Medical journals complicit in corruption of medicine

By The Alliance for Human Research Protection

We are no longer "blowin' in the wind." A growing number of prominent physician-scientists, including several former journal editors, and New York Times columnists, have written sobering critiques about the corrupting impact pharmaceutical industry influence has had on medicine.

For years, the Alliance for Human Research Protection has been disseminating news reports documenting the corrosive impact the intermingling of academic medicine and the pharmaceutical industry has had on the integrity of medical research and clinical practice. In 2002, I made a presentation about conflicts of interest at a symposium sponsored by the U.S. Army Medical Department, in which I included my "dirty dozen" corrupt research review practices that undermine both the safety of human subjects and the integrity of the research findings.

When we observed that not only the pharmaceutical industry, but physician-scientists, academic institutions, and medical journals are all invested in "keeping up appearances" rather than preserving the integrity of science, and honest medicine, we were ridiculed or dismissed as being "anti-science." 

We are no longer "blowin' in the wind." A growing number of prominent physician-scientists, including several former journal editors, and New York Times columnists, have written sobering critiques about the corrupting impact pharmaceutical industry influence has had on medicine. That influence has debased the integrity of medical research, clinical practice and medicine's institutions.

"The Truth About Drug Companies" (2004) an influential book by Marcia Angell, MD, who had been the editor of The New England Journal for two decades, laid bare the ubiquitous influence industry has on medicine.Doctors "on the take" [to borrow the title of a book (2005) by another former editor of the NEJM, Jerome Kassirer, MD] are encouraged to promote and widely prescribe clinically worthless drugs for untested uses, without regard for the serious harm caused patients.

Although industry's cash inducements have corrupted both individual doctors, universities, professional associations, and industry front groups that masquerade as "patient advocates," those most responsible for the corruption of medicine are medicine's academic leaders, prestigious medical institutions, journal editors, experts charged with formulating practice guidelines, and federal oversight agencies--in particular, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control.

When academia and government agencies became stakeholders in the business of medicine, promoting the commercial interests of manufacturers, rather than the public interest, they betrayed the public trust and their professional integrity. 

Richard Smith, MD, the former editor of the BMJ (for 25 years) has been an outspoken critic focusing in particular on the role journal editors have played in the corruption of medicine. His book, The Trouble With Medical Journals, 2004, describes journal editors' unacknowledged significant conflicts of interest.

Readers of the New York Times got a dose of reality in 2006, when Lawrence Altman, MD, the paper's senior medical reporter, wrote a scathing appraisal of science journal editors' poor performance in maintaining scientific integrity. Altman lifted the veil of illusion to reveal that the scientific fraternity has vested financial and political interests in maintaining an illusion that "passing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval." Journal editors recoil at suggestions that the reviewing process for scientific reports itself be tested in accordance with scientific methods. They reject conducting random audits “like those used to monitor quality control in medicine,” citing costs and “the potential for creating distrust.”

Yet, Altman wrote: "even the system's most ardent supporters acknowledge that peer review does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed the very test for which it is used... If peer review were a drug, it would never be marketed, say critics, including journal editors." See, "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap."

In 2005, Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton and a New York Times columnist, wrote, Drugs, Devices and Doctor s the Vioxx crisis at Merck, and the Cleveland Clinic's firing of Dr. Eric Topol, who, in sworn testimony, accused Merck of scientific misconduct. Krugman pointed out that the real story behind the Merck-Cleveland Clinic scandal "is bigger than either the company or the clinic. It's the story of how growing conflicts of interest may be distorting both medical research and health care in general."

"The economic logic of the medical-industrial complex is straightforward. Prescription drugs and high-technology medical devices account for a growing share of medical spending. Both are products that are expensive to develop but relatively cheap to make. So the profit from each additional unit sold is large, giving their makers a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to persuade doctors and hospitals to choose their products."

Surely, healthcare reform in the absence of any measures aimed at stemming the corruption will not improve anyone's health.

A recent article in PLoS Medicine "Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study" (abstract below) confirms that industry's influence injects bias into medical journals.

The PLoS study examined industry influence in 6 major medical journals--Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, they identified randomized trials published in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006, categorized by the type of financial support.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000354

They found that the proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals: from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005–2006. Industry-supported clinical trials are far more frequently cited than trials with other types of support. Furthermore, a journal's impact factor--not to mention, its profit-margin--is greatly enhanced from publication of industry-sponsored clinical trial reports.

