Bioweapons, Dangerous Vaccines, and Threats of a Global Pandemic

Global Research | Jul 8, 2009

by Stephen Lendman
 
Although international law prohibits the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons, America has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s. In 1941, it began secret developmental efforts using controversial testing methods. During WW II, mustard gas was tested on about 4000 servicemen. Biological weapons research was also conducted. Human subjects were used as guinea pigs in various other experiments, and numerous illegal practices continued to the present, including secretly releasing toxic biological agents in US cities to test the effects of germ warfare.

The Hague Convention of 1907 banned chemical weapons usage, and the 1928 Geneval Protocol prohibited gas and bacteriological warfare. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) “Prohibit(ed) the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction.” The 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act “implement(ed the) Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction….”

In 2001, the Bush administration rejected the 1972 BWC, took advantage of a loophole allowing “prophylactic, protective or other peaceful uses,” continued a secret Clinton administration bioweapons initiative, and asserted its right to spend multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile “first-strike” chemical and biological weapons that potentially can kill millions.

In his August 14, 2008 article titled, “The Pentagon’s alarming project: Avian Flu Biowar Vaccine,” F. William Engdahl cited:

“alarming evidence accumulated by serious scientific sources that the US Government is about to or already has ‘weaponized’ Avian Flu. If reports are accurate, this could unleash a new pandemic on the planet that could be more devastating than the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic which killed an estimated 30 million people worldwide before it eventually died out. Pentagon and NIH experiments with remains in frozen state of the 1918 virus are the height of scientific folly” unless something more nefarious is afoot in collaboration with Big Pharma to produce weaponized viruses and/or dangerous mandatory vaccines that, at the least, can cause serious autoimmune diseases or, as some allege, a Swine Flu or other viral pandemic.

Alarming News about Baxter International

On February 27, 2009, various news agencies including Helen Branswell in the Canadian Press, reported:

Baxter International that “released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed (today) that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.” The WHO said the incident occurred at the company’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria, but claimed “that public health and occupational risk is minimal” thus far. What’s not known, however, “are the circumstances” behind the incident that, according to some, raise suspicions while others call it a willful criminal act. More on that below.

The contaminated product, “a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 (Avian Flu) viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company….Avir Green Hills Biotechnology.” It then “sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.”

The problem was discovered when The Czech Republic company discovered that ferrets innoculated with the product died. “Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.” Public health authorities called it a “serious error” that showed “the H5N1 virus in the product was live.” But Baxter “has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.” Christopher Bona, the company’s global bioscience communications director, did confirm that the material was a “live….experimental virus” made at the Orth-Donau research laboratory.

Security experts expressed alarm that something this serious could happen, calling the co-mingling (or reassortment) of human H3N2 with H5N1 avian viruses a dangerous practice that should never occur because of the potentially devastating effects to human health. “If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people,” who, in turn, could transmit it to enough others to potentially cause a pandemic. So far, nothing this extreme has happened, but a future threat remains.

As Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, Dr. Rima Laibow warns about dangerous, toxic drugs and vaccines. On March 6, 2009, she posted a “Pandemic Flu Emergency Action eAlert on her healthfreedomusa.org web site stating:

“World media (outside America) are reporting that Baxter Pharmaceuticals has admitted that it ‘accidently’ contaminated various vaccine batches with Avian Flu viruses. These batches were shipped to 18 countries. Clearly, either 1. stupidity and incompetence (are to blame) or 2. intentional contamination of flu vaccine lots was at work.”

Many Avian Flu vaccines compete with each other, yet they’re “profitable ONLY if used in huge numbers.” Although “Avian Flu has been slow to be become pandemic by ‘jumping the species barrier’ to humans in large numbers,” might Baxter’s “accident” be a way to do it? If so, Big Pharma will score “One of the biggest wins in history.”

In fact, it already has after the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (CIDRAP) reported that Congress (in mid-June) “approved $7.65 billion for battling pandemic influenza, more than three times what the House and Senate had earlier proposed.” Unsurprisingly, it was part of “a $106 billion (Iraq and Afghanistan war) supplemental appropriation bill” to open a new front at home in the form of dangerous vaccines – perhaps to be mandated for everyone.

