Tuesday, April 26, 2005
BUSH'S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO CREATE A SOCIAL SECURITY 'CRISIS'
By Randolph T. Holhut
I look at how the Bush administration is trying to manufacture a Social Security "crisis," and it looks much like what was done to manufacture the rationale for invading Iraq.
Certainly the steps are the same. Invent a crisis where none currently exists.State only the information (real or not) that benefits your argument, and repeat it often. Ignore all information that might undermine your argument and attack anyone who might disagree. Then, after convincing everyone that there is a crisis and marginalizing your opponents, you come up with the solution to the crisis you manufactured.
Through constant repetition and taking full advantage of the limitations of journalism's objectivity fetish, the Bush administration can bend reality to fit its policy schemes.
As journalism is now practiced, to state the facts is considered an act of bias.In the case of the Iraq war, even though there was abundant evidence that the Bush administration was overstating its case at best and flat-out lying at worst, the cult of objectivity required giving the Bush administration's lies as much weight (and often times, more weight) as the opposing views. Pointing out discrepancies between the facts and the spin is sacrificed in the name of balance.
The Social Security debate has followed the same path. News reports dutifully repeat the claim that the program will go bankrupt in 2042. The reality is that, if nothing is done, Social Security will be taking in more revenue than it pays out until 2018. After 2018, current obligations can be met until 2042.After 2042, there would still be enough money to pay at least 73 percent of benefits. These figures aren't wishful thinking from a liberal think tank, they are the government's own calculations.
However, just as it was impossible to convince the American people in 2002 thatIraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States, it is now next to impossible to convince many Americans that Social Security is not going to go bankrupt.
Once again, it's about controlling the language and repeating your message over and over and over until people believe.
For the last 20 years, conservatives have worked to change the perception of the program. For example, Social Security never used to be thought of as an investment program. It was conceived as a social insurance program to take care of the elderly, the orphaned and the infirm. But conservatives started talking about the rate of return and planted the seed that people would make more money investing what they pay in Social Security taxes in the stock market. Over time,people started believing this.
Sure, it is possible to make more money. But the beauty of Social Security is that it is a guaranteed benefit. The people who were close to retirement who lost a substantial chunk of their savings in the stock market troubles of 2001 and 2002 will not be seeing their lost money return. Markets don't always go ever upward. After the 1929 crash, it took until the 1950s for the stock market to recoup its losses. The Dow Jones average was stagnant from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. If you are unfortunate enough to need your retirement savings when the market is in a down cycle, you're out of luck.
But none of the supporters of privatization are talking about this. They just keep saying that Social Security is going bankrupt, rather than say itis the most successful, most popular and best-run government program ever created. And far from being bankrupt, there is a Social Security trust fund with more than $2 trillion of government bonds in it. Far from being "IOUs,"these are the same Treasury bonds that this nation is selling to China and Japan to paper over the ever-growing federal deficit. Think President Bush is going to tell this nation's creditors that those bonds are just meaningless pieces of paper that the United States has no legal obligation to repay? The public needs to be educated on the three main facts regarding Social Security - there is no Social Security crisis, Social Security is not going broke, and there is already enough money coming in to pay for the retirements of the Baby Boomers.
These are facts that every American - and every would-be "reformer"- needs to know. But it was a fact that Iraq didn't have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and the United States invaded anyway. Again, the Bush administration has repeatedly shown that it will not allow facts to get in the way of its policy goals.
We can't allow Bush to fool us again. No one is asking for change except the financial services industry, which is lusting for the billions of dollars it would make administering private savings accounts, and hard-core conservatives, the people who have been fighting to kill Social Security ever since Franklin Roosevelt proposed it six decades ago.
But Social Security is no longer a liberal program. It is ingrained in the fabric of America as an example of the best instincts of our nation.
It is a prime example of the democratic ideal that everyone should act on behalf of the collective interests of society. Most of us will eventually grow old. Some of us will have major health problems as we age. We contribute money when we are young, healthy and employed and draw benefits when we aren't. It's something we do collectively. Some of us will live longer. Some of us won't. Some of us will be wealthier. Some of us won't.
But the idea is that we all share in the responsibility of taking care of the aged, the disabled and the sick with the expectation that others will do the same for us when we are in that position.
So make this your New Year's resolution. If you hear someone on the radio or the television talking about Social Security going bankrupt, or if you read something in your newspaper to that effect, write in or call immediately. Demand that the press do its job and go beyond the phony attempts at objectivity and balance and instead report the relevant facts.
