MARIA DANILOVA
Associated Press
March 26, 2009
KIEV, Ukraine — A widespread scare about vaccine side effects in Ukraine has led to a sharp drop in immunizations that could result in disease outbreaks spreading beyond the former Soviet republic, international and local health officials say.
Hundreds of thousands of fearful Ukrainians have refused vaccines for diseases such as diphtheria, mumps, polio, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, whooping cough and others this year, according to official estimates. Authorities have cancelled a UN-backed measles and rubella vaccination campaign funded by U.S. philanthropist Ted Turner, and will have to collect and incinerate nearly nine million unused doses in coming months.
“I never thought I’d see the day where perfectly good vaccines are being destroyed,” said Michael Bociurkiw, a spokesman for UNICEF.
Around the world, health officials say they are struggling with the repercussions of vaccine fears they call unwarranted and dangerous.
In 2003, imams in northern Nigeria fomented a boycott of polio vaccinations claiming they were a Western plot to make Muslims infertile or infect them with HIV. Authorities in Indonesia are discussing a plan to end childhood immunizations against a number of diseases out of fears that foreign drug companies are using the country as a testing ground. A budding movement of parents getting exemptions from pre-school vaccination laws is seen as partly responsible for a spike in U.S. measles cases.
Experts blame the Ukrainian scare on government mismanagement and irresponsible media coverage of an anti-vaccination campaign launched after the May death of a 17-year-old boy who had received a combined shot for measles and rubella.
Activists including members of the homeopathic and alternative healing industries blamed his death on the vaccination. Ukrainian authorities said they needed to investigate and halted the campaign to revaccinate nine million Ukrainians aged 16-29 for measles — a leading cause of childhood death — and rubella, which can cause serious birth defects.
The Ukrainian Health Ministry and World Health Organization concluded that the boy died of septic shock from a bacterial infection unrelated to the vaccine. But the ministry decided last month to terminate the revaccination campaign, saying there was no longer enough time to administer the vaccines before they expire this summer and that people would refuse the shots.
Experts blame the Ukrainian scare on government mismanagement and irresponsible media coverage of an anti-vaccination campaign launched after the May death of a 17-year-old boy who had received a combined shot for measles and rubella.
Activists including members of the homeopathic and alternative healing industries blamed his death on the vaccination. Ukrainian authorities said they needed to investigate and halted the campaign to revaccinate nine million Ukrainians aged 16-29 for measles — a leading cause of childhood death — and rubella, which can cause serious birth defects.
The Ukrainian Health Ministry and World Health Organization concluded that the boy died of septic shock from a bacterial infection unrelated to the vaccine. But the ministry decided last month to terminate the revaccination campaign, saying there was no longer enough time to administer the vaccines before they expire this summer and that people would refuse the shots.
More than 4.5 million Ukrainians, mostly children, are vaccinated for a wide variety of diseases each year in the country of 46 million. Health authorities say spreading fears of immunization were largely responsible for an estimated 10-per-cent drop in the vaccination rate since May. “This threatens to lead to a spike in the number of infectious diseases,” said Lyudmyla Mukharskaya, the country's deputy chief public health official. “There will be outbreaks, especially among children.”
Ukraine has had two major outbreaks of measles since 200. Ukrainians aged 16-29 have proven to be highly susceptible, apparently because of an ineffective vaccination campaign carried out in the 1990s, when the country was in economic crisis following the collapse of the Soviet Union. If Ukraine cannot revaccinate at least 95 per cent of the estimated nine million people who got deficient vaccines in the ‘90s, UNICEF says, the next outbreak could be even bigger.
“There are concerns that the measles disease could be exported to other European countries where Ukrainians travel,” Mr. Bociurkiw said.
Independent health experts say government mistakes were a major factor in the vaccine scare. Prosecutors briefly detained the country's chief public health official after the teen's death and claimed that the vaccine, which was certified by WHO, was imported into the country without proper authorization.
Dr. Fedir Lapiy, an expert in infectious diseases based in Kiev, said prosecutors appeared to have used the case to promote themselves and discredit political opponents. “It looked more like a PR campaign than a thorough probe.”
Ukraine has an educated population but rumours and misperceptions spread easily. Constant political turmoil and a devastating financial crisis — one of the worst in Europe — has fuelled mistrust of Ukraine's crumbling health care system, and authorities in general.
