Study finds connection between prenatal exposure to BPA and aggression during toddler years

(NaturalNews) Researchers from the Harvard University School of Public Health have made a disturbing new discovery about the plastics chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). It turns out that prenatal BPA exposure can spur aggressive and undesirable behaviors in girls after they are born and reach their toddler years. Published in the journal Pediatrics , the study analyzed a group of 244 mothers and their three-year-old daughters living in the Cincinnati, Oh., area. The study team gathered and studied gestational and childhood BPA exposures using urine samples from the mothers, and compared various exposure levels among the children to their respective behavioral profiles. The team discovered that for each ten-fold increase in gestational BPA exposure levels, young girls exhibited significantly more indicators of anxiety and depression than their less- or non-exposed counterparts. Young girls exposed to high BPA levels were also more emotionally disturbed than the others and had a more difficult time controlling their inhibitions. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly funded the study as part of an investigation into the safety of BPA. “Parents should be concerned about these findings,” says study author Joe Braun. “As the mothers concentration of BPA rose, the girls born to those mothers had higher scores on these behavior problem indices. If pregnant women or parents are concerned about exposure to BPA, they can try to reduce it by limiting their exposure to canned foods and packaged foods.” Although these particular findings were limited strictly to females, previous studies have found a similar connection between prenatal BPA exposure and poor behavior in both sexes. Back in 2009, a study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that BPA’s endocrine-disrupting effects can harm both girls and boys. Besides impairing proper neurological development, which is likely the reason for behavior problems later in life, prenatal BPA exposure was found to “masculinize” unborn females, and “feminize” unborn males. It appears, based on that study, that BPA actually blocks the proper growth and development of human sex hormones (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48065/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__BPA_in_the_womb_shows_link_to_kids%E2%80%99_behavior). Both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), however, continue to insist that BPA is safe, despite the plethora of scientific data showing that the chemical is harmful. Sources for this article include: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-links-bpa-exposure-in-womb-to-behavior-problems-in-toddler-girls/2011/10/24/gIQA6ihRDM_story.html http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48065/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__BPA_in_the_womb_shows_link_to_kids%E2%80%99_behavior

Congress pushes to classify pizza as a ‘vegetable’

(NaturalNews) In an absurd attempt to fight back at federal regulations that greatly limit the amount of junk food that can be served as part of government-funded school lunch programs, Congress has proposed a new spending bill that classifies pizza as a “vegetable.” Reports indicate that the bill would allow for just two tablespoons of tomato paste to be considered a serving of vegetables. Recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine back in 2009 for reforming subsidized school lunch programs include reducing the use of starchy vegetables like potatoes and corn to just two days a week, cutting sodium use, and promoting the use of whole grains. But the new Congressional bill, which is alleged to be a product of the frozen food industry lobby, seeks to undo these changes. Proponents of the bill in Congress say it will “prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations and provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve the nutritional quality of meals.” But opponents insist that the legislation is a thinly-veiled attempt at satisfying the demands of special interest groups rather than promoting better nutrition for public school children. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a group that supports the Obama Administration’s initial lunchroom reform measures, has expressed vehement opposition to the Congressional bill. CSPI’s Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan recently wrote that the legislation, if passed, “may go down in nutritional history as a bigger blunder than when the Reagan Administration tried (but failed) to credit ketchup as a vegetable in the school lunch program.” First off, the kind of pizza served in most school lunchrooms can hardly be considered a health food in any way, shape, or form. From the refined, brominated white flour-based dough to the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) laden cheese, this processed food product is a detriment to the health of school children. Even the sauce used on most processed pizzas contains chemical additives and preservatives, as well as potential pesticide residues from conventional tomatoes. While the original Obama Administration proposal represents an attempt at improving lunchroom food quality, it is inadequate at promoting real nutrition. Once the genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), refined sugars, processed flours, unhealthy GM oils, chemical salt additives, and preservatives are removed from the menu, then we can truly begin a discussion on better health through nutrition. Sources for this article include: http://www.cspinet.org/new/201111151.html http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/17/pizza-as-vegetable-congress-proposes-new-school-lunch-bill/