Laibow sees a “manipulated disaster of unprecedented magnitude precipitated by unprecedented avarice and greed,” and adds that “Baxter International Inc. is no stranger to recalls and lethal contaminations.” Its record includes producing faulty infusion and volumetric pumps, HIV-2 tainted Albumin Buminate 5 percent, faulty dialysis machine tubing and blood-cleaning filters, and various other products that should make everyone leery of its soon-to-be-released Swine Flu vaccine. Along with similar ones from other pharmaceutical companies, these drugs cause serious autoimmune diseases and absolutely should be avoided, even if mandated.

Laibow expresses great alarm in stating:

“Baxter mixed a virus which has a hard time infecting people (H5N1 Avian flu) with one that infects them easily (”Seasonal Flu”) in a medium which can promote mutations of the H5N1 virus into a type which can infect us easily. What will be in the vaccine you are forced/coerced/threatened into allowing into your body? Who knows?”

What is known are our constitutional and Nuremberg Code rights. The Fifth Amendment protects against abusive government authority in stating that “No person shall….be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” The Eight Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” Depriving someone of health is tantamount to the latter as well as life by harming and potentially shortening it.

The Nuremberg Code requires voluntary consent of human subjects without coercion, fraud, deceit, and with full disclosure of known risks. It also affirms that experiments should avoid “all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury,” and should never be conducted if there’s “an a priori reason to believe death or disabling injury will occur” or harm to human health.

The FDA as an Industry Front Group

As stated on its web site, the FDA is mandated to protect human health and well-being.

As an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”

Run by officials of the industries it “regulates,” it fails on all counts. Byron J. Richards is a clinical nutritionist and founder of Wellness Resources. In his book “Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA’s Betrayal of America,” he discusses FDA complicity with Big Pharma, dangerous drugs worth billions of dollars to the industry, and the serious risks to people who use them. He states:

“The FDA has put into mothballs its federal mandate to protect the public. In order to foster drug sales, the FDA hides important medical data from the public and from doctors, including the risks of heart attacks, suicide, seizures, and serious mental-health debility. Even worse, the FDA has changed sides. They are actively undermining the rights of citizens to claim damages if injured by drugs. And they are seeking to remove safety barriers to drug testing. They are planning to expose many individuals to unproven drugs, a new form of human experiment” that may rise to a higher level if HHS mandates dangerous Swine Flu vaccines for all Americans despite no forensic evidence of an outbreak or even a single proved death attributable to H1N1.

Yet, in advance of what looks to be coming, on June 11, the WHO declared that “The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic (in) decid(ing) to raise (its) influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to (its highest) phase 6″ level.

Dr. Laibow advises that everyone has a “right to say “NO!” to vaccinations and other treatments that (they) do not want. The Police Power of the State ENDS at my skin and yours!” If a pandemic erupts, as a longtime natural health practitioner, she advises what she’ll use herself – Nano Silver as well as vitamins, minerals, and herbs like echinacea that boost the immune system, unlike dangerous vaccines that destroy it. For more information, she directs individuals to the web site: www.nutronix.com/naturalsolutions.

WHO, CDC, and Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) Fearmongering Misinformation

Besides declaring its highest Level 6 influenza pandemic alert on June 11, the BBC reported on July 3 that WHO’s Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, warned that the spread of swine flu is “unstoppable” while admitting that most cases are mild and many people recover unaided.

On June 25, Daniel DeNoon in WebMD Health News reported that CDC’s influenza surveillance chief, Dr. Lyn Finelli, said: “Right now, we are estimating over 1 million (Swine Flu) cases in the US” in 2009 affecting about 6% of households in major cities. She, too, admitted that the vast majority of cases have been mild but avoided the fundamental issue – that no forensic evidence attributes a single death globally to Swine Flu and all or most known instances may be ordinary viral influenza or common colds, bad enough to cause fever (at times high) and discomfort, last several days and then pass for most people.

With no proof, Finelli cited 3065 Swine Flu hospitalizations and 127 deaths. In a June 26 telebriefing, Dr. Anne Schachat, CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases director, cited no verifiable forensic documentation in saying:

“The novel H1N1 (Swine Flu) influenza is continuing to spread here in the United States and around the globe. The key point is that this new infectious disease is not going away. In the US, we’re still experiencing a steady increase in the number of reported cases (and they’re just) the tip of the iceberg.” She added that vaccines are being hurriedly produced. No decisions have been made about “which populations” will need them, but “it’s very important for states and communities to begin intensifying their efforts on planning to administer a vaccine should such be necessary in the fall,” especially for “young people including school children, pregnant women, babies, and adults, particularly younger adults with those underlying conditions….” That said, it “doesn’t mean we’ve finalized any vaccine recommendations.”