“It is sad to see the population of a country in the middle of Europe refusing to get immunized,” said Andrei Tulisov, an infectious disease and immunization specialist at WHO.
Ukrainian media outlets are numerous and uncensored but do not widely follow Western standards of fairness and accuracy. Some print and online reports alleged after the boy's death that the Indian-made measles and rubella vaccine would sterilize men as part of a plot by Mr.
Turner, whose Washington-based United Nations Foundation charity paid for the vaccines. “This kind of scare tactic coupled with the death of the boy struck the fear of God into a lot of young people and parents,” Mr. Bociurkiw said.
Nina Zaichenko, a 25-year-old interior designer in Kiev, says she has decided not to immunize her year-old daughter, Dasha, against any diseases until at least the age of three. She fears the infant's body is still to weak to handle vaccinations and she does not trust the local health system to acquire and properly store high-quality vaccines. “The chances of a child getting sick from a vaccine and from the disease itself are equal,” Ms. Zaichenko said, an assertion experts say has no basis in the truth. “It's a hard choice for parents to make.”
UNICEF says it believes only up to 30 per cent of Ukrainians who need revaccination for measles and rubella would turn up if the campaign were restarted today. Only 400,000 people received vaccines before the campaign was stopped.
The Health Ministry says it will work to promote the need for immunizations among the population, and look for ways to launch a new measles and rubella vaccination campaign.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Mandatory flu shots for preschoolers?
Friday, March 27, 2009
TAMPA (Bay News 9) -- A proposed law would make flu shots mandatory for any child about to enroll in a child care facility.
The proposed law would affect children by making sure they had the vaccination before they are allowed to attend preschool.
Pediatrician John McCormick said he thinks parents should be vaccinating their children even without the law.
"It's naturally a good idea to go ahead and do this in the daycare setting," he said.
McCormick said that, in the past, there have been supply issues, but he doesn't foresee that being as much of a problem. However, the financial aspect of the vaccination is a concern.
"The only true hold back is cost," he said.
While the proposed law makes its way through Tallahassee, Maria Lopez, the owner of Tampa's Play Care, is already taking steps to prevent the spread of the flu. She requires all of her employees to get the flu shot, and she hopes it will be made mandatory for the kids, too.
"The flu shot would help control all the sickness," she said.
Lopez said there are already certain immunizations and physicals required before children can be accepted into child care.
If the proposed flu rules pass, the law would go into effect July 1.
TAMPA (Bay News 9) -- A proposed law would make flu shots mandatory for any child about to enroll in a child care facility.
The proposed law would affect children by making sure they had the vaccination before they are allowed to attend preschool.
Pediatrician John McCormick said he thinks parents should be vaccinating their children even without the law.
"It's naturally a good idea to go ahead and do this in the daycare setting," he said.
McCormick said that, in the past, there have been supply issues, but he doesn't foresee that being as much of a problem. However, the financial aspect of the vaccination is a concern.
"The only true hold back is cost," he said.
While the proposed law makes its way through Tallahassee, Maria Lopez, the owner of Tampa's Play Care, is already taking steps to prevent the spread of the flu. She requires all of her employees to get the flu shot, and she hopes it will be made mandatory for the kids, too.
"The flu shot would help control all the sickness," she said.
Lopez said there are already certain immunizations and physicals required before children can be accepted into child care.
If the proposed flu rules pass, the law would go into effect July 1.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Docs Talk the Talk, But Do They Take Flu Shots?
Some Doctors and Other Health Care Professionals Steer Clear of Flu Shots
By RADHA CHITALE
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 9, 2008
Every fall, the public is barraged by messages from doctors, nurses and other health care providers to get a flu vaccination to protect against the influenza virus.
But the truth is, some doctors and nurses might talk the talk without walking the walk.
According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus during the 2006-07 flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab. It's an "abysmal and profoundly sad" statistic, according to Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville, Tenn.
"Both the professional and ethical responsibility of all health care workers is to be vaccinated annually against influenza," Schaffner said.
Pains, Aches and Chills
One in five Americans get the flu every year, according to the CDC. Of these, 200,000 are hospitalized and about 36,000 die.
Schaffner added that, in the midst of an influenza outbreak, it is crucial to have healthy people on hand to take care of patients.