Fail: New superbug drugs cause 500 percent increase in infections

(NaturalNews) Governments around the world have been trying to work with the pharmaceutical industry to come up with (conventional) new ways to tackle the growing “superbug” problem. But an experimental new drug treatment regime touted as a potential solution for superbugs has been exposed as a complete failure, as those who receive it are five times more likely to develop serious infections than those who are treated the old way. Professor David Neal from the University of Cambridge and his colleagues at the school’s Addenbrooke Hospital evaluated 709 prostate cancer patients who were undergoing diagnosis surgery for their conditions. One group received the typical ciprofloxacin drug treatment, while the other received an experimental combination of co-amoxiclav and gentamicin, which are two types of antibiotics. Published in the British Journal of Urology , their study revealed that patients treated with co-amoxiclav and gentamicin have a 500 percent increased risk of developing serious infective complications compared to patients given the typical drug treatment. While only 2.4 percent of the 454 patients in the ciprofloxacin group developed infections, nearly 13 percent of patients in the co-amoxiclav / gentamicin group ended up developing infections — and nearly five percent from the latter group ended up back in the hospital with severe cases of sepsis or septic shock. “Any alteration to existing departmental antibiotic policies should be linked to strong clinical evidence,” commented Prof. Neal concerning the findings. “[S]uch changes may potentially result in significant ill health and potential harm, as well as the financial burden of treating new complications.” The experimental switch was prompted by new UK government guidelines which purported that ciprofloxacin treatments were spurring increases in Clostridium difficile infections. While this is true, at least in part, the government’s unfounded “solution” is an embarrassing indictment of what happens when the drug industry is entrusted with finding fixes to the problems it played a role in creating. Overprescribing and overuse of antibiotics like fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, clindamycin, and penicillins among the general population has been demonstrated as one of the primary causes of superbug proliferation (http://www.naturalnews.com/026969_antibiotics_antibiotic_bacteria.html). The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture to make livestock grow more quickly is another primary cause (http://www.naturalnews.com/antibiotic.html). Sources for this article include: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2055824/New-drugs-used-tackle-superbugs-INCREASE-risk-infection.html

Soda consumption linked to teen violence, study finds

(NaturalNews) A new study has found that teenagers who consume high amounts of sugary soda appear to be more prone towards violence than teenagers who consume less or no sugary soda. The more soda a teenager consumes, in other words, the more likely he or she is to show violent aggression towards classmates, a significant other, and even family members. David Hemenway, a professor at Harvard University’s School of Public, and his colleagues instructed a group of 1,878 public school students from inner-city Boston to fill out questionnaires about how much soda they had consumed in the previous seven days. The questionnaires also asked the students how often they carried weapons, consumed alcohol, smoked, and had a violent interaction with another person. The students, who ranged in age between 14 and 18, also answered other background questions about how often they ate meals with their families, and their race. After compiling the data and accounting for other outside factors, the research team discovered that soda intake was directly proportional to violence levels. “What we found was that there was a strong relationship between how many soft drinks that these inner-city kids consumed and how violent they were, not only in violence against peers but also violence in dating relationships, against siblings,” said Hemenway. “It was shocking to us when we saw how clear the relationship was.” The results showed that students who drank one or no cans of sugary soda a week were nearly half as likely as students who drank 14 cans a week to carry a gun or knife to school. The one or no soda group was also about half as likely to commit violence against a partner, or show violent aggression against peers, compared to the high-consumption group. “We don’t know why (there is a strong association),” added Hemenway. “There may be some causal effect but it’s also certainly plausible that this is just a marker for other problems — that kids who are violent for whatever reason, they tend to smoke more, they tend to drink more alcohol and they tend to maybe drink more soft drinks. We just don’t know.” Sources for this article include: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a78af65cc128f522f558eaa64f38258c.3d1&show_article=1

