosecution of Medical Researchers with Financial Conflicts, Who Fabricate Safety Data, has Become an Essential Component of Regaining the Integrity of Device and Drug Research in the United States
By James J. Neal, Copyright 2002
"Giant corporations are locked in a life and death struggle to provide one of a kind instrumentation with which a given operation 'must' be done." Editor, Michael Baggish M.D., Journal of Gynecologic Surgery.
"Rare is the disinterested researcher. It is a phenomenon found in every medical treatment using devices." "If you can't trust the studies, what happens to the profession and what happens to patients." John Wasson, M.D., Dartmouth, New York Times.
"We've lost our way. We've terribly, terribly lost our way. Science has been lost in the rush for money." Steven Nissen, M.D., Cleveland Clinic, New York Times.
"Organs punctured include bile ducts, bowel, small intestine, liver and arteries and veins. Data shows high morbidity." Pennsylvania Medical Society, comments on "hi tech" surgical devices.
Summary: In recent years, surgical instrument companies working through surgeons with concealed equity interests in devices, have created new procedures, to promote the sale of equipment. Corporations have created demand for new surgical procedures "through massive advertising campaigns to convince the public of
The Socioeconomic Tyranny of Surgical Technology. Archives of Surgery. Leading surgical researchers, with equity interests have fabricated surgical research to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of new procedures with device costs of $2,000-$5,000 per operation. One sales rep described his companies' philosophy as "dollars per procedure." Although the device industry has generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue using these tactics, serious surgical morbidity from many new device dependent operations has multiplied. Treating MD's and patients need law enforcement's assistance in deterring fabricated research data published by research surgeons with concealed equity interests in expensive medical devices, and new drugs. The question raised in this analysis is whether fraudulent medical research is taking lives, and if so, how many. For complete article go to:
June 5, 2002: APA Under the Influence of PhaRma
June 13, 2002: Vermont to Require Drug Makers to Disclose Payments to Doctors
By MELODY PETERSEN The New York Times. Vermont follows Minnesota in its efforts to contain the cost of medicine by requiring public disclosure of conflicts of interest. A law will require drug companies to disclose the gifts and cash payments they make to doctors. We have not heard of similar moves by states that have major medical centers such as: New York, Massachusetts, Maryland or California.
May 30, 2002: Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit & the Public Health - ABC News
May 23, 2002: FDA -Conflicts of Interest to be expanded - Washington Post
May 21, 2002: Bitter Pill for David Healy: academia under pharma influence
May 6, 2002: "Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials", a presentation by Vera Hassner Sharav before the U.S. Army Medical Department and Henry M. Jackson Foundation for Advancement of Military Medicine on Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research.
September 24, 2001: The American Prospect.
Pharma Buys a Conscience By Carl Elliott, MD, PhD
The issue of corporate money has become something of an embarrassment within the bioethics community. Bioethicists have written for years about conflicts of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself. Arthur Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, counsels doctors against accepting gifts from the drug industry. "The more you yield to economics," Caplan said last January, "the more you're falling to a business model that undercuts arguments for professionalism." Yet Caplan himself consults for the drug and biotech industries, recently coauthored an article with scientists for Advanced Cell Technology, and heads a bioethics center supported by Monsanto, de Code Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Geron Corporation, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Human Genome Sciences, and the Schering-Plough Corporation.
By no means does Caplan's center stand alone in its coziness with industry. The University of Toronto houses the Sun Life Chair in Bioethics; the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics has a program in genetics funded by a $1-million gift from SmithKline Beecham Corporation; the Merck Company Foundation has financed a string of international ethics centers in cities from Ankara, Turkey, to Pretoria, South Africa. Last year the Midwest Bioethics Center announced a new $587,870 initiative funded by the Aventis Pharmaceuticals Foundation. That endeavor is titled, apparently without irony, the Research Integrity Project.
Bioethics appears set to borrow a funding model popular in the realm of business ethics. This model embraces partnership and collaboration with corporate sponsors as long as outright conflicts of interest can be managed. It is the model that allows the nonprofit Ethics Resource Center in Washington, D.C., to sponsor ethics and leadership programs funded by such weapons manufacturers as General Dynamics, United Technologies Corporation, and Raytheon. It also permits the former president of Princeton University, Harold Shapiro, to draw an annual director's salary from Dow Chemical Company while serving as chair of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Dow, of course, has been the defendant in a highly publicized lawsuit over the Dow Corning silicone breast implants as well as in numerous legal actions involving disposal of hazardous waste.
