Archive for February, 2008

Text of “Mother’s Act”, S. 1375

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

Source: Thomas.loc.gov


MOTHERS Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 1375 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1375

To ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 11, 2007

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. BROWN, Mr. DODD, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act’ or the `MOTHERS Act’ .

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) Postpartum depression is a devastating mood disorder which strikes many women during and after pregnancy.

(2) Postpartum mood changes are common and can be broken into three subgroups: `baby blues,’ which is an extremely common and the less severe form of postpartum depression; postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, which are more severe than baby blues and can occur during pregnancy and anytime within the first year of the infant’s birth; and postpartum psychosis, which is the most extreme form of postpartum depression and can occur during pregnancy and up to twelve months after delivery.

(3) `Baby blues’ is characterized by mood swings, feelings of being overwhelmed, tearfulness, irritability, poor sleep, mood changes, and a sense of vulnerability that usually starts in the first week and resolves without treatment by the end of the second week postpartum.

(4) The symptoms of postpartum mood and anxiety disorders are as defined in the latest edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), as published by American Psychological Association.

(5) The symptoms of postpartum psychosis include losing touch with reality, distorted thinking, delusions, auditory hallucinations, paranoia, hyperactivity, and rapid speech or mania.

(6) Baby blues afflicts up to 80 percent of new mothers, postpartum depression occurs in 10 to 20 percent of new mothers, and postpartum psychosis strikes 1 in 1,000 new mothers.

(7) The causes of postpartum depression are complex and unknown at this time; however, contributing factors include: a steep and rapid drop in hormone levels after childbirth; difficulty during labor or pregnancy; a premature birth; a miscarriage; feeling overwhelmed, uncertain, frustrated or anxious about one’s new role as a mother ; a lack of support from one’s spouse, friends or family; marital strife; stressful events in life such as death of a loved one, financial problems, or physical or mental abuse; a family history of depression or mood disorders; a previous history of major depression or anxiety; or a prior postpartum depression.

(8) Postpartum depression is a treatable disorder if promptly diagnosed by a trained provider and attended to with a personalized regimen of care including social support, therapy, medication, and when necessary hospitalization.

(9) All too often postpartum depression goes undiagnosed or untreated due to the social stigma surrounding depression and mental illness, the romanticization of motherhood, the new mother’s inability to self-diagnose her condition, the new mother’s shame or embarrassment over discussing her depression so near to the birth of her child, the lack of understanding in society and the medical community of the complexity of postpartum depression, and economic pressures placed on hospitals and providers.

(10) Untreated, postpartum depression can lead to further depression, substance abuse, loss of employment, divorce and further social alienation, self-destructive behavior, or even suicide.

(11) Untreated, postpartum depression impacts society through its effect on the infant’s physical and psychological and cognitive development, child abuse, neglect or death of the infant or other siblings, and the disruption of the family.

(12) This Act shares the goals of the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act and will help new mothers who are battling with postpartum conditions.

TITLE I–DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS

SEC. 101. DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS.

Subpart 3 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-31 et seq.) is amended–

(1) by inserting after the subpart heading the following:

`CHAPTER I–GENERAL PROVISIONS’;

and

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following:

`CHAPTER II–DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS

`SEC. 520K. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM OF GRANTS.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall in accordance with this chapter make grants to provide for projects for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective and cost-efficient systems to–

`(1) provide education to women who have recently given birth, and their families, concerning postpartum depression, postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, and postpartum psychosis (referred to in this chapter as `postpartum conditions’) before such women leave their birthing centers and to screen new mothers for postpartum conditions during their first year of postnatal checkup visits, including the standard 6-week postnatal checkup visit; and

`(2) provide for the delivery of essential services to individuals with postpartum conditions and their families.

`(b) Recipients of Grants- A grant under subsection (a) may be made to an entity only if the entity–

`(1) is–

`(A) in the case of a grant to carry out the activities described in subsection (c)(1), a State; and

`(B) in the case of a grant to carry out the activities described in subsection (c)(2), a public or nonprofit private entity, which may include a State or local government; a public or nonprofit private hospital, community-based organization, hospice, ambulatory care facility, community health center, migrant health center, tribal government or territory, or homeless health center; or other appropriate public or nonprofit private entity; and

`(2) submits to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.