Exposed: Illinois law financially penalizes public schools when vaccination rates drop below 90 percent

(NaturalNews) One of the primary reasons for the big push among public school districts across the country to vaccinate as many students as possible appears to have a lot to do with maintaining their eligibility to receive local and state funding, at least in the state of Illinois. Section 27-8.1.7 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) Health examinations and immunizations law explains that if a school vaccination rate falls below 90 percent, state aid payments to that school are automatically cut by 10 percent until the school comes into “compliance” (http://www.isbe.state.il.us/accountability/html/105_public_health.htm). According to the current Illinois General State Aid fiscal schedule, Illinois schools receive $6,119 per student from the state. Ten percent of this amount equates to roughly $612. So if a school has 2,000 students, for instance, and it maintains at least a 90 percent vaccination rate, it will receive $12,238,000 from the state per year. But if the vaccination rate falls below 90 percent at the same school, a whopping $1,223,800 will be shaved off this amount (http://nced.info/schoolfinance/files/2011/06/Illinois2011.pdf). Suddenly it all becomes clear why school administrators are aggressively pushing parents to have their children receive the full vaccination schedule. If students do not comply, the administrators own salaries are on the line! These vaccine quotas also explain why some school districts are actually having to resort to bribary campaigns like giving away free iPods to students who get their shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/032330_vaccines_iPod.html). It all appears to be nothing more than a sick “pay-for-play” system where state officials pressure school administrators to comply with the vaccine agenda or else face budget cuts. And they do this because federal officials are pressing them to push the vaccine agenda or else lose funding. In other words, from the top down, Big Pharma has rigged an entire system that forces government workers to push the vaccine agenda or else face a loss of funding — and all this funding, of course, ultimately comes directly from taxpayers. Illinois law currently allows for students to opt-out of school vaccination requirements on both medical and religious grounds (http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx). But if the vaccination rate ever consistently falls below the 90 percent threshold on a widespread scale, you can expect to see a lot more forced vaccination attempts fueled by lies and fear-mongering tactics.

Women endangered by high rate of false-positive mammograms

(NaturalNews) According to mainstream medicine, mammograms are the key to surviving breast cancer because they supposedly catch the disease early for quick treatment. What this advice invariably leaves out is evidence that exposure to the radiation used in the tests may actually cause breast cancer in some women. For example, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) concluded annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to the disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_breast_cancer.html#ixzz1arooKmoK). Now there’s another reason to be concerned about the push for women to have yearly mammograms. In a new study by University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) research shows that among women who receive a decade of annual mammograms, more than half of those women will be called and told the gut-wrenching news that their tests are positive when they are actually cancer-free. The victims of false-positive results — not a malignancy — are then subjected to more tests. In fact, one in twelve of these women will undergo invasive, potentially breast-scarring biopsy surgery. “This study provides accurate estimates of the risk of a false-positive mammography and breast biopsy for women undergoing repeat mammography in community practice, and so provides important information about the potential harms of undergoing regular mammography,” states Karla Kerlikowske, a professor of medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine. Karla is also the co-author of the study, which was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine . False-positive mammogram results are rampant The research, led by Group Health Research Institute of Seattle for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, investigated false-positives in mammography by studying the records of approximately 170,000 women between the ages of 40 and 59 from seven regions around the United States. Almost 4,500 of these research subjects were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The study found that women who started having mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 were far more likely to have false-positive findings that resulted in more expensive and needless medical tests, including biopsies. Just by changing breast screening from every year to every other year, the researchers documented that a woman’s risk of having a false-positive finding dropped from 61 percent to 42 percent (about a third) over the course of ten years. What’s more, they found that if radiologists would simply review a patient’s previous mammograms it “may halve the odds of a false-positive recall.” The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines now recommend biennial mammograms starting at age 50 and continuing until age 74. However, many doctors still recommend annual mammograms, often beginning at age 40. The new study concluded that after a decade of yearly screening, a majority of women will receive at least one false-positive result. Out of these, 7 to 9 percent will face having a biopsy and the risks that involves — from anesthesia complications to scarring to infection — although these women are, in fact, cancer-free. And what about the argument that yearly mammograms are needed to catch cancer early enough to cure? The researchers found that women screened every two years were not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer. “We conducted this study to help women know what to expect when they get regular mammograms over the course of many years,” study leader Rebecca Hubbard, PhD, an assistant investigator at Group Health Research Institute, explained in the media statement. “We hope that if women know what to expect with screening, they’ll feel less anxiety if – or when – they are called back for more testing. In the vast majority of cases, this does not mean they have cancer.” Sources for this article include: http://www.ucsf.edu/news http://www.annals.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