On June 21, Canada’s National Post published Sharon Kirkey’s Canwest News Service report headlined, “Vaccinate Canadians under 40 and (aboriginal) natives first: experts.” She added that “Under Canada’s official pandemic plan, the entire population would ultimately be immunized against H1N1 swine flu,” but not at once as vaccines will only be available in batches.

Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) “is working on a priority list,” effective for all provinces and territories. Gymnasiums will be used for mass vaccinations of school children, but no final decisions have been made.

In a June 26 news release, PHAC reported that “The Government of Canada today launched a three-year public education campaign to encourage parents to have their children immunized against certain diseases before the age of two. The Honorable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health, made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Canadian Paediatric Society” saying that “Immunization is one of the best tools we have to protect the health of our children.”

In fact, all vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided. They contain squalene-based adjuvants that cause a menu of autoimmune diseases in test subjects. In humans they include chronic fatigue, various type rashes, chronic headaches, anemia, aphthous ulcers, seizures, weakness, neuropsychiatric problems, ALS, Raynaud’s phenomenon, and multiple sclerosis, among other illnesses and diseases, some causing death.

It’s why Dr. Laibow says “No insurance company in the world will insure against” their risks. In America, a special fund “has paid out over 2 billion dollars to parents of children killed or maimed by vaccinations.” However, the vast majority of those harmed are never compensated, and US law ‘immunizes’ drug companies from lawsuits.

Laibow adds:

“In fact, vaccines are explicitly acknowledged NOT to protect against diseases they supposedly are designed to prevent (read the Package Inserts for vaccines, available on line and in your doctors’ offices if you doubt that) and often” cause them.

Yet they continue in use because they’re so “immensely, enormously and hideously profitable,” and Big Pharma has enough clout to proliferate products that “in a rational society (should) be banned forever.”

Bioterrorism Criminal Charges Filed

On June 10, Austrian journalist Jane Burgermeister filed sweeping criminal charges with the FBI in addition to earlier ones on April 8 with the Vienna State Prosecutor’s Office against Baxter AG, Baxter International and Avir Green Hill Biotechnology AG, “for manufacturing, disseminating, and releasing a biological weapon of mass destruction on Austrian soil between December 2008 and February 2009 with the intention of causing a global bird flu pandemic virus and of intending to profit from that same pandemic in an act that violates laws on international organised crime and genocide.”

Baxter operates Biosafety Level 3 (BLS-3) labs that take strict precautions to assure no possibility of accidental H3N2 and H5N1 co-mingling contamination unless something more nefarious is afoot.

BLS-3 personnel are trained in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents and are supervised by competent scientists with extensive experience with them. In addition, these labs have specially engineered design features for added safety.

Full Story

Chinese government accused of taking babies from parents to sell on US and EU adoption markets

Chinese babies sold for adoption to US and Europe, report claims

Authorities in China are investigating reports that dozens of babies who were taken from their parents for breaching the country’s strict one-child policy were sold for adoption to families in Europe and America.

Telegraph | Jul 3, 2009

By Peter Foster in Beijing

An investigation has alleged that up to 78 babies taken into care in Guizhou province, in southern China, were sold for £1,800 each, mostly to childless couples in the US but also to families from European countries, including Sweden and Spain.

Many of the girls were genuine orphans or had been abandoned by their parents as unwanted, however, in at least three cases it is alleged the children were removed in lieu of £2,000 fines levied for breach of China’s draconian one-child policy.

The cases relate to a three-year period between 2004-2006, when the policy was being strictly enforced by the local government of Zhenyuan county in Guizhou.

The local government issued a statement saying that two senior local officials had been warned and had received “executive demerits” following a local disciplinary inquiry. The statement said the government would continue to investigate the allegations. “There will be no cover up,” the statement added.

China is a popular destination for overseas couples, particularly from the US, who want to adopt children and is generally perceived to have a well-regulated and transparent system, imposing strict requirements on applicants.

Yang Jibin, the reporter who researched the story for the Southern Weekly newspaper in Guangzhou, said he was shown a list of 80 female babies while on a visit to the Zhenyuan state orphanage, of which 78 had been adopted abroad.

He told the story of one couple, Lu and Yang, who gave up their fourth baby girl in 2003 after a visit from a birth control officer who insisted on taking the baby away, describing the girl as “abandoned baby, found and turned in by Lu” in the orphanage register.