The authors' conclusion and recommendation: "Publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact."

In his BMJ blog, Richard Smith, MD sheds light on the magnitude of undisclosed financial stakes for journal editors with one convincing example. Conflicts of interest arise when considering an article about a large clinical trial funded by a drug company. He informs us that a third of the trials in the NEJM are funded by industry with almost another half having mixed funding that includes a drug company.

"Editors know well that they may be able to sell a million dollars worth of reprints of such an article, with a profit margin of perhaps 70%. In other words publishing that one paper will lead to $700 000 on the bottom line. Very few actions in business provide such a substantial profit from so little."

Industry's financial influence stacks the deck overwhelmingly in its favor: cash payments buy high impact value. Wide dissemination of commercially-driven reports published in prestigious journals ensure that they will be highly influential--i.e., have high impact--drowning out any independent analyses contradicting industry's sponsored reports that were designed to promote marketing goals. This symbiotic relationship between industry and journals has polluted the medical literature and debased the practice of therapeutic medicine.

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

See, Marcia Angell, MD, Drug Companies, Doctors, a Story of Corruption , New York Review of Books.

See also, http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/733/61/

Vera Hassner Sharav

BMJ & Lancet wedded to Merck CME partnership

By The Alliance for Human Research Protection

Why did the BMJ (British Medical Journal) fail to disclose its partnership agreement with Merck, major vaccine manufacturer--13 vaccines, including the controversial MMR vaccine ? 

Is it just conceivably possible, that the BMJ's decision to commission and publish Brian Deer's series of articles attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield's personal and scientific integrity--and lend its unwavering editorial endorsement--without giving him an opportunity to defend himself--might be influenced by a SIGNIFICANT financial conflict of interest?

The discovery that a psychiatry textbook penned by two influential academics who gained notoriety, was actually ghostwritten shocked Dr. David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, who called it "a new level of chutzpah [that] takes your breath away."

How about the discovery that in 2008, the pharmaceutical giant, Merck--using its tradename, MSD signed a partnership agreement with the BMJ Group that effectively gave the company control of 350 interactive continuing medical education courses in over 20 medical therapy areas?

"This unique partnership will change the face of medical education in Europe and beyond, allowing users access to most of BMJ Learning's library of 'Continuing Medical Education' (CME) and 'Continuing Professional Development' (CPD) content. The agreement between MSD and BMJ Group comprises about 350 interactive learning courses in over 20 medical therapy areas."

Why did the BMJ fail to disclose its partnership agreement with Merck?

Why did the BMJ conceal from readers-- of the Brian Deer series of articles and the BMJ editorial excoriating Dr. Andrew Wakefield, charging him with deliberate fraud and financial conflict of interest-- the fact that the BMJ had a partnership with Merck, a major manufacturer of vaccines--including the MMR vaccine, which is at the center of the Wakefield controversy? 

In 2009, Univadis, a Merck trademark, entered into a partnership with The Lancet providing "medical education and an information website."

"Through a unique global medical literature service called Just Published, clinical specialists registered on Univadis ®will receive free access to the full text of recently published articles from The Lancet. This new service will be available on www.univadis.com

I don't think it a stretch to suggest--as for Martin Walker does (below) that: 

"Linking Univadis ® /Merck with the BMJ and The Lancet inevitably links them both to Merck's VIS (Vaccine Information Service) online — 'a comprehensive source of information, especially designed to provide healthcare professionals with the answers to their questions on vaccines.'"

The fact that BMJ and The Lancet-- two of the most prestigious international medical journals would enter into a medical education partnership with the drug manufacturer whose staff drew up a "doctor hit list" to intimidate doctors who dared to discuss the lethal cardiac risks linked to Vioxx--is in itself a betrayal of trust of the worst sort.

The stated purpose of the Merck / BMJ/ Lancet partnerships that remained hidden from readers' view, is to "change the face of medical education in Europe and beyond." 

The BMJ editorial accompanying Deer's articles, did its best to lend authority to the vaccine industry (Merck's) perspective. In an introductory sound bite the editors declare: 

"Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare."