District ignores unanimous opposition by parents, approves installation of Phillips Exxon Mobil Corp ‘fracking’ wells on school property

(NaturalNews) Not a single parent of a student attending a South Butler County School District (SBCSD) school has expressed support for the district’s plan to allow Phillips Exxon Mobil (PEM) Corp. to build oil and natural gas drilling wells on school property. But this did not stop the Pennsylvania school district’s board members from approving, in a 6 – 2 decision, a lease permitting PEM to build the wells as close as 500 feet from classrooms. Pennsylvania has become a hotbed of natural gas drilling operations in recent years due to its proximity right over the Marcellus and Utica shale formations, both of which contain large amounts of lucrative natural gas fuel. As a result, formerly-unspoiled land, private property, and now public schools, are all becoming infested with drilling machinery and wells, which are a serious threat to environmental and human health (http://www.naturalnews.com/032358_fracking_gas_drilling.html). “I have concerns that the safety of our children may be compromised,” said Heather Rickenbrode, a Penn Township resident and parent of a SBCSD-enrolled child, to Pittsburg Live . “I am personally not willing to gamble my child’s health for an education.” At a recent public hearing on the issue, which was not widely announced, a group of local residents expressed serious concerns about allowing “fracking” (hydraulic fracturing) wells to be built so closely to facilities where young children spend much of their time throughout the school year. Since fracking involves the injection of many tons of water and chemicals into the ground — and many accidents have already occurred, resulting in poisoned groundwater and other environmental contamination — it has no place on school property, they say. SBCSD also has a water well on site that it uses to water the school football field, which represents another problematic factor in the equation. Though the well is not used for drinking water, its possible contamination by fracking chemicals could have devastating effects on the student athletes that use the field for practice and games. Nevertheless, despite a complete death of support from local residents or parents for the project, district officials have approved the fracking lease anyway. If and when drilling wells are built, SBCSD will receive $3,750 from PEM per acre used, plus an 18 percent royalty fee, according to Pittsburg Live . PEM will also pay SBCSD a $15,000 fee for every well that it builds. Sources for this story include: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_756893.html#ixzz1Y82vZHY9

BMJ had secret financial ties to Merck during publication of articles attacking Wakefield

