Alternative
Health & Healing Newsletter
November, 2002
CONTENTS
Pharm Phresh: The Latest in Frankenfoods
Soy Baby Formula Linked To Behavioral Problems
A Miracle In Wisconsin
Taking Charge When Prescribed Pharmaceuticals
Forced Vaccines Haunt Gulf Vets
Cancer-Killing Bacterial Protein Discovered
Soybeans Mixed With Altered Corn
New Statistics Show Increase, Not Decline, In Cancer Rates
Pharm Phresh: The Latest in Frankenfoods
Margaret Wertheim, LA Weekly
October 7, 2002
Every now and then science throws us a curve ball, a technology
at once staggeringly useful and breathtakingly dangerous. The
most obvious case, of course, is nuclear power. Down on the
farm another revolution is brewing, with proponents promising
a radical new way to deliver drugs that could in theory solve
some of the world's most pressing medical problems. The potential
price -- as always -- is environmental disaster.
An outgrowth of genetic engineering, the technique has been
branded "pharming." Rather than manipulating plants
to make a firmer tomato or a sweeter peach, "pharmers" insert
genes that instruct a plant to manufacture pharmaceutical compounds.
In the future they envisage, flu shots will be replaced by bananas.
Prozac, anyone? Try this corn puff. Pharmers dream that all
drugs will ultimately be delivered in snacks.
First out of the pipeline will be vaccines. In August, industry
leader ProdiGene began Phase I clinical trials for a vaccine
against traveler's diarrhea. Resulting from a dismal species
of E. coli, the condition is also a prime cause of infant mortality
in many poorer nations. Instead of pursuing the regular path
of cell-culturing and purification, Texas-based ProdiGene hopes
to deliver a vaccine in a simple kernel of corn.
To understand what is at stake here, consider the case of
hepatitis B. Worldwide, that virus kills more than 900,000 people
a year, many of them in China, where the disease is at almost
epidemic levels. A dose of hep-B vaccine costs around 50 cents,
yet even that -- in quantity -- is beyond the budgets of many
developing countries. Besides the cost of the drug itself, vaccination
is hampered by the additional expense of needles and by lack
of refrigeration. Vaccines produced the traditional way cost
thousands of dollars a gram, but corn can be grown for 5 cents
a pound. Hoping to tap into the huge hepatitis market, ProdiGene
is currently conducting field trials on a strain of transgenic
corn that has been spliced with hep-B antigens.
ProdiGene even has its eye on AIDS. Two years ago the company
received a $300,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health
to research the possibility of a plant-based vaccine against
the HIV virus. As a test of the concept, company scientists
are beginning with the primate version, simian immunodeficiency
virus, by splicing into corn the SIV genes responsible for producing
a protein called GT120, which is known to trigger antibodies
against the deadly invader. The NIH itself will conduct the
clinical trials, and if all goes well it will move on from there
to a human version.
In theory, just about any drug could be engineered in a kernel
of corn or a grain of rice. Earlier this year ProdiGene announced
it was scaling up transgenic production of aprotinin, a protease
inhibitor used in cardiac surgery. Traditionally extracted from
bovine lungs, aprotinin reduces the need for blood transfusions
in patients undergoing bypass surgery. Once the initial splicing
is done, such transgenic crops can be grown anywhere, from Nebraska
to Nigeria.
Pharmers are also looking to actual farms. Every year millions
of animals have to be vaccinated at enormous expense to their
owners and considerable stress to the creatures. Transmissible
gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), for example, is a highly contagious
disease that kills infant pigs. Clinical trials by ProdiGene
have shown that in principle plant-based vaccines can be effective
against this pathogen. As with many biotech products, the development
of transgenic vaccines will be driven initially by the demands
of animal husbandry.
To protect our health, we have fluoride in our water and iodine
in our salt; why not deliver codeine in corn flakes, Wellbutrin
in Ho Ho's? The problem, says Norman Ellstrand, a plant geneticist
at UC Riverside, is that transgenic crops are incredibly difficult
to isolate. Scientists now know that genes are routinely passed
among plant species, and "gene flow" from genetically
manufactured (GM) organisms to wild varieties has been documented
all over the world. That's bad enough when a gene involved conveys
herbicide resistance, but when you're talking about genes for
proteins and hormones, the potential for disaster is enormous
-- both for human health and the environment. "We need
to be assured of zero tolerance," Ellstrand says, but that's
almost impossible to guarantee.
