Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

A year after professor Susan M. Reverby, a historian at Wellesley College in
Massachusetts, uncovered a heinous Guatemalan syphilis experiment conducted
between 1946 and 1948, on at least 5,500 under the auspices of the US Public
Health Service, a hearing was held this week about the findings of the
President's Bioethics Commission investigation.

The Commission confirms that despite knowledge that it was unethical, US
government medical scientists PURPOSELY infected  "at least 1,300 who were
exposed to the sexually transmitted diseases syphilis, gonorrhea and
chancroid" to study the effects of penicillin. At least 83 subjects died.

"They infected soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners and mental patients. More
than 5,500 people in all were part of the medical experimentation.And the
presidential panel said government scientists knew they were violating
ethical rules."

The research "included infecting prisoners by bringing them prostitutes who
were either already carrying the diseases or were purposely infected by the
researchers. Doctors also poured bacteria onto wounds they had opened with
needles on prisoners' penises, faces and arms. In some cases, infectious
material was injected into their spines, the commission reported."

None of those who were drafted volunteered or consented to the experiment.

One such victimized human being was a mental patient named Berta.

     "She was first deliberately infected with syphilis and, months later,
given penicillin. After that, Dr. John C. Cutler of the Public Health
Service, who led the experiments, described her as so unwell that she
"appeared she was going to die." Nonetheless, he inserted pus from a male
gonorrhea victim into her eyes, urethra and rectum. Four days later,
infected in both eyes and bleeding from the urethra, she died."

Anita L. Allen, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania's law school
said: "Actually cruel and inhuman conduct took place. These are very grave
human rights violations."

Those subjected to these gruesome experiments "were poor, handicapped or
imprisoned Guatemalans. They were chosen because they were "available and
powerless."

BBC reported on March 14, 2011 that  the researchers bribed care workers to
let them infect their charges and prisoners were encouraged to sleep with
infected prostitutes.

Members of the President's Commission concluded that "These researchers knew
these were unethical experiments, and they conducted them anyway," said Raju
Kucherlapati of Harvard Medical School, a commission member. "That is what
is reprehensible."

Another panelist, John Arras, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia,
stated: "I really do believe that a very rigorous judgment of moral blame
can be lodged against some of these people."

The primary investigator of a series of inhumane, government-sponsored,
syphilis experiments was John C. Cutler. He and his team of US scientists
conducted syphilis experiments on US prisoners at Terre Haute, Indiana, and
at Sing Sing, New York; on poor African-American men with late-stage
syphilis at Tuskegee, denying them treatment until 1973;  and they
deliberately infected mental patients and prisoners in Guatemala, causing 83
deaths.

  PubMed, the database for medical-scientific journal articles, lists John C.
Cutler as the author on 58 journal articles published between 1946 and 1995.
He died without ever being held accountable, in 2003.

  The study was carried out by US scientists between 1946 and 1948.
Researchers bribed care workers to let them infect their charges and
prisoners were encouraged to have sex with infected prostitutes.
The experiment is acknowledged to be "much worse than Tuskegee."

  On Oct 2010 the US Apologized to the current Guatemalan government and
President Obama oordered an investigation , on Nov 2010.

  Today, profit--not cure--reins supreme in medical research. The major
sponsors of current medical experiments--which are referred to as "clinical
trials"--are the pharmaceutical companies whose singular goal is to obtain
FDA approval for marketing their products.Most new drugs are "me too" copy
cats that offer no improvement, but all too often result in serious harm.

Arthur Caplan. director of the Bioethics Center at the University of
Pennsylvania--a center whose dependency on pharmaceutical industry funding
is legendary--is hardly someone who is objective. He tried to shield his
benefactors by claiming: "I don't think the pharmaceutical companies are
running around giving people diseases or operating in prisons or mental
asylums."

To gain an objective, evidence-based perspective, one must turn to evidence
gathered by lawyers during litigation, by independent, ethicists who are not
industry's academic shills, such as Carl Elliott: Useless Studies, Real
Harm, The New York Times, and  Making a Killing--Marketing Exercises; and
investigative reports--such as, Vanity Fair:  Deadly Medicine: Foreign
Clinical Trials, Bloomberg News: Big Pharma's Shameful Secret and  Montreal
Clinical Trial Subjects Exposed to Tuberculosis ; PBS: "Bitter Pill" Based
on Bloomberg Pharma's Shameful Secret Report, The Washington Post: Pfizer
Faulted-1996 Clinical Trials In Nigeria: Unapproved Drug Tested On
Kids...(links to articles at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/833/9/ )

The weakness of the current regulatory system is acknowledged by most
independent analysts without financial ties to industry. The trials lack
independent review and oversight, and human subjects continue to be mostly
the poor and disenfranchised. Furthermore, many experiments fail to meet
valid ethical and scientific justification.

