FDA: “They’re passive, they’re reactive, and they often side with industry over public health,”

Now with a bigger handout from Congress, along with the lessening of your right of access to vitamins and natural supplements, the FDA tells you it is doing more for public safety.

I don't expect their bureaucratic culture to change even the slightest. All of what they will be doing is collecting more money from the Pharma Cartel to faster track hazardous drugs to market, enriching the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies so they can further their desired favors from members of congress.

September 28, 2007
Report Assails F.D.A. Oversight of Clinical Trials
By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Food and Drug Administration does very little to ensure the safety of the millions of people who participate in clinical trials, a federal investigator has found.

In a report due to be released Friday, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, Daniel R. Levinson, said federal health officials did not know how many clinical trials were being conducted, audited fewer than 1 percent of the testing sites and, on the rare occasions when inspectors did appear, generally showed up long after the tests had been completed.

The F.D.A. has 200 inspectors, some of whom audit clinical trials part time, to police an estimated 350,000 testing sites. Even when those inspectors found serious problems in human trials, top drug officials in Washington downgraded their findings 68 percent of the time, the report found. Among the remaining cases, the agency almost never followed up with inspections to determine whether the corrective actions that the agency demanded had occurred, the report found.

“In many ways, rats and mice get greater protection as research subjects in the United States than do humans,” said Arthur L. Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Animal research centers have to register with the federal government, keep track of subject numbers, have unannounced spot inspections and address problems speedily or risk closing, none of which is true in human research, Mr. Caplan said.

Because no one collects the data systematically, there is no way to tell how safe the nation’s clinical research is or ever has been.

The drug agency oversees just the safety of trials by companies seeking approval to sell drugs or devices. Using an entirely different set of rules, the Office for Human Research Protections oversees trials financed by the federal government.

Privately financed noncommercial trials have no federal oversight.

“It’s crazy that we have all these different sets of rules,” said Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the bioethics department at the National Institutes of Health.

“It would facilitate things a lot if we had one agency overseeing things.”

Dr. Janet Woodcock, chief medical officer at the drug agency, acknowledged that it needs to put more “teeth” in its enforcement. “We are working to address these problems very aggressively,” Dr. Woodcock said.

The case of Audine Graybill demonstrates the flaws in the system. According to the F.D.A., in the spring of 2005, she decided to try an experimental drug to treat mania associated with bipolar disorder. The consent form that she signed on May 29 stated that she could change her mind at any point in the study.

She checked into High Pointe Healthcare in Oklahoma City, a psychiatric center owned by a psychiatrist, Dr. David Linden. On June 3, Ms. Graybill changed her mind and asked to leave.

Dr. Linden refused to let her go.

On June 6, she was given the experimental medicine. Ms. Graybill’s lawyer, Anthony Sykes, obtained a writ of habeas corpus for her to appear in court and took the writ to the hospital, where the staff refused to honor it and said it would not give it to Dr. Linden, Mr. Sykes said.

Mr. Sykes tracked Dr. Linden to another office and had him served with the writ, Mr. Sykes said. Within hours, Dr. Linden’s lawyer called Mr. Sykes and said Ms. Graybill was free to go. Mr. Sykes took her home on June 7.

Ms. Graybill could not be reached.

More than nine months later, an F.D.A. inspector appeared at Dr. Linden’s research center and uncovered myriad other problems.

The agency sent its warning letter more than two years after Ms. Graybill’s experience.

Last November, the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision suspended Dr. Linden’s license for three months because he had sex with two patients and gave them genital herpes infections, according to board records. Dr. Linden, who also owns a psychiatric center in Las Vegas, did not return repeated telephone messages.

Dr. Linden has conducted clinical trials for most major pharmaceutical companies and continues to do research, according to his Web site.

The F.D.A. disqualified investigators from conducting further clinical trials 26 times from 2000 to 2005 and disqualified their data just twice even though the agency found serious problems at trial sites 348 times in that period, the inspector general found.

While some of the report’s findings surprised ethicists, its conclusion that the agency’s oversight of clinical trials is disorganized and underfinanced has long been known and is, in many ways, identical to criticisms leveled at other agency functions, including its oversight of imported food, foreign drug manufacturers, animal food and the safety of older medicines.

In each case, the size and complexity of the tasks facing the agency have grown enormously as the number of inspectors for those tasks has generally declined.

