Archive for 2008

Mercury and Autism: What the FDA and CDC Don’t Want You to Know

Saturday, February 16th, 2008

Autism and thimerisol: by now the news is old hat. Health and freedom advocates maintain that the connection between the two is astonishingly strong and should be revealed and children (and adults) protected from this wildly toxic poison. Corporate spokespersons and their government lackies maintain that the world is flat and that there is no relationship between the two despite horrifyingly clear evidence to the contrary.

In 2005 Robert Kennedy published what rapidly become a classic examination of the history of Eli Lilly’s deadly compound, thimerisol in vaccines and its decades long history of suppressed data about its dangers to those receiving it, especially via injection.

The Natural Solutions Foundation reprints that article here. Please forward it widely and make sure that everyone in the vaccination debate, including parents, pediatricians, legislators and school officials, has access to this critically important information.

At a time when vaccines are becoming mandatory for infants, toddlers, children, young adults, adults and seniors, ignoring the dangers of mercury, the second most toxic substance known (its toxicity is exceeded only by the radioactive element plutonium, a single molecule of which will cause cancer in any human being so exposed), is an oversight we cannot afford for ourselves or our loved ones.

Here, then, is Kennedy’s article. Like so much other information brought to you by the Natural Solutions Foundation, this article can save your life or that of someone you love. It can also save a child and its family from the ravages of unnecessary neurological poisoning. Please read and disseminate.

And, while you are thinking about it, please take a moment to make a tax deductible recurring donation (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation so that we can keep on keeping on for the sake of your health and your freedom.

Want more information on vaccinations and vaccine hazards? Join the No-Forced-Vaccination Forum today. Click here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join)
to become a member of this vital community of dedicated health freedom advocates focused on maintaining vaccination choice.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Deadly Immunity
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.Posted Jun 20, 2005 12:00 AM
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session — only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly “embargoed.” There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines — thimerosal — appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. “I was actually stunned by what I saw,” Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants — in one case, within hours of birth — the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. “You can play with this all you want,” Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results “are statistically significant.” Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting’s first day, was even more alarmed. “My gut feeling?” he said. “Forgive this personal comment — I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.”

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line. “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits,” said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. “This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.” Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.” Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that “perhaps this study should not have been done at all.” He added that “the research results have to be handled,” warning that the study “will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group.”

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children’s health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants — but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines — including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government’s vaccine-related documents — including the Simpsonwood transcripts — and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 — but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,” says Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government’s effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic,” his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. “This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of “institutional malfeasance for self protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical.

I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government’s need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. “Why should we scare people about immunization,” Waxman pointed out at one hearing, “until we know the facts?”

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation’s pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation — those born between 1989 and 2003 — who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. “The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage,” Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. “Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.”

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis — a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. “If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis,” scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity, “then where are all the twenty-year-old autistics?” Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative “load” of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It’s a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received — but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore — and cover up — the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines — and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage — and even death — in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected — a fact Lilly didn’t bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal’s safety “did not check with ours.” Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it “poison.” In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly’s own studies discerned that thimerosal was “toxic to tissue cells” in concentrations as low as one part per million — 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as “nontoxic” and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within twenty-four hours of birth, and two-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, “especially when used on infants and children,” noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. “The best way to go,” he added, “is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this “cost consideration,” Merck ignored Hilleman’s warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations — for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. “What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?” Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. “Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”

But by that time, the damage was done. At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury — a level 99 times greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies — including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health — suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don’t require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC’s top vaccine advisers, told me, “I think if we really have an influenza pandemic — and certainly we will in the next twenty years, because we always do — there’s no way on God’s earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials.”

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee’s chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC “routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,” even though they have “interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.” The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine “had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he “would make money” if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist’s direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. “It provides no conflict for me,” he insists. “I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It’s offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It’s just not the way it works.”

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children’s health, proud of their “partnerships” with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children’s health. They are often resentful of questioning. “Science,” says Offit, “is best left to scientists.”

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. “I’m not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now,” Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, “will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use” of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines — which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense — over to a private agency, America’s Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe,” Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result “Walt wants” — a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. “We’ve got a dragon by the tail here,” said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. “The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization — and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge.”

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. “Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,” Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. “In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.” Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal’s risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and — in a startling position for a scientific body — recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were “fatally flawed” by “poor design” and failed to represent “all the available scientific and medical research.” CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because “an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?”

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used in the Verstraeten study, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a “very significant relationship” between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines — the kind of population that scientists typically use as a “control” in experiments — Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three — including one child adopted from outside the Amish community — had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. “After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism,” says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation. “The fact that Iowa’s 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children’s vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone.” Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in thirty-two other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries — some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders “under review.”

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. “The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence,” says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. “The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It’s bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you’ve ever seen.”

It’s hard to calculate the damage to our country — and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases — if Third World nations come to believe that America’s most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It’s not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America’s enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers — many of them sincere, even idealistic — who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world’s poorest populations.

NOTE: This story has been updated to correct several inaccuracies in the original, published version. As originally reported, American preschoolers received only three vaccinations before 1989, but the article failed to note that they were innoculated a total of eleven times with those vaccines, including boosters. The article also misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms – an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. Finally, because of an editing error, the article misstated the contents of the rotavirus vaccine approved by the CDC. It did not contain thimerosal. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.

An earlier version of this story stated that the Institute of Medicine convened a second panel to review the work of the Immunization Safety Review Committee that had found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the IOM convened the second panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program, including those raised by critics of the IOM’s earlier work. But the panel was not charged with reviewing the committee’s findings. The story also inadvertently omitted a word and transposed two sentences in a quote by Dr. John Clements, and incorrectly stated that Dr. Sam Katz held a patent with Merck on the measles vaccine. In fact, Dr. Katz was part of a team that developed the vaccine and brought it to licensure, but he never held the patent. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.

CLARIFICATION: After publication of this story, Salon and Rolling Stone corrected an error that misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms ? an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. At the time of the correction, we were aware that the comparison itself was flawed, but as journalists we considered it more appropriate to state the correct figure rather than replace it with another number entirely.

Since that earlier correction, however, it has become clear from responses to the article that the forty-percent number, while accurate, is misleading. It measures the total mercury load an infant received from vaccines during the first six months, calculates the daily average received based on average body weight, and then compares that number to the EPA daily limit. But infants did not receive the vaccines as a ?daily average? ? they received massive doses on a single day, through multiple shots. As the story states, these single-day doses exceeded the EPA limit by as much as 99 times. Based on the misunderstanding, and to avoid further confusion, we have amended the story to eliminate the forty-percent figure.

Correction: The story misattributed a quote to Andy Olson, former legislative counsel to Senator Bill Frist. The comment was made by Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to the senator. Rolling Stone and Salon.com regret the error.

What’s In That Syringe, Doctor?

Saturday, February 16th, 2008

The information below is a representative sample of the ingredients of many commonly used vaccines. Many vaccines still contain thimerosal (49.6% ethylmercury by weight.) While mercury is a highly toxic element second only to radioactive plutonium, when combined with other ingredients, specifically aluminum and formaldehyde, the synergistic effects increase 10,000-fold. Individuals who suffer from chronic mercury exposure will have a unique expression of symptoms. Many people, including the author of this post, believe that the evidence of vaccine injury is sufficiently compelling to make it clear that autism, neurological injuries and disorders, auto immune disorders, cancer, immune suppression and a host of other serious or lethal consequences may result from the administration of vaccines. Early and frequent administration of vaccines multiply the risks substantially.

For a representative listing of vaccines, the manufacturer of each and their component microbes, antibiotics, heavy metals, chemicals and animal by products, see Informed Choice, (http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/informed-vaccine.html).

The list below shows the composition of some vaccines used commonly. For a discussion of the myths of vaccination effectiveness and safety, please see

The Composition of Vaccines

BCG
Freeze-dried attenuated live bacteria; Dextran glucose; Triton WR 1339 (a detergent); sodium chloride.

Chicken Pox
Live attentuated Varicella Zoster virus; human fetal tissue; neomycin; mannitol; sorbitol (an artificial sweetener); lactose; amino acids.

Diphtheria
Diphtheria bacterium; formaldehyde; aluminum phosphate or aluminum hydroxide; neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B (antibiotics); 2-phenoxyethanol (a preservative); medium 199 which contains polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier).

Pertussin Bordetella
Pertussis organism; formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde; aluminum phosphate or aluminum hydroxide; neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B (antibiotics); 2-phenoxyethanol (a preservative); polyribosylribitol (an artificial sweetener); medium 199 which contains polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier).

Tetanus Tetanus toxoid; aluminum phosphate or aluminum hydroxide; formaldehyde; neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B (antibiotics); 2-phenoxyethanol (a preservative); medium 199 which contains polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier).