And if your Congressman or Senator is wavering, write or call them and let them know that you are watching and will do your utmost to remove them from office if they cave in to President Bush's nonsense on Social Security. This is an eminently winnable battle, but only if enough people care to fight. Ultimately, this isn't a fight for a government program.This is a fight over what sort of nation we wish to be.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years.
He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com
*************************************************************************
By Randolph T. Holhut
I look at how the Bush administration is trying to manufacture a Social Security "crisis," and it looks much like what was done to manufacture the rationale for invading Iraq.
Certainly the steps are the same. Invent a crisis where none currently exists.State only the information (real or not) that benefits your argument, and repeat it often. Ignore all information that might undermine your argument and attack anyone who might disagree. Then, after convincing everyone that there is a crisis and marginalizing your opponents, you come up with the solution to the crisis you manufactured.
Through constant repetition and taking full advantage of the limitations of journalism's objectivity fetish, the Bush administration can bend reality to fit its policy schemes.
As journalism is now practiced, to state the facts is considered an act of bias.In the case of the Iraq war, even though there was abundant evidence that the Bush administration was overstating its case at best and flat-out lying at worst, the cult of objectivity required giving the Bush administration's lies as much weight (and often times, more weight) as the opposing views. Pointing out discrepancies between the facts and the spin is sacrificed in the name of balance.
The Social Security debate has followed the same path. News reports dutifully repeat the claim that the program will go bankrupt in 2042. The reality is that, if nothing is done, Social Security will be taking in more revenue than it pays out until 2018. After 2018, current obligations can be met until 2042.After 2042, there would still be enough money to pay at least 73 percent of benefits. These figures aren't wishful thinking from a liberal think tank, they are the government's own calculations.
However, just as it was impossible to convince the American people in 2002 thatIraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States, it is now next to impossible to convince many Americans that Social Security is not going to go bankrupt.
Once again, it's about controlling the language and repeating your message over and over and over until people believe.
For the last 20 years, conservatives have worked to change the perception of the program. For example, Social Security never used to be thought of as an investment program. It was conceived as a social insurance program to take care of the elderly, the orphaned and the infirm. But conservatives started talking about the rate of return and planted the seed that people would make more money investing what they pay in Social Security taxes in the stock market. Over time,people started believing this.
Sure, it is possible to make more money. But the beauty of Social Security is that it is a guaranteed benefit. The people who were close to retirement who lost a substantial chunk of their savings in the stock market troubles of 2001 and 2002 will not be seeing their lost money return. Markets don't always go ever upward. After the 1929 crash, it took until the 1950s for the stock market to recoup its losses. The Dow Jones average was stagnant from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. If you are unfortunate enough to need your retirement savings when the market is in a down cycle, you're out of luck.
But none of the supporters of privatization are talking about this. They just keep saying that Social Security is going bankrupt, rather than say itis the most successful, most popular and best-run government program ever created. And far from being bankrupt, there is a Social Security trust fund with more than $2 trillion of government bonds in it. Far from being "IOUs,"these are the same Treasury bonds that this nation is selling to China and Japan to paper over the ever-growing federal deficit. Think President Bush is going to tell this nation's creditors that those bonds are just meaningless pieces of paper that the United States has no legal obligation to repay? The public needs to be educated on the three main facts regarding Social Security - there is no Social Security crisis, Social Security is not going broke, and there is already enough money coming in to pay for the retirements of the Baby Boomers.
These are facts that every American - and every would-be "reformer"- needs to know. But it was a fact that Iraq didn't have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and the United States invaded anyway. Again, the Bush administration has repeatedly shown that it will not allow facts to get in the way of its policy goals.
We can't allow Bush to fool us again. No one is asking for change except the financial services industry, which is lusting for the billions of dollars it would make administering private savings accounts, and hard-core conservatives, the people who have been fighting to kill Social Security ever since Franklin Roosevelt proposed it six decades ago.
But Social Security is no longer a liberal program. It is ingrained in the fabric of America as an example of the best instincts of our nation.
It is a prime example of the democratic ideal that everyone should act on behalf of the collective interests of society. Most of us will eventually grow old. Some of us will have major health problems as we age. We contribute money when we are young, healthy and employed and draw benefits when we aren't. It's something we do collectively. Some of us will live longer. Some of us won't. Some of us will be wealthier. Some of us won't.
But the idea is that we all share in the responsibility of taking care of the aged, the disabled and the sick with the expectation that others will do the same for us when we are in that position.