Finally, the Statement about Competing Interests at the end of the BMJ Editorial claims compliance with conflict of interest disclosure requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. But the BMJ editor in chief and two deputy editors conceal rather than disclose the most relevant financial conflict of interest:

"Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form atwww.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years

Posted by Vera Hassner Sharav

Merck Vaccines for Children: :

AFLURIA® (Influenza Virus Vaccine)

COMVAX® [Haemophilus b Conjugate (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate) and Hepatitis B (Recombinant) Vaccine] 

GARDASIL® [Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant] 

M-M-R®II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) 

PedvaxHIB® [Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate)] 

PNEUMOVAX®23 (Pneumococcal Vaccine Polyvalent) 

ProQuad® (Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella Virus Vaccine Live)

RECOMBIVAX HB® [Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant)]

RotaTeq® (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral, Pentavalent) 

Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids Adsorbed 

VAQTA® (Hepatitis A Vaccine, Inactivated) 

VARIVAX® (Varicella Virus Vaccine Live) 

ZOSTAVAX® (Zoster Vaccine Live)

"Statins for all"- and billions for drug firms

By James Le Fanu

The Telegraph

Prescribing them to the healthy may not have saved lives, but it certainly made money.

Back in 1975, Henry Gadsden, the chief executive of the drug company Merck, expressed his frustration that the market for his company's products was limited to those with some treatable illness. Ideally, he said, he would like to "sell to everyone".

Three decades later, his dream would seem to have come true – epitomised by the most profitable class of drugs ever discovered, the cholesterol-lowering statins that are taken by an estimated seven million people in Britain, and tens of millions worldwide.

Statins are frequently portrayed as the wonder drugs of our age, whose role in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes prevents tens of thousands of deaths per year. But not according to the most recent review of the many trials investigating their effectiveness, published yesterday. It suggests that for three quarters of those taking them, they offer little or no value, while exposing millions to the hazard of undesirable side-effects.

But if that is the case, how did statins become so popular? Their remarkable rise is tribute to the success of the immensely rich and powerful drug companies in pursuing their goal of "mass medicalisation". The story starts with the arrival of "cholesterol consciousness": the thesis that those indulging in (for example) bacon and eggs for breakfast boosted the cholesterol level in the blood, causing the arteries to become narrow, and making a heart attack more likely.

Although this idea has its critics, there is no doubt that the small proportion of the population with a genetic predisposition towards high cholesterol levels are at greater risk of circulatory disorders. Encouraging them to switch to a healthy diet had failed to lower that risk – so the idea gained ground that cholesterol-lowering drugs might be the answer.

And so it turned out. The first statin, Lovastatin, was launched in America in 1987. It was accompanied by a national education programme run by a panel of independent experts, which encouraged everyone to drop into their doctor to get their cholesterol checked, and to take medication if it was found to be raised. By the mid-1990s, statins were generating $3 billion a year. Today, that is $26 billion – a single class of drugs producing more revenue than Google.

The key to this extraordinary phenomenon has been the amazing success of the drug companies in persuading doctors and the public that, just as the high-risk minority benefited from lower cholesterol, so would everyone else. Here, two factors have been of particular significance. First, several drug companies, recognising the bounteous potential of Lovastatin, promptly came up with their own versions. In the subsequent scramble to secure a share of the market, the clinical trails also served as an ingenious and highly successful form of marketing. Given catchy titles, they were organised on a massive scale, involving up to 10,000 patients. The effect of the inevitably favourable results, announced with great razzmatazz at major medical conferences, generated evangelical enthusiasm for the project of "statins for all".

An even more important factor, especially in the US, was the drive to establish "clinical practice guidelines", under which panels would set the optimal treatment for any given condition. Successive guidelines have forced the "normal" level of cholesterol ever lower, resulting in leaps in the numbers deemed eligible for treatment. In the US, the figure went from 15 million to 40 million. After it was pointed out that those responsible for the most recent guidelines had failed to declare any potential conflicts of interest, it subsequently emerged that most of them had received research grants or consultancy fees from the drug companies involved in manufacturing statins.

In Britain, similar guidelines require doctors to measure the cholesterol level of any patient dropping in to see them for any reason, irrespective of their age. We GPs have not only been ordered to commence treatment where deemed appropriate, but are given a financial incentive for doing so. This has perhaps proved a step too far, as it has led to statins being widely prescribed to the otherwise fit and healthy. Often, this is where the side-effects appear: those previously accustomed to taking regular exercise have reported being reduced to a state of near decrepitude by muscular aches and pains, while the alert suffered memory lapses of such severity as to suggest incipient dementia.

What is the bottom line? First, that there are strong theoretical grounds for supposing that statins are not nearly as effective in preventing heart disease and strokes as they are portrayed. This certainly applies to the vast majority of users, whose cholesterol is deemed "high" by the guidelines, but who are otherwise healthy. The main finding of this new review, and a similar one last year, is that for such people, statins have no effect on mortality either way. In contrast, for men – but not women – under 70 with a history of heart problems, they do indeed save lives.