“That was my job. I just followed the policy,” the officer was reported as saying, “They were willing to give up their baby to offset the fine” After relinquishing their child without signing any formal contracts, Lu and Yang never returned to the orphanage to visit. They added that, even if the child was now found, they would not take her back for fear of having to pay the outstanding fine.

Tang Jian, leader of Birth Control Administrative Bureau Inspection Team of Zhenyuan county apparently admitted the practice was prevalent at the time.

“It is true that some baby girls were forced be brought into the charity house and then sent abroad,” he was quoted as saying.

Other parents were less compliant when asked to give up their children. A former worker at the orphanage quoted in the report recalled one local father who tried several times to take back his daughter in 2004, even offering bribes to staff to let her go.

When this failed, he came to visit his daughter more and more often until, one day, he grabbed her, stood up and ran. “Four or five nannies surrounded him immediately and took back the baby,” the worker recalled.

Swine flu pandemic caused by “accidental leak” from laboratory

Daily Mail | Jun 30, 2009

The swine flu pandemic may have been caused by an accidental leak from a laboratory three decades ago, scientists have claimed.

An investigation into the genetic make-up of flu viruses claims the pandemic may not have occurred, had it not been for the accidental release of the same strain of influenza virus from a research lab in 1977.

The Independent reported that researchers believe this strain of the virus had been extinct in the human population for more than 20 years until it was unwittingly reintroduced by scientists.

The study in The New England Journal of Medicine said: ‘Careful study of the genetic origin of the (1977) virus showed that it was closely related to a 1950 strain, but dissimilar to influenza ‘A’ (H1N1) strains from both 1947 and 1957.

‘This finding suggested that the 1977 outbreak strain has been preserved since 1950. The re-emergence was probably an accidental release from a laboratory source.’

The strain is thought to be behind the pandemic in 1977 which began in Russia and China.

Shanta Zimmer from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania said: ‘We cannot actually pinpoint which lab had it or accidentally released it, but the re-emergence of H1N1 in 1977 made it potentially a man-made pandemic.

‘It’s a reminder that we need to be continually vigilant in terms of laboratory procedures.’

The release of the 1950s virus may have occurred after a laboratory worker became infected accidentally and then infected family and friends.

Professor John Oxford of the Royal London Hospital said the accidental release of the 1950s strain of H1N1 in 1977 is a plausible theory.

FDA weighs approval of adult psychiatric drugs for children

Officials have concerns about exposing younger patients to the drugs’ side effects.

AP | Jun 5, 2009

By MATTHEW PERRONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three blockbuster psychiatric drugs currently approved for adults also appear to work in adolescents, though federal health officials have concerns about exposing younger patients to the drugs’ side effects.

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing drugs from AstraZeneca PLC, Eli Lilly & Co. and Pfizer Inc. for use in patients between the ages of 10 and 17. The drugs — already approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar mania in adults — had combined sales of more than $7.4 billion last year, according to IMS Health.

FDA reviewers on Friday said they were wary of exposing youngsters to the drugs’ side effects, including weight gain and high blood sugar, “because they may be exposed for many decades.”

“These risks are of particular concern in pediatric patients because of the lifelong nature of these disorders,” FDA director for psychiatric products, Dr. Thomas Laughren, wrote in documents posted online.

The FDA released its review of the drugs ahead of a meeting Tuesday where outside experts will weigh in on the drugs’ risks and benefits. The agency is not required to follow the group’s advice, though it usually does.

Many doctors already prescribe the medications to children and adolescents, although regulators have not officially cleared that use. Physicians are free to prescribe medicines as they see fit, though companies can only promote them for FDA-approved indications.

AstraZeneca and Lilly are seeking permission to market their drugs for adolescents with schizophrenia and bipolar mania, also called manic depressive disorder. Pfizer is seeking a pediatric bipolar disorder indication for its drug.

FDA drug reviewers noted that the “safety profile of the pediatric population is very similar compared to that of the adult population.” And while there were no side effects unique to younger patients, there were differences in the frequency of the effects compared with adults.

In schizophrenia studies of Lilly’s Zyprexa, more than 30 percent of adolescents gained weight, compared with just 6 percent of adults. On average, adolescents gained nearly 10 pounds, compared with 6 pounds for adults.

Lilly is seeking FDA approval to market the drug as a second-line treatment, or a second option after other drugs have been tried.

Adolescent patients taking Pfizer’s Geodon were more likely to report sleepiness and dystonia, a movement disorder that causes muscle spasms. AstraZeneca noted higher rates of increased appetite and blood pressure among children and adolescents taking Seroquel compared with adults.