So make this your New Year's resolution. If you hear someone on the radio or the television talking about Social Security going bankrupt, or if you read something in your newspaper to that effect, write in or call immediately. Demand that the press do its job and go beyond the phony attempts at objectivity and balance and instead report the relevant facts.
And if your Congressman or Senator is wavering, write or call them and let them know that you are watching and will do your utmost to remove them from office if they cave in to President Bush's nonsense on Social Security. This is an eminently winnable battle, but only if enough people care to fight. Ultimately, this isn't a fight for a government program.This is a fight over what sort of nation we wish to be.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years.
He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
He can be reached at randyholhut@yahoo.com
*************************************************************************
Thursday, April 14, 2005
The REAL COST of Drugs!
The following is incredible. Make sure to keep reading to the bottom where it discusses Costco, Sam's Club, etc.
The women who wrote this email and signed below are Federal Budget Analysts in Washington, DC.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA.
As we have revealed in past issues of "Life Extension," a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United State contain active ingredients made in other countries.
In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America.
The chart below speaks for itself.
Celebrex 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percent markup: 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88 Percent markup: 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696%
Norvasec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablet! s): $220 .27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01 Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97 Cost of general active ingredients $0.52 Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13 Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $10237 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20 Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 ! Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89 Cost of general active ingredients $3.20 Percent markup: 2,809%
Zithromax 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892%
Zocor 40 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63 Percent markup: 4,059%
Zoloft 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11,821%
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone I knew should know about the following. Please read below and pass it on. It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to! put a Walgreen's on every corner.
On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo ... three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves.
For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco, Sam's Club and other discount volume stores consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.
I went to the discount store's website, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Comparing, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients. I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at another discount store for $28.08.
I would like to mention, that although these are a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally! regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.
I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own email, and send it to everyone you know with an email address.
Sharon L. Davis, Budget Analyst, US Department of Commerce Room 6839 Office Ph: 202-482-4458; Office Fax: 202-482-5480 Email Address: sdavis@docgov
Mary Palmer, Budget Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis Office of Budget &Finance; Voice: (202) 606-9295
*************************************************************************
The following is incredible. Make sure to keep reading to the bottom where it discusses Costco, Sam's Club, etc.
The women who wrote this email and signed below are Federal Budget Analysts in Washington, DC.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA.
As we have revealed in past issues of "Life Extension," a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United State contain active ingredients made in other countries.
In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America.
The chart below speaks for itself.
Celebrex 100 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60 Percent markup: 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71 Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88 Percent markup: 8,372%
Lipitor 20 mg Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80 Percent markup: 4,696%
Norvasec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14 Percent markup: 134,493%
Paxil 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablet! s): $220 .27 Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60 Percent markup: 2,898%
Prevacid 30 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01 Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97 Cost of general active ingredients $0.52 Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin 50 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13 Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec 10 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $10237 Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20 Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax 1 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79 ! Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 Percent markup: 569,958%
Zestril 20 mg Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89 Cost of general active ingredients $3.20 Percent markup: 2,809%
Zithromax 600 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78 Percent markup: 7,892%
Zocor 40 mg Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27 Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63 Percent markup: 4,059%
Zoloft 50 mg Consumer price: $206.87 Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75 Percent markup: 11,821%
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone I knew should know about the following. Please read below and pass it on. It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to! put a Walgreen's on every corner.
On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo ... three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves.
For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco, Sam's Club and other discount volume stores consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.
I went to the discount store's website, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Comparing, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients. I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at another discount store for $28.08.
I would like to mention, that although these are a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally! regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.
I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own email, and send it to everyone you know with an email address.
Sharon L. Davis, Budget Analyst, US Department of Commerce Room 6839 Office Ph: 202-482-4458; Office Fax: 202-482-5480 Email Address: sdavis@docgov
Mary Palmer, Budget Analyst, Bureau of Economic Analysis Office of Budget &Finance; Voice: (202) 606-9295
*************************************************************************
EPA Nominee Advocates Human Guinea Pigs
EPA Nominee Advocates Human Guinea Pigs Stephen Johnson, Bush's Nominee To Run The EPA, Advocates The Testing Of Pesticides On Humans - Even Children - For The Benefit Of Large Chemical Companies.
President Bush recently nominated Stephen L. Johnson, a 24 year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the agency's new administrator. Mr. Johnson has been the acting administrator since January, and prior to that oversaw the EPA office handling pesticides and other toxic substances. In nominating Johnson, Mr. Bush described him as a talented scientist and having good judgment and complete integrity.