An inspector general’s report in 2000 criticized the oversight of clinical trials and noted that the inspections mostly focused on whether study information was accurate and not on whether human subjects were protected. That is still true.

In the present report, the inspector general recommended that the agency create a registry of all continuing clinical trials, an idea signed into law by President Bush on Thursday.

The report also recommended that the agency create a complete registry of research ethics boards, create a single comprehensive database to track its research inspections and obtain greater authority to regulate research assistants.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the agency “needs to implement these recommendations to meet its duty.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, said it needed more money and guts.

“They’re passive, they’re reactive, and they often side with industry over public health,” Ms. DeLauro said.

The agency’s reserve is apparent in some of its warning letters.

On May 24, 2005, an inspector, Barbara Breithaupt, went to the office of Dr. Frank A. Wingrove of Ames, Iowa, and for weeks asked to see records of his study of an experimental topical treatment for periodontal disease. Dr. Wingrove refused. Dr. Wingrove did not return telephone messages seeking comment.

More than two years later, the agency sent Dr. Wingrove a warning letter. The inspector general’s report suggests that if Dr. Wingrove promised to reform, the agency was unlikely to show up again to see whether he had followed through.

Millions to Lilly and others in the Big Pharma Cartel, Death to Thousands

It will be interesting to learn at some point what the FDA will do now to seriously consider the hazards of the SSRI drug class.

One of the problems with this class of drugs is the fluoride compounds that serve as the chemical base of the drug.

This issue caries over to many other pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics and osteoporosis drugs as examples.

Of course I hope for more serious Black Box warnings or banning of these drugs. They have caused countless damage to those using them and innocent bystanders, as well as creating other diseases caused by side effects: diabetes is only one.

In the mean time I'll keep education about how nutrition and other natural approaches can be safer and more effective in the mental health arena.

Depression and Anxiety Special Report from Johns Hopkins Health Alerts
Antidepressant Warnings

Is the cure worse than the disease? Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Dr. Karen L. Swartz discusses the risks and benefits of SSRIs.

Call it the pill paradox: Some 20 years ago, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) burst onto the scene, lauded for their ability to treat depression. Today, however, some studies have linked SSRIs to an increased incidence of suicidal thoughts and behavior, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the midst of an extensive review of drug safety data. This has led to what’s being called a “crisis of confidence” in antidepressants, with many people wondering whether antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are safe to take.

The controversy began with concern over the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents, with studies indicating an increased risk of suicide. For adults, the issue heated up recently, when researchers reported an increased risk of suicidal behavior during the first month of treatment with SSRIs. The study presented data on nearly 160,000 people treated in Britain with one of four antidepressants, two of which were the SSRIs fluoxetine (Prozac) and paroxetine (Paxil). The others were the tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline (Elavil) and dothiepin (Dothep).

While the risk of suicidal behavior did not differ from drug to drug, the researchers found, it was elevated during the first month of antidepressant treatment and highest during the first nine days of treatment. It is important to note, however, that other studies have not found such a link. For instance, in another study in 2006, researchers analyzed drug safety data from that country’s regulatory agency. They found no evidence that SSRIs increase the risk of suicide. And a Swedish study found no link between SSRIs and an increased risk of suicide in either children or adults over a nine-year period. Moreover in the United States the suicide rate has actually declined since a peak in the late 1980s -- a drop that coincides with the introduction of SSRIs.

FDA Warnings on SSRIs

Because of the importance of this issue, the FDA is moving ahead with a safety review of antidepressant medications in adults, with the results expected later this year. In the interim, the FDA issued a public health advisory in July 2006 directed at adults. According to the advisory, adults who are being treated with antidepressants should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thoughts or behavior. The FDA added that this increased surveillance might be especially necessary when a person goes on antidepressant medications for the first time or when doses are changed.

Where does all this leave us? It is essential to remember that serious depression poses a significant risk to a person’s life. The vast majority of people who commit suicide have major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder that is not being treated at all. Overall, SSRIs have a good safety profile, with fewer side effects than other antidepressants, which is why they are widely used. And beyond that, it is essential to remember that the real threat lies with the disease itself. If you are struggling with depression, get treatment. Untreated bipolar disorder and major depression kill people every year; their threat to your health is significant and should never be ignored or glossed over.

Misdiagosis and No Diagnosis All Too Common

I've mentioned recently that a doctor I know told me that "...today there is no diagnosis. Everything is based on labs".

