It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


EPA Testing Pesticides on Mentally Handicapped/Orphaned Children?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:14 PM
I receive an newsletter from an Organic Consumers Advocacy Group. Normally, I am not particularly disturbed by their newsletters. This arrived in my mailbox today.

Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. Earlier this year, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, but the EPA's newly proposed rule puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Does anyone know about this? Is this just spin, and there's a reasonable explanation? Perhaps this is just paraphrasing of the original... I'll look for the original later, but I am at work now. Sometimes posting stuff here can get you to the info quicker anyhow.

A link to the to the group

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:01 PM

French vivisector, Claude Bernard asserted that the "knowledge" he gained from brutalizing thousands of animals, should also be "confirmed" on humans. "The right to experiment on humans cannot be denied as a matter of principle," he opined. More recently an American chemist and avid seeker of knowledge, E.S. E. Slosson, proclaimed…" A human life is nothing compared with a new fact….. the aim of science is the advancement of human knowledge at any sacrifice of human life." This mindset has allowed the following atrocities: Unfortunately vivisection-based medicine means that we are all human guinea pigs. No matter how many animal tests are done, the first two to three generations of people who use a new drug or medical technique are the real guinea pigs anyway because of the differences between us and animals. The drug DES (stilboestrol) , for instance, was thoroughly tested on animals and found safe. It caused vaginal cancers in the daughters of women who took it to prevent miscarriage. Now it’s showing up in the third generation, as grandchildren of the original users are being born with genital defects, Some other "thoroughly tested" drugs which caused injury and death include Thalidomide, Zomax, Accutane, Eraldin, Phenformin , Clofibrate and, Feldene DRUG DAMAGE NOT PREDICTED BY ANIMAL TESTS

Eraldin (heart disease) corneal damage including blindness
Chloramphenicol ( antibiotic) aplastic anemia, often fatal
Ibufenac ( arthritis) deaths from liver damage
Flosint (arthritis) several deaths
Zipeprol ( cough suppressant) severe neurological symptoms at high doses
Phenacetin (pain killer) kidney and red blood cell damage
Reserpine ( anti-hypertensive) increased risks of cancer
Isoniazad ( tuberculosis ) liver destruction
Clioquinol ( diarrhea ) blindness, paralysis & death
Accutane ( acne) birth defects
Plaxin & Pronap (tranquilizer) killed many babies
E Ferol (vitamin) killed premature babies
Maxiton (diet pills) damage to heart & nervous system
Trilergen (anti-allergic) viral hepatitis
Flamamil (rheumatism) loss of consciousness
Isopreterenol (asthma) death
Methaqualone (tranquilizer) severe mental disturbances
MEL 29 (anti-hypertensive) cataracts
Urethane (leukemia) cancer of liver, lungs & bone marrow
Opren (arthritis) liver damage & deaths
Iproniazad (tuberculosis) liver damage

there are some more aplaling atrocitys,humans being guina pigs that just aint right

[edit on 16-11-2005 by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE]

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:29 PM
I think you are taliking about this

While it does categorically ban intentional dosing studes, it does allow some studies under certain mitigating circumstances.

I believe that the comment period for this proposed reglation is still open. (hint hint)

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:03 AM
Instead of abusing kids/people that are already in bad situations, they should just use all the lifers and death row inmates and pedophiles. At least then they would be benefiting mankind and *maybe* making restitution for whatever heinous act they committed and the lives they have ruined. I would not mind my taxes going to care for the criminals, if they were doing something useful like this.

As it is proposed though, it is disgusting making peoples whose lives already stink worse(orphans etc).


posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:45 PM

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

The language used here is seemingly Orwellian. Consulted and assent? Give me a break.

Not to mention the rest of this rule is just flat out disgusting.

70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."

There is a trend developing here and it gets worse.

70 FR 53857 "EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA’s fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed § 26.221 or § 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects..."

The first two little sub-rules really got my ire going but this one, oh boy, this one is a piece of work. Again with the Owellian language used. "Ethiically deficient human research" being used in mission critical circumstances? Keep in mind there is no regulation on what a mission criticial circumstance might entail for the EPA here.

The juxtaposition for these extreme open ended go-aheads in what is an otherwise benign document for protecting research subjects is sickening. They're just packed in there nice and neat, hoping no one will notice. Major kudos to the folks at the OCA for discovering these. I'll be writing the EPA, expressing my concerns later tonight. I urge everyone to do the same when they have a moment.

It's one thing to go behind our backs with things like this, because we'd probably never know about them. To openly try to pass this under the noses of the citizenry here really ticks me off. Lots of people are always carrying on about "how can we make a difference?" Well, here is a great opportunity to let the goverment know that we're wise to them and refuse to stand by idly while this sort of injustice to humanity is allowed to proceed any further.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Obscure]

new topics

top topics

log in