"We need health care workers on the line delivering medical care," Schaffner said. "We don't need them home sick."
There are legitimate reasons to steer clear of the needle. People with an egg allergy might avoid getting the vaccine because viruses for the flu shot are grown in eggs. People with Guillain-Barre syndrome -- a disease that results in nerve damage -- should avoid getting vaccinated as well, since respiratory illnesses can trigger an episode.
But for healthy individuals, the CDC recommends that all health care personnel, students in training for those professions, and other high-risk groups such as employees of assisted living communities be vaccinated against the influenza virus.
Professionals make a variety of excuses for not getting the influenza vaccine, chief among which are that they are too busy or that getting vaccinated is inconvenient. Others don't like needles or believe, mistakenly, that the vaccine will result in a bout of the flu.
To those professionals, Schaffner said, "Get over it."
By RADHA CHITALE
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 9, 2008
Every fall, the public is barraged by messages from doctors, nurses and other health care providers to get a flu vaccination to protect against the influenza virus.
But the truth is, some doctors and nurses might talk the talk without walking the walk.
According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus during the 2006-07 flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab. It's an "abysmal and profoundly sad" statistic, according to Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville, Tenn.
"Both the professional and ethical responsibility of all health care workers is to be vaccinated annually against influenza," Schaffner said.
Pains, Aches and Chills
One in five Americans get the flu every year, according to the CDC. Of these, 200,000 are hospitalized and about 36,000 die.
Schaffner added that, in the midst of an influenza outbreak, it is crucial to have healthy people on hand to take care of patients.
"We need health care workers on the line delivering medical care," Schaffner said. "We don't need them home sick."
There are legitimate reasons to steer clear of the needle. People with an egg allergy might avoid getting the vaccine because viruses for the flu shot are grown in eggs. People with Guillain-Barre syndrome -- a disease that results in nerve damage -- should avoid getting vaccinated as well, since respiratory illnesses can trigger an episode.
But for healthy individuals, the CDC recommends that all health care personnel, students in training for those professions, and other high-risk groups such as employees of assisted living communities be vaccinated against the influenza virus.
Professionals make a variety of excuses for not getting the influenza vaccine, chief among which are that they are too busy or that getting vaccinated is inconvenient. Others don't like needles or believe, mistakenly, that the vaccine will result in a bout of the flu.
To those professionals, Schaffner said, "Get over it."
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 9, 2008
Key concepts: Flu shots, Medical myths and Doctors
If flu shots are so good for you, then why do sixty percent of doctors and nurses refuse to get them? ABC News is reporting that only forty percent of health care professionals opted to be vaccinated against the flu last year.
It's yet another case of health professionals telling patients to do one thing while they do something entirely different themselves. For example, according to surveys published earlier this year, most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy.
Many doctors take vitamins and nutritional supplements, but they won't tell their patients to do the same because state medical boards have made it illegal for doctors to recommend nutritional therapies.
Thus, much of what medical professionals tell patients stands in contradiction to what they actually believe is best for their health. Flu shots have become the mad cry of quackery in modern medicine, which believes that the human immune system is useless to prevent infectious disease and must be artificially hijacked by invasive medical procedures (a shot) in order to function correctly.
Interestingly, related research just announced today reveals that half a flu shot produces the same results as a full flu shot. But they didn't test the "no flu shot but extra vitamin D" option, which would have been ever better.
Flu shots are pure quackery combined with clever hucksterism. And if you don't believe me, just check the medical records of the doctors themselves: Most of them aren't getting flu shots in the first place. Doctors aren't stupid people. If they're not getting flu shots, that tells you probably they think it's a waste of time.
Click to read:
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
From Abcnews.go.com: A significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus last flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab during the 2007-08 flu season.... more
Key concepts: Flu shots, Medical myths and Doctors
If flu shots are so good for you, then why do sixty percent of doctors and nurses refuse to get them? ABC News is reporting that only forty percent of health care professionals opted to be vaccinated against the flu last year.
It's yet another case of health professionals telling patients to do one thing while they do something entirely different themselves. For example, according to surveys published earlier this year, most oncologists would never undergo chemotherapy.
Many doctors take vitamins and nutritional supplements, but they won't tell their patients to do the same because state medical boards have made it illegal for doctors to recommend nutritional therapies.