To a great extent this is very true, and it is something I have been confronted with by clients for many years.

Recently I had a phone call from a client who was extremely short of breath, what we refer to as SOB. Probably the most common cause of SOB is congestive heart failure or some type of serious cardiovascular event.

I could tell by speaking with this person it was not allergy, yet this is where my effort to get her to go to the doctor led.

In this person's case the student PA at her clinic (for low income and those with little or no insurance) gave her somethings for allergy.

It was later on, because of her co-workers that she went to the ER where it was determined she had congestive heart failure.

I reviewed all the lab work from the ER and found that neither the clinic or the ER had ordered a CBC with diff, lipid or chemistry panel. The only lab tests were for some of the common cardiovascular indicators. When I finally had all the lab work, using the biochemistry related method I use to determine deficiencies, it was fairly clear what the risks were.

So it is not just the lab work, but it is the best analysis of the lab work that counts too.

With an echocardiogram it was determined that her heart valve was quite damaged.

Still her clinic was doing little to get her a referral to a cardiologist. When this finally came about the doctor was verbally demeaning to this client because she was using natural therapies.

Mind you this arrogant doctor was working in a Western Washington medical group that advertises on its web site that the patient comes first and their wishes are paramount.

As yet, her clinic - the one who is prescribing her diuretic and ACE inhibitor - also did not want to respond to her obvious reaction to a drug they prescribed and has not provided follow-up care as is required since they are prescribing medications.

As it says in our banner, our goal is, and has been for decades, to give more tools to both patients and health care providers to get to the real cause and work collaboratively as a team for the best interest of patient care.

I guess I may be a step or two ahead of CNN, but at least they are trying.

Wish more in health care did too.

By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN

Empowered Patient is a regular feature from CNN Medical News correspondent Elizabeth Cohen that helps put you in the driver's seat when it comes to health care.

ATLANTA, Georgia -- The celebrity was John Ritter.

Actor John Ritter died in September 2003 from an aortic dissection, a commonly misdiagnosed condition.

The actor died in 2003 of an aortic dissection -- a tearing of the major artery that comes out of the heart. His widow later settled a wrongful death lawsuit against a California hospital, alleging his condition had been misdiagnosed "at least twice."

Experts who study malpractice cases and autopsy reports say certain diseases are misdiagnosed over and over again. It's worth knowing what they are so you won't be a victim.

1. Aortic dissection: Sometimes aortic dissections are easy to diagnose -- a patient feels a distinct tearing sensation in his or her chest. But other times they're pretty easy to miss because the symptoms could point to other diseases, says Dr. Robert Bonow, past president of the American Heart Association. "Sometimes it feels like heartburn," he says.

2. Cancer: In a Harvard study of malpractice claims in the U.S., cancer was far and away the most misdiagnosed illness, primarily breast and colorectal. Study authors attributed this to doctors failing to stick to cancer screening guidelines.

3. Clogged arteries: Sometimes doctors tell patients they're short of breath because they're out of shape, when it's actually coronary artery disease, says Bonow, who's also the chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medical School.

4. Heart attack: Sound strange? How could a doctor miss a heart attack? Bonow says the big and obvious attack -- the one where someone clutches his or her chest and falls to the floor, the one Bonow calls "the Hollywood heart attack" -- isn't always so clear. Sometimes the only signs of a heart attack are a sense of fullness in the chest, nausea and a general sense of not feeling well.

5. Infection: In the Harvard study, infection followed cancer as the most misdiagnosed condition.

So how can you keep yourself from becoming a victim of misdiagnosis?

1. Ask for more tests - Has your illness been misdiagnosed? - Actually, Nancy Keelan says, demand more tests. For more than three years, Keelan says, she complained to her gynecologist about irregular, heavy bleeding, and for three years he told her she was entering menopause and not to worry. Keelan says it turned out she had both advanced endometrial and ovarian cancer. "I believe he missed my diagnosis five times," says Keelan, who was 46 when she got her correct diagnosis.

Keelan, a registered nurse, now speaks to women's groups, telling them not to let more than three weeks go by if they're having new, strange symptoms. She says if the doctor tells you it's no big deal, you can frame your request this way: Tell your doctor you know it might be nothing, but would it do any harm to have a simple test? She says a simple ultrasound, would have caught her cancer much earlier.