New drugs brought to market are mostly "me too" copy-cats that do NOT
improve medical outcomes. Indeed, numerous drugs have been pulled from the
market after they killed or maimed patients.

Ironically, in July, the US government, under the Obama Administration,
issued proposed regulatory changes (92 pp.) that would (essentially)
eviscerate the very  regulatory legal protections that were adopted in the
wake of the revelations about the unethical conduct of the Tuskegee syphilis
experiment.
See: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-18792_PI.pdf

This week, the President's Bioethics Commission urged the US to join the
rest of the civilized world, by ADDING compensation requirements for the
protection of human research subjects--either directly or through mandatory
insurance.

"The panel felt strongly that it was wrong and a mistake that the United
States was an outlier in not specifying any system for compensation for
research subjects other than, 'You get a lawyer and sue.'"

Read more...including links to articles at:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/833/9/

Below,  ABC News: Syphilis Experiments Shock, But So Do Third World Drug
Trials

The New York Times: Panel Hears Grim Details of Venereal Disease Tests

The Washington Post: Compensation system urged for research victims

     Read more at:
     The Washington Post: U.S. scientists knew 1940s Guatemalan STD studies
were unethical, panel finds

     U.S. apologizes for newly revealed syphilis experiments done in
Guatemala

     BBC News:  US scientists 'knew Guatemala syphilis tests unethical'
     Al Jazeera: Panel condemns US syphilis study in Guatemala


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974



_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

At the Republican Presidential Candidate debate, Michele Bachmann stepped on
a hornet's nest when she strongly criticized Rick Perry for issuing an
Executive Order mandating Texas school girls to be vaccinated with Merck's
HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

Controversy has swirled around this vaccine since Merck's aggressive
unethical marketing tactics were uncovered in 2007. These included pay offs
to public officials.
See:  Merck Lobbies States to MANDATE cervical-cancer vaccine for
schoolgirls http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/451/101/ and Merck Payola
Pays Off: Texas Governor Orders STD Vaccine for ALL girls
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/455/103/

Bachmann called Perry's use of the Executive Order an abuse of his executive
power.

Indeed, mandatory vaccination against HPV is unsupportable.
HPV is not communicable in a school setting--it is communicated only by
sexual contact. The condition Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is present in 50%
of the sexually active population.  HPV does NOT automatically develop into
cervical cancer in the overwhelming majority of the population.  HPV is
mostly benign--no treatment needed.

Furthermore, early detection of pre-cancerous cervical cells is readily
accomplished by routine PAP smears--which sexually active women in the US
routinely have. And pre-cancerous cervical condition is eminently treatable.

Therefore, cervical cancer does not pose a major danger for all
children--therefore, the risk from the vaccine itself is not justifiable.

Indeed, the Texas legislature had overruled (then) Governor Perry's
Executive Order because it was unsupportable.

Bachmann correctly noted that the HPV vaccine poses serious risks of harm:
As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 deaths reported to the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) related to Gardasil.

As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of GardasilR were
distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 18,727 of which 8%
were deemed serious. There have been 68 deaths related to the Gardasill
vaccine.

Bachmann stated that Merck  "made millions of dollars because of this
mandate;" and that Governor Perry had received thousands of dollars in
campaign contributions from Merck. She also noted that "the governor's
former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63329.html#ixzz1YPZbncRy

First among the hornets to attack Bachmann is none other than bioethicist
Art Caplan who came to Rick Perry's and Merck's defense.

Ironically, when Rick Perry entered the race for Republican Presidential
candidate, on August 15, 2011, he acknowledged in an Iowa radio call-in show
his mistake in issuing that  Gardasil Executive Order: "I readily stand up
and say I made a mistake on that. "

Art Caplan is the director of the Bioethics Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, which has been criticized for its copious pharmaceutical
industry funding. Oblivious to the reports of vaccine-related encephalitis,
cognitive disorder, and more, Caplan challenged Bachmann with a $10,000 bet
to prove her claim that the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer caused mental
retardation.