Genes aren't the only things that are hard to contain. Remember
the Starlink debacle, when GM maize intended for animal feed
found its way into taco shells? Imagine if the modified grain
had contained a drug -- any drug. With vast amounts of grain
being shipped around the world, Ellstrand believes it won't
be possible to prevent such mix-ups. Sooner or later, innocent
folk chowing down on corn chips or sesame buns are going to
find their bloodstreams coursing with aprotinin or swine vaccine
or God knows what else. According to Jane Rissler of the Union
of Concerned Scientists, "The food industry is apoplectic
about the possibility of this stuff getting into the food supply." Rissler
and Ellstrand argue that pharming should be strictly limited
to nonfood crops -- to, say, tobacco or castor beans.
In the developed world, where drugs can be delivered in so
many other ways, it seems hard to justify the risk of pharming
-- as with nuclear power, we really do have alternatives. But
in the developing world, millions of people die each year from
preventable diseases for lack of very basic drugs. That at least
is the argument pushed by the biotech industry. Yet just as
people are challenging the GM solution to Africa's food crisis,
so, Rissler says, the Third World's health problems are not
going to be solved by cutting-edge technology.
The idea of helping the Third World with transgenic vaccines
is little more than "a ruse," Rissler believes. "It's
selling biotechnology on the back of the poor," by attempting
to make it palatable to well-off folks like us. Rissler points
out that to be medically effective drugs have to be delivered
in the right dose. How would people know how much they were
supposed to eat? A whole banana, half a banana? Who's to say?
More critical, how could you be sure that people wouldn't overdose?
How would you even know you were eating the right variety? After
all, a genetically modified banana looks the same as a regular
one. Rissler is skeptical of the medical miracle promised by
companies like ProdiGene and suspects that a lot of the blue-sky
ideas being bandied about will "never see the light of
day as commercial products."
Behind the hype about cheap drugs, Rissler and Ellstrand note
that the pharming industry is quietly pursuing a much bigger
goal -- engineering into plants genes that encode for all manner
of industrially useful compounds, from enzymes to solvents.
Since these don't qualify as drugs, they are not regulated by
the Federal Drug Administration, and very little information
is publicly available about what is going on here. Earlier this
year the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its guidelines
for industrial pharming, but many scientists believe these are
grossly inadequate.
USDA spokesman Jim Rogers acknowledges that "Nobody's
going to know all the possible risks. But, he says, "We
mitigate these risks to what we feel is appropriate." In
the department's view, "There are adequate safety provisions
in place." Not according to Rissler, who opines that "The
USDA's oversight is way too lax." Given the enormous potential
dangers, Rissler insists there ought to be external scientific
oversight as well. What most appalls Ellstrand, who sat on a
National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the regulations
for GM crops, is that companies do not have to disclose what
genes they are adding, or even what organisms the genes derive
from -- that's "confidential business information."
Quietly and stealthily, our fields are being turned into industrial
factories. This is potentially the most dangerous technology
since nuclear power, yet we have no way of finding out what
is being done. It's yet another way in which for the present
administration, Business comes first.
Soy Baby Formula Linked to Behavioral Problems
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that
breastfeeding continue for at least 12 months and then as long
after that period as it is mutually desirable. However, that
is not always the reality. A study by Yale researchers last
year found that most women in underprivileged populations do
not continue breastfeeding after four months because they lack
the confidence they will be able to do so and think their infants
prefer formula. Of the 64 women who participated in the study,
27% had stopped breastfeeding their infants after one week;
37% after two weeks; 70% after two months, and 89% by four months.
These figures have special importance
due to the recently released study on manganese in infant formula
and possible links to behavioral problems in children. In the
study, the researchers found that newborn rats fed a mineral
found in higher levels in infant formula -- especially soy formula
-- than in breast milk may have attention-related changes in
a brain chemical. The preliminary findings need to be confirmed
in larger studies before it is known if manganese is definitely
linked to behavioral problems.