2. Ask, "What else could my illness be?" - Let's say you've been experiencing shortness of breath when you exercise, and your doctor tells you you're just out of shape. You can ask your doctor if it could possibly be something more dangerous. Dr. Mark Graber, chief of medicine at the Veteran's Administration in Northpoint, New York, says the single most common cause of misdiagnosis is a doctor's failure to consider other possibilities after an initial diagnosis is reached. "It's called premature closing -- the minute they come up with a diagnosis, they don't think about a better solution," he says.

3. Don't assume no news is good news - Another source of misdiagnosis: Lab results get lost or forgotten. A study by Dr. Tejal Gandhi at Harvard Medical School found that up to 33 percent of physicians did not always notify patients about abnormal test results. "No news is not good news," says Dr. Saul Weingart, vice president for patient safety at Dana Farber Cancer Institute. "It might be that the report fell down behind someone's desk."

4. Assume your doctors don't talk to one another - Our experts said doctors often don't share information about test results. One piece of advice: Use that conference call function on your cell phone. Make phone appointments with your doctors at the same time, and then conference them all together.

5. Be wary when your doctors work in shifts - The title of Gandhi's 2005 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine says it all: "Fumbled Handoffs: One Dropped Ball after Another." In it, she describes how a hospital patient's tuberculosis was misdiagnosed partly because test results weren't passed on when doctors changed shifts.

Raw Almond Requiem

I know this is an important story and we covered it earlier this year; now the insanity is in place.

I was wondering during some time I could not get this update posted if this isn't related to cancer, since raw almonds are a very good food - in quite small amounts - to help you keep from getting cancer and helping you if you develop it.

One really never knows what sinister concepts exist in bureaucratic schemes.

The same false logic exicts with Big Ag farming and much of the fruits and vegetables we know are grown in the California Valley. The new replacement for methyl bromide in strawberry, tomato and other vegetable crops is MEL or methyl iodide.

MEL is classed as a carcinogen, and as such could be in violation of certain government regulations that prohibit carcinogenic substances to be utilized in products consumed by humans. California seems to have the only outspoken agricultural agency on this so far because MEL is banned in CA simply because it is a carcinogen.

The pundits tell us that we can expect that MEL won't be absorbed into these foods as it is applied only to the soil.

I don't know about you but from all I have ever learned, what is in the soil becomes absorbed into what grows there. I guess they have a new theory for this now, but I haven't seen hide nor hair of it.

And as the march of genetically modified foods continues along the road to your supermarket, you'll be getting moldy almonds and cancerous crops added to the mix.

Rich Johansen 9-27-7

THE MANDATORY PASTEURIZATION OF ALMONDS AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2007 -- WHAT'S NEXT ??

It's your right to know!

Please pass this information on to as many people as you can. Informed citizens can make the difference. There are still some raw almonds in stores and warehouses - stock up!

Did you know that . . .On August 27, 2007 the FDA enacted a new law mandating that all almonds grown and commercially marketed in the U.S. must be pasteurized beginning on September 1, 2007. This means that there will no longer be access to purchasing raw almonds from stores. Every almond sold commercially from here on out will be pasteurized.This is because of two salmonella outbreaks traced to almonds ­ one in 2001 and one in 2004. It makes you wonder how many cases of salmonella have been traced to chicken and meat?

This arbitrary ruling is contrary to the better judgment of members of the Almond Board and is being opposed by most almond growers.Five pasteurization facilities have been built throughout California and the USDA has already begun implementing this program.As of September 1, all almond growers are required to comply with the mandatory pasteurization and truck their almonds to these plants and back to the packing facilities ­ at their own expense. At what cost is this to the grower, the consumer, and the taxpayers?

The pasteurization technique being used for organic almonds is steam. The steam process could leave nuts damp and create mold, which could easily lead to cases of anaphylactic shock.These almonds will still be labeled "raw," even though they will be heat pasteurized and will no longer be raw. Consumers will be deceived and not know what they are truly getting.

Truly raw almonds, with their enzymes intact, are a living, nutrition-packed food. Raw almonds that have been soaked and sprouted are nutritionally superior food to heated almonds, and are more easily assimilated in the digestive process. Heating almonds over 112 degrees destroys their enzymes, and greatly diminishes their nutritional value. Heating also leads to rancidity of nuts.

Almonds shipped into the U.S. from other countries are exempted from mandatory pasteurization. With all the recent news about food from China, it poses the question of why other countries are being exempted from the strict standards U.S. growers are being required to adhere to.