Despite concerns over the side effects, Laughren and other FDA officials acknowledged the need for additional drugs to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in teenagers and older children.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are serious illnesses in pediatric patients and represent substantial burden for both patients and their families,” Laughren said.

Currently only two drugs are cleared for those uses: Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Abilify and Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal. Abilify was the second best-selling anti-psychotic drug in the U.S. last year with sales of $3 billion. Risperdal was fourth with $1.6 billion in sales.

Schizophrenia affects about 2.4 million Americans and is characterized by hallucinations, delusions and social withdrawal, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. About 5.7 million Americans experience bipolar disorder, which causes rapid mood swings and shifts in energy.

‘They stole my little girl,’ says mother judged too stupid to care for her baby

The adoption is going ahead despite a recent psychiatrist’s report which declared that the 24-year-old has ‘good literacy and numeracy and that her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range’.

Daily Mail | May 31, 2009

By Andy Dolan

A young mother who was judged too stupid to care for her own baby has accused social workers of ’stealing’ the child from her.

The woman, who must be identified only as Rachel for legal reasons, is taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to halt the adoption of the child, now aged three.

She has told the Mail that she was bitterly unhappy with her treatment at the hands of social workers at Nottingham City Council.

Her daughter, referred to only as K, was born three months prematurely with severe medical complications. Officials felt the first-time mother lacked the intelligence to cope with the child and care for her in safety.

K was eventually discharged from hospital and given to a foster family.

But although her health has now improved to the point where she needs little or no day-to-day care, the child is due to be handed to adoptive parents within three months.

Rachel will then be barred from further contact.

The adoption is going ahead despite a recent psychiatrist’s report which declared that the 24-year-old has ‘good literacy and numeracy and that her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range’.

It said the unemployed former cleaner had no previous history of learning disability or mental illness.

The single mother told the Mail that she had been ‘totally let down’ by the system.

She said: ‘Social workers and the psychologist keep saying I have got learning difficulties but I do not. They go after the wrong people. There are people out there harming children. All I want to do is look after mine but they will not let me.

‘That girl has been stolen from me. They might have stamped all the paperwork, but she has effectively been stolen from me.’

After a hearing earlier this month, a family court judge reduced her contact visits with K from 90 minutes every fortnight to five minutes a month in preparation for the adoption.

Rachel’s battle was compounded by the fact a psychologist concluded that her ‘learning difficulties’ would leave her unable to instruct her own solicitor.

As a result, Alastair Pitblado, the Official Solicitor, who acts for those who cannot represent themselves, was called in. He declined to contest the council’s adoption application, despite Rachel’s wish to do so.

She told appeal court judges last year that the Official Solicitor’s involvement had reduced her to a ’spectator’ in the case, even though she had the mental capacity to take part.

A study last year found that Rachel’s IQ was rated at 71 – the IQ of an ‘average’ adult is 90-109.

Rachel will claim at the European Court that the lack of a fair hearing and the enforced adoption has infringed her human rights.

Social workers first raised doubts about Rachel’s parenting capabilities soon after her daughter was born with chronic lung disease and other complications.

They were ‘concerned’ that she initially only visited the baby for one or two hours each day.

K was discharged from hospital aged six months into the care of the foster parents she remains with today.

The child’s father, aged 66, has no contact with his daughter and he and Rachel are no longer together.

Rachel is being supported by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, a vocal critic of the family justice system.

Mr Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, said Rachel had been ’swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit’.

The council wanted Rachel to remain anonymous, but she successfully argued that allowing her first name and picture to be used would allow the case to be discussed publicly.

The Daily Mail has long campaigned for greater openness in the family courts.

In February last year, Nottingham City Council conceded social workers had acted illegally in removing a baby boy two hours after his birth because no court order had been sought.

The council claimed that the mother’s troubled childhood and mental health problems threatened the baby’s welfare.

Nottingham City Council said that adoption cases were ‘decided by the courts, taking into account all the information presented by all parties and putting the future welfare of the child as the priority’.

After suicide of 7-year-old, agency finds serious shortcomings in monitoring of foster children on psychotropic drugs

Review finds shortfalls in monitoring of foster children on psychiatric drugs

13.19 percent, are taking one or more psychotropic medications

St. Petersburg Times | May 29, 2009

By Kris Hundley

Spurred by the shocking suicide of a 7-year-old on psychiatric drugs, the agency in charge of Florida’s foster children has discovered serious shortcomings in its monitoring of kids on such powerful prescriptions.