Polio Three strains of Polio virus; formaldehyde; aluminum phosphate or aluminum hydroxide; neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B (antibiotics); 2-phenoxyethanol (a preservative); medium 199 which contains polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier); cultured on monkey kidney cells or calf fetus tissue. The inactivated (injectable) Polio vaccine is cultivated on Vero cells (African green monkey kidney cells)

Hib Hib saccharides cultured on cow’s brains; CRM protein; neomycin; streptomycin; polymyxin B.

Meningitis C Meningococcal group C; oligosaccharide; corynebacterium; Diphtheride CRM proteins; aluminum phosphate; sodium chloride; water.

MMR Live Measles virus; live Mumps virus; live Rubella virus; chick embryo; neomycin; sorbitol; gelatin; human albumen; monosodium glutamate; phenol red.

Rubella Live Rubella virus (which also contains lactose, sorbitol, Dextran 10 and amino acids); neomycin sulphate; human fetal tissue.

The Natural Solutions Foundation believes that you should have the right to opt out of any vaccination program for you, for your children or others for whom you make health decisions if your best judgment leads you to conclude that vaccination is either risky or harmful. That decision should be made with access to full information about the process of vaccination and the contents of vaccines as well as the long and short term risks.

We are committed to protecting your health and your health freedom. Don’t forget to support our work so that we can support your health freedom. Recurring donations (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) are essential for our continued support of your freedom. All donations are tax deductible.
Thanks.

Want more information on vaccinations and vaccine hazards? Join the No-Forced-Vaccination Forum today. Click here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join)
to become a member of this vital community of dedicated health freedom advocates focused on maintaining vaccination choice.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

GM Files: Another Extinction: Public Agricultural Research and the Land Grant College System

Saturday, February 16th, 2008

Biodiversity is one potential victim of genetically modified plants and animals. For example, if genetically engineered fish escape from their ocean pens (a frequent occurrence with ocean-raised farmed fish), their larger size and unnatural characteristics designed to give them survival advantages (like more rapid growth and more efficient breeding success, for example) may well lead to the extinction of the natural varieties of their species in the open ocean.

Pollen from genetically engineered plants can corrupt native species (and other, unrelated species as well) leading to permanent corruption of the plant kingdom. That would mean the irretrievable loss of evolved, as opposed to engineered, species and the development of new super weeds, for example.

But there are other potential extinctions on the horizon lurking in the shadow of genetic engineering: public research and education. Note, what is threatened is not publicly FUNDED research and education, but research and education for the public good, not the corporate profit structure. The public is still being “permitted” to subsidize the institutions that are, in essence, being used to provide cheap research tanks for the Biotech industry, but the public does not get the benefit of the research they support: the Biotech companies do. The immense importance of land grant public research is hard to overstate. But with the “corporitization” of this publicly supported research capacity, the information goes to the This loss would be of immense proportion to every man, woman and child in America, and most of the people in most of the rest of the world as well.

Agricultural research, funded by public monies and carried out at the uniquely important land grant colleges of the US, has led to knowledge and food increase and productivity which has helped to ensure the prosperity of this country and offer nutrition and agricultural success to the world. All that is on the chopping block, thanks to the Big Biotech, one of the big winners in the Codex process as it currently stands.

Shame on the policy makers who have cannibalized the public land grant universities (and the private ones, for that matter) for their own ends. Shame on the administrators who are so eager for money to run their universities that they will trade their purposes for their budgets and shame on the Federal and State Legislators who have allowed their educational treasures, the US Land Grant Colleges, to be sold, like Esau’s birthright, for a mess of beans, and toxic genetically engineered ones, at that!

Following is the story as reported by Nancy Scola of AlterNet.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Monsanto U: Agribusiness’s Takeover of Public Schools
By Nancy Scola, AlterNet
Posted on February 15, 2008, Printed on February 15, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/76804/

I’ve startled a bug scientist. “Yeah, now I’m nervous,” said Mike Hoffmann, a Cornell University entomologist and crop specialist who spends his days with cucumber beetles and small wasps. But he’s also in charge of keeping the research funding flowing at Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. What have I done to alarm him? I’ve drawn his attention to the newly released FY 2009 Presidential Budget.

Like more than a hundred public institutions of higher learning, Cornell is what’s known as a “land grant.” Dotting the United States from Ithaca, N.Y., to Pullman, Wash., such schools were established by a Civil War-era act of Congress to provide universities centered around, “the agriculture and mechanic arts.” Congress handed each U.S. state a chunk of federal land to be sold for start-up monies, and for the last 150 years, it has funded ground-breaking research on all things agriculture, from dirt to crops to cattle.

The land-grant system has been, in short, a high-yield investment. The scientific research that has come out of land-grant labs and fields have aided millions of farmers and fed millions of Americans. And the land-grant reach doesn’t stop at ocean’s edge. Oklahoma State, the Sooner State’s land grant, says that the public funding of land-grant research “has benefited every man, woman and child in the United States and much of the world.”

That was until America’s land-grant system met George W. Bush. Tucked into the appendix of his latest national budget is a nearly one-third cut in the public funding for agriculture research at the land grants. The size of the cut is surprising, but not its existence — it’s part of a multiyear drive by the Bush administration to completely eliminate regular public research funding. In a press briefing last week, a USDA deputy secretary illuminated the Bush administration’s rationale for the transition to competitive grant making: “That’s how you get the most bang for the buck.”

Wallace Huffman, an Iowa State agro-economist, is deeply unimpressed with Bush’s “bang” approach to land-grant research. “There’s a sense in the president’s office that you invest in research like you invest in building cars,” Huffman told me last week. Land-grant school officials are similarly skeptical. In a survey, Kansas State argued that the loss of regular funding would upend education. Minnesota complained that cuts would undermine ongoing research projects. North Dakota simply asked, “What is the future of ag research?”

Good question. A reasonable answer? The future of agricultural research at America’s land-grant institutions belongs to biotech conglomerates like Monsanto. And it seems likely that it’s a future of chemical-dependent, genetically modified, bio-engineered agriculture.

In stark contrast to how the federal government and many states are wallowing in red ink, the St. Louis-based Monsanto boasted more than $7 billion in annual sales in 2007 — simply the latest in four years of record-smashing profits. And so when our president says that the time has come for public land-grant institutions to get cracking at “leveraging nonfederal resources,” you can be sure that Monsanto’s ears perk.

But, it doesn’t take a presidential invitation to get Monsanto to sink its roots in the land-grant system. Those roots are already planted. Iowa State’s campus boasts a Monsanto Auditorium and the school offers students Monsanto-funded graduate fellowships on seed policy with a special focus on “the protection of intellectual property rights.” Kansas State has spun off Wildcat Genetics, a side company whose purpose is the selling of soybean seeds genetically engineered to survive the application of Roundup® — the result of a decades long relationship with Monsanto, the pesticide’s maker.

But don’t get the wrong idea about Monsanto’s land-grant activities. By that, I mean, don’t think the company is the only multinational biotech conglomerate firmly rooted in American land-grant soil.

Head on down to Texas A&M. There you’ll find the a chair for the “Dow Chemical Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.” Similar chairs exist at West Virginia State and Louisiana State. The agricultural college of the University of California at Davis is funded in part by DuPont and Calgene.

The University of California at Berkeley’s Plant and Microbiology Department entered into a $25 million/five-year quasi-exclusive research agreement with the Swiss-based Novartis, which then became Syngenta, which now funds the land-grant research group on soybean fungi. In 2005, Purdue, Indiana’s land-grant school, developed an application of the so-called Terminator gene pioneered by Delta Pine and Land Co.; school officials and researchers later took to the hustings when the public resisted the idea of self-sterilizing plants.

But the agricultural industry’s relationship with the land-grant system is not an entirely new development. In 1973, former Texas agricultural commissioner and activist Jim Hightower lamented the situation in his landmark report, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of America’s Land Grant College Complex.

But the world of agriculture is today a far, far different place than when Hightower wrote.

For one thing, in the early 1970s Monsanto was still a decade away from genetically modifying its very first plant cell. For another, back then the federal government was still committed to providing steady research funding.

And, importantly, it was neither possible nor profitable for our nation’s bastions of higher learning to be players in the global agribusiness. But intervening tectonic shifts in American public policy help us to understand why a public institution like Purdue would fight so darn hard to defend a biotech advance like the Terminator gene: in a manner of speaking, they own the thing.

Jump ahead to 1980, when the U.S. Supreme Court under Warren Burger decided that, as long as they’d been tweaked from their natural state, living organisms from seeds to microbes or Terminator genes could be patented just as if they were a new cotton gin or tractor blade. And in that same year, Congress gave universities a kick towards the marketplace by encouraging institutions to file patent claims on the discoveries and inventions of their faculty researchers — no matter if their work was funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars.

The summed effect was that, suddenly, a public institution like Purdue had a great deal of motivation for working with Delta Pine and Land Co. to see if they might make a buck off their biotech invention in the marketplace. What’s more, the policy shift made it so individual lab geeks themselves stood to profit, eligible for a large slice of whatever windfall their discovery generated.