Mental retardation can be caused by encephalitis, an infection involving
inflammation of the brain as well as autoimmune inflammatory diseases
involving the central nervous system.

Read more...including the counter-challenge to Art Caplan by the
organization S.A.N.E. which cites numerous published peer-reviewed reports
of harm from the HPV vaccine. http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/834/9/



Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974


_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

Join the Demonstration organized by US soldiers who were harmed by the
anthrax vaccine and advocates for the protection of human subjects of
medical research to stop a proposed unethical anthrax vaccine experiment on
US children!

On Thursday, September 22, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services
will meet in Washington DC, with its National Biodefense Science Board to
receive the DSMB report about whether to approve conducting an anthrax
vaccine test in children.

Reasons for the protest:

. No evidence that children are at risk of anthrax.
. The vaccine poses serious risks of harm:
	 the FDA approved Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed label states:
. "Approximately 6% of the reported [adverse] events were listed as
serious. Serious adverse events include  those that result in death,
hospitalization, permanent disability or are life-threatening."
	 The children exposed to the anthrax vaccine risks will derive NO
BENEFIT from the experiment.

. For whose benefit is the government proposing to put children's
lives at risk of harm?

	 Read:  A 2010 report by Center for American Progress on profiteering
from anthrax vaccine
	 www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/unclesucker.pdf


The protest demonstration will take place in front of the DSMB meeting
place.

Place of demonstration: The ALMAS TEMPLE 1315 K Street NW, Washington DC
Time:  8:30 AM and 9:30 AM.

In attendance will be AHRP Board member, Meryl Nass, MD.

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974



_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

Dear Sir,

We are pleased to inform that the journal is now included in PubMed.

One can search the articles published in one issue which is now in PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=Journal+of+Neurosciences+in+Rural+Practice). These articles will be linked to the journal's website in next 3-4 days. The future articles will be available in PubMed about 4-8 weeks after publication.

We look forward for your continuing support.

Thanking you

With personal regards

Dr Amit Agrawal
www.ruralneuropractice.com
www.journalonweb.com/jnrp

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI
An Op Ed in The New York Times by Joel Bakan, a law professor at the
University of British Columbia, is the author of "Childhood Under Siege: How
Big Business Targets Children," provides insight into the conflict between
laws enacted to protect children's best interest and the newly emerging laws
that protect corporate best interests.

This conflict of interest has resulted in devastating consequences:
children's best interest, their health and welfare have been sacrificed by
for corporate profits.

Bakan cites childhood obesity resulting from irresponsible advertising by
the purveyors of junk food. And  the proliferation of toxic chemicals in
children's environment that have undermined their health. And he cites
under-regulated pharmaceutical industry practices, noting that corporate
deception led to widespread prescribing of psychotropic drugs for children:

      "we medicate increasing numbers of children with potentially harmful
psychotropic drugs, a trend fueled in part by questionable and
under-regulated pharmaceutical industry practices.

      In the early 2000s, for example, drug companies withheld data
suggesting that such drugs were more dangerous and less effective for
children and teenagers than parents had been led to believe.

      The law now requires "black box" warnings on those drugs' labels, but
regulators have done little more to protect children from sometimes unneeded
and dangerous drug treatments."

While the statement is true, readers are not informed about the actual scope
and magnitude of the deceptive practices by pharmaceutical companies and
their professional healthcare "partners" in government and academia that are
undermining  children's health and welfare.

Read Corrupt Practices section on the AHRP website. For example,
Confidential Expert Witness Report Documents Psychiatrists' Corrupt
Practices at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/822/70/

Read more... http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/832/9/


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974



_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

The Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State�in collaboration with the Bioethics Program and several other units at University Park�invites you to join us for the Food Ethics Lectures Series 2011-12.

The series explores some of the most compelling issues in food ethics today�from the agrarian tradition to industrial farming, from the ethics of nutrigenomics to food safety and food security, from fish in pain to the fish on your plate.  This course of eight distinct but interrelated lectures is�like any good meal�designed to leave the audience both satisfied and wanting more.  The lectures can be viewed live on the web, and questions can be submitted in real time to the speakers.  For a list of all the lectures, please go to:  http://rockethics.psu.edu/bioethics/events/food1112.shtml

The first lecture is by Paul B. Thompson W. K. Kellogg Professor of Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics, Michigan State University, and will be webcast live on Monday, August 29 at 3 � 4:30pm EST:  "What Makes Food Good? The Terrain of Food Ethics and the Agrarian Tradition."  To view the lecture live, go to http://live.libraries.psu.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=e4b17c21e9f14437b9b1cbf8de55f9fe1d       

No advance registration is required.