Part of the problem is aesthetic. It is unseemly for ethicists to share in the profits of arms dealers, industrial polluters, or multinationals that exploit the developing world. But credibility also is an issue. How can bioethicists continue to be taken seriously if they are on the payroll of the very corporations whose practices they are expected to assess?
Read complete article (free): http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/ellio...
May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine. Is Academic Medicine for Sale?
By Marcia Angell, MD - Vol. 342, No. 20
Finding an editorialist to write about the article presented another problem. Our conflict-of-interest policy for editorialists, established in 1990, ( ) is stricter than that for authors of original research papers. Since editorialists do not provide data, but instead selectively review the literature and offer their judgments, we require that they have no important financial ties to companies that make products related to the issues they discuss. We do not believe disclosure is enough to deal with the problem of possible bias. This policy is analogous to the requirement that judges recuse themselves from hearing cases if they have financial ties to a litigant. Just as a judge's disclosure would not be sufficiently reassuring to the other side in a court case, so we believe that a policy of caveat emptor is not enough for readers who depend on the opinion of editorialists.
In this editorial, Angell discusses the extent to which academic medicine has become intertwined with the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and the benefits and risks of this state of affairs. Bodenheimer, in his Health Policy Report elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, provides a detailed view of an overlapping issue -- the relations between clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.
The ties between clinical researchers and industry include not only grant support, but also a host of other financial arrangements. Researchers serve as consultants to companies whose products they are studying, join advisory boards and speakers' bureaus, enter into patent and royalty arrangements, agree to be the listed authors of articles ghostwritten by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at company-sponsored symposiums, and allow themselves to be plied with expensive gifts and trips to luxurious settings. Many also have equity interest in the companies.
Read complete article (for pay) : http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020...
May 18, 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine.
"Uneasy Alliance -- Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry"
By Thomas Bodenheimer, MD, MPH. Vol. 342, No. 20
How much influence does industry have over the work and products of the research community? Can practicing physicians trust the information they receive about the medications they are prescribing? Does the shift from the academic to the commercial research sector give industry too much control over clinical drug trials?
In this report, I discuss some of the problems raised by pharmaceutical-industry funding of drug trials, problems that may deepen as trials are increasingly conducted by commercial organizations. I interviewed 39 participants in the process: 6 pharmaceutical executives, 12 clinical investigators, 9 people from university research offices, 2 physicians with CROs, 8 people who have studied the process of clinical drug trials, and 2 professional medical writers. Each interview consisted of standard questions plus an opportunity for the interviewees to discuss the industry-investigator relationship in a general way. Several interviewees preferred not to allow the use of their names in the article.
Read complete article (for pay): http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020...
May 22, 1999: This smashing NY Times editorial (below) should awaken the public and its elected policy makers to the need for reform our Federal human subject protection regulations so that patients don't become unwitting commodities.
THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL May 22, 1999 Patients for Hire, Doctors for Sale
People go to doctors because they assume the doctor will tell them what they need to do to stay healthy or get well. But in articles published in The Times on Sunday and Monday, the reporters Kurt Eichenwald and Gina Kolata have opened the door on a practice of medicine that few of us knew existed - a warped world in which patients have become commodities, lured into research projects for the profit of their doctors.
In pushing to create a supermarket of new pills, the pharmaceutical industry has created a frantic competition for patients on whom new drugs must be tested before they can be approved. A bounty system has evolved in which doctors are paid by drug companies to enroll research subjects with certain kinds of problems: $1,200 from Bayer for a patient with vaginitis; $2,955 from Merck for one with hypertension; $4,410 from SmithKline Beecham for a willing diabetic.
The devil's bargain is that the doctor knows that enrolling the patient is worth money, but the patient does not. It is a recruiting system with the potential to corrupt either the drug companies, because they are forced to outbid each other for patients, or the doctors, because they are tempted to enroll patients who may not be medically appropriate.
The articles reveal a whole research universe slipping out of control. A review by The Times of more than 300 recent drug studies, and more than 200,000 government research request files, found hundreds of thousands of patients involved and indications that some doctors make $500,000 to $1 million a year in recruitment bounties.