As the biotech industry has since exploded, the impact on the land-grant system is perhaps not unexpected. “Researchers want to be at both the cutting edge of science and the cutting edge of the marketplace,” says Andrew Neighbour, until recently the director of UCLA’s office on the business applications of faculty research. (The entire University of California system functions as that state’s “land-grant institution.”) And so the advent of patentable and profitable plants (and animals, for that matter) has meant a shift in research focus away new knowledge and towards the creation of marketable products.

The land-grant institutions find themselves in a pickle. “On the one hand,” says Paul Gepts, professor of agronomy and plant genetics at UC Davis, schools pushed into the free market have developed the habit of patenting research and found a taste for private business deals. But on the other hand, “they have a public role where the information they produce should be available to all.”

As things stand, “public universities,” says Dr. Gepts, “are a contradiction.”

This embrace of patents and profits means that land-grant agricultural research centers today are not playgrounds of academic collaboration they once were. “Things have changed enormously,” says William Folk, a plant geneticist at the University of Missouri. “When I started in the ’70s,” he recalls fondly, “meetings were filled with people criticizing each other and sharing ideas.” But today, he says “if you have an idea that has any potential commercial value, you’re reluctant to share.”

Not surprisingly, school administrators argue that a negative reading of the cozy relationship between agricultural researchers and biotech corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta is hogwash. When asked, Neal Van Alfen, dean of the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, acknowledges that about 20 percent of the $165 million annual research budget is contributed by industry. But Dean Van Alfen is quick to add, “It forms just one part of who we work with.” Research conducted in conjunction with industry interests, he insists, is simply one chunk of “an awfully large amount of work.”

But numbers and percentages don’t tell the whole story, because of the way that industry engages in the land-grant system. In short, they skim. Here’s how it works: (a) federal and state governments hand over taxpayer money to build and sustain the basic infrastructure, without which research can’t hope to take place, then (b) the biotech industry injects some smaller amount of much-needed cash into the system, and then (c) agribusinesses skim off and patent the most promising (and potentially profitable) discoveries that rise to the top.

Still, administrators argue, scientific professionalism keeps industry in check — a researcher who fudges his or her findings to curry industry favor is in for a short career. But that line of reasoning misses the real concern. What’s alarming isn’t that global agribusiness conglomerates like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and DuPont are getting the answers they want from our land-grant entomologists, agronomists and plant geneticists.

It’s that at public institutions, private interests are the ones asking the questions.

What must be kept in mind is that land-grant researchers are generally expected to bring to the table their own research funding, and the situation can already be fairly dire. When UC Davis’ Paul Gepts comments on how his institution’s support is limited to a base salary, I attempt a lame joke: “They give you a desk too, right?” Yes, he responds, but a phone is another matter.

Faculty researchers are so hungry for funding that, says Missouri’s William Folk, “if companies want to entice researchers to work on their projects, all they have to do is wave a bit of money.” “The availability of funds, he says, “makes an enormous difference in what we can do.”

“We’re opportunists,” Folk says, with compassion, of himself and his fellow researchers, “we go after money where it might be.”

When it comes to how industry-university relations shape academic research, UCLA’s Andrew Neighbour is the person to talk to. While an administrator at Washington University in St. Louis, Neighbour managed the school’s landmark multiyear and multimillion-dollar relationship with Monsanto. (Note: WashU is a private institution.) “There’s no question that industry money comes with strings,” Neighbour admits. “It limits what you can do, when you can do it, who it has to be approved by.”

And so the issue at hand becomes one of the questions that are being asked at public land-grant schools. While Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, et al., are paying the bills, are agricultural researchers going to pursue such lines of scientific inquiry as “How will this new corn variety impact the independent New York farmer?” Or, “Will this new tomato make eaters healthier?”

It seems far more likely that the questions that multinational biotech conglomerates are willing to pay to have answered run along the lines of “How can we keep growing our own bottom lines?”

I put it to Dr. Folk. “The companies are there to make money, no doubt,” he responds.

What suffers for falling outside the scope of industry interest? Organic farming, for one. The Organic Farming Research Foundation was founded in the 1980s after, Executive Director Bob Scowcroft tells me, farmers interested in weaning themselves from chemical dependence approached their local land-grant outreach agents for help for pest management. As Scowcroft tells it, their advice was invariably in the spirit of, “Well, sure, I can tell you what to spray.”

OFRF began arming land-grant researchers with modest grants but found that academics interested in conducting organic-related research faced obstacles beyond funding.

“Coming out of the organic closet could be the beginning of the end of your career,” says Scowcroft. Looking outside biotech agriculture is, he says, “like throwing 30 years of the Green Revolution in your boss’s face.” Today, says John Reganold, an OFRF grantee and apple researcher at Washington State University, academics interested in organic farming “just don’t have the money to do what we need to do.”

Also the subject of minimal industry attention: so-called orphan crops, like sorghum and cassava, which feed millions of people in the developing world but aren’t considered patentable or profitable. UC Davis’ Paul Gepts is working to breed a disease-resistant variety of the East African common bean, an important protein source for AIDS sufferers. He’s turned to an English charitable group for funding, and all involved have agreed to resist patenting the plant — once a useful variety is developed, the science will be left in the public domain.

While it’s clear that funding cash is the carrot used by agribusiness to entice researchers into asking the questions industry is most interested in having answered, there is a stick involved: corporately held patents used to block them from asking others.

That’s certainly been Paul Gepts’s experience, when he thought he might tackle the question of gene transfer in Mexican maize varieties. The question, though, is a sensitive one for Monsanto, as one of the arguments against transgenic crops is the difficulty in containing their spread — raising the specter of a threat to the world’s biodiversity. As the maize he was interested in was patented by Monsanto, Gepts asked the company for some samples. Their response: no way.

When I asked Gepts for his take on Monsanto’s motivation for the refusal, I hadn’t yet finished the question when he answered: “Avoiding scrutiny,” he said. Missouri’s Folk seconds the contention that such private claims on science impede research, saying, “Our ability to do science is constrained by the patents held by agribusiness.”

All this said, it’s not fair to say that there hasn’t been resistance against public land-grant schools mutating into institutions of private science. After Novartis had become involved in UC Berkeley’s Department of Plant and Microbiology, the school ordered an internal review by the academic senate, which ultimately deemed the relationship “a mistake.” Lawrence Busch, a Berkeley faculty member who headed the review said at its conclusion: “I think it is high time for serious discussions of what the devil we want our universities to be.”

When Mike Hoffmann — the Cornell entomologist I startled by sharing Bush’s proposed budget cuts — recovers from his shock, he offers his take on “what the devil” our universities should be. The principle that should guide Cornell, Berkeley, Missouri and our other land-grant institutions is simple, he says: public funding for the public good. The mission of America’s centers of agricultural learning is, he concludes, “to produce new knowledge for the public benefit. That’s why we have the land-grant system, and I think it’s pretty important.”

Nancy Scola is a Brooklyn-based writer who has in the past served as the chief blogger at Air America, an aide to former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, as he explored a run for the presidency, and a congressional staffer on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Vaccine Crazies At It Again? Pediatricians Hear/See/Speak No Data

Friday, February 15th, 2008

This lucid and compelling article appeared in HSI Alert, a useful on-line publication. It offers a look at some of the nonsense purveyed by proponents of vaccination – despite the clear dangers of vaccines and the in spite of of the data or the dangers.

Want more information on vaccinations and vaccine hazards? Join the No-Forced-Vaccination Forum today. Click here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join)
to become a member of this vital community of dedicated health freedom advocates focused on maintaining vaccination choice.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD

Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Posted by: “D.L. Bullock” d.l.bullock@sbcglobal.net
Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:45 am (PST)

Dear Reader,

The vaccine crazies are out in force again. Hide your children!

Seriously ? hide your children.

——————————————–
Vast wasteland
——————————————–

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) apparently doesn’t want you to
watch anything on television that runs contrary to their position in the
autism/vaccine debate.

AAP officials seem to believe that any bad news about vaccines ? even if
it’s in a completely fictional setting, such as a kooky comedy/drama ?
will prompt parents to refuse vaccines for their children.

The AAP recently attempted to goad ABC into self-censorship with an open
letter that implored ABC executives to cancel the premiere of “Eli
Stone” ? a new show that featured a subplot about a vaccine lawsuit. A
single mom, represented by lawyer and title character Eli, sues a drug
maker for producing a vaccine with a mercury-based preservative that was
given to her healthy son just before he displayed the first symptoms of
autism.

Happily, ABC execs didn’t cave (although I expect they thoroughly
enjoyed the free publicity), so I watched the show, and it was fun. Not
only did the mom win, she won big ($5.2 million), AND the drug company
executives and their smug top-dollar lawyers were completely humiliated.
In other words, it was a total fantasy.

A couple of days before the airing of the Eli Stone premiere, the AAP
issued a heavy- handed press release that included this ominous curse
(which is most effective when spoken in an overly-theatrical voice,
preferably in an echo chamber): “If parents watch this program and
choose to deny their children immunizations, ABC will share in the
responsibility for the suffering and deaths that occur as a result.”

Cue lightning effects and rolling thunder. The AAP has spoken!