The reason manganese is such a
concern is that it can be toxic in very high levels, even though
it is essential for life, as it helps cells gather energy. The
levels of manganese differ considerably in different infant
foods:
Breast milk contains 4-6 micrograms
per liter (mcg/L)
Milk-based infant formula contains
about 30-50 mcg/L
Some soy formula contain 200-300
mcg/L
The study included 32 newborn
rats that were fed 0 to 500 micrograms of manganese daily. The
amounts given to rats were designed to mimic the amounts in
breast-fed and formula-fed infants.
Those rats who received no or
very low doses of manganese didn't show any chemical irregularities,
but those on the highest level of manganese dose were associated
with lower levels of dopamine, a brain chemical that helps in
problem-solving tasks.
The researchers chose manganese
because past research on miners who were exposed to very high
doses of the mineral developed serious health problems akin
to Parkinson's disease. They are worried about soy formula because
it contains approximately 80 times the manganese of human breast
milk, but they caution that other minerals in the formula could
offset the effects of the manganese. Iron and milk calcium are
known to protect against manganese toxicity.
Two prominent manufacturers of
soy-based formulas are Ross Products, a division of Abbott Laboratories,
and Mead Johnson Nutritionals. Ross products makes, Isomil, and Mead Johnson makes ProSobee. ProSobee and Isomil both contain 25 mcg of manganese
per 5 fluid ounces of normally diluted formula. This is still
400% higher than breast milk.
One important fact to remember,
however, is that the rats were not given infant formula - only
a manganese supplement, so the results are definitely not conclusive
as of yet. Much more study needs to be done to establish a relationship
between the mineral and health problems.
NeuroToxicology 2002; 145: 1-7
Pediatrics 2001 March;
107(3): 543-8
DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA'S
COMMENT:
Manganese can be quite a significant
neurotoxin in high levels. This is a classic example of where
too much of a nutrient can have a devastatingly serious side
effect. Mark Purdey, who did some ground breaking work on
Mad Cow's Disease, confirmed this when he traveled to Groote
Eylandt, an island north-east of Australia where 25% of the
world's Manganese is currently produced. He wrote a long detailed account of
his journey on his web site.
About one in thirty people
in the largely aboriginal village, where the fine mine dust
regularly settles most heavily, have Groote Syndrome, a progressive
neurological disease. This is the end stage of severe manganese
toxicity.
With respect to soy here are
some key issues:
Many people
associate soy with Asians, good healthy and longevity. However
the Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other
legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities
of natural toxins or "anti-nutrients". First among
them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin
and other enzymes needed for protein digestion.
These inhibitors are large,
tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated
during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric
distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies
in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin
inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of
the pancreas, including cancer
Soy also contains goitrogens
- substances that depress thyroid function. Since it is likely
that over 50 million women have impaired thyryoid function,
this is a significant issue.
Additionally 99% -- a very
large percentage of soy -- is genetically modified and it
also has one of the highest percentages of contamination by
pesticides of any of our foods.
Soybeans are high in phytic
acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds. It's a substance
that can block the uptake of essential minerals - calcium,
magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc - in the intestinal
tract.
Although not a household word, phytic acid
has been extensively studied; there are literally hundreds of
articles on the effects of phytic acid in the current scientific
literature. While phytic acid may actually help those who have
high iron levels, it can clearly be a problem for many women who
are menstruating and losing large amounts of iron and other minerals.
”I can forgive, but I cannot forget, is
only another way of saying, I will not forgive. Forgiveness
ought to be like a cancelled note--torn in two, and burned
up, so that it never can be shown against on.” Henry Ward
Beecher
A
MIRACLE IN WISCONSIN
Monday, October
14, 2002
OCTOBER 14.
In Appleton, Wisconsin, a revolution has occurred. It’s taken
place in the Central Alternative High School. The kids now behave.
The hallways aren’t frantic. Even the teachers are happy.
The school used to be out of control. Kids packed weapons. Discipline problems
swamped the principal’s office.
But not since 1997.
What happened? Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray
valium gas in the classrooms? Did they install metal detectors in the bathrooms?
Did they build holding cells in the gym?
Afraid not. In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing
a healthy lunch program. Huh?
Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salads, meats “prepared
with old-fashioned recipes,” and whole grain bread. Fresh fruits were added
to the menu. Good drinking water arrived.
Vending machines were removed.
As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, “Grades are up, truancy is
no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their
time teaching.”
Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin,
has turned in some staggering figures since 1997. Drop-outs? Students expelled?
Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons? Committing suicide?
Every category has come up ZERO. Every year.
Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, “I don’t have to deal with daily discipline
issues…I don’t have disruptions in class or the difficulties with student
behavior I experienced before we started the food program.”
One student asserted, “Now that I can concentrate I think it’s easier to
get along with people…” What a concept---eating healthier food increases
concentration.
Principal Coenen sums it up: “I can’t buy the argument that it’s too costly
for schools to provide good nutrition for their students. I found that one
cost will reduce another. I don’t have the vandalism. I don’t have the litter.
I don’t have the need for high security.”
At a nearby middle school, the new food program is catching on. A teacher
there, Dennis Abram, reports, “I’ve taught here almost 30 years. I see the
kids this year as calmer, easier to talk to. They just seem more rational.
I had thought about retiring this year and basically I’ve decided to teach
another year---I’m having too much fun!”
Pure Facts, the newsletter that ran this story, is published by a non-profit
organization called The Feingold Association, which has existed since 1976.
Part of its mission is to “generate public awareness of the potential role
of foods and synthetic additives in behavior, learning and health problems.
The [Feingold] program is based on a diet eliminating synthetic colors, synthetic
flavors, and the preservatives BHA, BHT, and TBHQ.”
Thirty years ago there was a Dr. Feingold. His breakthrough work proved the
connection between these negative factors in food and the lives of children.
Hailed as a revolutionary advance, Feingold’s findings were soon trashed
by the medical cartel, since those findings threatened the drugs-for-everything,
disease-model concept of modern healthcare.
But Feingold’s followers have kept his work alive.
If what happened in Appleton, Wisconsin, takes hold in many other communities
across America, perhaps the ravenous corporations who invade school space
with their vending machines and junk food will be tossed out on their behinds.
It could happen.
And perhaps ADHD will become a dinosaur. A non-disease that was once attributed
to errant brain chemistry. And perhaps Ritalin will be seen as just another
toxic chemical that was added to the bodies of kids in a crazed attempt to
put a lid on behavior that, in part, was the result of a subversion of the
food supply.
For those readers who ask me about solutions to the problems we face---here
is a real solution. Help these groups. Get involved. Step into the fray.
Stand up and be counted.
The drug companies aren’t going to do it. They’re busy estimating the size
of their potential markets. They’re building their chemical pipelines into
the minds and bodies of the young.
Every great revolution starts with a foothold. Sounds like Natural Ovens
and The Feingold Association have made strong cuts into the big rock of ignorance
and greed.
Go for it.
Taking Charge
When Prescribed Pharmaceuticals
By: Warren J. Matthews
When faced with a
doctor wanting to put you onto a prescription drug?
1. Question the need for it.
2. Find out what it does and in particular ask to see a copy
of the 'fine print' which sets out all the potential adverse reactions.
3. Ask if there is a natural alternative which is as effective.
4. Ask if your problem is due to diet or lifestyle. (95% of problems
are).
5. Remember it is your body. You must be the final arbiter
of what goes in it. Don't accept things on blind faith. Understand
potential consequences from substances that you ingest.
Remember that your Doctor is a normal person. They should be treated
like any other professional, not put on a pedestal. Remember that they can
also be fallible and they could well have been doing something else (like
being a lawyer... perish the thought!) just like you, they had a choice of
occupation.
Dependency for life?
Never lose sight of the fact that much of the medical industry is designed
to separate you and the government from its money by getting you dependent
upon drugs for life. Doctors are usually unwittingly assisting that
objective because they are so busy doing what they believe is right and do
not have the time to really think through what is going on.
Once you start taking prescription drugs you are on the start of a slippery
health slope down from which you may never recover. One drug generally leads
to another often to counteract side effects. This in turn generates
symptoms which require outside specialists who treat them and before long
the original problem is minor in relation to all the others that have resulted
from the original treatment.
Forced Vaccines
Haunt Gulf Vets
By Elliot
Borin
02:00 AM Nov. 07, 2002 PT
It was, the doctor at the Long Beach Veteran's Administration
Hospital said, an incidental finding. A little gray smudge on
the X-ray, a blob next to the pituitary gland.