`(c) Certain Activities-

`(1) EDUCATION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects under subsection (a)(1) develop policies and procedures to ensure that education concerning postpartum conditions is provided to women in accordance with subparagraph (B), that training programs regarding such education are carried out at health facilities within the State, and that screening and referral is provided in accordance with subparagraph (C).

`(B) REQUIREMENTS- A State that receives a grant or contract under subsection (a)(1) shall ensure that postpartum condition education complies with the following:

`(i) Physicians, certified nurse midwives, certified midwives, nurses, and other licensed health care professionals within the State who provide prenatal and postnatal care to women shall also provide education to women and their families concerning postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment.

`(ii) All birthing facilities in the State shall provide new mothers and fathers, and other family members as appropriate, with complete information concerning postpartum conditions, including its symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources prior to such mothers leaving the birthing facility after a birth.

`(iii) Physicians, certified nurse midwives, certified midwives, nurses, and other licensed health care professionals within the State who provide prenatal and postnatal care to women shall include fathers and other family members, as appropriate, in both the education and treatment processes to help them better understand the nature and causes of postpartum conditions.

`(C) SCREENING AND REFERRAL- A State that receives a grant or contract under subsection (a)(1) shall ensure that new mothers, during visits to a physician, certified nurse midwife, certified midwife, nurse, or licensed healthcare professional who is licensed or certified by the State, within the first year after the birth of their child, are offered screenings for postpartum conditions by using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), or other appropriate tests. If the results of such screening provide warning signs for postpartum conditions, the new mother shall be referred to an appropriate mental healthcare provider.

`(D) SUBGRANTS- A State that receives a grant or contract under subsection (a)(1) to carry out activities under this paragraph may award subgrants to entities described in subsection (b)(1)(B) to enable such entities to provide education of this type described in subparagraph (B).

`(2) SERVICES- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects under subsection (a)(2) provide services for the diagnosis and management of postpartum conditions. Activities that the Secretary may authorize for such projects may also include the following:

`(A) Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management, screening and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions, and delivering or enhancing support services for their families.

`(B) Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.

`(C) Improving the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services (including transportation services, attendant care, homemaker services, day or respite care, and providing counseling on financial assistance and insurance) for individuals with postpartum conditions and support services for their families.

`(d) Integration With Other Programs- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall integrate the program under this title with other grant programs carried out by the Secretary, including the program under section 330.

`SEC. 520L. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

`The Secretary may provide technical assistance to assist entities in complying with the requirements of this chapter in order to make such entities eligible to receive grants under section 520K.

`SEC. 520M. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

`For the purpose of carrying out this chapter, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010.’.

TITLE II–RESEARCH ON POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS

SEC. 201. CONSENSUS RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND PLAN CONCERNING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS.

Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 409J. CONSENSUS RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND PLAN CONCERNING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS.

`(a) Consensus Research Conference and Plan-

`(1) CONFERENCE- The Secretary, acting through the Director of NIH, the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the heads of other Federal agencies that administer Federal health programs including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall organize a series of national meetings that are designed to develop a research plan for postpartum depression and psychosis (referred to in this section as `postpartum condition’).

`(2) PLAN- The Secretary, taking into account the findings of the research conference under paragraph (1), shall develop a research plan relating to postpartum conditions. Such plan shall include–

`(A) basic research concerning the etiology and causes of postpartum conditions;

`(B) epidemiological studies to address the frequency and natural history of postpartum conditions and the differences among racial and ethnic groups with respect to such conditions;

`(C) the development of improved diagnostic techniques relating to postpartum conditions; and

`(D) clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments for postpartum conditions, including new biological agents.

`(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning the research plan under paragraph (2).