——————————————–
Hiding in plain sight
——————————————–

The AAP press release also notes that no scientific link as been found
between vaccines and autism. And that’s primarily because organizations
like the AAP refuse to recognize existing evidence.

For instance, a 2003 study published in the Journal of the American
Association of Physicians and Surgeons examined extensive vaccination
data. Results showed that kids who receive just three vaccines
containing the preservative thimerosal are 27 times more likely to
develop autism compared to children who get vaccines with no thimerosal.
(Thimerosal breaks down into ethyl mercury in the body, and this is the
suspected culprit that triggers autism.)

So please ? enough with the nonsense that there’s no evidence. If you
WANT evidence, it’s there. It isn’t the ultimate evidence and it isn’t
the Last Word in this debate, but it’s there.

The mindset of “I see nothing” is evident in a new study that appears in
the current issue of Pediatrics ? the official journal of the AAP.
Researchers at the University of Rochester traveled to Argentina where
thimerosal is still used in vaccines for kids.

Researchers drew blood from more than 200 infants before and after
vaccination. Results showed that mercury levels were highest right after
the children received the vaccine, and then returned to normal within a
few weeks. This is offered as some kind of vindication of thimerosal
because mercury levels were lower than expected and dropped much faster
than expected.

But these results beg two glaringly obvious questions 1) How much
mercury might it take to trigger autism? No one knows. And 2): How long
might mercury need to be in the blood stream to trigger autism? An hour?
A year? No one knows.

The authors of the study also admit they don’t know what happened to the
mercury once it left the blood. No mercury turned up in the urine, and
the mercury content in stool samples spiked at first, but then dropped
much more slowly than mercury in the blood.

So where’s the mercury? The bones? The brain? The liver? The immune
system? All of the above? No one knows.

In addition, this study focused on one vaccination. But when U.S. kids
were getting vaccines that contained thimerosal, they routinely received
multiple shots given over a period of several years.

And here’s the best part of this thimerosal “vindication”: An Associated
Press article about the study notes that the lead author “received
research grants and served as a consultant to several vaccine makers,
but said there was no industry involvement in the new study.”

Right. In other words, any notion that this is anywhere close to a Last
Word in the autism/vaccine debate is completely out the window.

The GM Files: Mae Wan Ho, Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

Making the World GM-Free and Sustainable
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/gm-free-sustainable.html

By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, director of the London-based Institute for Science in
Society (ISIS), ( i-sis.org.uk) delivered this article as the keynote
address at Wise Traditions 2006, the 7th annual conference of the Weston A.
Price Foundation.

Genetically modified (GM) crops epitomize industrial monoculture, with its
worst features exaggerated. They are part and parcel of the “environmental
bubble economy,” built on the over-exploitation of natural resources, which
has destroyed the environment, depleted water and fossil fuels and
accelerated global warming. As a result, world grain yields have been
falling for six of the seven past years. Expanding the cultivation of GM
crops at this time is a recipe for global bio-devastation, massive crop
failures and global famine. GM crops are a dangerous diversion from the
urgent task of getting our food system sustainable in order to really feed
the world.

We possess a wealth of knowledge for making our food system sustainable and
for providing food security and health for all, while effectively
mitigating global warming. The greatest obstacle to implementing that
knowledge is the dominant economic model of unrestrained, unbalanced growth
that has precipitated the current crises.

I have proposed to put together all the appropriate technologies in a
potentially highly productive zero-emission, zero-waste food and energy
“Dream Farm 2” based on a model of sustainable systems as organisms. It is
our best way forward to a greener, healthier and more fulfilling life
without fossil fuels.

Stunted Rats

The latest alarming findings on the health hazards of GM food come from the
laboratory of senior scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Russian Academy of
Sciences in Moscow. Her experiments began two years ago, and the initial
results hit the world press when Ermakova was invited to address the 11th
Russian Gastroenterological Week in Moscow in October, 2005.

Female rats given a supplement of GM Roundup Ready soya beginning two weeks
before mating and continuing afterwards through pregnancy and lactation
produced litters in which more than a third of the pups were severely
stunted, and over half of the pups died within three weeks after birth.1
Stunting was five to six times, and mortality six to eight times those of
control litters produced by females on normal rat pellets only, or rat
pellets supplemented with non-GM soya. These results were confirmed in
further experiments. In addition, the surviving pups from the GM soya-fed
females were completely sterile when mated with one another whether they
continued to be fed GM soya or not.


Criminal Negligence

Ermakova’s findings are by no means an isolated case peculiar to a specific
batch of GM soya. They are the latest in a long line of evidence (see
sidebar) from all over the world indicating that GM food and feed may be
inherently hazardous to animal and human health.

Many GM crops–soybean, tomato, maize, cotton, potato, pea–with different
transgenes, fed to rats, mice, cows, sheep, chickens or human beings–have
resulted in illness and deaths.
You don’t have to be a scientific genius to
suspect that the genetic modification process itself or the artificial
genetic material used in genetic modification could be causing problems.

Evidence of GM hazards has been emerging since the 1980s, evidence that
should have halted the development of many GM crops.
2 But our regulators
have acted with bias in favor of GM from the beginning and have
systematically ignored and dismissed research findings that might harm the
fledgling biotech industry.11 By now, the evidence has accumulated to such
an extent that regulators should be answering a charge of criminal
negligence at the very least in continuing their campaign of denial and
misrepresentation while failing to impose a ban on further releases of all
GM crops until and unless they have been proven safe by thorough
independent investigations.5

A ban on further releases is all the more important, as so many scientists
have tried to tell the public what they know. But instead of decisive
action, Ermakova’s funding has been cut, and she is now strongly
discouraged from continuing with the research. She is pleading for other
scientists to repeat her work to see whether they can replicate her
results.

Meanwhile, the biotech industry is aggressively pushing the next generation
of GM food and feed, and our ever-permissive government regulators are
obligingly reassuring everyone that “GM food is safe.”

Think Again

For those who believe that “GM food is safe” because “people have been
eating GM food since its first release in 1994 and no one has fallen ill or
died from it,” think again. First, there has been no labeling in countries
like the US where GM food and feed are most available.
Second, many GM
products are “de-regulated” and hence not known or traceable as such.

Third, there has been no post-release monitoring, so it is impossible to
tell how many people and animals have become ill or have died from eating
GM food and feed, even though in 1999, researchers at the Centers for
Disease Control published a paper suggesting that food-related illnesses
increased two- to ten-fold compared with results of a survey carried out
just before GM food was commercially released in 1994.
12,13

Fourth, GM food and feed may be linked to chronic illnesses such as
autoimmune disease, slow viruses or cancer,
14 which may be difficult to
detect. Finally, animal feed accounts for up to half the world’s harvest,15
so most of the GM produce so far has probably ended up in animal feed after
being processed for seed oil, corn starch, corn syrup and, increasingly,
ethanol and biodiesel.
16,17 That means GM produce is seldom eaten directly
by either animals or human beings so far.
But that is soon to change, if
proponents have their way.
New Generation GM foods

The first GM crop, Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato for prolonged shelf life,
was approved for commercial release in 1992. It was a complete flop. Since
then, however, the area planted to GM crops has been steadily increasing,
and, according to industry sources, reached 90 million hectares in 2005.19
It should be emphasized that this comprises only 1.8 percent of the world’s
agricultural land, and is confined largely to the US, Argentina and Canada.
Two traits–herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance–currently account
for nearly all GM crops, but not for long.

New GM crops with other traits and other GM gut bacteria are poised to
enter the market, in the guise of nutritional benefits and health
foods.
20,21 Food crops genetically modified to overproduce single nutrients
could be public health hazards, as overdoses of many single nutritional
factors are known to be toxic; and genetically modifying natural gut
bacteria could turn into pathogens pre-adapted to invade the human gut.

[

    Note: Codex Alimentarius Ad Hoc Committee on Biotechnologie’s document on nutritionally modified crops states that nutrients produced by crops modified to produce them are not know to be safe, effective, bioidentical or bio-available. They state that in vitro and in vivo studies are inadequate to provide this information so the test animal should be human being. REL

]

In addition, the US FDA is set to approve foods derived from genetically
modified animals for commercial release.
22 ,23 These are likely to be
contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators and growth hormones, as
well as nucleic acids, viruses and bacteria that have the potential to
create pathogens and to trigger cancer. The Institute for Science in
Society has submitted strong objections to United Nations regulator Codex
Alimentarius on these new developments.

Inherently Hazardous

Let me start with some basics. GM food is derived from genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). A GMO is an organism whose natural genetic material has
been modified by having synthetic genetic material inserted into it in the
laboratory, so as to give it special traits or characteristics.

It is generally not easy to get the synthetic gene or genes to work in an
organism, so a very aggressive signal or promoter is needed for each gene,
literally to force the cell to make the desired protein.
25 The cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter is the most popular one used, and is often
accompanied by other “boosters” from a variety of sources. The gene (coding
sequence) itself could also be a composite of pieces copied from other
organisms, with substantial changes in the coding sequence.