Six months later, University of California at Los Angeles
surgeons worked six hours to sever a tumor from the brain of
a muscular, 25-year-old ex-Special Forces Ranger and Gulf War
veteran. The costly surgery was performed at UCLA, the patient
said, because VA doctors denied that the "incidental finding" caused
his excruciating, unremitting headaches.
He blamed Army-administered drugs for the tumor. And his girlfriend
said there were other "side effects" of his service
in the Gulf, including increased agitation and sperm that "burned."
"We had a third day of shots before we went over (to
the Gulf)," said the ex-Ranger, who requested anonymity
because his Army Reserve commitment has yet to expire. "Guys
in other units only had two, but most Rangers had three. They
wouldn't tell us what they were for."
Are this young man and tens of thousands of other veterans
suffering from Gulf War sickness victims of coincidences beyond
the Pentagon's control? Or are they casualties of a government
that trampled both the Nuremberg Code and its own policies against
forced medical experimentation?
Ruling in the 1947 trial of 23 Nazi doctors and medical administrators
charged with crimes against humanity during World War II, judges
of the American Tribunal in Nuremberg set forth 10 conditions
for permissible medical experiments.
In a February 1953 directive,
Defense Secretary Charles Wilson established what is still the "law
of the land" governing such experimentation. Consistent
with the Nuremberg Code, the directive's cornerstone is voluntary
consent.
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential," Wilson wrote, ordering that such consent be
given in writing before at least one witness. Wilson also banned
use of "force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching or
other ulterior form of constraint or coercion" in obtaining
consent.
Did the Pentagon obey this directive during the Gulf War?
According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association
of American Physicians and Surgeons, it did not.
The administration of experimental drugs without consent was,
Orient said, "the first instance in which an official government
agency officially sanctioned the direct violation of the Nuremberg
Code."
In a 1994 report called Human Experimentation and Other
Intentional Exposures Conducted by the Department of Defense,
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs seemed to agree.
"The results of our investigation showed a reckless disregard
that shocked me," said Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller
IV. "The Pentagon ... threw caution to the winds, ignoring
all warnings of potential harm, and gave these (investigational)
drugs to hundreds of thousands of soldiers with virtually no
warnings and no safeguards.
"If that wasn't bad enough, they administered these drugs
and vaccines in such a way that there is a very good chance
they wouldn't have even worked for the intended purpose."
The committee also found that consent was not part of the
inoculation program.
"In a survey of 150 Persian Gulf War veterans ... 15
of 17 receiving botulinum toxoid were told they could not refuse
the vaccination; 54 of 73 receiving pyridostigmine were told
they could not refuse," the report stated.
"There is no provision in the Nuremberg Code," the
Rockefeller Committee report concluded, "that allows a
country to waive informed consent for military personnel or
veterans who serve as human subjects in experiments during wartime
or in experiments that are conducted because of threat of war."
Responding to the accusations, a Pentagon spokesperson stated: "In
all peacetime applications, we believe strongly in informed
consent and its ethical foundations.... But military combat
is different."
Has the Department of Defense actually obtained the "informed
consent" of all the GIs inoculated with questionable drugs
since the end of Operation Desert Storm? That's another story.
Cancer-Killing Bacterial Protein Discovered
Bacteria has
been used in the treatment of cancer for a hundred years because
of its ability to shrink tumors. However, the bacteria often
yields severe side effects, which limits its practical usage.
In a new study
conducted by University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) researchers,
azurin, a protein secreted by bacteria, was found to kill cancer
cells with seemingly no harmful side effects. The protein, used
by cells everyday in generating energy, was isolated from the
growth medium of a particularly resistant bacterium known as
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This bacteria is usually unaffected
by antibiotics and can cause infections in people with lowered
resistance.
The bacteria
was tested on mice that had been injected with human melanomas.
At the end of the 22-day study, the tumors in the mice that
had been treated with azurin were 60 percent smaller than the
tumors in the untreated mice. Additionally, no illness or deaths
were seen in the mice.
According to
researchers, azurin stabilizes the p53 protein, a product of
the p53 gene. This gene prevents the formation of cancers by
stopping cells from dividing or inducing programmed cell death,
or apoptosis, of cancer cells. While the p53 protein normally
only survives for several minutes within a cell, azurin protects
the protein from degradation.