`(b) Activity Relating to Research Plan-

`(1) IN GENERAL- After the development of the research plan under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary, acting through the Director of NIH shall expand and intensify research and related activities of the Institutes relating to postpartum conditions in a manner appropriate to carry out such plan, and in particular shall direct research efforts to carry out such plan.

`(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the development of the research plan under subsection (a)(1), and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the progress made with respect to such plan and the status of ongoing activities regarding postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health.’.

Vaccine Increases Risk of Convulsions, Pneumonia Deaths. FDA Ready to Approve Anyway. Buffet’s Stocks Support Company

Saturday, February 16th, 2008

The Natural Solutions Foundation keeps an eye on the news for you. And when we see relationships, we point them out. So we wonder:
1. Could the fact that Warren Buffet turned over a vast amount of money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) be related to the fact that BMGF is in the process of making a great deal of that money back for him through its huge subsidies of vaccine manufacturers?
2. Could it be that the report that we have received that vaccines delivered by BMGF to third world countries have twice the mercury (thimerisol) present in American vaccines are true?
3. Could it be that the fact that the Rotavirus vaccine which causes and increased risk of pneumonia-related deaths and convulsions is slated for FDA approval anyway is not an accident or an oversight, but part of a program to extract every possible bit of profit from vulnerable populations regardless of the consequences to members of those populations (babies, for example)?
4. Could it be that the approval process by which FDA makes its decisions is so corrupted that no product or food approved by that organization can be assumed to be safe?
5. Could it be that the deaths of babies or their neurological damage is of little or no consequence to the decision-makers at the FDA and the corporate chiefs at the helms of the drug companies?

Read the two articles below and answer those questions for yourself. If your answer is “Yes” to those questions, you need the Natural Solutions Foundation on your side. Share this information widely. Sign up for the free and secure Natural Solutions Foundation Health Freedom eAlerts (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187) and make a generous recurring donation (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) for a tax deductible way to safeguard your health and your health 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
FDA ties pneumonia deaths to infant vaccine
Agency panel considering approval of oral medicine for diarrhea virus

updated 11:20 a.m. ET Feb. 15, 2008

WASHINGTON – GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s rotavirus vaccine is associated with increased pneumonia-related deaths and other adverse reactions, U.S. regulatory staff said in documents posted on Friday.

The review comes ahead of a Food and Drug Administration advisory meeting next Wednesday to consider approval of the oral vaccine to prevent the most common cause of severe diarrhea and dehydration among infants and young children in the world.

FDA staff said its analysis of 11 studies revealed that in the largest trial, there was a statistically significant increase in deaths related to pneumonia compared with placebo, documents posted on the FDA’s Web site said.

That study, which enrolled about 63,000 children, also found an increase in convulsions in children given the drug, named Rotarix. Another study found an increased rate of bronchitis, compared with placebo.

In a conclusion section, the FDA documents noted the pneumonia-related deaths and convulsions, but did not appear to make a recommendation to the advisory panel.

That expert panel will weigh the staff review, but makes its own recommendation, which is typically followed by the FDA.

Triangle Business Journal
Friday, February 15, 2008 – 10:59 AM EST

GlaxoSmithKline’s [GSK] rotavirus vaccine, called Rotarix, is associated with an increased risk of convulsions and pneumonia-related deaths in children taking it, according to a review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Rotovirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhea and dehydration among infants and young children.

The study, which enrolled about 63,000 children, found a statistically significant increase in convulsions and deaths related to pneumonia compared with a placebo, the review says.

The staff review is one consideration among many that an expert panel at the FDA will weigh when deciding whether to approve the drug.

The news comes shortly after Berkshire Hathaway, the company run by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, revealed in filings late Thursday that it has made a significant investment in GSK.

Buffett’s investment in GSK is valued at about $65.4 million and follows a series of Berkshire stock purchases in health-care companies, including UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi-Aventis SA.

GSK employs about 6,000 people in the Triangle, although the company recently announced a worldwide, three-year restructuring plan that will include significant job cuts.

GSK’s stock opened at $44 on Friday from a previous closing price of $43.32.

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.