For example, MON863 maize is described on the AGBIOS Database as follows:
“The introduced DNA contained the modified cry3Bb1 gene from B.
thuringiensis subsp. kumamotoensis under the control of the 4-AS1 promoter
(CaMV 35S promoter with 4 repeats of an activating sequence), plus the 5′
untranslated leader sequence of the wheat chlorophyll a/b binding protein
(wt CAB leader) and the rice actin intron. The transcription termination
sequence was provided from the 3′ untranslated region of the wheat 17.3 kD
heat shock protein (tahsp17). The modified cry3Bb1 gene encodes a protein
of 653 amino acids whose amino acid sequence differs from that of the
wild-type protein by the addition of an alanine residue at position 2 and
by seven amino acid changes.”26

Thus, MON863 maize contains 9 bits of DNA from different sources including
the coding sequence
, which has been quite substantially altered from the
natural gene.

The synthetic genes and combinations of genes inserted into GMOs and
introduced into our food chain have never existed in billions of years. The
genes code for proteins completely foreign to our food chain and are likely
to provoke immune reactions including allergy.
That could happen even when
the proteins are copies of those in a closely related species. Thus, a
transgenic (GM) pea with a copy of a normally harmless bean protein
provoked debilitating immune responses in mice
,4 simply because each
species processes its proteins differently, decorating them with distinct
carbohydrate chains. Transgenic proteins also differ from the native
proteins in amino acid sequences, some of which are intentional and others
unintentional. And if you just look at the amino acid sequences, 22 out of
33 transgenic proteins in GM crops already commercialized are found to have
similarities to known allergens
, and are therefore suspected allergens.27

Direct evidence also exists indicating that the synthetic genes are not the
same as the natural genes
. Take the Bt toxins isolated from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and incorporated into many GM maize,
cotton and other crop varieties to kill insect pests. Green lacewings
suffer significantly reduced survival and delayed development when fed an
insect pest (lepidopteran) that has eaten GM maize containing the Bt toxin
Cry1Ab, but not when fed the same pest treated with much higher levels of
the natural toxin.
28,29 This extremely important effect, which is passed on
through the food chain, has been documented in several laboratories.
Unfortunately, the researchers misrepresented the results only to mean that
natural Cry1Ab does not harm beneficial insect predators
.30

The synthetic genetic material is introduced into the cells of organisms
with invasive methods that are far from precise–they are uncontrollable,
unreliable and unpredictable.
They end up damaging the natural genetic
material of the organism with many unpredictable, unintended effects,
including gross abnormalities that you can see, and metabolic changes that
may be toxic that you can’t see.
31

The transgenic line is essentially derived from a single cell which has
taken up the trans gene, so its properties will depend on where and in what
form in the genome–the totality of the organism’s genetic material–have
landed in the insert or inserts, and what collateral damage is done. That
is why EU regulation now requires “event specific” characterization of the
transgenic insert or inserts, which also provides a way of detecting
transgenic contamination of GM produce, an increasingly frequent occurrence
involving transgenic lines that have not even been approved for commercial
release.
32

Even more serious, transgenic lines are genetically unstable, so it is
impossible to control for safety or quality. This instability increases the
dangers from unintended horizontal gene transfer. The expression of the
genes can change from generation to generation and, most worrying of all,
the inserts may rearrange, insert at new sites in the genome or insert into
other genomes by horizontal gene transfer.
24,25

The transgenic inserts in practically all the commercially approved lines
were found to have rearranged since they were first characterized by the
biotech companies.
A frequent breakpoint is the cauliflower mosaic virus
promoter present in most, if not all transgenic lines, which we have warned
about.35,36 We have also warned about the fact that the promoter is active
in animal and human cells, contrary to the assumption of GM proponents that
it is active only in plant cells
37 and this warning has also been recently
confirmed.
38 The genetic instability itself is worrying, as the transgenic
variety effectively changed into something else, thereby invalidating all
previous safety assessments and making it difficult to detect contaminating
transgenic material.

Horizontal Gene Transfer

Another major worry is horizontal gene transfer and recombination. Many
foreign synthetic genes are copies of those from bacteria and viruses that
cause diseases and include antibiotic resistance marker genes to help track
the movements of the foreign gene inserts and select for cells that have
taken up the foreign genes.

Right from the beginning of genetic engineering in the mid 1970s,
geneticists themselves were concerned that releasing those synthetic
genetic materials increased the risk of creating new disease-causing
viruses and bacteria and spreading antibiotic resistance that would make
infections untreatable.
39 They even imposed a moratorium subsequent to the
1975 Asilomar Declaration, which endorsed sustainable agriculture.
Unfortunately, the moratorium was short-lived, as geneticists were in a
hurry to begin commercial exploitation of genetic engineering. The
guidelines set up were totally inadequate, and remain so to this day.40

It is important to realize that the toolkit of genetic engineering is
precisely the same as that for making biological weapons.
41 The US
government has been ostentatiously concerned about “biosecurity” ever since
September 11, which extends to experiments directly or indirectly involved
in creating lethal biological agents. Yet the regulators are still
reassuring us that all genetic engineering experiments and the release of
GMOs and products thereof are safe. I have warned the UK government that
there can be no biosecurity without biosafety.
42 The numerous “biodefense”
labs set up in the US and elsewhere to research and genetically engineer
lethal pathogens for the stated purpose of creating vaccines pose the most
serious public health risks.

The genetic material persists long after the cell or organism is dead, and
can be taken up by bacteria and viruses in all environments. This
process–called horizontal gene transfer
and recombination–is the main
route to creating dangerous pathogens. Genetic engineering is nothing if
not greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and nasty
surprises have been sprung already. For example, researchers in Australia
“accidentally” transformed a harmless mousepox virus into a lethal pathogen
that killed all the mice, even those that were supposed to be resistant to
the virus.

Headlines in the New Scientist editorial of January, 2001 proclaimed: “The
genie is out, biotech has just sprung a nasty surprise. Next time, it could
be catastrophic.”43 The lead article continued in the same vein: “Disaster
in the making. An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the
ultimate bioweapon.”44

The researchers added a gene coding for an immune signalling molecule to
the virus, which they thought would boost antibody production; instead, it
suppressed immune responses. The researchers had previously put the same
gene into a vaccinia virus and found that it delayed the clearance of virus
from the animals, so it may well have the same immune suppressive effects
for all viruses. Imagine what would happen if this gene ever got into a
smallpox virus.

[Genetic material combines and recombines in viruses in nature. The same is true of genetic material in bacteria. This recombination does not limit itself to natural genetic material but includes unpredictable transmission of genetically modified DNA as well. REL]

More surprisingly, in 2003, researchers at the University of California at
Berkeley reported that disrupting a set of disease-causing genes in the
tuberculosis bacterium resulted in a hyper-virulent mutant strain that
killed all infected mice by 41 weeks, while all the control mice exposed to
the unmodified bacterium survived.
45 This goes to show how very little we
understand about the way bacteria and viruses cause diseases.
Cancer Triggers

Genetic engineering poses yet another insidious danger. The synthetic genes
created for genetic modification are designed to cross species barriers and
to jump into the genome of cells. Such constructs jumping into the genome
of human cells can trigger cancer. This is not just a theoretical
possibility; it has happened in gene therapy
,46 which is genetic
modification of human cells using synthetic constructs very similar to
those for genetic modification of plants and animals.

In 2000, researchers in the Neckar Hospital in Paris, France, treated
infants with X-linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency apparently
successfully by isolating bone marrow cells from the patients, genetically
modifying them in the test tube, and then injecting the genetically
modified cells back into the patients. In this way, they thought they had
avoided the widely acknowledged major hazards of gene therapy: creating
replicating viruses and triggering cancer. But since 2002, three infants
have developed leukemia, and one has died. The foreign synthetic gene
carried by the virus vector was inserted near a human gene that controls
cell division, making it overactive, resulting in uncontrollable
multiplication of the white blood cells.

Failure on All Counts

GM crops are industrial mono cultures, only far worse. Two traits account
for nearly all GM crops planted: herbicide-tolerance (almost all
glyphosate-tolerant or Roundup Ready) accounting for more than 80 percent
of GM crops, and insect-resistance (Bt-crops engineered with toxins from
the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to kill insect pests), accounting
for 30 percent.
19 (Eleven percent of GM crops have both traits.)

Evidence has been accumulating over the years that both types of GM crops
have failed on every count: yield drag, poor performance in the field, more
pesticides used, reduced profits for farmers (at times drastically so,
causing poor farmers to commit suicide), and bad for health and the
environment;
49 so much so that many people, including me, were ready to
say, “Good-bye, GMOs,” in 2002.50 We were too optimistic; we did not
consider how powerful were corporate propaganda and disinformation.51

But a spate of recent findings not only confirms what we already know, but
also completes the debacle. And health hazards of GM food and feed are not
the only worry; Roundup-resistant super-weeds and Bt-resistant insect pests
have now been documented, rendering useless both Roundup-tolerant and Bt
crops.