It would be good to think that this saga might prompt some soul-searching among doctors about the adverse consequence of the over-intimate relationship that has developed between the profession's "key opinion leaders" (as they are known in the pharmaceutical business) and the drug companies. We will see.

1 comment:

Statins represent the totally ruthless approach to marketing by Big Pharma with drugs that can do more harm than good, and GPs compliant because of the pressure on them. Lets first establish the fact that 75% of heart attack victims have normal choloesterol levels so the question is what causes them? Certainly not cholesterol. Cholesterol is itself absolutely essential for body, heart and brain health. Inflamation and oxydation can cause problems so these are major triggers. Homocysteine is a major trigger but these can be neutralised by vitamin B1, folate and vitamin B12 - but in healthy amounts which are 30 times greater than the totally nonsensical recommended daily amounts (RDA) which are at the opposite spectrum to optimal health.

Arterial health is dependent on optimal nutrition especially vitamin C, and again in quantities much greater than the RDA which only just prevents scurvy - but not coronary heart disease. Arteries are flexing in direct response to every heart beat so frequently little bits peel off from the arterial wall and are replaced if nutrition is adequate - that is substantially greater than RDAs. If not adequate then the brain instructs cholesterol to fill the gaps which means that after time the arteries start to get thicker and loose their normal flexibility and high blood pressure results. In addition pieces of cholesterol can break off the arterial wall and create strokes and heart attacks.

As will be seen statins are not the main solution but are a major cause of ill health and death - yes death! Allow me to explain. Cholesterol is produced by the liver when needed and when functioning properly. The brain has its own production of cholesterol as a safety factor because cholesterol is also vital for brain health. Statins reduce production of cholesterol from the liver and brain. IN addition statins reduce another vital substance produced by the liver called CoEnzymeCoQ10. This enzyme is absolutely vital for cellular health - that is every one of the 100 trillion cells in your body and brain. Every cell has fuel sources called mitochondria without which they cannot function properly and if the fault is not rectified it results in cell death. CoEnzymeCoQ10 is a vital fuel source for the mitochondria. When cellular levels drop because of statins, alarming side effects result, many of which are mentioned here. Sadly, omitted, is congestive heart failure and when the patient (victim) dies, which is a frequent occurrence, the cause of death on the death certificate states myocardial infarction, but not statins. AS the heart muscle is the hardest working muscle in the body, every cell contains a very high number of mitochondria so serious problems will occur when it cannot obtain adequate levels of CoEnzymeQ10.

When statins were first marketed, a pharmaceutical company patented a combination of statin and CoEnzymeQ10 on the basis they knew what the drug (statin) would do to the mitochondria, but in the end did not market the combination product. All manufacturers should be well aware of what the serious consequences are for reducing supplies of vital CoEnzymeQ10 to all cells in the body, but none to my knowledge have promoted this enzyme in order to save lives. Of course, CoEnzymeQ10 is a natural product so cannot be patented and therefore is of no interest to Big Pharma because they cannot make mega profits. Just as the B vitamins are natural and cannot be patented but can successfully halt homocysteine, Big Pharma come up with statins which are patentable. This practice is reflected accross the full spectrum of drug manufacture.

Big Pharma virtually control the medical profession, including the regulators, which is why their biggest competitor, nutritional medicine and herbal medicine are under attack under the totally false guise of safety. No one has ever died from nutrients/vitamins, but it is estimated that every year 20,000 die, 100,000 are hospitalised and 1,000,000 injured evey year by taking drugs as prescribed by their GP. In addition there are the 40,000 killed in hospitals because of accidents and infections such as MRSA.

Drugs as produced by Big Pharma are primarilly designed to treat symptoms and not to cure the illness. Over 50% are no better than a placebo, but placebo's do not harm and kill. Drug manufacturers carry out their own research and present results to the regulators for licensing, but these results are all to frequently exposed subsequently as being economical with the truth, because safety fears become evident after market release. This is called the GOLD standard of medicine.

Full marks to Dr Le Fanu and The Daily Telegraph for this lead article exposing at long last the travesty that is statins.

Vaccines - overdosed babies

King Corn

The disastrous US food supply starting with GMO corn. All those millions of acres of GMO corn planted is NOT food. It is basically a raw material for the food and meat industry. The US industrial agriculture is basically growing fast food. 