(NaturalNews) When a corrupt medical group wants to discourage dissidence from within, it targets a high profile figure to disgrace. This intimidates others from doing the right thing if it disrupts the lies and profits of Big Pharma. Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a high profile scapegoat, smeared with lies from the media and medical journals to protect the UK from vaccine injury payouts while maintaining high profits for the vaccine industry. Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Research Dr. Wakefield arrived at Royal Free Hospital in London to coordinate and record research that had already started for seven children. This number increased to twelve and consequently was called the Wakefield 12 two years later. The gastroenterology treatments and study had started on the original seven and was headed by Dr. John Walker-Smith. Parents of those twelve children took them to the Royal Free Hospital because of its reputation for Pediatric Gastroenterology. Their family doctors had failed to diagnose and/or treat their kids. The kids were suffering terribly from bowel disorders and exhibiting autistic behavior, pushing the parents to the limit. These were not mere tummy aches and diarrhea. After Dr. Wakefield joined them, he published his findings in a paper for the 1998 British medical journal Lancet . A few years later, Wakefield’s Lancet paper’s conclusion was intentionally twisted by journalist Brian Deer in order to launch a government/vaccine industry attack on doctors Wakefield and Walker-Smith. Claims that Dr. Wakefield and his team concluded that MMR vaccinations are totally responsible for autism are completely inaccurate. Wakefield’s Lancet paper simply advised that measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations should be done separately instead of all at once until further research is done on the safety of MMRs. The parents had voluntarily mentioned that their children’s unusual and intense bowel disorders as well as autistic behaviors occurred shortly or immediately after the kids received their MMR vaccination. Dr. Wakefield simply included the parents observations in his Lancet report. Dr. Wakefield also included the medical fact that the same viral strain of measles was found in all of the children’s intestinal tracts in his journal report. These discoveries were made after the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shots were given to those twelve children and their symptoms were apparent. Wakefield’s Published Findings Confirmed by Others The viral measles discovered by the Wakefield/Walker-Smith team of doctors were not wild virus measles. They were of the type prepared for MMR vaccines. Recently, even the London Mail reported similar results from other studies of children with autistic behaviors and strange, severe bowel disorders. One study was in Dublin, Ireland in 2001. The other report was from Wake Forest Medical School in the USA in 2010. In the USA study, 70 out of 82 autistic children were found with the same unusual bowel disorder, autistic enterocolitis, and the same non-wild measles strain. You’d think this would create a public vindication and restore Doctors Wakefield and Walker-Smith’s right to practice medicine in the UK. But it hasn’t. That’s the tragedy. The vaccine industry/government conspiracy succeeded. The Point Man for the Conspiracy Against Wakefield and Walker-Smith Brian Deer is a self professed independent investigative journalist. He is not independent, according to Age of Autism He has over a decade’s history of working for different vaccine industry front groups, both in America and Great Britain. And he doesn’t really investigate. It appears he fabricates. Yet, he is the author of articles condemning the Wakefield Lancet 1998 paper, publishing in both the London Sunday Times and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) starting in 2004 and continuing into 2010. Brian Deer also filed a formal complaint to the GMC (General Medical Council), the group responsible for medical licensing in the UK. Not one of the parents filed any complaints anywhere. They all praised the Wakefield/Walker-Smith team for the understanding and relief that medical team had provided. But they complained bitterly about being denied their testimony on the Wakefield/Walker-Smith team’s defense in the GMC hearings, which Brian Deer attended daily for several weeks. The Lancet was compelled to publically retract Wakefield’s paper. The GMC removed both Doctors Wakefield and Walker-Smith from medical practice in 2010. The BMJ and Brian Deer defend their lies to this day by accusing Wakefield of lying. Screaming sensationalism seems to get the mainstream