The problems don’t end there. Roundup herbicide causes sudden crop death.
It is lethal to frogs and highly toxic to human placental cells, even at
one-tenth the recommended dosage. It is linked to cancers, neuro-defects
and spontaneous abortions.
52 Bt crops express variable amounts of the
toxins, often insufficient to kill target pests but sufficiently poisonous
to harm beneficial insects including predators, bees and soil decomposers.
And Bt toxins are known to be actual or potential allergens that can
provoke strong immune reactions.
53

Farmers from all over the world are now reporting that GM crops require
more water, and are less tolerant to drought than non-GM varieties;
63 this
finding may prove to be a final nail in the coffin for GM crops.

It is sheer lunacy to expand the cultivation of GM crops across the world,
as the pro-GM lobby is pushing for. It can lead nowhere else but towards
global bio-devastation, massive crop failures and global famine.

A Dangerous Diversion

GM crops are a dangerous diversion that prevents us from addressing the
global energy and food crises.
Perhaps people are still unaware or in
denial of the crises as food54,55 and energy run out56 and as global
warming accelerates.57

World grain yield has fallen for six of the past seven years, bringing
reserves to the lowest level in more than thirty years.
58 Chronic depletion
of aquifers in the major bread baskets of the world, droughts, and soaring
temperatures, all from global warming, are taking their toll and are set to
do even more damage to food production. An international team of crop
scientists has already reported that crop yields fall by 10 percent for
each degree Centigrade rise in night-time temperature during the growing
season.59

The Inter government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that the
earth’s average temperature would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C within this
century.60 But the IPCC model fails to capture the abrupt nature of climate
change, which could be happening over a matter of decades or years.61 A
group based in Oxford University in the UK is predicting a greater
temperature rise of 1.9 to 11.5 degrees C when the carbon dioxide level in
the atmosphere doubles its pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million
sometime within the present century.62

Dream Farm

The good news is that we have a wealth of existing knowledge that can
provide food security and health for all while significantly mitigating
global warming.
64,65 We have the knowhow to be food and fuel rich without
fossil fuels.
A major obstacle to implementing this knowledge is the
overwhelming commitment of our elected representatives to the dominant
neo-liberal economic model, otherwise known as the environmental bubble
economy.

The dominant model glorifies competitiveness and unlimited growth involving
the most wanton and destructive exploitation of the earth’s natural
resources, laying waste to agricultural land and biodiversity, and
impoverishing billions of souls in the process.

In order to overcome these obstacles to implementing the knowledge, we have
proposed to set up Dream Farm 2.66

Dream Farm 2 is a model, integrated, zero-emission, zero-waste, highly
productive farm that maximizes the use of renewable energies and turns
“wastes” into food and energy resources, thereby completely obviating the
need for fossil fuels. It is our answer to the food and energy crises,
climate change and many other problems. It is a microcosm of a different
way of being and becoming in the world, and in that respect, nothing short
of a social revolution.

[This is very close to Songhai Center. The energy source described below is the biogas digester system Songhai Center uses ot produce abundant, safe, clean energy. REL]

In a way, I have dedicated the past 20 years towards developing Dream Farm
2. The technical underpinnings are described in my book The Rainbow and the
Worm – The Physics of Organisms (2nd Edition),67 which presents a theory of
the organism and sustainable systems, and the social and spiritual
revolution this theory entails.

The ideas have been taken further forward recently, thanks to theoretical
ecologist Robert Ulanowicz at the University of Maryland who co-authored a
paper with me entitled Sustainable Systems as Organisms?;68 and George
Chan’s Integrated Food and Waste Management System (IFWMS),69 which
inspired me to extend the theory of sustainable systems as organisms to
include growth and development explicitly. I call his model Dream Farm 1.

The farms are very diverse, depending on local resources, ingenuity and
imagination. Anaerobic digestion is the core waste-treatment and energy
technology in Dream Farm 1. It has numerous advantages over other
waste-treatment and energy technologies, including other biofuels71 The
Chinese government, by the way, is promoting the widespread use of biogas
digesters to support a burgeoning eco-economy.72

Unsustainable Versus Sustainable Systems

Dream Farm 1 gave me a lot of food for thought on how my theory of the
organism and sustainable systems contrasts with the dominant model.

The dominant model of infinite competitive growth can be represented as the
bigger fish swallowing the smaller ad infinitum, and it describes equally
how a person should behave and how a company should develop in order to be
successful. Another way to represent it is a diagram in Figure 1. The
system grows relentlessly, swallowing up the earth’s resources, laying
waste to everything in its path, like a hurricane. There is no closed cycle
to hold resources within, to build up stable organized social or ecological
structures.

Spiral

Figure 1. The dominant economic model of infinite unsustainable growth that
swallows up the earth’s resources and exports massive amounts of wastes and
entropy.

In contrast, the archetype of a sustainable system is a closed life cycle,
like that of an organism.
It is ready to grow and develop, to build up
structures in a balanced way and perpetuate them, and that’s what
sustainability is all about. Closing the cycle creates a stable, autonomous
structure that is self-maintaining, self-renewing and self-sufficient.

In order to do that, one needs to satisfy as much as possible the
zero-entropy or zero-waste ideal, as shown in Figure 2. All natural systems
tend towards this ideal, which is why we don’t fall apart, and why we grow
old only very slowly. If we were perfect, we’d never grow old. The secret
is described in my book, the Rainbow Worm.

Zero Entropy Model

Figure 2. The zero-entropy ideal of a sustainable system.

The “zero-waste” or “zero-entropy” model of the organism and sustainable
systems essentially predicts balanced development and growth at every
stage,
as opposed to the dominant model of infinite, unsustainable growth.
This immediately disposes of the myth that the alternative to the dominant
model is to have no development nor any growth at all, which is how most of
the dominant model critics see it.

Cycles Within Cycles

The system’s cycle contains more cycles within that are interlocked to help
one another thrive and prosper.
The minimum integrated farm has the farmer,
livestock and crops. The farmer prepares the ground to sow the seeds for
the crops to grow, which feed the livestock and the farmer; the livestock
returns manure to feed the crops. Very little is wasted or exported to the
environment. In fact, a high proportion of the resources is recycled and
kept inside the system. The system stores energy as well as material
resources such as carbon. The extra carbon is sequestered in the soil as
the soil improves and in the standing biomass of crops and livestock.

The farm can perpetuate itself like that quite successfully and
sustainably, or it can grow by engaging more cycles, that is, units of
devolved autonomy that help support the other cycles so that all become
more productive and efficient.

In the old paradigm, organisms are predominantly viewed as competing for
resources and for space. But in nature there are three space dimensions and
the time dimension also. We’ve got space-time that we can fill up more
thickly with life cycles of different sizes that occupy different
space-times. That is exactly what organisms in a naturally biodiverse
ecosystem do to maximize the reciprocal, symbiotic relationships that
benefit all the species. So you can add fish, algae, poultry, worms,
mushrooms, and so forth, turning the “waste” from one cycle into resources
for another.

The more lifecycles incorporated, the more energy and standing biomass are
stored within the system, and the more productive the farm. It will also
support more farmers or farm workers.

Productivity and biodiversity always go together in a sustainable system,
as generations of farmers have known, and recent academic researchers have
rediscovered. It is also the most energy efficient. Why? Because the
different life cycles are essentially holding the energy for the whole
system by way of reciprocity, keeping as much as possible and recycling it
within the system.

In contrast, industrial monoculture–particularly monoculture based on GM
crops–is the least energy efficient system in terms of output per unit of
input, and often less productive than sustainable systems in absolute
terms, despite high external input, because it does not close the cycle, it
does not have biodiversity to hold the energy within, and it ends up
generating a lot of waste, entropy and soil depletion

In a recent visit to China as part of the Dream Farm 2 project, I was
delighted to discover that something very similar to my model of
sustainable systems as organisms is in the official Chinese mainstream
discourse–they call it the “circular economy.” Chinese farmers have
perfected this elegant system over the past two thousand years73 especially
in the Pearl River Delta of southeast China. This integrated agriculture
and fish farming system is a key component of George Chan’s IFWMS. The
success of this system really disposes of the Malthusian myth that a given
piece of land has only a constant carrying capacity in terms of the number
of people it can support. There is a world of difference between industrial
monoculture and circular integrated farming. The Pearl River Delta
sustained an average of 17 people per hectare in the 1980s, a carrying
capacity at least ten times the average of industrial farming, and two to
three times the world average.

Dream Farm 2 is a particular implementation and extension of George Chan’s
IFWMS concept, in that it consciously integrates food and energy
production, emphasizing consumption of both at the point of production.
While it operates as a farm, it will also serve as a demonstration,
education and research center and incubator for new ideas, designs and
technologies. Its aim is to promote and support similar farms springing up
all over Britain and the rest of the world, not only through publicity
about Dream Farm 2 itself, but also by collating and analyzing data from
all similar farms, and by serving as resource center and center for
information exchange (see Sidebar).66

Most significant of all, it runs entirely without fossil fuels. As Robert
Ulanowicz says, “I’ll bet people will be surprised at how quickly the
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can come down if we stop burning
fossil fuels.” I think he may well be right.