"We are growing crap! The poorest quality the world has ever seen! We don't eat the corn we grow. Not safe."

And it's all subsidized by the government because the farmers are actually making a loss by producing corn.

All in all, the US government is funding an industrial agriculture and food production that is making millions of Americans sick!

Oh, by the way, they started selling this cheap crap to the EU too.

Bon appetite! 

Official site.

Please report suspicious activity at Wal-Mart (satire)

By Mike Adams
Natural News

Vaccines found to activate moron genes that cause further belief in vaccines (satire)

By Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Weekend satire special:

New research accidentally conducted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has discovered that vaccines activate the "moron" genes that normally lie dormant in human beings. Once activated, these "moron genes" cause individuals to lose higher brain function and the ability to question false information fed to them by doctors, drug companies and the media. This, in turn, results in even more people pursuing repeated vaccines, further causing expression of the moron genes, over and over again, until their brain function collapses to the level of a raw vegetable... otherwise known as a "voter."

Because of their disastrous effects on higher brain function, these vaccines are now being called "Moron Vaccines."

Moron Vaccines contain all the usual ingredients of flu vaccines and MMR vaccines, including methyl mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and DNA fragments from diseased monkey organs. (This is truly what's found in other vaccines...)

But Moron Vaccines have one ingredient that's slightly different. As Dr. All Proffit, a leading vaccine patent holder, explained, "Moron Vaccines are much like regular vaccines, except instead of taking diseased material from infected cows and monkeys, we take brain cell samples from existing morons which are easy to find among our colleagues. We then weaken those brain cells to make them even more moronic, and then we inject them into infants and children, mixed with a bit of mercury to make sure it targets the neurological system for maximum effectiveness."

The result? As Bill Gates explains, "Billions of children each year are being saved from IBFD." IBFD is short for "Intelligent Brain Function Disorder. It is an affliction affecting hundreds of millions of people each year, causing them to achieve dangerously high levels of cognitive function that causes them to ask inappropriate questions about vaccines such as, "Why have vaccines never been tested against non-vaccinated children?" Or, "Why do vaccines cause some children and teens to collapse into autism, comas or death?" Or, "Why don't flu vaccines actually prevent flu symptoms in 99 out of 100 people who receive them?"

Those questions have no place in today's medical system, where the correct answer to every disease is -- as doctors are routinely taught -- "More vaccines!"

"The population is too intelligent for its own good," Dr. Proffit added. "The only way to keep people in line with the expectations of Big Government, Big Pharma and America's top employers such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart is to increase the moron density in America through a determined, long-term vaccination program carried out with the help of doctors and government medical authorities."

To financially support that program, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is investing over fifty billion dollars to roll out Moron Vaccines on a global scale. "This will help ensure that more people buy Microsoft products," explained Gates. "Because if they regain higher brain function, they might be tempted to run Linux instead."

The FDA granted approval to the Moron Vaccines based on the scientific clinical trial data provided by the maker of the vaccines, most of which was, believe it or not, fabricated by morons. "This is why the data are so consistently reliable," explained the company CEO. "When you're studying Moron Vaccines, who better to offer an experienced perspective than an actual moron posing as a research scientist?"

The FDA was influenced in its decision to approve the vaccines by the CDC, which recently warned that America was "suffering from an epidemic of critical thinking" that threatened the future of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve, and the vaccine industry in particular. The source of this epidemic has been traced to Rep. Ron Paul, of course.

"People who think for themselves are a threat to the U.S. government, and they are causing problems at airports, too," said DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. "That's why we've partnered with the FDA to make sure that those suffering from Intelligent Brain Function Disorder are offered 'treatment' at every opportunity."

As part of that government treatment program, IBFD screening centers are now being erected at the airports, sports stadiums and Wal-Mart stores. Interestingly, Wal-Mart stores have so far found exactly zero people at their stores who suffer from Intelligent Brain Function Disorder. Apparently, all Wal-Mart shoppers are already cured. (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5A4B5...)

The TSA announced it would no longer hire anyone suffering from IBFD and would only hire workers after they have been injected with the Moron Vaccine. "Is is very important that TSA agents have achieved the lower IQs necessary for them to carry out their jobs of molesting air travelers," TSA head John Pistole explained. "We cannot have our agents suffering from moments of cognitive awareness while they're touching your junk. People who work in government security are better off if they simply do what they're told without asking intelligent questions or citing the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is a highly complex collection of sequential words that none of us can decode anymore thanks to the Moron Vaccines."