media’s attention over calmly delivered facts. For more on Brian Deer’s nasty aggressive manner against the Wakefield 12 children’s parents, who speak their version of events, see the short version of the documentary “Selective Hearing” here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=B04E670B2B566343D1CE5D822CFB22E8 The full documentary is viewable from the sources section below. It is compelling. So how does one sociopath vaccine industry shill hack journalist manage to pull this off? He was supported by friends in high places. Big Pharma’s Vaccine Hit List The pharmaceutical industry has hit lists, and apparently Brian is one of their hit men to stir up trouble with the help of vaccine industry supporting medical journals and public media publications. A lawyer in an Australian class action suit against Merck’s Vioxx spoke of threats from Merck to intimidate critics or cut off research funding. The attorney read the following from a Merck internal memo: “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live.” There was also memo content that mentioned “neutralizing or discrediting” doctors who spoke out against them. Merck is a major provider of MMR vaccines in the UK and USA. Following the Money High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis wouldn’t permit parents who wanted to testify on Wakefield’s behalf. Nigel’s brother is a board member of the publishers of the Lancet who is also on the Board of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK is a pharmaceutical giant also heavily involved in vaccine manufacturing. GSK now has James Murdoch on its Board. He’s the son of Rupert Murdoch and editor of the Sunday Times . This was Deer’s first platform to launch attacks on Wakefield. The Murdoch family has strong financial interests with GSK. Deer used Medico-Legal Investigations to gather information for his evil spin. This private company seems to be a front group for Big Pharma, since their only source of funding is the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Reuters is a news agency rivaling the Associated Press (AP). The head of Reuters is a Merck Board member. Miriam Stoppared’s husband, Christopher Hogg, was Chairman of GSK in 2004. Miriam is feature writer for the Daily Mirror. Dr. Kumar, the chairman of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel that ruled against Wakefield would not answer questions about his known GSK holdings. He declared that there is no such thing as vaccine damage and parents who claimed such should be treated with scorn. There have been allegations of financial connections between Merck and BMJ and its editor Dr. Fiona Godlee. It’s certain Merck funds award to BMJ’s selected MDs and researchers. Both the BMJ and Lancet journals serve as advertising forums for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. Meanwhile the UK medical system, which is completely supported by government financing, can breathe a sigh of relief for not having to be held liable for vaccine injury complaints by parents of MMR shots or other vaccinations. After all, purchased and promoted vaccines are already paid for. They don’t want them to go to waste. And no need to add the expense of awarding compensation for vaccine injury if it’s been declared they don’t exist. Regarding the Wakefield case, Fiona Godlee recently announced: “Many other medical frauds have been exposed but usually more quickly after publication and on less important health issues.” Really? How important is childhood measles or mumps? What is important is evidence from several international sources have determined a causal link to unusual bowed disorders and autistic behavior. The real fraud is denying this research. The real crime is profiting heavily while causing enormous suffering for millions of children and their parents. Sources for this article and your perusal include: The full Brian Deer vs. Wakefield 12 parents documentary “Selective Hearing” http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=21C9E60E7A00D3D8B3DF37796B661886 Recent Daily Mail report on findings similar to Wakefield’s http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html Exposing the Murdoch Empire’s crimes and vaccine industry investments http://coto2.press.com/2011/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/ Natural News Mike Adams on what Wakefield actually did at Royal Free Hospital http://www.naturalnews.com/033425_BMJ_Andrew_Wakefield.html Mike Adams on documents proving BMJ and Deer’s lies against Wakefield’s innocence http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html Merck hit list memo http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225699594111#ixzz1WpVwgg3a