Almonds grown in the U.S. and shipped out of the U.S. to other countries also do not have to be pasteurized!

Is this just the beginning? What are they planning next for mandatory pasteurization? Will it be walnuts, pecans, or what ??? Who knows, maybe spinach will be next. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of "fresh" food. We may not even have access to fresh salad greens anymore !! Even if we loose raw almonds, we must stop the process before we loose more!

Should our government be controlling our choice of food?

Refer to these web sites for more information:

www.cornucopia.org, www.rense.com, www.livingtreecommunity.com, www.rawnuts.com.

Hillary's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf

September 26, 2007

Hillary and Bill Clinton show muscle as cover boy Bill gets a negative story dumped

Tim Reid in Washington

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign forced a magazine to drop a negative story about her by threatening to cut off the publication’s access to the former President Bill Clinton, it emerged yesterday.

The ruthless response to GQ magazine, and its decision to bow to the ultimatum, reflects the enormous leverage Mr Clinton brings to his wife’s White House bid at a time when her quest for the Democratic nomination appears more formidable than ever.

The magazine, which is due to have Mr Clinton on its cover for its December issue, was told that the former President would no longer cooperate unless it pulled an article it was about to publish detailing infighting and tensions within Mrs Clinton’s campaign.

Despite protests at the magazine, the article was duly sidelined, according to a respected US political website. In an e-mail statement to The Times, Jim Nelson, the Editor of GQ, said: “I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that, yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons.” He refused to elaborate.

The move by the Clinton campaign provides a graphic example of the be-hind-the-scenes hardball tactics it employs in keeping the New York senator’s relentlessly disciplined presidential bid on track and on message, and the power that she and her husband have in shaping how her White House bid is perceived.

On Sunday Mrs Clinton pulled off the rare feat of appearing on all five Sunday-morning political talk shows, a privilege the networks are unlikely to afford her rivals. Her lead in the national Democratic polls over her nearest rival, Barack Obama, is so big – almost 20 per cent – that pundits are now asking not if she can win the nomination, but if she can be stopped.

President Bush also thinks that she will win the nomination, it emerged yesterday, and has even indicated in private that he believes she will succeed him. White House aides, on Mr Bush’s instructions, have been privately briefing her – and other Democrat candidates – about Iraq in case she wins the election next November. They have been urging her not to commit to an immediate withdrawal if she takes office in January 2009, because Mr Bush wants his successor – Democrat or Republican – to continue prosecuting the war after he leaves the Oval Office.

Although Mr Bush often says that he will not handicap elections, he told the author of a new biography about him that Mrs Clinton has “got a great national presence, and this is becoming a national primary”. In an off-the-record session with broadcast journalists just over a week ago, Mr Bush, according to those in the room, gave the impression that he thought she would win the presidency and that he had been thinking about how to turn Iraq over to her.

Mrs Clinton’s lead in national polls, and similarly big leads over Mr Obama in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, means that the contest in the first nominating state of Iowa has become crucial.

With Mrs Clinton succeeding in making her nomination look almost inevitable, her rivals are expected to be more aggressive and critical in a Democratic debate tomorrow night in New Hampshire, aware that time is running out to derail her.

They Shoot Horses Don't They? And Kill Your Daughters with Shots

I am sure that when you offered up your daughter as a guinea pig for the NIH and Merck no one told you there might be a risk of a serious side effects from this vaccine.

If you are a young woman taking this risk did any one tell you the vaccine is not designed for anyone who already is sexually active?

When do you ask questions and expect the answers that are your right, under the law?

You do have the right to refuse, in case you didn't know.

Or did they forget to tell you this as well?

Deaths Associated with HPV Vaccine Start Rolling In, Over 3500 Adverse Affects Reported

By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, September 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As Canada, in large part due to aggressive behind the scenes lobbying, rolls out the not-comprehensively-tested Merck HPV vaccine for girls as young as nine, a look at developments on the vaccine south of the border should cause Canadians serious concern. In the United States a similar lobby campaign by the same company launched the mass HPV vaccination of girls beginning in June last year.

In just little over a year, the HPV vaccine has been associated with at least five deaths, not to mention thousands of reports of adverse effects, hundreds deemed serious, and many that required hospitalization.