Moron Vaccines are now mandatory in medical schools, where they are given to would-be doctors are part of an indoctrination ritual. They're also mandatory in public schools, where children are being educated just enough to be obedient workers but not enough to actually question what role they're playing in the grand consumerism economic raping of the planet in the name of corporate profits.

Walgreens stores are offering Moron Vaccine Gift Cards so that you can give the gift of lower brain function to a friend or family member. If grandma is acting up again, a vaccination targeting her higher brain function may be just the ticket to a joyful, loving family picnic. That "Grandma is staring off into the distance again" look is actually family affection, remember.

Many nursing homes and retirement centers are even thinking of switching from their current model of pharmaceutically abusing patients into a tolerable state of human vegetation to the new model of just vaccinating them instead. "It's so much easier with the Moron Vaccines," explained one nursing home director. "Pills required patient consent, but vaccines can be given to patients in their sleep, and when they wake up the next morning, or at least the ones that do, they're like a whole new person... quiet, introspective and no longer argumentative."

The Moron Vaccine is such a success that even President Obama chimed in on the issue. "Moron Vaccines help keep America strong by making sure people don't ask too many questions about the coming economic collapse," he said in a recent press event. "If we can manage to vaccinate the entire population, then we can probably keep the Medicare and Social Security Ponzi schemes going a few years longer, and that protects all of us in Washington from a popular revolt like the one we saw in Egypt! The Middle East is witness to the violence and destruction that can take place when populations are allowed to contemplate higher ideals such as freedom or liberty," Obama said. "Moron Vaccines keep people comfortably numb in their lower brain functions, where they can dutifully serve the interests of the State."

So don't miss out on the Moron Vaccines! They're available free of charge at any U.S. post office. The government is also offering a special discount called, "Don't buy one, get one free!" for those who can't do math because they graduated from Madison, Wisconsin public schools-- "where education is ALWAYS secondary."

Note: This satire article is pure fiction. If you didn't know that by now, you have probably already taken the Moron Vaccines! Please turn yourself into the nearest TSA human resources office for possible placement within the Department of Homeland Security.

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/031517_moron_vaccines.html#ixzz1FAeyckNj

High animal death rates end cloning project

By Care 2

After 13 years of studying how to prevent abnormalities in cloned animals, AgResearch has ended its cloning project because too many of the animals died.

AgResearch is a New Zealand based company that has spent more than a decade trying to perfect the cloning of animals for use in scientific and medical research. 

Their cloning trials tried to create: animals that produced a type of“super milk”, sheep that were resistant to eczema, pregnant sheep that wanted to eat more food, and special proteins to be used in human medications.

But on Monday the company released a report that said “only 10 percent of the cloned animals survived through the research trials” and because ofthe” unnecessary suffering” of the animals they had stopped their cloning projects.

The majority of animals died as a result of spontaneous abortions and hydrops – where a cow’s uterus fills with water, leading to euthanasia of the fetus and mother. Sixteen calves from mid gestation and beyond aborted or “died in the neonatal period last year.”Another 10 fetuses or calves were euthanized along with 14 adult cows.

The report also stated that cloned cattle, sheep and goats suffered from medical conditions such as chronic arthritis, pneumonia, lameness and blood poisoning.

Although AgResearch has ended cloning projects, the news is not all good.  The company now plans to focus its attention on a newer research method – Transgenic Technology.This procedure uses embryonic stem cells to create new life.

However, the first-generation of transgenic animals appears to be having the same high mortality rates as the cloned animals.  Last year two baby goats died and four other animals had to be euthanized.

Scientists at AgResearch say that once the transgenic animals grow to adulthood and have babies of their own, they are far less likely than the cloned animals to pass on any abnormalities.

Hopefully there won’t be too many animals that will have to pay the price to see if this theory right or wrong.

General Manager Dr. Jimmy Suttie said, “The work was being done ultimately for the benefit of humans and scientists took animal welfare standards and ethical issues very seriously.”

Related Stories: 

EU Bans Cloned Farm Animals But Approves Cloned Horses and Bulls, The Most Painful Animal Labs in the Country, Nocton Mega-Dairy in UK Withdraws Plans for Factory Dairy Farm

Nocton mega-dairy from the UK withdraws plans for factory dairy farm

Great news from the UK! I don't understand why people in the US are still willing to put up with this!

Take action!