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg pushing to eliminate conflict of interest laws, allow paid drug company shills to fill advisory positions

(NaturalNews) At a time when drug industry corruption is reaching a pinnacle of public exposure, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is actually proposing eliminating one of the few pseudo-effective measures in place that restricts the agency from becoming a full-blown Big Pharma “rubber stamp” consultant. In a recent announcement, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg stated that the agency may next year loosen certain conflict of interest restrictions that prevent scientists with financial ties to the drug industry from becoming members of FDA advisory panels. There are 45 different FDA advisory committees that, according to the FDA’s own website, are supposed to obtain “independent expert advice on scientific, technical, and policy matters.” In other words, these panels are purportedly to be composed of objective, unbiased individuals that do not have financial or other ties to the very companies about which they are advising. Makes sense, right? Well, in the eyes of Commissioner Hamburg, these common sense restrictions, which at least give the illusion that the FDA conducts honest regulatory work on behalf of the people, are unreasonable and must be eliminated. Hamburg apparently believes that drug industry-funded “scientists” are vital to the FDA’s work, having stated publicly that allowing Big Pharma shills to serve on advisory committees is essential if the agency is to get the information it needs to make decisions. “We have to be sure that FDA has subject-matter experts that we need for our important decision making,” stated Hamburg. But expecting to receive “independent expert advice” from industry-sponsored consultants posing as scientists rather than actual independent scientists, however, is the epitome of inane — and this is precisely what Hamburg is suggesting as a correct form of FDA policy. Does the FDA have the power to change its own regulatory restrictions? Aside from Hamburg’s senseless and illogical opinions about how best to obtain crucial decision-making information, the other glaring elephant in the room is the fact that the FDA can apparently change its own regulatory restrictions at will. What is the point of an agency having conflict of interest restrictions placed on it when that very same agency can simply change them when they are no longer convenient? Last time we checked, Congress was still in charge of creating and passing laws, not the FDA. But Commissioner Hamburg seems quite sure of herself, presumably because of expressed congressional support, that the FDA’s conflict of interest laws will soon be history. And it appears, based on the FDA’s released draft guidance, that the FDA is actually the one in charge of amending its own policies (http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126832.htm). The FDA claims that it needs to loosen or eliminate the conflict of interest policies from its advisory committee procedures because it is unable to find enough members to serve on its committees. According to a recent Bloomberg report, only 77 percent of FDA advisory committee positions were filled as of March 2011, which leaves 138 vacant positions out of 608 total. But if the FDA is having a hard time filling these positions, perhaps it would do best to begin looking for eligible candidates in other places. And Robert Weissman, president of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, agrees, having stated that the rules should not change because the FDA is unable, or unwilling, to find independent scientists to fill its ranks. “We need strong protection rather than less,” state Weissman, following Hamburg’s statements to his group about needed to relax or change the law. A study published back in March by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine discredits the FDA’s claim, having found that about 44 percent of cardiologists have no ties to the drug industry. Eric Campbell, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and one of the study’s authors, stated that the study “flat out dismisses this idea that there are no experts who don’t have relationships,” a claim being made by the FDA in support of its proposed new guidelines (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-fda-bias-idUSTRE7703R320110801). “There are lots of people out there who are smart and who don’t have conflicts of interest,” said Sid Wolfe, also with Public Citizen. “It just takes much more work for the FDA to find them. But the result is you have much less tainting of the panel discussion.” Tell the FDA to do its job, not tailor laws to suit the agenda of special interests According to the FDA’s draft guidance, the agency published a final rule on February 2, 1998, requiring clinical investigators who submit marketing applications for drugs or medical devices to also disclose whether or not they have financial ties to the companies who make the products they reviewed. Current guidelines also limit who can serve on advisory committee positions. Both of these policies can work, at least as long as the FDA is willing to put in the work necessary to find qualified individuals who are not on the payrolls of drug and medical device companies. But the agency is demonstrating a pure unwillingness to do this, and instead is planning to cave to the drug industry and to certain lawmakers who are pushing to have the law amended instead. Though the official comment period for the FDA’s proposed new guidance for financial disclosure by clinical investigators ended on July 25, it is still crucial to contact the FDA and tell it to stop catering to special interests, and to leave be the conflict of interest policies that help preserve what little integrity remains in the agency’s advisory committee process. You can contact the FDA to oppose the new draft guidance by writing to: Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 10-61 Rockville, MD 20857 Or calling: (888) 463-6332 Be sure to reference Docket No. FDA-1999-D-0792 To contact FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg directly, you can call her: (301) 796-5000 Or email her: Office: Margaret.Hamburg@fda.hhs.gov Personal: margaretahamburg@aol.com You can also contact your representatives by visiting: http://www.congress.org Sources for this story include: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/24/2011-12623/draft-guidance-for-clinical-investigators-industry-and-fda-staff-financial-disclosure-by-clinical http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/conflict-of-interest-rules-may-be-relaxed-in-2012-hamburg-says.html

Many medical journals have no policies regarding conflicts of interest in published research studies