Viewers are also encouraged to follow and engage in the conversation about food ethics on the Rock Ethics Institute's Bioethics Blog, http://rockblogs.psu.edu/bioethics/, and on the Public Philosophy Network: http://publicphilosophynetwork.ning.com/group/foodethics.

If you would like to receive email reminders about our forthcoming lectures in the Food Ethics Lecture Series, please send an email to rockfoodethics@... . 

For more information about the Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State, please go to http://rockethics.psu.edu/ .  To learn more about Penn State's Bioethics Program, and its new interdisciplinary dual-title Ph.D. in bioethics, the only program of its kind, please go to http://bioethics.psu.edu

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/11/04/guy-turcotte.html?cmp=rss
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/25/turcotte-appeal-support.html
http://www.cbc.ca/radionoonmontreal/2011/07/05/dramatic-turcotte-decision-surprises-courtroom/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/07/05/quebec-turcotte-verdict.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/03/f-not-criminally-responsible.html

The Judge wanted people who would respond emotionally, to leave the courtroom before the verdict. Reporters were ordered to not leave, to report the verdict.

I consider this murder case, is, or will be exploited by the Duty-to-Die movement. People might debunk it as just "another conspiracy-theory", since the victims were not disabled, but there are dots to connect, instead of just pawning-off the dots as "mere coincidences".--This is a convenient time for this story to be front-burner material, coinciding with an episode of Dr. OZ on the Right to Die.

Most of the time I don't even pay much attention to local news, because I focus more on global and national issues. That said, when this story hit me between the eyes early this morning, when I was organizing what to check first, this comes at the same time I finished my opinion-piece concerning today's Dr. OZ.

Television-network anchors do not put such fitting-pieces of a puzzle together by coincidence. When those bosses co-ordinate their time-and-space for every piece of material, whether it be written or multi-media, they know exactly what they are doing. So, the news-media and television program-scedule bosses are pulling-off a well-intended psy-op (psychological operation) on the public, throughout Quebec. There might be other Canadian and American cities, where this Dr. OZ show on "The Right to Die", coincides with local trials of killers being specially-treated as not responsible for their murders.

When dangerous psychopaths commit murders, the social-engineers have manipulated Canadian laws to accomodate it. All the lawyers do is get their clients to plead not guilty, on the grounds of insanity.--Yet, it's people who really do have mental-disorders, disabilities who the Duty-to-Die cult go after whenever it suits them.--After their KILL-BILLS are passed, chalked full of "safeguards against the slippery-slope of euthanasia".

Ha!--This guy is a cardiologist (I think), and they use a law to excuse real mentally-ill cases, to excuse him. There is no doubt in my mind that he also is part of the new doctor-of-death culture. I notice in one article, that the Criminal-code was changed in 1992, which was during the time of Sue Rodriguez.--How good the shoe fits together, that back then they were greasing their culture of death with legal manipulation, so blood-thirsty killers could be treated with "dignity". LOL!

It's time to clean-out the infiltrators of the government of the reverse-definition psy-ops!

--

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI
On Friday, October 28, the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), a
government-appointed panel of "experts" voted its approval (12 to 1) for the
government to proceed with an unconscionable medical experiment that would
expose healthy US children to the risks of the anthrax vaccine, a vaccine which
offers absolutely no direct benefit, but whose risks include serious adverse
reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, neurological disorders, disability
and death.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection wrote a letter to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (in June, 2011) outlining our concerns about this
radical experiment, which clearly deviates from the precautionary principle in
medicine and federal research ethics regulations. See:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/823/9/

Under US regulations (45 CFR 46, Subpart D) children may not be exposed to risk
if a medical experiment does not offer them a direct benefit.

Don't be misled by government propaganda about the risk of an anthrax attack-- a
myth perpetuated by the media:

     •    Anthrax is NOT CONTAGIOUS--it cannot be spread from person to person.

     •    Anthrax has never posed a threat to the general public; the only
people at risk are research laboratory staff who handle anthrax bacteria.

     •    The Center for Disease Control, until recently, recommended
vaccination "only for those at high risk, such as workers in research
laboratories that handle anthrax bacteria routinely."