Thus, much of what medical professionals tell patients stands in contradiction to what they actually believe is best for their health. Flu shots have become the mad cry of quackery in modern medicine, which believes that the human immune system is useless to prevent infectious disease and must be artificially hijacked by invasive medical procedures (a shot) in order to function correctly.
Interestingly, related research just announced today reveals that half a flu shot produces the same results as a full flu shot. But they didn't test the "no flu shot but extra vitamin D" option, which would have been ever better.
Flu shots are pure quackery combined with clever hucksterism. And if you don't believe me, just check the medical records of the doctors themselves: Most of them aren't getting flu shots in the first place. Doctors aren't stupid people. If they're not getting flu shots, that tells you probably they think it's a waste of time.
Click to read:
Sixty Percent of Doctors Refuse to Get Flu Shots
From Abcnews.go.com: A significant chunk of health care professionals declined to get vaccinated against the influenza virus last flu season, with only about 40 percent opting for a jab during the 2007-08 flu season.... more
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Mandatory Vaccination
Mandatory Vaccination
Source: Health Freedom Foundation
www.healthfreedom.org
Although vaccinations have essentially extinguished many illnesses that plagued our society, The American Association for Health Freedom believes children should not be forcefully subjected to unreasonable amounts of vaccinations to combat diseases that primarily affect adults. AAHF is concerned about the lack of urgency among regulators when vaccinations result in death or permanent disability in children. Additionally, AAHF seeks to ensure that freedom of choice is not taken away from parents.
In 1980, American children were vaccinated against six diseases. Today, the mandatory number is 10, with multiple shots. In the near future, there may be two dozen more new childhood vaccines. This estimate may be conservative, according to the National Institutes of Health.
There is at present a serious trend of deteriorating health among American children. Published in a 1994 JAMA article, a survey conducted by Dr. Michel Odent found that children receiving the whooping cough vaccine were six times more likely to develop asthma than children not receiving this vaccine.
Recently, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases counted 104 separate vaccines at various stages of research and development for everything from herpes to ricketts to stomach ulcers. Not all of the new vaccines in the pipeline are aimed at children, of course. The idea of a "super vaccine"-given at birth or shortly after, with time release particles dissolving over time–may become our reality in a few years.
The "super vaccine" would not only cover the existing childhood protections against mumps, measles, rubella, chicken pox, polio, whooping cough,tetanus, diphtheria, hepatitis B, and meningitis. It would target several varieties of other illnesses, including pneumonia, typhoid, encephalitis, diarrhea, strep, and influenza.
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former FDA research virologist, thinks undeveloped immune systems of those so young are particularly susceptible to damage from overload. "That is absolutely the wrong approach, to give so many new vaccines."
With two-year-olds facing as many as four injections in a single pediatric visit, we have created an atmosphere in which the costs far outweigh any perceived benefits. Representative John Mica, R-FL, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Drug Policy and Human Resources , has questioned the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine: "Is it possible the Preventive measure for this disease is riskier than the disease itself?"
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicated that one third of the nearly 80,000 reports filed between 1990 and 1997 involved the DPT, whooping cough, vaccine. A total of 876 deaths were recorded after children received the DPT vaccine, a vaccine that is still on the market although a safer alternative exists. Of those, 291, or 33 percent of the deaths reported after a DPT shot, were within 24 hours of the vaccination. Milwaukee immunologist Burton Waisbren, a veteran clinical investigator, told a H ouse oversight subcommittee on federal health policy that "an injustice is being done to the children of this country." He labeled infant hepatitis B vaccination "an experiment sponsored by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which is designed to determine if vaccination at birth of all babies in the United States will eventually decrease the frequency of cancer of the liver."
For many years, mercury was used as a preservative in vaccines, especially in the United States. In many cases, a preservative was only needed because multiple vaccinations were being given in one shot. Preservative free vaccines were available if taken one vaccination at a time. Why did the medical establishment push more and more vaccinations into one multiple shot? Because they thought that parents could not be trusted to come back to the doctor for a series of single shots spaced out over time. The result is not only potentially dangerous preservatives; it is also a greatly heightened risk of overloading the child's immune system by injecting too much in any one day. This approach does not put the child's welfare first.