By Care 2

There is good news from the UK.  Thanks in no small part to the dedicated animal and environmental groups, along with many individuals, the mega dairy application for Nocton has been withdrawn.  The proposed dairy factory farm in Lincolnshire would have been the first such endeavor in the UK.

Originally, the proposal called for 8,000 cows, but due to strong objections, a plan was resubmitted for close to 4,000.  Modeled after U.S. factory farm methods, Nocton Dairies would have been a precedent-setting operation for England. 

The Ecologist reported "in a statement, the farmers behind the Nocton proposal, David Barnes and Peter Willis, said they still hoped to see large-scale, US-style, dairy farming in the UK and challenged others to 'stand up to' opponents of the system. Another farmer, David Alvis, has recently been reported to be looking to set up a 2,000-3,000 cow unit in Cambridgeshire."

In the end, it was the environmental impact of tens of thousands of tons of waste products produced by the cows each year that was the main concern about giving approval.  The huge amount of waste runoff would seep into ground water and pollute the area.  Animal welfare concerns won this battle by default.

PETA, WSPA and VIVA.com had active campaigns running to prevent Nocton Dairy from becoming a reality.  The WSPA ‘Not in my Cuppa’ campaign was quite creative in drawing the public's attention to the issue.  The video below is one such example.

Thanks to the many Care2 members who took the time to get involved by writing, emailing, signing petitions and calling North Kesteven District Council.  Your voices have been heard!

Related Stories:

Urgent: Public Comments Needed to Stop Factory Dairy Farm in UK
Is Antibiotic Use on Factory Farms Making Us Sick?
Ohio Dairy Farmer Escapes Cruelty Charges

Read more: animal welfare, factory farming, success story, united kingdom, nocton, dairy farm, nocton mega dairy

USDA approved Monsanto alfalfa despite warnings of new pathogen discovered in GE crops

By Mike Ludwig

Just two weeks before the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) fully deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, a senior soil scientist alerted the department about a newly discovered, microscopic pathogen found in high concentrations of Roundup Ready corn and soy that researchers believe could be causing infertility in livestock and diseases in crops that could threaten the entire domestic food supply.

Dr. Don Huber, a plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor, wrote in a letter to the USDA that the pathogen is new to science and appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals and probably humans.

"For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," Huber wrote in his January 16 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

Also See: Why Monsanto Always Wins

Huber called for an immediate moratorium on approvals of Roundup Ready crops, but on January 27, the USDA fully deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa after nearly five years of legal battles with farmers and environmental groups. The USDA partially deregulated Roundup Ready sugar beats on February 4.

The pathogen is about the size of a virus and reproduces like a micro-fungal organism. According to Huber, the organism may be the first micro-fungus of its kind ever discovered, and there is evidence that the infectious pathogen causes diseases in both plants and animals, which is very rare.

"The World According to Monsanto: From Agent Orange to Genetically Modified Crops" (DVD) is yours with a donation to Truthout. Click here to make a donation and receive your gift.

The pathogen is prevalent in soy crops suffering from a disease called sudden death syndrome and corn crops suffering from Goss' wilt disease.

Laboratory tests show that the pathogen is present in a "wide variety" of livestock suffering from infertility and spontaneous abortions. Huber warned that the pathogen could be responsible for reports of increased infertility rates in dairy cows and rates of spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45 percent.

Huber is concerned that the pathogen could be spreading because of overreliance on Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops systems, which have come to dominate American agribusiness during the past decade.

Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn, soy, cotton and alfalfa are genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate-base herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup. Farmers can blanket fields of Roundup Ready crops with glyphosate knowing that unwanted weeds will be killed and the genetically engineered crops will not.

"We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of alfalfa," Huber wrote. "Naturally, if either the Roundup Ready gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity."

Critics like Huber have long criticized glyphosate products like Roundup for weakening crops' natural defense systems and promoting the spread of glyphosate-resistant "superweeds" that have developed their own tolerance to glyphosate and infested millions of acres of farmland in the US alone.

"We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders," Huber wrote. "This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure."

Huber is a longstanding critic of biotech crops and coordinates a committee of the American Phytopathological Society as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System.

Gaddafi and the seven sons, blond mercenaries and X

By Alex Thomson

Channel 4 News

For pretty obvious reasons I can’t disclose my source’s identity and let’s just call him X.

He can still recall the area of Green Square last Sunday (Liberty Square of pre-Gaddafi days) where he stood as the protesters gathered telling The Colonel it was time to go.