Sidebars

Damning Evidence Against the Safety of GM Food and Feed

1. Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported between 2005 and
2006 that female rats fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced excessive
numbers of severely stunted pups with more than half of the litter dying
within three weeks, and the surviving pups completely sterile (see main
article).

2. Between 2004 and 2005, hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers in
Madhya Pradesh, India, suffered allergy symptoms from exposure to Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) cotton
.2

3. Between 2005 and 2006, thousands of sheep died after grazing on Bt
cotton crop residues in four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra
Pradesh in India.
3

4. In 2005, scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization in Canberra, Australia reported that a harmless
protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1) transferred to peas caused
inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other
proteins in the diet.
4

5. From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and
Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM-soya affected cells in
the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice.
5

6. In 2003, villagers in the south of the Philippines suffered mysterious
illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower; antibodies to
the Bt protein were found in the villagers, there have been at least five
unexplained deaths and some remain ill to this day.
5

7. In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier showed that rats fed MON863
GM maize developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities.
6

8. Between 2001 and 2002, a dozen cows died in Hesse, Germany after eating
Syngenta GM maize Bt176, and more in the herd had to be slaughtered due to
mysterious illnesses.
7

9. In 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett
Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats
fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining
twice as thick as controls.
8

10. Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the gut of
mice fed Bt potato.
9

11. The US Food and Drug Administration had data dating back to early 1990s
showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had
developed small holes in their stomach.
8

12. In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK
regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon
LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls.
10
The Language of the Dance

The greatest danger is the mindset of the GM proponents. Genetic
engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s under the illusion
that the genetic material is constant and static and the characteristics of
organisms are hardwired in their genes. One gene determines one
characteristic. But geneticists soon discovered to their great surprise
that the genetic material is dynamic and fluid, in that both the expression
and structure of genes are constantly changing under the influence of the
environment. By the early 1980s, geneticists had already coined the term,
“the fluid genome,” to mark this major paradigm shift, as described in my
book, Living with the Fluid Genome.47

The processes responsible for the fluid genome are precisely orchestrated
by the organism as a whole in a dance of life that is necessary for the
organism to survive and thrive. In contrast, genetic engineering in the lab
is crude, imprecise and invasive. The synthetic genes can land anywhere, in
any form, causing a lot of collateral damage to the genome, and tending to
be unstable, basically because these rogue genes do not know the language
of the dance. Genetic engineers haven’t learned to dance with life.
Call for a Ban

In 2003, accumulating evidence on the many dangers of GM organisms prompted
dozens of prominent scientists from around the world to launch themselves
as the Independent Science Panel (ISP). Our stated goal: to overcome the
campaign of disinformation from pro-GM scientists who are working to
promote the corporate agenda, and to reclaim science for the public good.
We compiled all the evidence against GM crops as well as the evidence on
the successes and benefits of sustainable non-GM agriculture in an ISP
report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World.48 Based on this evidence,
we have called for a ban on the environmental releases of GM crops and a
comprehensive shift to sustainable agriculture. Please support these
efforts by sending this article, which updates the evidence contained in
the ISP report, to your policy makers and elected representatives.
Advantages of Anaerobic Digestion to Recover Methane

* Potential to provide 11.7 percent of all energy needs or 50.2 percent
of transport fuels in the UK.
* Methane can be used as fuel for mobile vehicles or for combined heat
and power generation.
* Methane-driven cars are already on the market, and currently the
cleanest vehicles on the road by far.
* Biogas methane is a renewable and carbon mitigating fuel (more than
carbon neutral).
* Saves on carbon emission twice over, by preventing the escape of
methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere and by substituting for
fossil fuel.
* Conserves plant nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus for soil
productivity.
* Produces a superb fertilizer for crops as a by-product.
* Prevents pollution of ground water, soil and air.
* Improves food and farm hygiene, removes 90 percent or more of harmful
chemicals and bacteria.
* Can be adapted to produce hydrogen either directly or from methane.

Dream Farm 1

The anaerobic digester takes in livestock manure plus wastewater and
generates biogas, which provides all the energy needs for heating, cooking
and electricity. The partially cleansed wastewater goes into the algal
basin where the algae produce by photosynthesis all the oxygen needed to
detoxify the water, making it safe for the fish. The algae are harvested to
feed chickens, ducks, geese and other livestock. The fishpond supports a
compatible mixture of five or six fish species. Water from the fishpond is
used to “fertigate” crops growing in the fields or on the raised dykes.
Aquaculture of rice, fruits and vegetables can be done in floats on the
surface of the fishpond. Water from the fishpond can also be pumped into
greenhouses to support aquaculture of fruits and vegetables. The anaerobic
digester yields a residue rich in nutrients that is an excellent fertilizer
for crops. It could also be mixed with algae and crop residues for
culturing mushrooms after steam sterilization. The residue from mushroom
culture can be fed to livestock or composted. Crop residues are fed back to
livestock. Crop and food residues are used to grow earthworms to feed fish
and fowl. Compost and worm castings go to condition the soil. Livestock
manure goes back into the anaerobic digester, thus closing the grand cycle.
The result is a highly productive farm that’s more than self-sufficient in
food and energy.

Farm animals are central to this model. Dream Farm 1 is strong on animal
welfare.70 The animals are organically fed. The pigs are especially easy to
toilet-train(!) to deposit their manure directly into the digester, so the
animals and their living quarter are spotlessly clean, which makes for
healthy and contented animals.

Dream Farm 2

The complete model of Dream Farm 2 will be implemented at potential sites
now under consideration. Because this is an organic system in the sense I
have described, we don’t have to have all the elements all at once. We can
have a very simple system consisting of biogas digesters, livestock, crops
and algae basins without fishponds, as that essentially does the water
purification already and closes the cycle. The algae can be used to feed
livestock, as an alternative to grain or soybeans.

Notice that three biogas digesters are present, connected both in parallel
and in series. This is advisable, because it provides spares in case one is
not working properly. It also provides for the production of both hydrogen
and methane in a two-stage digestion process. I am also suggesting that we
include human manure in the biogas digestion, as well as restaurant wastes.
That way, we hardly export any waste to the outside.

The challenge now is to make Dream Farm 2 a reality, to put flesh on the
bare bones of the diagram, so we can start building the best when sites are
agreed upon, and we can promote and support a worldwide movement. Already,
we have potential partners in UK, US, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Ethiopia,
Mauritius, and France. We believe this is the best way forward to a
greener, cleaner, healthier and more fulfilling life without fossil
fuels.59

Benefits of Dream Farm 2

1. Assembles in one showcase all the relevant technologies that can deliver
sustainable food and energy and a profitable zero carbon economy.

2. Generates all its own energy for heating and electricity, including
clean fuel for transport.

3. Energy use at the point of production enables combined heat and power
generation and improves efficiency by 70 percent.

4. Runs entirely without fossil fuels.

5. Saves substantially on carbon dioxide emissions, by preventing methane
and nitrous oxide escaping, by substituting for fossil fuels and by
improved energy efficiency.