Yet his record as the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances casts serious doubt on whether Johnson is suited to lead the E.P.A., an agency directly affecting Americans' health and many significant industries, including automobiles and agriculture. During President Bush's first term, Johnson was a strong supporter of pesticide testing on humans.
During President Clinton's administration, the E.P.A. would not consider the results of controversial trials that tested pesticides on people. But after Mr. Bush was elected, Johnson changed E.P.A. policy to resume consideration. However, a panel of scientists and ethicists convened by the E.P.A. in 1998 determined that these types of trials were unethical and scientifically unsuitable to estimate the safety of chemicals.
In 2001, the trials considered by the E.P.A. gave paid subjects doses of pesticides 100 to 300 times greater than levels that E.P.A. officials considered safe for the general public. The E.P.A. evaluated three studies that year from Dow Chemicals, Bayer Corporation, and the Gowan Company. The Bayer and Gowan studies were conducted in third-world countries, where volunteers were more readily available, while Dow conducted their study in Nebraska.
In the Dow study, human subjects were given doses four times the level that the E.P.A. knew produced adverse affects in animals. Although subjects suffered numbness in the upper arms, the Dow doctors ruled that this was possibly related to the pesticide. Other subjects complained of headaches, nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps. Again, the doctors in the Dow study determined that these symptoms were possibly or probably related to the chemical. But in the final analysis of the study, Dow concluded that the pesticide did not produce any symptoms. And yet the E.P.A. considered it.
It wasn't surprising then that in October of last year, Johnson strongly supported a study in which infants will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals for a two year period. The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, dubiously known as CHEERS, will analyze how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by children ranging from infants to three year olds. The study will analyze 60 infants and toddlers in Duval County, Florida who are routinely exposed to pesticides in their homes. Yet the E.P.A. acknowledges that pesticide exposure is a documented risk factor for some types of childhood cancer and the early onset of asthma.
Other aspects of CHEERS are equally troublesome. The participants will be selected from six health clinics and three hospitals in Duval County. The E.P.A. study proposal noted that Although all Duval County citizens are eligible to use the [health care] centers, they primarily serve individuals with lower incomes. In the year 2000, 75 percent of the users of the clinics for pregnancy issues were at or below the poverty level. The proposal also cited that The percentage of births to individuals classified as black in the U.S. Census is higher at these three hospitals than for the County as a whole.
The E.P.A. is targeting the poor and African-Americans for the study, presumably in the hope that they will be less informed about the dangers of exposing their children to pesticides, and will therefore continue to expose them over the two year period. The study actually mandates that participants not be provided information about the proper ways to apply or store pesticides around the home. And the parents cannot be informed of the risks of prolonged or excessive exposure to pesticides. Additionally, the study does not provide steps to intervene if the children show signs of developmental delay or register high levels of exposure to pesticides in the periodic testing.
Parents receive $970 for participating in the study, but only if they continue over the two year period. This is a powerful inducement for these impoverished parents to keep exposing their children to pesticides. Even some E.P.A. officials have been troubled by the lack of safeguards to ensure that these parents are not swayed into exposing their children to the chemicals. Troy Pierce, a scientist in the E.P.A.'s Atlanta-based pesticides office, wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues last year, This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of (pesticides) related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that (pesticide management) should always be used to protect children.
Additionally, it was disclosed that the American Chemistry Council gave $2.1 million to the E.P.A. to fund CHEERS. The council is comprised of many pesticide manufacturers. These manufacturers have known since the 1970s of the long term toxicity of the pesticides being tested in the study. But since this study only lasts two years, there will likely be little or no obvious short term effects. Consequently, once the study is concluded, this will allow the council to proclaim that the E.P.A. found no side effects, and in turn allow them to lobby Congress to weaken regulations on these chemicals.
Stephen L. Johnson is a scientist of the worst kind. Testing of pesticides on humans provides no health benefit to the subjects, or to society at large. But it does help chemical companies who claim that their products are not dangerous. And that is not who should be leading the E.P.A.
by : Gene C. Gerard (genecgerard@comcast.net)
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1037
Wednesday 23rd March 2005
(Editor's note - It brings to mind Dr. Joseph Mengele performing insane medical experiments on jewish children in the Nazi death camps during WWII.)
*************************************************************************
EPA Nominee Advocates Human Guinea Pigs Stephen Johnson, Bush's Nominee To Run The EPA, Advocates The Testing Of Pesticides On Humans - Even Children - For The Benefit Of Large Chemical Companies.