Today protests have led to the removal of mercury from most childhood vaccines. But mercury is still used in flu vaccines for children and adults. In the past, children were inoculated against flu from birth to five years of age. This puts mercury into very immature bodies and immune systems. But the new recommedation, just out, is to continue inoculating until age 18. Is this for the children? No, it is supposed to provide better protection for the adults around the children. Meanwhile how much highly toxic mercury will our children be exposed to by age 18?
AAHF believes parents should be informed of their right to omit or simply postpone shots like the hepatitis B and flu vaccines. I nformed consent to any medical procedure carrying the risk of injury or death, such as vaccination, has been the prevailing ethical standard in medical care since the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declarations became part of international law after World War II. With increasing numbers of vaccines for non-life threatening conditions being developed and mandated for school-age children, we believe parents should have the right to philosocphical or conscientious belief exemptions for their children.
Source: Health Freedom Foundation
www.healthfreedom.org
Although vaccinations have essentially extinguished many illnesses that plagued our society, The American Association for Health Freedom believes children should not be forcefully subjected to unreasonable amounts of vaccinations to combat diseases that primarily affect adults. AAHF is concerned about the lack of urgency among regulators when vaccinations result in death or permanent disability in children. Additionally, AAHF seeks to ensure that freedom of choice is not taken away from parents.
In 1980, American children were vaccinated against six diseases. Today, the mandatory number is 10, with multiple shots. In the near future, there may be two dozen more new childhood vaccines. This estimate may be conservative, according to the National Institutes of Health.
There is at present a serious trend of deteriorating health among American children. Published in a 1994 JAMA article, a survey conducted by Dr. Michel Odent found that children receiving the whooping cough vaccine were six times more likely to develop asthma than children not receiving this vaccine.
Recently, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases counted 104 separate vaccines at various stages of research and development for everything from herpes to ricketts to stomach ulcers. Not all of the new vaccines in the pipeline are aimed at children, of course. The idea of a "super vaccine"-given at birth or shortly after, with time release particles dissolving over time–may become our reality in a few years.
The "super vaccine" would not only cover the existing childhood protections against mumps, measles, rubella, chicken pox, polio, whooping cough,tetanus, diphtheria, hepatitis B, and meningitis. It would target several varieties of other illnesses, including pneumonia, typhoid, encephalitis, diarrhea, strep, and influenza.
Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former FDA research virologist, thinks undeveloped immune systems of those so young are particularly susceptible to damage from overload. "That is absolutely the wrong approach, to give so many new vaccines."
With two-year-olds facing as many as four injections in a single pediatric visit, we have created an atmosphere in which the costs far outweigh any perceived benefits. Representative John Mica, R-FL, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Drug Policy and Human Resources , has questioned the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine: "Is it possible the Preventive measure for this disease is riskier than the disease itself?"
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicated that one third of the nearly 80,000 reports filed between 1990 and 1997 involved the DPT, whooping cough, vaccine. A total of 876 deaths were recorded after children received the DPT vaccine, a vaccine that is still on the market although a safer alternative exists. Of those, 291, or 33 percent of the deaths reported after a DPT shot, were within 24 hours of the vaccination. Milwaukee immunologist Burton Waisbren, a veteran clinical investigator, told a H ouse oversight subcommittee on federal health policy that "an injustice is being done to the children of this country." He labeled infant hepatitis B vaccination "an experiment sponsored by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which is designed to determine if vaccination at birth of all babies in the United States will eventually decrease the frequency of cancer of the liver."
For many years, mercury was used as a preservative in vaccines, especially in the United States. In many cases, a preservative was only needed because multiple vaccinations were being given in one shot. Preservative free vaccines were available if taken one vaccination at a time. Why did the medical establishment push more and more vaccinations into one multiple shot? Because they thought that parents could not be trusted to come back to the doctor for a series of single shots spaced out over time. The result is not only potentially dangerous preservatives; it is also a greatly heightened risk of overloading the child's immune system by injecting too much in any one day. This approach does not put the child's welfare first.
Today protests have led to the removal of mercury from most childhood vaccines. But mercury is still used in flu vaccines for children and adults. In the past, children were inoculated against flu from birth to five years of age. This puts mercury into very immature bodies and immune systems. But the new recommedation, just out, is to continue inoculating until age 18. Is this for the children? No, it is supposed to provide better protection for the adults around the children. Meanwhile how much highly toxic mercury will our children be exposed to by age 18?