	 • The FDA label (2008) states: "the vaccine is licensed for use only in
adults between the ages of 18 and 65, who are at high risk for exposure to
anthrax bacteria."

The NBSB recommendation was made despite its own report acknowledging that:

“Currently, U.S. children are not at immediate risk from anthrax and would not
benefit directly from pre-event AVA [anthrax vaccine] administration.”

And “There is no known benefit to vaccinating children in the absence of an
imminent threat from exposure to B. anthracis other than potential future
benefit.”

Their justification is without substance, relying on a hypothetical, highly
exaggerated risk from an unlikely event:

"Preparation for a national and potentially global threat from the use of B.
anthracis spores by terrorists is a major priority for U.S. national
security.”

What evidence exists of any "national and potentially global threat from
anthrax"?

One is reminded of the purported "weapons of mass destruction" which never
materialized, but served as our government's excuse for going to war against
Iraq.

Since 2004, the Dept. of Health and Human Services, which convened the NBSB
panel, has overseen Project BioShield to develop and stockpile vaccines and
treatments as medical countermeasures to hypothetical bioterrorist attacks. One
goal was to develop a replacement for the controversial, 50 year old anthrax
vaccine developed by the US Army, which admittedly has severe side effects.

The cover story of Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "Ten Years After the
Anthrax Attacks, We Are Still Not Ready," by Wil Hylton exposes the lack of
leadership, confusion, and even mutual hostility among US government officials
charged with developing biodefense countermeasures:

  "Last year, two separate review boards evaluated the state of the country's
biodefense program, and each report came back scathing." They described
"ballooning" government bureaucracy, "lack of coherence," "lack of
prioritization," "lack of synchronization"--and colossal waste.

  "Ten years after the anthrax attacks, and with more than $16 billion committed
to countermeasure development, there is still broad disagreement among officials
over whether the stockpile should include other vaccines."

  "[The] challenge is not made easier by the personal hostility that has emerged
among many current program heads — some of whom have close ties to the
competing companies they oversee. In the course of several months of reporting,
I heard senior officials from each of the major countermeasure agencies question
the motives and professional credentials of the others, sometimes in a manner
involving spittle. At times it seemed that the most virulent pathogen in
biodefense was mutual hostility, and everybody had it."

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/magazine/how-ready-are-we-for-bioterrorism.htm\
l

Of particular concern is the motive and professional credentials of the DHHS
Assistant Secretary, Nicole Lurie, who proposed the anthrax vaccine trial in
children. She did so, despite knowing that the vaccine is mired in controversy,
despite knowing the health problems associated with it, despite the government's
sweetheart deal with its sole manufacturer, Emergent BioSolutions, all common
knowledge within the biodefense community.

The panel's 12 to 1 recommendation favoring DHHS’ request to proceed with the
pediatric anthrax vaccine trial--with the proviso that another "appropriate"
panel be convened to determine the ethical viability [a requirement under 45 CFR
46.407]--raises serious questions about the integrity of government-convened
committees who rubber stamp dubious government initiatives and policies.

Knowledgeable critics believe this vote demonstrates the insidious influence
federal biodefense funding exerts on academics and physicians who can be counted
on to sanction even the most egregious, ill-conceived government initiative and
lend credence to hypothetical, unsubstantiated risks.

FDA's latest label warnings (2008) states:
     "Since the risk of anthrax infection in the general population is low,
routine immunization is not recommended."
     "Safety and effectiveness of BioThrax have not been established in pregnant
women or nursing mothers, or in pediatric or geriatric populations"

Notwithstanding FDA's licensure for limited usage indications of the
vaccine--and its explicit statement that the vaccine had NOT been tested in
geriatric populations--Daniel Fagbuyi, who chaired the NBSB Anthrax Vaccine
Working Group, and is the medical director of disaster preparedness and
emergency management at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C.,
falsely implied that the vaccine had been tested and approved for elderly
populations:
     "We can take care of Grandma and Grandpa, Uncle and Auntie. But right now,
we have nothing for the children.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-advisers-endorse-t\
esting-anthrax-vaccine-in-children/2011/10/27/gIQA95i7PM_print.html

The single panelist who voted against the recommendation was Patricia Quinlisk,
M.D., M.P.H., State Epidemiologist and Medical Director of the Iowa Department
of Public Health, who chaired the NBSB panel.  The Alliance for Human Research
Protection applauds Dr. Quinlisk's courageous moral stand.