After reviewing its files, the Department of Children and Families determined it had undercounted the number of foster kids on such medications as Risperdal and Adderall, overlooking hundreds of cases.

It also has failed to meet its legal requirement that such prescriptions be given only after parental consent or court order.

On Thursday, DCF said a review of the files of more than 20,000 children currently in the state’s foster care showed 2,669, or 13.19 percent, are taking one or more psychotropic medications.

That compares with about 4 or 5 percent of children in the general population who are on such prescriptions.

Of those foster children taking drugs, DCF discovered 16 percent had no proof either a parent or judge had signed off on the prescription, as required by a 2005 Florida law.

“That is unacceptable,” said DCF Secretary George Sheldon. “We’re going to bring every single case of a foster child on drugs into compliance with the law.”

Concerns about pediatric use of antipsychotic and antidepressants such as Adderall and Risperdal have been growing along with increased warnings of such side effects as suicide, diabetes and weight gain. Few of the drugs have been tested or approved by the FDA for children, though physicians can prescribe them for this age group.

Robin Rosenberg, a Tampa lawyer and deputy director of Florida’s Children First, said advocacy groups like hers have been fighting for oversight of psychotropic drugs for years. “We’re not as far along as we should have been if the state had followed up on serious concerns starting in the late 1990s,” she said. “It’s a shame we’re in this place today.”

Sheldon, who was named to the top job at DCF in October, left no doubt that he had been deeply affected by Gabriel Myers, the 7-year-old who hanged himself on a shower hose in South Florida in mid April. The boy was in his third foster home and on Vyvanse, a medication for ADHD, as well as Symbyax, a combination antipsychotic and antidepressant.

Though his caseworker repeatedly said Gabriel’s mother had agreed to the medications, that was not true. The boy’s psychotropic medications also had not been entered in the state’s tracking system.

To correct ongoing problems, Sheldon set a deadline of June 5 for action on cases without consent. This could include scheduling new doctors’ appointments, gaining informed consent from parents or expediting a judge’s review of the prescription.

Sheldon said he also was going to focus on the cases of 73 children under age 6 found to be on psychotropic drugs.

“I want a sense of urgency, but I also want to get it right,” he said. “I want to move forward, but I think it’s important for the agency to apologize for misinformation it may have put out in the past.”

Flaws in DCF’s record-keeping became clear in the immediate aftermath of Gabriel’s death. An initial review of the state’s database showed only 1,950 kids on psychotropic prescriptions. After a thorough review of individual records, however, that number grew by more than 700.

Preliminary data released in mid May also showed some questionable dates on judicial consent. Though it’s not inconceivable a judge might sign an order on a Saturday or Sunday, early returns showed weekend consent orders on 129 occasions.

The final database, including information on types of drugs and diagnoses, was not available Thursday. Sheldon said a summary of the drug data would be posted on the DCF Web site and updated weekly.

“I’ve got a lot more confidence in these numbers than I had two weeks ago,” he said. “But any database is only as good as the quality of the information being put into it.”

One ongoing area of concern, Sheldon said, is the validity of any consent given by parents whose kids are in the state’s custody.

“A parent whose child is taken into our care is going to sign virtually anything and that’s not informed consent,” he said. “My preference is that the biological parent have a dialogue with the psychiatrist.”

Now that DCF has a handle on the number of foster children on psychotropic drugs, Sheldon said the department can begin to address the bigger issue of the efficacy of such drugs.

He has asked an independent panel investigating Gabriel Myers’ death to make recommendations on improving DCF’s oversight of these medications. Sheldon said a second-party review of all such prescriptions might be necessary; currently, only prescriptions for kids under age 6 require such review.

DCF has set up a page on its Web site that tracks the progress of the panel investigation into the boy’s suicide. The page includes a photo of the smiling boy.

“We have his face on the screen watching us to see how well we learned from his life and death,” Sheldon said. “We cannot let him down.”

Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population

Bill Gates with Warren Buffett. Associated Press

Some are raising the specter of eugenics.

Wall Street Journal | May 26, 2009

By Robert Frank

Last week’s meeting of the Great and the Good (or the Richest and Richer) was bound to draw criticism.

The New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and others was described by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as an informal gathering aimed at encouraging philanthropy. Just a few billionaires getting together for drinks and dinner and a friendly chat about how to promote charitable giving.

There was no agenda, we were told. And no plan for a follow-up meeting.