AAHF believes parents should be informed of their right to omit or simply postpone shots like the hepatitis B and flu vaccines. I nformed consent to any medical procedure carrying the risk of injury or death, such as vaccination, has been the prevailing ethical standard in medical care since the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declarations became part of international law after World War II. With increasing numbers of vaccines for non-life threatening conditions being developed and mandated for school-age children, we believe parents should have the right to philosocphical or conscientious belief exemptions for their children.
FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children
David Gutierrez
Natural News
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008
For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” reads a statement that has been added to the agency’s Web site. “Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”
The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.
“Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.
“It’s a watershed moment,” said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.
So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.
Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.
Even the FDA’s new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.
Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.
In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency’s position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.
The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.
Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA’s failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.
“This is your classic failure to act,” federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.
As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.
“This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings,” Brown predicted.
But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely
“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski said.
Natural News
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2008
For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks to children and pregnant women.
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” reads a statement that has been added to the agency’s Web site. “Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”
The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.
“Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” said Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.
“It’s a watershed moment,” said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.
Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children. It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.
So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s. Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always insisted that amalgams are safe.
Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.
Even the FDA’s new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead, it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.
Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30 percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain. These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.
In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency’s position that there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including children under the age of six.
The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the fillings before installing them.
Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA’s failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.
“This is your classic failure to act,” federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.
As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.
“This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings,” Brown predicted.
But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely
“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski said.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Government bailout hits $8.5 trillion
Global Research
December 2, 2008
The federal government committed an additional $800 billion to two new loan programs on Tuesday, bringing its cumulative commitment to financial rescue initiatives to a staggering $8.5 trillion, according to Bloomberg News.
That sum represents almost 60 percent of the nation’s estimated gross domestic product.
Given the unprecedented size and complexity of these programs and the fact that many have never been tried before, it’s impossible to predict how much they will cost taxpayers. The final cost won’t be known for many years.
The money has been committed to a wide array of programs, including loans and loan guarantees, asset purchases, equity investments in financial companies, tax breaks for banks, help for struggling homeowners and a currency stabilization fund.
Most of the money, about $5.5 trillion, comes from the Federal Reserve, which as an independent entity does not need congressional approval to lend money to banks or, in "unusual and exigent circumstances," to other financial institutions.
To stimulate lending, the Fed said on Tuesday it will purchase up to $600 billion in mortgage debt issued or backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and government housing agencies. It also will lend up to $200 billion to holders of securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.
All but $20 billion of that $800 billion represents new commitments, a Fed spokeswoman said.
About $1.1 trillion of the $8.5 trillion is coming from the Treasury Department, including $700 billion approved by Congress in dramatic fashion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The rest of the commitments are coming from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Housing Administration.
Only about $3.2 trillion of the $8.5 trillion has been tapped so far, according to Bloomberg. Some of it might never be.
Relatively little of the money represents direct outlays of cash with no strings attached, such as the $168 billion in stimulus checks mailed last spring.
Where it’s going
Most of the money is going into loans or loan guarantees, asset purchases or stock investments on which the government could see some return.
"If the economy were to miraculously recover, the taxpayer could make money. That’s not my best guess or even a likely scenario," but it’s not inconceivable, says Anil Kashyap, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
The risk/reward ratio for taxpayers varies greatly from program to program.
For example, the first deal the government made when it bailed out insurance giant AIG had little risk and a lot of potential upside for taxpayers, Kashyap said. "Then it turned out the situation (at AIG) was worse than realized, and the terms were so brutal (to AIG) that we had to renegotiate. Now we have given them a lot more credit on more generous terms."
Kashyap says the worst deal for taxpayers could be the Citigroup deal announced late Sunday.
The government agreed to buy an additional $20 billion in preferred stock and absorb up to $249 billion in losses on troubled assets owned by Citi.
Given that Citigroup’s entire market value on Friday was $20.5 billion, "instead of taking that $20 billion in preferred shares we could have bought the company," he says.
It’s hard to say how much the overall rescue attempt will add to the annual deficit or the national debt because the government accounts for each program differently.
If the Treasury borrows money to finance a program, that money adds to the federal debt and must eventually be paid off, with interest, says Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist with the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that aims to eliminate federal deficits.
The federal debt held by the public has risen to $6.4 trillion from $5.5 trillion at the end of August. (Total debt, including that owed to Social Security and other government agencies, stands at more than $10 trillion.)