(NaturalNews) The clinical trial analysis and research studies published in some medical journals — and that are used directly by doctors to diagnose and treat patients — could be posited in biased language due to secret financial ties to drug or medical device companies, and nobody would ever know it. Of 131 cancer journals sampled, a research team found that only 112 of them had any kind of policy requiring published research to state potential conflicts of interest — the other 19 had absolutely no policies whatsoever. Research that appears favorable to a new chemotherapy drug, for instance, might have been secretly prompted and funded by a drug company. But this disclosure would not be required in the 19 cancer journals sampled — and among the other 112, it may or may not be disclosed in a meaningful or consistent manner, the team found. Researchers presenting the findings on the drug in the journal could additionally have been paid to speak highly of it and minimize its side effects — and doctors and other readers would never know the difference. “Journals can’t even agree on what a conflict of interest means,” said Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass., to Reuters Health concerning the findings. “It is certainly confusing to authors and to readers.” Back in 2009, an analysis by researchers from the University of Michigan (U-M) Comprehensive Cancer Center found that many clinical cancer studies published in reputable medical journals are directly connected to pharmaceutical companies. The analysis, which itself was published in the American Cancer Society journal CANCER , stated that conflicts of interest cause some researchers to report results that are favorable to drug companies, rather than those that are favorable to the actual truth (http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_cancer_research_studies.html). Kesselheim and his colleagues pored through 1,700 reports derived from various “high-impact” journals, and among the 27 that included editorials, only about half had any sort of conflict of interest disclosures. The others were falsely presented as having come from objective sources. “Physicians — like other professionals — are influenced by incentives, especially financial incentives,” added Kesselheim concerning the findings. “Conflicts of interest and financial relationships can have an impact on the research process and on the reporting of research, and they can also have an impact on physician behavior.” By itself, disclosure of financial and economic ties is not enough to fix the problem of research fraud Lack of consistency among disclosure policies in some journals, and the obvious lack of disclosure policies in others, are both highly problematic issues in medical research. But even if medical journals were to collectively agree on a consistent, standardized method of reporting conflicts of interest, this would not ultimately fix the problem of the inherent research fraud that persists behind the scenes. Speaking about their research concerning conflicts of interest in medical studies, U-M researchers suggested that cancer research in general is so deeply connected to the conventional cancer industry that comprehensive reform would be necessary in order to effectively clean up and restore integrity to the entire body of medical research that gets published today. “Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, and assistant professor of radiation oncology at U-M, in a media statement in 2009. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.” Ghostwriting is another major problem in medical journals, as drug companies routinely pay private consultants to pose as doctors and researchers, and write journal articles promoting various drugs and medical devices. In 2010, an investigation revealed that numerous drug companies including Wyeth (which has since become part of Pfizer), paid writers thousands of dollars to promote synthetic hormone replacement drugs like Prempro (http://www.naturalnews.com/029696_drug_companies_ghostwriting.html). The cancer industry is a racket, and almost all studies promoting expensive drugs are fraudulent Anyone who has been following NaturalNews for a while probably already knows that the cancer industry is a multi-billion-dollar profit machine that thrives on generating fear, and promoting grossly expensive, highly ineffective, treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation, which are the trademarks of conventional cancer treatment, are both completely ineffective at treating most major cancers — and yet these are primarily what cancer journals promote (http://www.naturalnews.com/027705_chemotherapy_fraud.html). These treatments costs tens of thousands of dollars a month, in many cases, and are touted as the only known methods of treating cancer — but in reality, they really do not treat anything, and typically kill patients faster than if they took nothing at all. But savvy natural health enthusiasts know that there are legitimate, alternative methods of both preventing and treating cancer without the use of deadly drugs, radiation blasts, and surgery. These include formal methods like the Gerson therapy (http://www.naturalnews.com/033045_Gerson_tapes_cancer.html), and everyday nutritional and lifestyle changes (http://www.naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?categoryid=14). In conclusion, a good rule of thumb to use when trying to decide whether or not a medical journal research paper is legitimate or not, is this: if it promotes expensive synthetic drugs or deadly treatments that have nothing to do with lifestyle and nutrition changes, it is likely an industry-funded treatment that should be avoided. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/us-transparency-cancer-idUSTRE76L60S20110722

« Previous Page — Next Page »