An incisive article discussing the anthrax vaccine and the NBSB’s odious
recommendation was published by Forbes, titled "The Anthrax Vaccine Boondoggle,"
by Steve Salzberg , Professor of Medicine and Biostatistics in the Institute of
Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins University's School of Medicine.

See: http://blogs.forbes.com/stevensalzberg/

  Kudos to The Washington Post for its coverage of two of the three public
hearings of the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), which informed the
public about the Obama Administration's proposal to test the safety and efficacy
of the highly controversial anthrax vaccine on healthy US children.

See:  Federal Advisers Endorse Testing Anthrax Vaccine in Children, by Rob Stein
, published October 28, 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-advisers-endorse-t\
esting-anthrax-vaccine-in-children/2011/10/27/gIQA95i7PM_print.html

See also: Possible Study of Anthrax Vaccine’s Effectiveness in Children Stirs
Debate , by Rob Stein, published October 24 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/possible-study-of-anthrax-\
vaccines-effectiveness-in-children-stirs-debate/2011/10/13/gIQAFWLdDM_print.html

See also: Public Citizen letter to DHHS Secretary , Kathleen Sebelius (Nov. 1,
2011) urging her to reject the National Biodefense Science Board's
recommendation to conduct pre-event clinical trials of the anthrax vaccine in
children:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/%E2%80%A8http://www.citizen.org/documents/letter-opposin\
g-anthrax-vaccine-trials-involving-children-110111.pdf

See, NBSB panel roster and Ex-Officio government agency officials--All but
one--who lent their support for HHS proposed unethical experiment on vulnerable,
children who are legally precluded from refusing to consent:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/836/9/

See, public reactions at:

Read more... http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/835/9/


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974




_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

Note: For whatever reason, the Dr. OZ show on The Right to Die was not aired tonight. When I checked the local TV-schedule for Montreal, I was sure that it said for CFCF: 2011/11/04. Maybe I mistook which show, but I saw the show on the website the other night. Here is how I feel about it.

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/do-you-have-right-die-pt-1

Notes on the Dr. OZ Show, The Right to Die:

The first thing which caught my attention is, that the woman stresses her athletic image, as did Sue Rodriguez. She lived a conventional undisabled life, and got married and has grown children.--And all these things and abilities in her life should be a course of events for which she thankful, although having to adjust to her disability.

Unlike many others who are disabled in a split-second from accident or injury, she has had time to adjust to her disabling condition. The people who impressed me the most, are her son, and Dr. Keith.

George and Betty Coumbiases' rants on the Suicide Tourists documentary a few years ago, were loud and clear in this woman's complaints, how embarrassing it is that she needs help to do nearly everything now.--And this all leads back to the "Right (?) to Die movement", and their measurement for assisted or forced death, called "quality of life".

Before I go any further, I'm going to say that from everything I have read in mainstream media-coverage of allegedly "right-to-die" cases over the years, the most offensive attribute I sense in the on-stage crusaders, is their life-long contempt for Disabled People, disabled from birth.

I do understand how embarrassing it is, in a state of not being able to do anything for yourself, including clean yourself when you use the toilet, commode or need to wear diapers.--I've been there in all three circumstances, and will be again before I do die. Also, I have witnessed patients being yelled-at by well-paid "care-givers", and accused of just making more work, if they dropped a urine-bottle on the floor, or had diarrhea.

What makes me sick to my gut, however, is that Disabled People don't get center-stage like the Johnny-and-Suzie-come-lately to the Disability Community. Christopher Reeve never could become one of us. Many of these on-stage complainers just have to be better, superior to those of us who were born disabled.

Everything they think about us pertains to inferior genes, but I've got a surprise for them.--My birth-defect was not genetic, and I think alot of others are not genetic disabilities, either. Christopher Reeve wanted to be Superman again, and a horse-rider again. He had to have a better quality of life, whatever that is.--And most of these belly-aching right-to-die cases are the same.

Doctor Keith went to correct Montel Williams about Oregon, but it did not seem to be too well received.--Dr. OZ changed course. Dr. Keith emphasized what always has to be repeated, that everyone has the right legally, to refuse medical treatments and nutrients. If they do, then they cannot say they don't have the right to die.--And there is no justification to legalize the Death cult.