Results suggest
that azurin could be a useful in treating both melanomas and
tumors; preliminary data have shown that it kills breast and
colon cancer cells, among others.
Physician William
Coley first observed the usefulness of bacteria in treating
cancers in 1893 when he found that patients with bone cancer
survived longer when they contracted bacterial infections.
Proceedings National Academy Sciences Oct
29, 2002;99(22):14098-103
(Excerpt From The
Campaign)
The Biotech Industry
Organization (BIO) is apparently acknowledging the potential
for these drug crops to contaminate the human food supply.
BIO recently announced that their members have agreed to not
grow genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops in the large
corn producing states of Iowa, Illinois and Indiana and parts
of Nebraska, Ohio,
Minnesota and Missouri.
The grocery industry feels this proposal is inadequate. They are concerned
that genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops will accidentally contaminate
food crops. Trade groups such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America and
the National Food Processors Association only want non-food crops such as
tobacco to be used for genetically engineered pharmaceutical drugs and industrial
chemicals.
If the grocery industry is looking for evidence to justify their concerns,
this discovery that pharmaceutical crops have made it all the way into a
grain elevator provides them with a disturbing real life example.
Soybeans Mixed With Altered Corn
Suspect Crop Stopped
From Getting Into Food
By Justin Gillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 13, 2002; Page E01
The government has
quarantined and will probably destroy hundreds of thousands of
bushels of soybeans in Nebraska after inspectors found evidence
that the crops were mixed with a small amount of genetically altered
corn.
Inspectors for the U.S. Department of Agriculture caught the problem within
24 hours of harvest last month and stopped movement of the beans and corn
before they entered the food supply, two senior government administrators
said last night. But a small plot of the soybeans had been mixed at a commercial
grain elevator with many bushels from other local farms. That made the entire
harvest unsuitable for human consumption under government regulations.
The soybeans are thought to have been mixed with grains of corn that include
a pharmaceutical or industrial protein not approved for human consumption.
No one involved in the case would identify the protein in question last night,
so it was unclear how harmful it might be if someone inadvertently ate it.
Most proteins are rapidly destroyed in the human digestive tract, but a few
can survive long enough to cause health problems.
The soybeans are likely to be burned or turned into fuel, government administrators
said, and an investigation being conducted could result in civil or criminal
penalties for the company, ProdiGene Inc. of College Station, Tex.
ProdiGene executives, who were attempting to reach a settlement with the
government last night, issued a statement acknowledging "compliance
challenges" at an unspecified company site.
"As with any new industry and new regulatory program, we can always do better," president
and chief executive Anthony G. Laos said in the statement. "Working together
with USDA, we intend to, now and in the future."
A senior administrator at the USDA, Cindy Smith, and another at the Food
and Drug Administration, Lester Crawford, said they were highly confident
that the food supply had not been affected.
The soybean mishap is reminiscent of a debacle two years ago in which a gene-altered
corn variety called StarLink, which is not approved for human consumption,
was used in millions of dollars worth of food products that had to be recalled.
The food industry and environmental groups have grown increasingly worried
about attempts to produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds by genetically
altering plants and animals.
Much discussion has focused on the theoretical possibility that such plants
could spread altered genes to food crops in nearby fields. The ProdiGene
mishap also revealed that the small biotechnology companies conducting the
research can't be relied upon to carry out the most elementary requirements
of their government research permits, critics
said.
A plot of ProdiGene test corn, genetically altered to make a protein not
proven safe for human consumption, was grown on a Nebraska field in 2001.
Ordinary soybeans were planted in the same field this year. Corn seeds left
over from the year before sprouted and grew a small number of corn plants
containing the protein. The company was supposed to check and ensure that
those plants were removed before setting seed, but it did not, Smith said,
even after USDA inspectors issued a timely warning.
Crawford and Smith, while acknowledging that the mishap should not have happened,
said the case demonstrated that the government can regulate the new technology.
Smith noted that federal law includes potentially severe penalties, including
millions in fines and jail time for executives, for companies that break
the rules.
"I'm very confident we can prevent these things from getting into the food
supply," said Smith, acting deputy administrator for biotechnology regulation
at USDA. "I think the message for us is that the system is working."
Critics were less certain.
