This is what some scientists know about Europe’s E. Coli

Reuters
June 3, 2011

The deadly strain of E. coli that has killed at least 17 people in Europe and sickened 1,500 has never been seen in a human population and it may be the most toxic yet, health experts said on Thursday.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about the outbreak.

1. What is E. coli? Escherichia coli (E. coli) are a group of bacteria that live in the intestines of many animals, including humans. Most strains are harmless, but others can cause illness ranging from diarrhea to pneumonia. E. coli infections can be mild to life-threatening.

2. How is E. coli spread? E. coli infections are caused by ingesting the feces of infected animals or humans, often via contaminated food or water. People can contaminate food by failing to wash their hands after using the toilet or changing a baby’s diaper, although person-to-person infection is rare. Feces from animals, ranging from cows to birds, can contaminate water or crops.

3. What is the strain? The strain that is sickening people in Germany and other parts of Europe, known as 0104:H4, is part of a class of bacteria known as Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, or STEC. It is the first time the strain has caused an outbreak in humans. Symptoms of STEC infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps, diarrhea (often bloody) and vomiting. Low fever (less than 101 degrees F/38.5 degrees C) also may be present. Most people recover within five to seven days.

4. What are the major complications of this strain? Hundreds of people sickened in the outbreak have developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, or HUS, a life-threatening complication of E. coli infections. The syndrome, which results in the destruction of red blood cells and severe kidney problems, usually arises about a week after diarrhea starts.

Symptoms of HUS include decreased frequency of urination, extreme fatigue and the loss of the skin’s pink color. Children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems usually are at highest risk for HUS. In the case of this outbreak, healthy adult women have been hard hit.

5. What is the medical treatment? Experts said supportive therapy, including hydration, is important. Treatment for HUS includes dialysis for kidney failure and blood transfusions for anemia. Antibiotics should not be used, as there is no evidence that treatment with antibiotics is helpful. Antibiotics and antidiarrheal agents like Imodium also may increase risk of HUS.

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Vacuna con Virus Porcinos? Aprobada!

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Mayo 20, 2010

Todos sabemos que cuando las cosas se adoptan en Inglaterra, son, tarde o temprano adoptadas en los Estados Unidos. Además, una vez aprobadas allí, rápidamente se abren camino a otras regiones del mundo. Bueno, la cuestión que preocupa aquí es que la Food and Drug Administration de los EE.UU. ha decidido dar un pase libre a vacunas envenenadas con virus porcino. Estas vacunas son inyectadas en niños a temprana edad.

Como lo habíamos informado antes, vacunas contra el rotavirus se encontraron contaminadas por un virus porcino. Este descubrimiento fue realizado por la misma FDA. El resultado de la investigación fue que la FDA decidió que el virus porcino no es perjudicial para los niños. Por lo tanto, la vacuna contra el rotavirus, producida por GlaxoSmithKline, seguirá siendo inyectada en los niños pequeños sin ningún tipo de análisis, estudio científico o suspensión temporal de la vacuna. La FDA no quiso analizar profundamente los efectos de este virus en los menores que son inyectados con la vacuna, y solo mantuvo una reunión para discutir lo que podría o no pasar “teoricamente.”

Según Reuters, la FDA concluyó que: “… era seguro para los médicos reanudar las vacunaciones con los pacientes usando Rotarix de Glaxo y continuar usando Rotateq de Merck. La agencia dijo que no había pruebas que la contaminación causaría ningún daño … “Esta conclusión se alcanzó a pesar de que la vacuna causa una enfermedad degenerativa en los cerdos bebés, causando diarrea intensa, pérdida de peso y otras dolencias.

A pesar de que ADN del virus fue encontrado en las células maestras utilizadas para producir la vacuna, el panel de asesores de la FDA dijo que el riesgo para la salud humana de la contaminación viral era sólo “teórica”. Claro, si la FDA simplemente ignora la pruebas de que la vacuna puede tener efectos no deseados en los que la usan, entonces es fácil decir que no hay daño!

Una vez más, las empresas farmacéuticas parecen operar como las compañías de alimentos.Las compañías de alimentos luchan casi a diario para evitar el etiquetado de productos modificados genéticamente porque esta etiqueta permitiría que las personas que han sido perjudicadas por los ingredientes encuentren el origen de su dolencia, trazen la conexión a los ingredientes GMO, publiquen y exijan que dichos componentes tóxicos en los productos alimenticios sean prohibidos. En el caso de la vacuna, la FDA decide ignorar las posibles causas de las complicaciones de salud sin estudiarlas, así que cuando un ser humano saludable aparece enfermo, se puede negar que la vacuna tuviera nada que ver con eso.

Está claro por qué esta vacuna no fue suspendida, y mucho menos estudiada. La vacuna contra elrotavirus proporcionó un billón de dólares a la industria farmacéutica el año pasado. ¿Puede usted imaginarse lo que significaría para ellos si una vacuna es suspendida? Es por eso que las empresas farmacéuticas a menudo supervisan su propio proceso de producción y estudios. Para ellos es normal que las personas se enfermen a consecuencia de la utilización de una vacuna y no hay necesidad de investigar. Y si se investiga, siempre tienen una negación plausible porque la FDA aprobó el medicamento. Por ejemplo, en el caso de la vacuna contra el virus H1N1, si las personas demandan a la compañía farmacéutica por daños y perjuicios, estas no pagarán un centavo ya que, según el acuerdo entre las grandes farmacéuticas y los Ministerios de Salud, las empresas farmacéuticas no pueden ser demandadas por daños y perjuicios originarios con esta vacuna. Entonces, ¿quién paga? El gobierno toma el dinero de impuestos para crear un fondo para financiar este asesinato legalizado.