However, a $1 billion increase in the federal debt does not necessarily increase the annual budget deficit by $1 billion because it is expected to be repaid over time, Rogers said.
Annual deficit
A deficit arises when the government’s expenditures exceed its revenues in a particular year.
Some estimate that the federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year as a result of the economic slowdown and efforts to revive it.
The Fed’s activities to shore up the financial system do not show up directly on the federal budget, although they can have an impact. The Fed lends money from its own balance sheet or by essentially creating new money. It has been doing both this year.
The problem is, "if you print money all the time, the money becomes worth less," Rogers says. This usually leads to higher inflation and higher interest rates. The value of the dollar also falls because foreign investors become less willing to invest in the United States.
Today, interest rates are relatively low and the dollar has been mostly strengthening this year because U.S. Treasury securities "are still for the moment a very safe thing to be investing in because the financial market is so unstable," Rogers said. "Once we stabilize the stock market, people will not be so enamored of clutching onto Treasurys."
At that point, interest rates and inflation will rise. Increased borrowing by the Treasury will also put upward pressure on interest rates.
Deflation a big concern
Today, however, the Fed is more worried about deflation than inflation and is willing to flood the market with money if necessary to prevent an economic collapse.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "has ordered the helicopters to get ready," said Axel Merk, president of Merk Investments. "The helicopters are hovering and the first cash is making it through the seams. Soon, a door may be opened."
Rogers says her biggest fear is not hyperinflation and the social unrest it could unleash. "I’m more worried about a lot of federal dollars being committed and not having much to show for it. My worst fear is we are leaving our children with a huge debt burden and not much left to pay it back."
Economic rescue
Key dates in the federal government’s campaign to alleviate the economic crisis.
March 11: The Federal Reserve announces a rescue package to provide up to $200 billion in loans to banks and investment houses and let them put up risky mortgage-backed securities as collateral.
March 16: The Fed provides a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase & Co. as part of its purchase of investment bank Bear Stearns.
July 30: President Bush signs a housing bill including $300 billion in new loan authority for the government to back cheaper mortgages for troubled homeowners.
Sept. 7: The Treasury takes over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting them into a conservatorship and pledging up to $200 billion to back their assets.
Sept. 16: The Fed injects $85 billion into the failing American International Group, one of the world’s largest insurance companies.
Sept. 16: The Fed pumps $70 billion more into the nation’s financial system to help ease credit stresses.
Sept. 19: The Treasury temporarily guarantees money market funds against losses up to $50 billion.
Oct. 3: President Bush signs the $700 billion economic bailout package. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says the money will be used to buy distressed mortgage-related securities from banks.
Oct. 6: The Fed increases a short-term loan program, saying it is boosting short-term lending to banks to $150 billion.
Oct. 7: The Fed says it will start buying unsecured short-term debt from companies, and says that up to $1.3 trillion of the debt may qualify for the program.
Oct. 8: The Fed agrees to lend AIG $37.8 billion more, bringing total to about $123 billion.
Oct. 14: The Treasury says it will use $250 billion of the $700 billion bailout to inject capital into the banks, with $125 billion provided to nine of the largest.
Oct. 14: The FDIC says it will temporarily guarantee up to a total of $1.4 trillion in loans between banks.
Oct. 21: The Fed says it will provide up to $540 billion in financing to provide liquidity for money market mutual funds.
Nov. 10: The Treasury and Fed replace the two loans provided to AIG with a $150 billion aid package that includes an infusion of $40 billion from the government’s bailout fund.
Nov. 12: Paulson says the government will not buy distressed mortgage-related assets, but instead will concentrate on injecting capital into banks.
Nov. 17: Treasury says it has provided $33.6 billion in capital to another 21 banks. So far, the government has invested $158.6 billion in 30 banks.
Sunday: The Treasury says it will invest $20 billion in Citigroup Inc., on top of $25 billion provided Oct. 14. The Treasury, Fed and FDIC also pledge to backstop large losses Citigroup might absorb on $306 billion in real estate-related assets.
Tuesday: The Fed says it will purchase up to $600 billion more in mortgage-related assets and will lend up to $200 billion to the holders of securities backed by various types of consumer loans.
Source: Associated Press
Net Worth runs Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. E-mail Kathleen Pender at kpender@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)