“The police were cool,” he says in fluent English,”the people were handingout sweets.”

And cool it stayed into the night; Green Square becoming to Tripoli what Tahrir Square was to Cairo?

Well no, says X, who watched what happened.

“This is Libya. We could never be Egypt, never Tunisia. We have no teargas in Libya. No rubber-coated bullets. It is straight to lead in Libya.”

It was.

It was dawn when X says “armoured vehicles approached the Square. They opened fire on the unarmed protesters. “They had big calibre guns – like anti-aircraft guns. You could see the shells bouncing off the streets.”

He saw, with his own eyes he says, scores of people mown down. Mention the estimate of dead given by Human Rights Watch at this point of around 270 dead and he simply laughs in a tired way: “We all saw that figure on the TV – we just laughed.”

From then, he says Tripoli has essentially shut down. No businesses, shops or schools function. Colonel Gaddafi has the army here, armed civilian militias on the streets. “There are mercenaries fighting for Gaddafi for sure. You see them, black guys, sub Saharan. But I also saw guys with blond hair and blue eyes in central Tripoli. They were controlling the technical side. They were speaking Russian or Ukrainian. You don’t get near these guys – not ever.”

Anyone who is anyone is in fear of “the call”. And they can come any time of day or night. When they do come they will be armed, pistrols at the very least. “They’ll say ‘are you for us or against us?’ and of course there is only one answer to this question. I know this. It has happened to so many people. Many, many people. That was why I had to leave yesterday. They would call for me. You see?” He takes a pause, a long drag on his cigarette.

“So you say of course and they take you off in their car and you help them. You are told you will use your influence to help the regime however they want.”

“And if you hesitate at all when they come?”

“That’s it. You are also into the car. But it is over.”

“You get shot? ” I ask.

“Wasteground, an underground carpark. Whatever. You don’t come home.”

Since the fighting at Green Square he says the protesters have retreated to their neighbourhoods. Barricades have been attempted but mostly people just stay at home. To go out is to risk being shot on sight, he says, possible during daylight – a near certainty at night.

He says he personally witnessed helicopters firing down on the city on several occasions since that Sunday. He also tells how he watched ‘big helicopters’ with visible guns heading west from the capital.

X is adamant that many Libyans would certainly get out if they could, but it is far from easy. That explains why so few are coming over the official crossing points too.

You’ll appreciate why X can’t give names and locations as he describes a long, nerve-jangling odyssey taking most of the day to cross the 150 miles or so from Tripoli to Tunisia. It’s all about friends, family, safehouse, wait, new vehicle, safehouse, wait and so on.

“If you reach a checkpoint you are in very big trouble. No main roads. Just small roads and tracks. You cross the border miles away from the road. Out in the desert there is no border.” And Gaddafi? Is there any strategy?

Like the people, he cannot go back now. Tripoli is the last stand. He has nowhere. He cannot go anywhere. Even abroad? No – not now.”

“Could he leave Tripoli?”

“His home town, Sirt, is nothing. Just a shell. A concrete jungle. Empty palaces for foreign leaders to meet him. Nobody lives there. He has the army but only in Tripoli.”

Yet there is a strategy. Gadaffi still has arms and support in the capital, it is true. Around it, to the west, the military plan appears to be to allow the rebels to hold towns like Zuara on the coast, but then to isolate them, cut them off, and attack them.

X’s view of the regime’s apparent plans, borne out be what’s happened in the past 24 hours: Zuara calm yesterday but reports of gunfire – the town of Zaweya attacked by forces loyal to the regime yesterday.

Yet the attacks failed. X paints a graphic picture of Gaddafi’s seven sons at odds, with bitter in-fighting: “The eldest is not even considered a real son you know. Each if them ran parts if the country – security, defence, economy – it was just cronyism – or like mafia, a mafia family but with billions from the oil.”

Then X lowers his voice and leans in, even though it’s so late the bar staff have gone to bed: “But f*** the oil. It doesn’t matter now. Blair and then Bush in 2003 they supported this murderer. But there is no going back now for the people here. No going back.”

The end of Gaddafi’s regime and the end of his sons’ kleptocracy would, says X, always be bloody. But he says be prepared – the ousting of the Italians cost thousands of lives.

It is after 2am. A cleaner is sweeping up at the other side of the bar, X makes to leave, then turns, his voice echoing in the empty bar:

“Life post-Gadaffi will not be easy. But this is our chance. We have to take it. We have to go for it. We will not get it again.”