[Mb-hair] Re: I think this beats them all.....

[DAGMAR & ANTON]

WHAT!!!???
Dagmar

--- Skyelav at aol.com wrote:

> What do you think? The t r u t h o u t Town Meeting
> is in progress. Join the 
> debate!    Democrats Denounce Bush's Human Pesticide
> Testing Plan 
>     t r u t h o u t | Press Release     Monday 23
January 2006 

>     Washington, DC - Today, Senator Barbara Boxer,
> Rep. Henry A. Waxman, and Rep. Hilda L. 
> Solis criticized a Bush Administration plan to
> promote pesticide 
> experimentation upon humans. The plan, contained in
> a final draft rule, was leaked to the 
> legislators by a concerned Administration official
> who requested that the 
> original copy of the plan not be duplicated in its
> entirety and widely distributed 
> out of concern for anonymity. According to the EPA's
> communications plan, the 
> Administration will officially announce the
> pesticide experimentation plan 
> later this week as a final regulation. 
> 
>     In August 2005, Congress enacted a moratorium
> upon EPA using human 
> > pesticide experiments until strict ethical
> standards were established. 
> > Senator Boxer championed the moratorium in the US
> Senate. Representative Solis 
> > pushed the moratorium through the US House of
> Representatives.     "The 
> > Administration plan is inconsistent with the law
> passed by Congress with bipartisan 
> > support. The loopholes which allow continued
> testing on pregnant women, 
> > infants and children are contrary to law and
> widely accepted ethical guidelines, 
> > including the Nuremberg code. The fact that EPA
> allows pesticide testing of 
> > any kind on the most vulnerable, including abused
> and neglected children, is 
> > simply astonishing," said Senator Boxer.    
> 
>  "The regulation is an open invitation to test
> pesticides on humans, which is 
> the 
> > exact opposite of what Congress intended," said
> Rep. Waxman. "The 
> > Administration predicts that over 30 pesticide
> experiments will be submitted to EPA 
> > each year under the new rule. That's an enormous
> step in the wrong direction." 
> >     "This is yet another example of the Bush
> Administration choosing to 
> > ignore the letter of the law and going its own
> way. Congress passed legislation to 
> > curb the practice of unethical pesticide testing
> on humans, but with this 
> > rule the Bush Administration is authorizing
> systematic testing of pesticides on 
> > humans which not only fails to meet its
> congressional mandate but which will 
> > increase the number of unethical studies," said
> Congresswoman Solis. 
> > "Americans should be concerned about just how far
> the Bush Administration will go to 
> > allow pesticide testing on pregnant women and
> children and, the ease at 
> > which it chooses to ignore the law. The Bush
> Administration must revise this rule 
> > to meet its Congressional mandate and give
> Americans a policy which is 
> > moral, ethical, and safe."   
> >  "This rule has not been signed by EPA
> Administrator Stephen Johnson yet. 
> > It's within his power to fix this regulation, and
> we are calling on him to do 
> > so," said Senator Boxer.     If the rule is
> finalized as currently drafted, it 
> > would apply to studies in which humans are
> intentionally dosed with 
> > pesticides, as well as "observational" studies.
> Some of the serious flaws of the plan 
> > include the following: 
> > The Administration plan is inconsistent with
> federal law. 
> > 
> > Congress required that EPA ensure that pesticides
> are never tested upon 
> > pregnant women and children. But the final rule
> would allow manufacturers to 
> > conduct testing of pesticides upon both pregnant
> women and children so long as 
> > there is no "intent" at the outset of the study to
> submit the results to EPA. 
> > Additionally, the plan would allow pesticides to
> be tested upon pregnant women 
> > and children in studies intended for submission at
> exposure levels up to the 
> > current legal limits - even though the National
> Academy of Sciences found 
> > that in some cases this level of exposure could
> present acute risks to 
> > children. 
> > 
> > 
> > The Administration plan is inconsistent with the
> recommendations of the 
> > National Academy of Sciences. 
> > 
> > Congress required that EPA establish a Human
> Subjects Review Board (HSRB) as 
> > recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
> The Academy urged that this 
> > Board review research protocols prior to
> consideration by an Independent 
> > Review Board (IRB). The Academy expected that the
> HSRB would have ethical and 
> > pesticide expertise that IRBs typically lack. This
> approach would allow an IRB 
> > to block unethical research or require
> modifications suggested by the Human 
> > Subjects Review Board prior to the initiation of a
> study. However, the 
> > Administration plan would establish a powerless
> Human Subjects Review Board that 
> > would consider research protocols after an IRB and
> EPA staff had already 
> > approved a study. Under the Administration plan,
> the HSRB would not have any 
> > authority to block or require modifications to
> unethical research. 
> > 
> > 
> > The Administration plan would establish loopholes
> that could legally allow 
> > unethical experiments. 
> > 
> > The Administration plan introduces new loopholes
> that will allow for ethical 
> > abuse. While the plan would require researchers to
> document their ethical 
> > compliance in the United States when the plan
> applies to them, it waives 
> > overseas researchers from having to prove a study
> was ethically conducted - even 
> > when the researcher intends to submit the study to
> EPA. Also, the plan would 
> > commendably subject EPA observational studies to
> the Common Rule. However, 
> > observational studies conducted by the pesticide
> industry would be bound by no 
> > specific ethical requirements. These loopholes
> were never suggested or even 
> > contemplated by Congress.  -------

> Judith Skye  Lavendar
> 212 222 8272
> 917 710 2946 c
> 380 Riverside Dr  8L
> New York,  NY 10025 
> 
> There are known knowns.  There are things that we
> know we know.
> There are known unknowns.  That is to say, there are
> things that we know we 
> don't know.  But there are also unknown unknowns. 
> There are things we don't 
> know that we don't know.
>  
> Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, trying to clarify the war on
> terrorism, during a 
> Pentagon briefing. 
> February, 2002




The "ELVIS! by Dagmar" Book (and a sampling of R'n'R photos) can be seen here: 
http://www.dagmarfoto.com

Come visit Atelier Anton Krajnc in Cyberspace: 
http://www.AntonKrajnc.com