But in an age of fallen wealth idols, it was inevitable that a meeting of billionaire minds would draw scrutiny. Surely all that money and power in one room had to spell trouble for the rest of us.

An article in the Times of London, headlined “Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb World Population,” said the issues discussed in the top-secret meeting included health care, education and–by far the most controversial–slowing the global population growth.

“Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” the article said, adding that “this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.”

Such a stand wouldn’t be surprising. Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people, rather than the projected 9.3 billion at which the population is expected to peak.

But some right-leaning blogs have started attacking the billionaires as forming a kind of secret sterilization society or giant ATM to fund abortions. It fed into time-honored fears of the rich using their wealth to reshape mankind in its preferred image. Some are raising the specter of eugenics.

I am not taking a stand on population control. But from what I was personally told about the meeting–and what the Times spells out further down in its story–population control was just one of many items raised during the meeting, as each philanthropist talked about what they were working on. It wasn’t the reason for meeting and there are no real plans for a follow-up confab.

The notion that this secret gathering was aimed mostly at shrinking the world’s population just doesn’t ring true.

That said, almost all of the attendees are politically liberal. Do you think this Star Chamber of Philanthropists is something to worry about or something to be grateful for?

Full Story

Genetically modified monkeys raise ethical questions

Genetically modified monkeys pass new genetic profile to offspring

Washington Post | May 27, 2009

By Rob Stein

WASHINGTON — Scientists have created the first genetically modified monkeys that can pass their new genetic attributes to their offspring, an advance designed to give researchers new tools for studying human disease but one that raises a host of thorny ethical questions.

In this case, the Japanese researchers simply added genes that caused the animals to glow green under a fluorescent light and beget offspring with the same spooky ability in order to test a technique they hope to use to produce animals with Parkinson’s, Huntington’s and other diseases.

The work, described in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature, was hailed by some medical researchers as a long-sought milestone that could lead to crucial insights into a host of ailments and provide invaluable ways to test new treatments.

But the research was condemned by animal rights proponents, who said it paves the way for the producing colonies of primates conceived expressly to suffer a plethora of cruel illnesses and undergo potentially painful and dangerous medical experiments.

Because the work marks the first time a species so closely related to humans has been genetically altered in this way, some also worried the same techniques would be used on chimps or other primates even closer to humans or to try to endow people with desirable genetic traits.

“It’s hard to put your finger on what is it about this research that is likely to stimulate ethical debate besides the sort of gut feeling that this is not the right thing to do,” said Mark Rothstein, a bioethicist at the University of Louisville. “But I think we’d better contemplate where this research is going and develop policies to deal with it before it slaps us in the face.”

Scientists have genetically engineered many other species to be as research tools. Mice in particular have been created with a wide assortment of characteristics and diseases that mimic human ailments. But because mice are so genetically different from humans, scientists have long sought to breed primates to provide better disease “models.” Although scientists have been able to genetically modify individual monkeys, they had never before succeeded in getting the new traits to pass down through generations — a crucial step for creating large enough numbers for research.

In the new work, Erika Sasakim of the Central Institute for Experimental Animals in Kawasaki, and her colleagues conducted a series of experiments using marmosets, a small monkey common in South America that matures and reproduces quickly.

The researchers modified a virus called a lentivirus to carry a jellyfish gene known as GFP (for green fluorescent protein) into the genetic material of the marmosets’ cells. The gene is used commonly in research because it is easy to track — cells where the gene is active glow green when exposed to fluorescent light.

The researchers used the genetically engineered virus to insert the jellyfish gene into 80 marmoset embryos, which they then transferred into the wombs of 50 females. Seven pregnancies resulted in five offspring, four of which showed signs of the jellyfish gene in their hair roots, skin, blood cells and other tissues. Under fluorescent light, the skin on the soles of their feet glowed bright green.

Most importantly, eggs from one of the females and sperm from one of the males had the gene, and the researchers reported in the scientific paper that male’s sperm was used to produce at least one second-generation offspring with the gene — a male named Kouichi whose skin glowed green under the light.

In a telephone briefing for reporters, the researchers said they had since produced four offspring — two from the male and two from the female — three of which glowed green.

“We believe this is the first case that is ever established in the world that has an introduced gene that is successfully translated to the next generation in a primate,” said Hideyuki Okano of Keio University School of Medicine.

Some other researchers said the work marked a crucial landmark.