Judicial Watch, a U.S. government watchdog, became concerned while noting large donations to key politicians originating from Merck. A freedom of information request from the group in May of this year discovered that during the period from June 8, 2006 - when the vaccines received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - to May 2007 there were 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine reported to the FDA.

Three deaths were related to the vaccine, including one of a 12-year-old. One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.

Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

Judicial Watch informed LifeSiteNews.com that a subsequent request for information on adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine, covering the period from May 2007 to September 2007, found that an additional 1800 adverse reactions have been reported, including more deaths. Exactly how many more deaths occurred will be released in the coming days, Judicial Watch's Dee Grothe informed LifeSiteNews.com.

The LifeSiteNews.com report on the moneyed lobbying efforts of Merck in the U.S. was reported in February. (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020204.html )

However the Canadian lobby effort by Merck's Canadian affiliate Merck Frosst Canada has been underway using powerful lobbyists with close connections to the politicians who have signed off on massive government funded vaccination programs.

The Toronto Star recently reported that Merck Frosst Canada Ltd hired public relations giant Hill & Knowlton to push the immunization strategies using some well-connected lobbyists: Ken Boessenkool, a former senior policy adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper; Bob Lopinski, formerly with Premier Dalton McGuinty's office; and Jason Grier, former chief of staff to Health Minister George Smitherman.

Harper's Conservative Government approved Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil in July and later announced a $300 million program to give the vaccine to girls from ages 9-13. That of course is only the beginning of what Merck likely hopes will be a much larger vaccination of all potentially sexually active women in Canada who are not already HPV infected. In August, McGuinty's Ontario Liberals, on the advice of his Health Minister George Smitherman, announced that all Grade 8 girls will have free access to Gardasil.

One of the major complaints by physicians is that the HPV vaccination program has been implemented before adequate testing has been completed. Long-term effects of the vaccine remain unknown. Many are asking why the seemingly reckless rush?

At least one answer to that question comes from the fact that Merck currently is the sole provider of an HPV vaccine with its Gardasil product. A competing HPV vaccine, Glaxo Smith Kline's Cervarix, is set to hit the market in January 2008. As more children are vaccinated with Gardasil, fewer will be able to later receive the necessary repeat boosters of a competing, incompatible vaccine. Merck is in a race to capture as much of the market as it can, consuming many millions of taxpayer dollars.

U.S. sales of Gardasil are expected to reach $1 billion in the first year of its availability.


Read Previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

The reports from the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System detailing the three previous deaths are available here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/GardasilVAERSDeath...

The reports detailing all 1637 adverse effects are here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/GardasilVAERSRepor...

New Threats to Pet Health

MEDIA ALERT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael San Filippo
Phone: 847-285-6687, Cell: 847-732-6194
e-mail: msanfilippo@avma.org

Update: AVMA warns of potential new threat to pets

Schaumburg, Ill.

— The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has recently been made aware of several complaints from pet owners and veterinarians that multiple brands of jerky treats manufactured in China have been making pets sick. Symptoms of illness have included vomiting, diarrhea, and lethargy. To our knowledge, no deaths have been reported.

The AVMA posted an alert on its Web site on September 13 to inform its members and the public about what was known. Today, the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) issued a statement saying it also has become aware of an unusual number of dogs presenting similar symptoms and abnormal test results associated with consumption of some jerky treats. The ACVIM statement is available at www.acvim.org/uploadedFiles/Jerky_Treat_Info_September_14.doc.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently testing several products to see if a contaminant can be found. So far, they have ruled out melamine, one of the chemicals that led to the massive pet food recall this spring, but have yet to identify anything that might be making pets sick.

While a list of brand/product names of affected treats is not yet available, the AVMA has learned that all complaints have involved jerky treats from China. We recommend that pet owners use their best judgment in this matter.

Suspected cases should be reported to the FDA. To find the number for the FDA district office consumer complaint coordinator in your region, visit www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html.

The AVMA is monitoring the situation and will provide updated information on our Web site (www.avma.org) as soon as it becomes available. Like all information on our Web site, we will only post information that is credible and has been confirmed.

For more information, contact Michael San Filippo, AVMA media relations assistant, at 847-285-6687 (office), 847-732-6194 (cell), or msanfilippo@avma.org.

###

The AVMA and its more than 75,000 member veterinarians are engaged in a wide variety of activities dedicated to advancing the science and art of animal, human and public health. Visit the AVMA Web site at www.avma.org for more information.