For those who opt for terminating medical treatments and nutrients, their death is in their control. When they refuse medical treatments and nutrients, they receive palliative-care so they do not have to suffer. My wife received palliative-care at the end.--And her pain in her kidneys and respiratory difficulty were properly managed.

Everybody's biggest fear, is an unwanted end-of-life experience. That is what the Duty-to-Die movement really is all about. They love scare-marketing death, and legalizing their "services" has resulted in more gruesome end-of-life experiences than they want their new victims to know of.

When Dr OZ's guest got to the part, "people in my condition", I was thinking that most people just want a peace of mind and heart, that when their deaths do come, they won't suffer.

The mainstream-media does a good job of making celebrities of these people, who come out of nowhere, and are the stage-performers for the Duty-to-Die leadership. They do not speak or represent those of us, disabled from birth, some who live with serious pain and/or inability to do any more for themselves than she can.--And these media-hosted terminally-ill guests are just as corrupt as the Jerry Lewis farce.

Two doctors who should be consulted, in respect to the increasing number of disabling diseases are Dr. Blaylock, and Dr. Mercola. Instead of using shows to scare audiences, and be financially rewarded for psychologically pressuring the population to accept the gospel of euthanasia, the media should educate audiences to learn what Monsanto, and Global-Pharma have done to their victims. These talk-show hosts would accomplish alot more for those guests, by using their shows to force the bio-chemical manufacturers to scale-down the cause of the medical problems.

http://vimeo.com/22770128
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4mrBEaRMKU

Instead, the mainstream-media, the FDA, CDC and WHO all enjoy their own lavish life-styles by raking-in huge $$$$$$$$$ to shut-up, and help promote the Duty-to-Die cult increased profits.


--

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

Following dissemination of our Infomail, Infamous Endorsement of Anthrax
Vaccine for Children, AHRP was asked by one recipient, what evidence existed
to show that the anthrax vaccine has caused disability and death.

This is an important, legitimate question that deserves clarification and
citation to evidence which we want to share with all our Infomail readers.

Military studies of the anthrax vaccine  have provided very little
information about adverse effects.  However, as Meryl Nass, MD, a recognized
expert on anthrax and biological weapons, points out, a June, 2007 report by
the General Accounting Office  [GAO-07-787R ]  states (on page 4, last
paragraph):

      "Officials from the VHC Network [Vaccine Healthcare Centers] and CDC
[Center for Disease Control] estimate that between 1 and 2 percent of
immunized individuals may experience severe adverse events, which could
result in disability or death. Some of these events may occur coincidentally
following immunization, while others may truly be caused by immunization."
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07787r.pdf

Dr. Nass also refers to a slide from a Vaccine Healthcare Center
presentation, which states that the anthrax vaccine poses a risk of  "Severe
AE [Adverse Events]....of 1-2%"

She notes, "There are no good studies of incidence or prevalence of severe
adverse events to point to, but this is what the CDC and military Vaccine
Healthcare Centers acknowledged from their own experience with vaccine
reactions."

The 2002-2007 CDC-directed, five center anthrax vaccine clinical trial
enrolled 1564 subjects initially, followed them over 43 months, and reported
229 serious adverse events to VAERS.

A preliminary 2008 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA ) provided  the total Adverse effect number, as 229, but without a
breakdown by the type of adverse event:
     "During the 7 months of participation summarized here, there were 51
SAEs reported among 47 subjects of the 1005, including 3 deaths. Using World
Health Organization causality assessment criteria, the data and safety
monitoring board concluded after a blinded review that none of these 51 SAEs
was related or possibly related to the study agent. Since enrollment began,
there have been 229 SAEs in the entire 1563 participant cohort involving 186
participants, with 7 deaths." [emphasis added]
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/300/13/1532.full

Four years have passed since CDC completed this major trial, yet no final
report has ever been published.


Disclosure: Dr. Nass is a board member of The Aliiance for Human Research
Protection



Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974


_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

A Canadian judge ruled that Prozac was the cause that led a teenage high
school student-- with no prior history of violence--to inexplicably murder
his friend by stabbing him with a single wound to the chest.

Judge Robert Heinrichs sentenced the boy a three-year sentence, less time
already served--which means he will serve 10 months remaining in jail.
Additionally he is required to be under community supervision for four
years.

The judge based his determination largely on the compelling expert testimony
by US psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, MD who submitted scientific evidence
showing the risk of drug-induced violence posed by antidepressants such as
Prozac.