“The birth of this transgenic marmoset baby is undoubtedly a milestone,” wrote Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh and Shoukrat Mitalipov of the Oregon Health and Sciences University in an article published with the Japanese paper.

But others criticized the work.

“These non-human primates already suffer in laboratories when we infect them with diseases and when we use them in toxicology tests,” said Eric Kleiman of In Defense of Animals, an international animal protection organization based on San Rafael, Calif. “Instead of manipulating the genes of marmosets or other non human primates, why aren’t scientists harnessing the power of the human genome or any of the other technology that has exploded over the last 10 years. This is a step backward, not a step forward.”

Even some who do not necessarily oppose the use of animals in research said the work raised concerns, including whether the technique could blur the lines between species.

“At some point, how many human genes in a marmoset or rhesus monkey or macaque or whatever does it take to form a new species — a species that is part human at its basis?” Rothstein said.

Even though there has long been a taboo against making genetic changes in people that could be passed down through generations, the new work makes that prospect more likely, others said.

“This is proof-of-concept in a closely related species,” said Lori Andrews, who studies reproductive technologies at the Chicago Kent College of Law of the Illinois Institute of Technology. “It would be easy enough for someone to make the leap to trying this on humans.”

“There’s clearly the potential to try to use this to try to upgrade people,” Andrews said. “Some in the future might want to put a gene into humans to give them the running speed of a cheetah, for example, or maybe create the potential for night vision. There is a huge market — bigger than Prozac or Viagra.”

Andrews noted that reproductive technologies are largely unregulated in the United States.

“This is just another reason why we need to go behind the doors of the IVF clinics and create an oversight mechanism that works,” Andrews said.

“There are always people who want to improve the human race. It’s called eugenics and it has a bad history,” said Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College “Every time I see a piece of technology that facilitates possibly genetically engineering humans I’m concerned about it.”

Other researchers agreed that animal research should be kept to a minimum but argued that it is impossible to get answer many key questions any other way. Creating better animal models could end up reducing the overall number of animals needed for research, they said.

“In the end, if we have good models, we may end up using less animals and we may end up having better answers to for what we are looking for,” said Anthony Chan, a geneticist at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University who helped create a rhesus monkey with Huntington’s disease.

But Chan agreed that steps should be taken to make sure the technology is not used on people.

“We should never do it in humans,” Chan said. “We don’t want to change our evolutionary path. That would have a profound impact on the next generation.”

US Doctors’ association calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods

financialsense.com | May 21, 2009

by F. William Engdahl

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods. In a just-released position paper on GMO foods, the AAEM states that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk’ and calls for a moratorium on GMO foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes ‘there is more than a casual association between GMO foods and adverse health effects’ and that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.’ The report is a devastating blow to the multibillion dollar international agribusiness industry, most especially to Monsanto Corporation, the world’s leading purveyor of GMO seeds and related herbicides.

In a press release dated May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which describes itself as ‘an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health,’ called immediately for the following emergency measures to be taken regarding human consumption of GMO foods:

* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.

* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.

* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients’ disease processes.

* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.

The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that ‘Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.’ The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that ‘Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.

The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.’ The AAEM’s position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.

The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology ‘abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.’

The AAEM paper further states, ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’

They add, ‘There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.’

GMO is toxic

The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:

‘Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. ‘

The AAEM study also reviewed the biotechnology industry claims that GMO foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. It cited contrary evidence that the opposite appeared to be true, namely that over time GMO harvest yields were lower than conventional yields and required over time, more not less, highly toxic herbicidal chemicals such as glyphosate. The report noted, ‘The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.’ However, the slight yield gain for Bt corn they report was ‘largely due to traditional breeding improvements,’ and not to GMO.

They conclude that because GMO foods ‘pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’

Under intense public pressure, the German Minister of Agriculture recently issued a prohibition of planting for Monsanto MON810 GMO corn. Unfortunately, two weeks later she permitted planting of GMO potato seeds. Amflora, a genetically modified potato manufactured by chemicals giant BASF (a joint venture GMO partner of Monsanto), was declared by the German Ministry as posing ‘no danger for human health or the environment,’ The Ministry cited ‘in-depth examination’ and talks with scientific and economic experts as basis for the reckless decision.

The publication of the sensational critique of GMO by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has been greeted with stone silence by most major US media and international press.

Genetically Modified Foods Pose Huge Health Risk

opposingviews.com | May 20, 2009

By Institute for Responsible Technology

LOS ANGELES — This week, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[xiii] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.” Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen, and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[xxvii] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.