Resto del mundo, ¡cuidado! Ahí les va una vacuna con virus porcino!

Vaccines with Pig Virus? Approved!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 20, 2010

We all know that when things are adopted in England, they are sooner or later adopted in the United States.  Also, once adopted there, they rapidly make their way to other regions of the world.  Well, the issue of concern here is that the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. has decided to give vaccines poisoned with pig viruses a pass.

As we had reported before, Rotavirus vaccines were found to be tainted with a pig virus.  This discovery had been made by the very same FDA.  The result of the investigation was that the FDA decided the pig virus is not harmful to children.  Therefore, the Rotavirus vaccine, produced by Glaxosmithkline, will continue to be injected into young children without any further analysis, study or recall of the vaccine.

According to Reuters, the FDA concluded that: “…it was safe for doctors to resume giving patients Glaxo’s Rotarix and continue using Merck’s Rotateq. The agency said there was no evidence the contamination caused any harm…”  This conclusion was reached even though the vaccine causes a wasting disease in baby pigs, causing intense diarrhea, loss of weight and other ailments.

Although DNA from the pig virus was found in the master cells utilized to produce the vaccine, the FDA’s advisory panel said the risk to human health from the viral contamination was only “theoretical.”  According to NaturalNews.com, if the FDA simply ignores the evidence the vaccine can have unwanted effects on those who use it, it is then easy to say there is no harm.

Once again, the pharmaceutical companies seem to operate like the food companies.  Food companies fight almost daily to avoid the labeling of GMO products because this labeling would allow people who are harmed by the ingredients to find the origin of their ailment, trace it to the GMO ingredients, publish it and demand the removal of such toxic components from the food products.  In the case of the vaccine, the FDA chooses to ignore the possible causes of the health complications without studying them, so when an unhealthy human appears, they can deny that the vaccine had nothing to do with it.

It is clear why this vaccine was not even recalled, much less studied.  The rotavirus vaccine provided around one billion dollars to the pharmaceutical industry last year.  Can you imagine what it would mean for them if a vaccine is recalled or suspended?  That is why the pharmaceutical companies often oversee their own production process and studies.  For them, sick people as a result of the use of a vaccine is normal and there is no need to investigate it.  And if it is investigated, they always have plausible deniability because the FDA approved the drug.  For example, in the case of the H1N1 vaccine, if people sue the pharmaceutical company for damages, they will not pay a cent because according to the agreement between big pharma and the Health and Human Services Department, pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued for damages originating with this vaccine.  So who pays?  The government takes tax money to create a fund to finance legalized murder.

Rest of the world, beware!  There is a pig virus vaccine on the way!

The Perfume Industry’s stinky reality

GreenBiz

Britney Spears lends her name to a perfume called Britney Spears Curious Eau de Parfum. But if you are curious about what goes intonot so sexy Britney’s eau, don’t ask Elizabeth Arden, the cosmetics giant that makes the fragrance.

Sure, some ingredients are identified on the label. They include Alpha Iso Methyl Ionone, Benzyl Benzoate, Benzyl Salicylate, Cital, Citronellol, Diethyl Phthalate, Eugenol, Farnesol, Galazolide, Hydroxycitonelle, Limonene and Linalool.

But another 17 chemicals are not listed, and they could be bad for your health, according to two advocacy groups, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group.

It’s no wonder the marketing for the perfume asks: Do you dare?

This week, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics published a report called “Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrances.” The report included the results of laboratory tests performed on 17 name-brand fragrance products revealing that, as a group, they contained 38 so-called secret chemicals. The average product contained 14 chemicals not listed on the label.

Products tested include Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity Cologne Spray (yes, it’s really called that), Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow Eau de Toilette Natural Spray, Halle by Halle Berry Eau de Parfum Spray, Coco Mademoiselle Chanel, Calvin Klein Eternity, Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce, American Eagle Seventy Seven, Clinique Happy Perfume Spray, Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue and Old Spice After Hours Body Spray.

The report says of the chemicals:

Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.  Also in the ranks of undisclosed ingredients are chemicals with troubling hazardous properties or with a propensity to accumulate in human tissues.

Consumers can’t count on the government to protect them from potential hazards, according to the report:

A review of government records shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not assessed the vast majority of these secret fragrance chemicals for safety when used in spray-on personal care products such as fragrances. Nor have most been evaluated by the safety review panel of the International Fragrance Association or any other publicly accountable institution.

Now, as the headline on this blog post not-so-subtly indicates, the fact that perfume companies won’t disclose their ingredients is an unfortunate thing. But is it a reason for alarm? I’m not qualified to judge. Keep in mind that advocacy groups, like the industries they target, have an agenda, which is about getting attention and raising money.

And while the 44-page report is laced with references to scientific studies, the science of measuring the effect of tiny amounts of chemicals on human health is both uncertain and controversial. See, as an example, the recent report by the President’s Cancer Panel which warned of the threats from chemicals in the air, water and food, and the reaction it provoked from, among others, the American Cancer Society. Teasing out cause and effect is just incredibly hard to do.

Having said that, why anyone would choose to smear these chemicals on their face or body is a mystery to me.

Why, as a consumer, would you take any risk, when the allergic effects associated with fragrance products, according to the report, include “headaches, chest tightness and wheezing, infant diarrhea and vomiting, mucosal irritation, reduced pulmonary function, asthma and asthmatic exacerbation, rhinitis and airway irritation, sense organ irritation and contact dermatitis?”

And why as a company would you subject your customers to risk? Here’s how crazy the confusion over chemicals has become: Several perfumes tested including a chemical called diethyl phthalate (DEP), which S.C. Johnson, the forward-thinking maker of Windex, Shout and Glade, agreed last year to phase out because of consumer concerns, while saying the chemical is safe.

More…