6. Increases sequestration of carbon in soil and standing biomass.

7. Reduces wastes and environmental pollution to a minimum.

8. Conserves and purifies water and controls flooding.

9. Produces a diversity of crops, livestock and fish in abundance.

10. Fresh and nutritious food free from agrochemicals produced and consumed
locally for maximum health benefits.

11. Provides employment opportunities for the local community.

12. Provides a showcase and incubator for how appropriate new energy and
food technologies are implemented.

13. Provides hands-on education and research opportunities at all levels
from infants to university students and beyond.

14. Supports and promotes similar farms in the UK and all over the world.

References

1. Ho MW. GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society 33
(in press).
2. Ho MW. More illnesses linked to Bt crops. Science in Society 30, 8-10,
2006.
3. Ho MW. Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society 30.
12-13, 2006.
4. Ho MW. Transgenic pea that made mice ill. Science in Society 29, 28-29,
2006.
5. Ho MW. GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines.
Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006.
6. “French experts very disturbed by health effects of Monsanto GM corn”
GMWatch, 23 April 2004. www.gmwatch.org
7. Ho MW and Burcher S. Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society 21,
4-6, 2004.
8. Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential
human health effects. In Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F
D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International,
2003.
9. Fares NH and El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice
fed on dendotoxin-treated potatotes and transgenic potatoes. Natural
Toxins, 1998, 6, 219-33; also “Bt is toxic” by Joe Cummins and Mae-Wan Ho,
ISIS News 7/8, February 2001, ISSN: 1474-1547 (print), ISSN: 1474-1814
(online) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php Agricultural Biotechnology
2006, www.ISAAA.org
10. Novotny E. Animals avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society
21, 9-11, 2004.
11. Ho MW and Steinbrecher RA. Fatal flaws in food safety assessment:
critique of the joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report.
Environmental & Nutritional Interactions 1998, 2, 51-84.
12. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C. Griffin
PM and Tauxe RV. Food-related illness and death in the United States.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 1999, 5, 607-25.
13. Ho MW. US foodborne illnesses up two to ten fold. ISIS Report 3
November 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FoodborneIllnesses.php ; also ISIS
News 13/14, February 2002.
14. Ho MW. Horizontal gene transfer, the hidden hazards of genetic
engineering. ISIS Report 2001, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontal.php
15. Genetically modified animal feed. Briefing, Friends of the Earth, May
2006, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gm_animal_feeds.pdf
16. Ho MW. Biofuels for oil addicts. Science in Society 30, 29-30, 2006.
17. Ho MW. Biodiesel boom for Europe? Science in Society 30, 31-32, 2006.
18. Joensen L and Ho MW. Argentina’s GM woes. Science in Society 20, 2003.
19. Agricultural Biotechnology 2006, www.ISAAA.org
20. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops for health? ISIS Report, 24 September
2006, submitted to Codex Alimentarius public consultation.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Crops_for_Health.php
21. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM crops and microbes for health or public health
hazards? Science in Society 32 (in press).
22. Cummins J and Ho MW. Genetically modified food animals coming. ISIS
Report 25 September 2006, submitted to Codex Alimentarius public
consultation,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Genetically_Modified_Food_Animals_Coming.php
23. Cummins J and Ho MW. GM food animals coming. Science in Society 32 (in
press).
24. Ho MW. Special safety concerns of transgenic agriculture and related
issues. Briefing paper for Minister of State for the Environment, The Rt
Hon Michael Meacher, ISIS Report, April 1999,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meacher99.php
25. Ho MW and Cummins J. GM food and feed not fit for “man or beast”. ISIS
Report, ISP Briefing to UK Parliament, 7 May 2004,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ManorBeast.php
26. Agbios, http://www.agbios.com/main.php
27. Ho MW, Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Cummins J. Are transgenic proteins
allergenic? Science in Society 25, 4-5, 2005.
28. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Uptake of Bt-toxin by
herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea”, Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.
29. Romeis J, Dutton A and Bigler F. “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab)
has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea
(Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)”, Journal of Insect Physiology 2004,
in press.
30. Dutton A, Romeis J and Bigler F. “Assessing the risks of insect
resistant transgenic plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt-maize
expressing Cry1Ab as a case study”, BioControl 2003, 48, 611″36.
31. Ho MW. FAQs on genetic engineering. ISIS tutorial
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
32. Cummins J and Ho MW. USDA poised to deregulate illegal GM rice. Science
in Society 32 (in press).
33. Ho MW. Transgenic lines proven unstable. Science in Society 20 , 2003.
34. Ho MW. Unstable transgenic lines illegal. Science in Society 21, 2004.
35. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter — a
recipe for Disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1999 11,
194-7. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
36. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. Hazards of transgenic plants with the
cauliflower mosaic viral promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
2000, 12, 6-11. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
37. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. CaMV35S promoter fragmentation hotspot
confirmed and it is active in animals. Microbial Ecology in Health and
Disease 2000, 12, 189.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers2.php#section5
38. Myhre MR. Fenton KA, Eggert K. Nielsen KM and Traavik T. The 35S CaMV
plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. Eur Food Res
Technol 2005. DOI 10.1007/y00217.005.0154.3
39. Ho MW, Traavik T, Olscik R, Tappeser B, Howard V, von Weizsacker C and
McGavin G. Gene technology and gene ecology of infectious diseases.
Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1998, 10, 33-59.
40. Ho MW. Ryan A.Cummins J and Traavik T. Slipping through the Regulatory
Net: Naked and Free Nucleic Acids, Biotechnology series, Third World
Network, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php
41. Ho MW. GM & bio-weapons in the post-genomics era. Science in Society
15, 15-19, 2002.
42. Ho MW. No biosecurity without biosafety, biodefence research endangers
the public. Science in Society 26, 44-47, 2005.
43. “The genie is out”, Editorial, New Scientist 13 January 2001.
44. Nowak R. Disaster in the making. New Scientist 2001: 13 Jan. 4-5.
45. Shimono N, Morici L, Casall N, Cantrell S, Sidders B, Ehrt S and Riley
LW. Hypervirulent mutant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resulting from
disruption of the mce1 operon. PNAS 2003, 100, 15918-23.
46. Ho MW. Gene therapy woes. Science in Society 26, 36, 2005.
47. Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluidGenome.php
48. Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, Independent
Science Panel Report, Institute of Science in Society and Third World
Network, London and Penang, 2003; republished as GM-Free, Exposing the
Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply,
Vitalhealth Publishing, Ridgefield, Ct., 2004 (both available from ISIS
online bookstore http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#1 )
49. Lim LC and Matthews J. GM crops failed on every count. ISIS News 13/14,
31-33, 2002.
50. Ho MW. Goodbye GMOs, Science in Society 16, 10-27, 2002.
51. Gala R. India’s Bt cotton fraud. Science in Society 26, 27-28, 2005.
52. Ho MW and Cummins J. Roundup ready sudden death, superweeds,
allergens…Time to wipe GM crops off the globe. Science in Society 28,
26-27, 2005.
53. Ho MW. Scientists confirm failures of Bt crops. Science in Society 28,
22-24, 2005.
54. Brown L. Outgrowing the Earth, The Food Security Challenge in an Age of
Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures, W.W. Norton & C., New York,
2004.
55. Ho MW. The food bubble economy. Science in Society 25, 2005.
56. Ho MW. Is oil running out? Science in Society 25, 50-51, 2005.
57. Ho MW. Global warming is happening. Science in Society 31, 23-24, 2006.
58. Dyer G. How long can the world feed itself? Energy Bulletin, 10 October
2006, http://www.energybulletin.net/21736.html
59. Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, LazAa RC, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno GS,
Khush GS and Cassman KG, Rice yields decline with higher night temperatures
from global warming. PNAS 2004, 101, 9971-5.
60. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working
Group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2001.
61. Ho MW. Abrupt climate change happening. Science in Society 20, 23,
2003, 20, 23.
62. “Internet project forecasts global warming. Biggest-ever climate
simulation warns temperatures may rise by 11oC.” Michael Hopkin,
New@nature.com published online: 26 January 2005.
63. “Farmers ask why GM crops perform worse in drought” Network of
Concerned Farmers, 20 June 2005,
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253
64. Ho MW. Sustainable food systems for sustainable development. Science in
Society 27, 33-35, 2005.
65. Ho MW, Bunyard P, Saunders PT, Bravo E and Gala R. Which Energy? 2006
ISIS Energy Report, Institute of Science in Society, London, 2006.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/books.php#238
66. Ho MW. Dream Farm 2 — story so far. Science in Society 31, 40-43,
2006.
67. Ho MW. The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms. 2nd
(enlarged) ed. World Scientific, Singapore, 1998, reprinted 1999, 2001,
2003 (available online from ISIS website www.i-sis.org.uk).
68. Ho MW and Ulanowicz R. Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems
2005, 82, 39-51. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/papers1.php#section3
69. Ho MW. Dream farm. Science in Society 27, 26-28, 2005.
70. Chan G. Dream Farms. Effective & economic possibilities in applying
ecological engineering means to sustainable agriculture & agribusiness.
Presentation at ISIS Dream Farm workshop, Kindersley Centre, Berkshire, UK,
21 January 2006. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/onlinestore/av.php
71. Ho MW. How to be fuel and food rich under climate change, Science in
Society 31, 37-39, 2006.
72. Li K-M and Ho MW. Biogas China, Science in Society 32, 34-37, 2006.
73. Ho MW. Circular economy of the dyke-pond system. Science in Society 32,
38-41, 2006.

About the Author

Mae Wan Ho, PhDMae-Wan Ho, PhD, obtained her B.S. degree in biology in 1964
and her Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1967 from Hong Kong University. She was a
postdoctoral fellow in biochemical genetics from 1968 to 1972 at the
University of California in San Diego, during which time she won a
competitive fellowship of the U.S. National Genetics Foundation.

Since 1994, Ho has been scientific adviser to the Third World Network and
has played a major role in informing policy makers and the public during
negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international
agreement regulating the trade of genetically engineered products. Ho
continues to play a prominent part in exposing what she calls “the bad
science” of genetic engineering that’s driven both by a Darwinian
perspective of the world and the mistaken view that organisms are hardwired
in their genes.

In April 2003, she initiated the Independent Science Panel to oppose the
corporate takeover of science, and drafted an influential report, “The Case
for a GM-free Sustainable World,” in which independent scientists will be
joining forces with all sectors of civil society in a bid to make our food
system sustainable, that would also ameliorate the worst excesses of global
warming and provide food security for all. In April 2006, she co-authored
an extremely influential Which Energy report sponsored by dozens of civil
society organizations which sets out clear options for shifting to a
zero-carbon economy.

She has more than 300 publications and a dozen books spanning several
disciplines, including The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms
(1993, 1998), Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? (1998, 1999), and
Living with the Fluid Genome (2003). She also edits the radical science
magazine, Science in Society.

Ho heads the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in
Milton Keynes in the UK. For further information, visit www.i-sis.org.uk.