According to court documents,  "The boy had been taking Prozac for three
months, during which time his behavior deteriorated. He became impulsive and
unpredictable, and suicidal. He also began to talk at times as if
fantasizing about violence. He seemed to become a different person to his
distraught parents."

The judge was also persuaded by the fact that when Prozac was withdrawn from
the boy, his behavior returned to normal.
" His basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer poses a risk of
violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence
would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac."

Dr. Breggin testified that his primary care physician and his parents
alerted the prescribing psychiatric clinic to the boy's deteriorating
condition, but the clinic continued the Prozac and then doubled it.
Seventeen days after the increase in dosage, the teen committed the
violence." Dr. Breggin further testified that "the teen's use of Prozac
likely meant he wasn't in full control of his actions."

The court heard how the boy changed from a loving, happy-go-lucky kid to a
dark, depressed drug abuser. In sentencing the boy Judge Heinrichs noted
that the boy "began to act out violently and even tried to harm himself on
several occasions....it's clear the boy's parents did the right thing in
taking their concerns to his various doctors, but they were largely
ignored."

At sentencing, last Friday, Judge Heinrichs said: "(Prozac) clearly affected
his behaviour in an alarming way. He was simply not the same person."

This is the first criminal case in North America where a judge has
specifically found that an antidepressant was the cause of a murder.

Dr. Breggin noted that: "This is a landmark legal confirmation of the
scientific fact that the newer antidepressants like Prozac, including the
SSRI and SNRI antidepressants, can cause violence and even murder."

Read Winnipeg Free Press:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/10-more-months-for-teen-who-cited-pro
zac-in-killing-133288373.html

  more: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8941528.htm

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974


_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Ironsides

To: Alex Schadenberg

Cc: Bioethics

Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:40 PM

Subject: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."

The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.

 

Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.

 

The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.

 

The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.

 

People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.

 

My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.

 

After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.

 

I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.

 

He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.

 

So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.

 

 

 

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:

The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html

--

Ironsides

 

email: ironsides@...
mobile: 514-585-6265
http://ironsidesworldheadquarters.blogspot.com/
http://ironsidesx.wordpress.com/ 

http://www.veoh.com/playlist/IronsidesX 

http://www.youtube.com/user/IronsidesX?feature=mhsn 
http://www.endeavorfreedom.tv/ 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/ 

http://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Payette

To: Bioethics@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:07 AM

Subject: Re: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

I'm sorry, but I don't share this view.  Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions?  I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to).  What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way.  I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.  

Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion?  I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve

On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."

The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.

 

Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.

 

The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.

 

The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.

 

People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.

 

My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.

 

After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.

 

I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.

 

He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.

 

So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.

 

 

 

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:

The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html

--

Ironsides

 

email: ironsides@...
mobile: 514-585-6265
http://ironsidesworldheadquarters.blogspot.com/
http://ironsidesx.wordpress.com/ 

http://www.veoh.com/playlist/IronsidesX 

http://www.youtube.com/user/IronsidesX?feature=mhsn 
http://www.endeavorfreedom.tv/ 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/ 

http://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia 

 

Steve Payette

247 rue Emond

Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc

J7V 2B5

Tel: 450.455.5318

Crl: stevepayette@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Maria Barile

To: Bioethics@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:08 PM

Subject: Re: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

Hi Everyone

This week it came to my attention that in the UK. Lady Jane Campbell  is a champion for anti assisted suicide legislation. seem to me that we can all learn from her speech. Can UK members access her speech?  If yes I would love to read it.

Maria

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Payette

To: Bioethics@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:07 AM

Subject: Re: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

I'm sorry, but I don't share this view.  Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions?  I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to).  What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way.  I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.  

Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion?  I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve

On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."

The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.

 

Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.

 

The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.

 

The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.

 

People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.

 

My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.

 

After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.

 

I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.

 

He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.

 

So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.

 

 

 

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:

The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html

--

Ironsides

 

email: ironsides@...
mobile: 514-585-6265
http://ironsidesworldheadquarters.blogspot.com/
http://ironsidesx.wordpress.com/ 

http://www.veoh.com/playlist/IronsidesX 

http://www.youtube.com/user/IronsidesX?feature=mhsn 
http://www.endeavorfreedom.tv/ 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/ 

http://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia 

 

Steve Payette

247 rue Emond

Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc

J7V 2B5

Tel: 450.455.5318

Crl: stevepayette@...