"This technology is moving so much faster than the government is," said
Jane Rissler, deputy director of food and environment programs at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group in Washington. "So much of this
regulatory scheme depends on the industry's actions, and we cannot trust them."
Much about the case remained unclear last night, including the exact size
and value of the soybean crop, the location of the grain elevator in Nebraska,
and ProdiGene's potential liability.
Biotech companies have learned to move genes, which encode instructions for
making proteins, from one species to another. One application of the technology
is to turn plants and animals into factories for growing protein-based drugs
and industrial enzymes that would otherwise be expensive or impossible to
produce. Even many people who see the
potential benefit of the technology have argued that it should be used only
in plants that are not grown as food, or in plants that don't spread pollen
too widely.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington trade group, recently
announced that its members would not grow corn altered in that way in the
Midwestern corn belt, or altered canola in the Canadian canola belt, a nod
to food-safety concerns. Environmental groups and food processors have argued
that the moratorium is too weak and that stronger government regulation is
needed. Farm interests in Iowa, seeing
a potentially valuable crop slip away, have complained that the policy "redlines" their
state and should be scrapped.
Karil L. Kochenderfer, director of biotechnology issues at the Grocery Manufacturers
of America, said last night that she was relieved the soybeans had been intercepted,
but added: "This is exactly the situation the food companies have been
concerned about."
“Forgiving and releasing old hurts and hate from your
system is taking a mental and emotional bath. It's like taking
a physical bath at night. Notice how people bathe their bodies
on a regular basis, yet they will store negative toxic junk
in their mental and emotional natures for years without a clean
up. Trust me, it causes your system to be taxed accordingly.
It's really the mental and emotional bath you need daily. That's
where your happiness and quality of life are registered.” Doc
Chidre
NEW
STATISTICS SHOW INCREASE, NOT DECLINE, IN CANCER RATES
Wall Street
Journal
16 October 2002
Sharon Begley,
Staff reporter
America isn't
winning the war on cancer after all.
Contrary to
optimistic reports from the National Cancer Institute showing
the incidence of several devastating cancers has leveled off
or even declined in recent years, rates for at least some of
those cancers has been rising, according to a new analysis by
NCI scientists.
Previous indications
of a decline reflected significant delays in reporting cancer
cases, the researchers report Wednesday in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute. More accurate information about cancer
rates presents a grimmer picture.
"Maybe
we were a little too eager to declare the effectiveness of our
intervention and prevention programs," says Brenda Edwards,
who is associate director for the surveillance research program
at NCI, of Bethesda, Md., but wasn't among the authors of the
new study.
The revised
estimates present a dispiriting picture of the nation's progress
in preventing cancer. Breast-cancer rates in white women had
been almost flat since 1987, according to the original NCI figures,
which the American Cancer Society also uses as the basis for
the popular "facts and figures" on its Web site.
The reanalysis
shows that breast-cancer rates actually have been rising 0.6%
a year since 1987. That prompted the NCI scientists to call
for research "to explain the cause for the recent rise
in breast cancer incidence."
Lung cancer
in women also had been believed to be flat; the re-analysis
shows it has been rising 1.2% a year since 1996. Melanoma rates
in white males had reportedly been flat or even falling. The
new analysis finds it has been soaring 4.1% a year since 1981,
suggesting that prevention strategies that focus on staying
out of the sun are falling short. Prostate-cancer rates in white
males, rather than falling since 1995, have in fact been rising
2.2% a year. For white men, 1998 prostate-cancer rates are actually
12% higher than originally reported; for black men they are
14% higher.
Colorectal cancer
cases for both genders and all races are 3% higher than first
reported, suggesting that early-screening techniques (which
focus on discovering precancerous polyps through colonoscopies)
aren't as powerful or widely used as hoped. The rate of colorectal
cancer in white women, for instance, has been rising 2.8% annually
since 1996, rather than the originally calculated 0.9%.
National incidence
data are based on reports from 10 registries in the SEER (Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results) program at NCI, which samples
14% of the U.S. population by collecting cancer reports from
hospitals, doctors and clinics. The registries have 19 months
to report cases to NCI.
Scientists had
long suspected that the original numbers were skewed. "It
was well known that reports of new cancer cases dribbled in
over the years, long after the 19-month reporting deadline," says
Benjamin Hankey, the senior author of the study. So, researchers
wondered, just how sharply did late reporting affect the final
cancer-rate statistic for a specific year?