One Southern California doctor now in prison forged his patients' medical records and test results on a massive scale to boost his income.
In the past, most clinical trials of drugs were conducted by doctors at medical research institutions. But that system proved too slow at recruiting patients, so the drug companies and their contractors turned to doctors in private practice, tripling their number since 1990.
Meanwhile, the monitoring systems to protect patient welfare, already under fire for past performance, have shown no interest in the ethical conflict of doctors being paid to recruit their own patients.
Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, says that the bounty system is unethical by A.M.A. standards and that the organization will work with Federal regulators to try to end the practice.
They need to act expeditiously. The patient search has now begun to tap the poor populations of South America, threatening to corrupt the practice of medicine even more widely. © The New York Times
of this thread, but since you are the one that started the battle -- you might as well finish it.
if you believe that the MSG put in products is "naturally occurring," I can only assume that you're buying the FDA line that all processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is "natural". You can better see how wrongheaded this is when you notice that the FDA also says that the food ingredient "monosodium glutamate" is "natural."
The FDA continues its misleading information about MSG. I'd love it if you could finally get to the why and how of this. The FDA is not always the best when it comes to scientific honesty.. let's at least agree on that beforehand.
If I've gotten this wrong I don't mind being shown how -- but at this point I don't like the fact that this is given the blunt instrument treatment that it has.
The food industry says that processed free glutamate is as benign as bound glutamate. Why then do they need to go through all the trouble of splitting up the amino acids by hydrolyzing the vegetable protein in humongous vats?
But whether it's "natural" or not is in some ways a strawman argument because free glutamate is an excitotoxin whether it's "natural" or not. The main point is that dumping free glutamate as MSG into the body is different than the body regulating the conversion of the amino acid glutamine into bound glutamate. The complex distinction that the FDA and too many others completely ignore is that when it comes to MSG reactions, it's likely (and documented) that the problem comes when processed free glutamic acid in MSG product FLOODS into the bloodstream. This is not the way the body does it, and this is one of the details that too often gets left out when discussing why in some people, eating MSG triggers a neurological, immune, or allergic reaction.
Sure.. the natural amino acids found in food with glutamine do make their way into the body and some of it gets converted into glutamate -- an excitotoxin --- but don't you think that there is a distinction here -- that it's different when the body creates it and regulates it according to need and function? Do you think it's possible that the body can react differently to a free-glutamate dump into the bloodstream?
Do you even believe at all that some people have serious reactions to MSG -- or free glutamate?
Answer that one if you don't answer anything else because I need to know that you actually have a basic foundation and potential for fairness.
What pisses me is that it's common for manufacturers to obfuscate the truth about the free glutamic acid in their foods. If a person needs to protect someone and find out for sure, the manufacturers often mislead by saying they don't know whether there's processed free glutamic acid (MSG) their products! They claim ignorance! Since our labeling laws invite these tricks to be played on the public there's almost no way to determine whether there are unbound glutamic acid.
For most of us MSG is not a big deal, at least it doesn't seem to be a problem on the surface -- I do know that there are some glucose issues, but I don't want to get into that now.
But for those who are sensitive to MSG, even the natural amino acid glutatime is worthy of caution because it's the only amino acid with the ability to cross the blood/brain barrier, and it's byproducts can target brain receptors. Folks with MSG sensitivity often have trouble with glutamine rich foods especially fermented foods... as do those with kidney and liver disease, and other chronic illnesses. Their bodies seem to have trouble with even the low levels made by the body.
Hey... meanwhile -- don't eat too much Chinese food!!
Hey look -- natural glutamine is beautiful!
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Vanity Fair warned America a year ago (10/2015) about allowing Trump to being taken seriously
By Divine Discontent
Why FOX News is poisonous to our discourse?
So, do you think the GOP will eventually boot Dangerous Donny?
By Divine Discontent
Donald Trump Eats KFC With a Fork and Knife (Late Show with Colbert)
By Divine Discontent
TRUMP JUST FLAT OUT SAYS "AHHH! TO HELL WITH IT, I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO BE PRESIDENT!"
By Divine Discontent
The Reagan and Clinton Backlash.
FANS LINE UP IN HAVANA FOR FREE ROLLING STONES GOOD FRIDAY CONCERT
By Divine Discontent
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.