President Bush recently nominated Stephen L. Johnson, a 24 year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the agency's new administrator. Mr. Johnson has been the acting administrator since January, and prior to that oversaw the EPA office handling pesticides and other toxic substances. In nominating Johnson, Mr. Bush described him as a talented scientist and having good judgment and complete integrity.
Yet his record as the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances casts serious doubt on whether Johnson is suited to lead the E.P.A., an agency directly affecting Americans' health and many significant industries, including automobiles and agriculture. During President Bush's first term, Johnson was a strong supporter of pesticide testing on humans.
During President Clinton's administration, the E.P.A. would not consider the results of controversial trials that tested pesticides on people. But after Mr. Bush was elected, Johnson changed E.P.A. policy to resume consideration. However, a panel of scientists and ethicists convened by the E.P.A. in 1998 determined that these types of trials were unethical and scientifically unsuitable to estimate the safety of chemicals.
In 2001, the trials considered by the E.P.A. gave paid subjects doses of pesticides 100 to 300 times greater than levels that E.P.A. officials considered safe for the general public. The E.P.A. evaluated three studies that year from Dow Chemicals, Bayer Corporation, and the Gowan Company. The Bayer and Gowan studies were conducted in third-world countries, where volunteers were more readily available, while Dow conducted their study in Nebraska.
In the Dow study, human subjects were given doses four times the level that the E.P.A. knew produced adverse affects in animals. Although subjects suffered numbness in the upper arms, the Dow doctors ruled that this was possibly related to the pesticide. Other subjects complained of headaches, nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps. Again, the doctors in the Dow study determined that these symptoms were possibly or probably related to the chemical. But in the final analysis of the study, Dow concluded that the pesticide did not produce any symptoms. And yet the E.P.A. considered it.
It wasn't surprising then that in October of last year, Johnson strongly supported a study in which infants will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals for a two year period. The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, dubiously known as CHEERS, will analyze how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by children ranging from infants to three year olds. The study will analyze 60 infants and toddlers in Duval County, Florida who are routinely exposed to pesticides in their homes. Yet the E.P.A. acknowledges that pesticide exposure is a documented risk factor for some types of childhood cancer and the early onset of asthma.
Other aspects of CHEERS are equally troublesome. The participants will be selected from six health clinics and three hospitals in Duval County. The E.P.A. study proposal noted that Although all Duval County citizens are eligible to use the [health care] centers, they primarily serve individuals with lower incomes. In the year 2000, 75 percent of the users of the clinics for pregnancy issues were at or below the poverty level. The proposal also cited that The percentage of births to individuals classified as black in the U.S. Census is higher at these three hospitals than for the County as a whole.
The E.P.A. is targeting the poor and African-Americans for the study, presumably in the hope that they will be less informed about the dangers of exposing their children to pesticides, and will therefore continue to expose them over the two year period. The study actually mandates that participants not be provided information about the proper ways to apply or store pesticides around the home. And the parents cannot be informed of the risks of prolonged or excessive exposure to pesticides. Additionally, the study does not provide steps to intervene if the children show signs of developmental delay or register high levels of exposure to pesticides in the periodic testing.
Parents receive $970 for participating in the study, but only if they continue over the two year period. This is a powerful inducement for these impoverished parents to keep exposing their children to pesticides. Even some E.P.A. officials have been troubled by the lack of safeguards to ensure that these parents are not swayed into exposing their children to the chemicals. Troy Pierce, a scientist in the E.P.A.'s Atlanta-based pesticides office, wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues last year, This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of (pesticides) related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that (pesticide management) should always be used to protect children.
Additionally, it was disclosed that the American Chemistry Council gave $2.1 million to the E.P.A. to fund CHEERS. The council is comprised of many pesticide manufacturers. These manufacturers have known since the 1970s of the long term toxicity of the pesticides being tested in the study. But since this study only lasts two years, there will likely be little or no obvious short term effects. Consequently, once the study is concluded, this will allow the council to proclaim that the E.P.A. found no side effects, and in turn allow them to lobby Congress to weaken regulations on these chemicals.
Stephen L. Johnson is a scientist of the worst kind. Testing of pesticides on humans provides no health benefit to the subjects, or to society at large. But it does help chemical companies who claim that their products are not dangerous. And that is not who should be leading the E.P.A.
by : Gene C. Gerard (genecgerard@comcast.net)
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1037
Wednesday 23rd March 2005
(Editor's note - It brings to mind Dr. Joseph Mengele performing insane medical experiments on jewish children in the Nazi death camps during WWII.)
*************************************************************************