Using data from
1981 to 1998, scientists led by Mr. Hankey analyzed reporting
delays by counting how many additions nine registries made to
their original count over the years. Based on that, but allowing
for improvement in the timeliness and accuracy of the reports,
NCI statistician Limin Clegg estimated the under-reports from
each registry for five types of cancer. The delays are such
that initial reports account for only 88% to 97% of the actual
cancer cases, depending on the type, finds Dr. Clegg. That has
left a "false impression of a recent decline in cancer
incidence," write the NCI scientists.
NCI's cancer-incidence
rates are the basis for decisions by policy makers and clinicians
alike: The numbers are used to allocate research and clinical
resources, to give people a sense of their risk for various
cancers and to offer hints about environmental causes of cancer
ranging from use of sun block to changes in diet and cumulative
exposure to toxic chemicals.
Now researchers feel a renewed
urgency to study why the rates of several cancers are still
on the rise. "This tells us something we didn't know about
whether our intervention and prevention programs are working," says
Ahmedin Jemal, director of the surveillance program for the
American Cancer Society.
Parfait Visage
SAVE 50% from November 15 – December
20, 2002
(While Supplies Last)
Retail: $99.00 Sale: $49.50 + shipping/handling
French for "Perfect Face". A 100% all natural, organic
facial or skin treatment, which will give you the following
amazing, benefits!
---- PENETRATES AND MOISTURIZES 7 LAYERS DEEP IN THE SKIN----
HELPS TO MINIMIZE WRINKLES AND STRENGTHENS SKIN---- ENHANCES
NEW CELL GROWTH 6 - 8 TIMES THE NORMAL RATE---- STIMULATES
THE BIRTH OF NEW HEALTHY TISSUE---- 100% ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS----
BREAKS DOWN AND DIGESTS DEAD SKIN TISSUE---- ANTIBACTERIAL,
ANTIVIRAL AND FUNGICIDAL---- A NATURAL CLEANSING AGENT----
CALMS AND SETTLES NERVES IN FACE---- HELPS REMOVE CELLULITE
IN AND AROUND THIGHS---- HELPS BREAK DOWN AND DISSOLVE ACNE
AND PUS---- PROVIDES VITAMINS, MINERALS AND NUTRIENTS TO THE
CELLS---- LOOK UP TO 10 YEARS YOUNGER OR MORE !!!----THE BEST
FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH FORMULA AVAILABLE--- IF YOU CAN FIND A BETTER
FORMULA, WE WILL BUY IT FOR YOU!
For More Info on Parfait Visage or to place your order visit us at:
www.ghchealth.com
There is an old saying that we should "count
our blessings." Like many old sayings it has a core
of wisdom. To have a thankful heart is a great blessing,
helping us to truly value and appreciate all we are and
have.
Allow the blessings of your life to come to mind. The people you love and
are loved by. The moments of joy you have known. The struggles that have
left you stronger. The mistakes that have brought wisdom.
Call to mind also the blessings of yourself, your
gifts and talents. Your openness to love, to God, to life.
For each gift spend time to really value and enjoy the gift. And express
your thanks. Maybe you will notice a neglected gift and this is a chance
for new beginnings.
Maybe you could say some thank you's to the people involved too.
Wishing all of you a most blessed Thanksgiving!
Dr. Edward F. Group III
Dr. Loretta Lanphier
& GHC Staff
If you would like to have Dr. Group speak at your church,
organization or civic group or know of an organization that
would benefit from this seminar, please contact us at 281.383.0038.
DISCLAIMER: It is your constitutional right to educate yourself in
health and medical knowledge, to seek helpful information
and make use of it for your own benefit, and for that of your
family. You are the one responsible for your health. In
order to make decisions in all health matters, you must educate
yourself. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global
Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional
medical service. If you have a severe medical condition, see
your physician of choice. We do not claim to "cure" disease,
but simply help you make physical and mental changes in your
own body in order to help your body heal itself.
PLEASE PASS THIS NEWSLETTER ON TO OTHER
POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS.
“He who does not use
his endeavors to heal himself is a brother to him who commits
suicide.”
Proverbs 18:9 (Amplified)
