POLITICS: New EPA Rule Allows Testing on Orphans and Mentally Handicapped Children

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Recently the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) proposed a rule titled "Protection For Subjects In Human Research". The EPA wants public comment on the new rule which they say will help protect the public from pesticides, experimental drugs, and other chemical testing. However the OCA (Organic Consumers Association) read through the rules and have pointed out some buried sections that allow mentally handicapped children, orphaned newborns, abused, neglected, and children outside the US, to be tested upon with only the "permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual".
 



www.organicconsumers.org
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. On August 2, 2005, 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, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," 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.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is absolutely disgusting. They slide this type of stuff in under a bunch of flowery language and double-speak titles like “Protection For Subjects In Human Research” I guess orphans and mentally handicapped do not deserve protection.
Here you can comment on the rules yourself
Tell them how you feel, the last day to comment is Dec 20th, 2005. You can actually make a difference so don’t just reply here, tell the EPA that this is not acceptable in America.
Here is the actual rule proposal (pdf cut and paste)
www.nacua.org...
HTML

The sections that the OCA point out are;
70 FR 53865 26.408(a)
70 FR 53865 26.408(c)
70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2)
70 FR 53857

Related News Links:
www.sfgate.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
EPA Looking at Using Tests on People



[edit on 24-11-2005 by Halfofone]


[edit on 24-11-2005 by Halfofone]




posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Good find.
I hope I am not the only one here who finds this proposed ruling shocking and appalling. I have left a comment with the link the submitter of the news article has provided. I hope that this proposition does not pass. This proposition alone shows the true face of the American government.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Thanks for bringing this back to our attention.

This scam has resurfaced regularly for several years running I think. So the studies get repackaged and re=presented as "fixed."

I know the American people do not support using vulnerable children as guinea pigs. ...So who keeps targeting them in these studies?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I love this!

This is marvellous!

This is a blaring alarm that is screaming, screaming, SCREAMING,"Your government doesn't give a damn about you. WAKE UP! WAKE UP!"

Of course noboby will. Too busy being entertained...

But the point is they had a chance. Nobody can say, "How could I have known?"

Well, this is a pretty clear sign I think. Anybody with eyes and ears, and a gaze centered anywhere but at their feet, will see this sign and come to some greater understanding regarding the machinations of the state.

When the systems designed to protect the citizenry are co-opted by private interests, the results are a real mess. We're supporting the machinery that is strangling us, and we're doing so willingly. Well, someone is anyway, because I'm sure as hell not.

Someone is paying taxes, someone is going to work, someone is obeying orders and following directions - look what you're doing to this fine country!



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It's time for them to either understand the term Environmental Protection or change their name. This is as low as it gets.

How can there be ANY circumstances permitting testing on humans at all? This is what the EPA should be protecting against, not proposing in the first place.

Disband the entire organization, they are a useless waste of my tax money.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
It’s about placating the corporate bigwigs, especially the drug companies, I guess they can’t find humans that are willing to expose themselves. Plus you don’t have to pay orphans and mentally handicappen children.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The EPA is governed, funded by and staffed by whom? Are the people drafting the rulings not drawn from among the ranks of the elected officials and their promoters?

In that case, would it not be reflecting the direction of the party in power?

All the above are questions, because I don't know the facts. Is the EPA a 'stand alone' organ of government, uninfluenced by party policy?

While human testing happens with university student volunteers and incarcerated criminals (also voluntary, I think), this legislation appears to be focussed on the helpless and innocent, which is troubling.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
As far as I know it is directed by the House to submit proposals, and the public is able to submit comments on these proposals. I'm sure that the EPA is lobbied on behalf of many companies including the fertilizer and drug companies in this case. The fact that these provisions are hidden within the text, behind language that would confuse confusious, shows that they are aware of the public outcry this type of law would (and should) create. This is why it is so important for people to submit there comments on this issue, NOW!. this rule is not yet in place and can be stopped with enough public pressure.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
** Devil's advocate post **

its about time those people became useful.

yeah, stop screaming... some testing can only go so far before it has to be tried out on humans.. actually, it happens right now, its called clinical trials. I'll have to study deeper into the article, but after all the spin and liberal bleeding heart mumbo jumbo is stripped away from it.. could this simply be a push to open up another sector of people for the newer and more experimental prodecures out there that only a select few get to have before its released on teh larger market for gigantic profits?

Its al in how its spun and presented. Evil corporations want to spary acid in the eyes of babies for thinly veiled research or is it knee jerk liberal zealotry ending up having a negative side effect on a populatin of people that might be in need of more, newer and possibly better medicine?

even if this did pass, do you think theres an ethics committee that would even give this a second look if there was anythign even remotely shady about it given the current policital climates?

unfortunately, even if it was for good (not 'the good' or 'the greater good') it probably would be shot down becuase too many cant separate big businesss from supposed evil.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
HA! ok buddy! bleeding hearts aside, human testing can and is being done on willing paid subjects. Testing on children that cannot resonably be consulted should NOT BE ALLOWED. I have no problem with greater good testing on consenting adults. Sexual abuse on children, mentally handicapped and non-consenting adults is evil, but chemical abuse on the same crowd is not?

Get real this is evil, it is the definition in fact.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Not much time left people voice your opinions now.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
The EPA is governed, funded by and staffed by whom? Are the people drafting the rulings not drawn from among the ranks of the elected officials and their promoters?

In that case, would it not be reflecting the direction of the party in power?

All the above are questions, because I don't know the facts. Is the EPA a 'stand alone' organ of government, uninfluenced by party policy?

While human testing happens with university student volunteers and incarcerated criminals (also voluntary, I think), this legislation appears to be focussed on the helpless and innocent, which is troubling.

The EPA is influenced by big business in the same way as the revolving door influences Congress. EPA officials alternate between being employed by the EPA and being employed by big business albeit with much more lucrative salaries.

IOW, if you want a well paid job in the chemicals industry, one way to get it is to work for the EPA first and ingratiate your future employer.

The FDA works the same way.

In effect, the drug industry, food industry and chemical industry have become self regulating.

Also, don't forget who sponsors these specialised fields at the training institutions these people came from to start with.

I hope that helps you understand how it works.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by News Junkie]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
** Devil's advocate post **

its about time those people became useful.

yeah, stop screaming... some testing can only go so far before it has to be tried out on humans.. actually, it happens right now, its called clinical trials. I'll have to study deeper into the article, but after all the spin and liberal bleeding heart mumbo jumbo is stripped away from it.. could this simply be a push to open up another sector of people for the newer and more experimental prodecures out there that only a select few get to have before its released on teh larger market for gigantic profits?

Its al in how its spun and presented. Evil corporations want to spary acid in the eyes of babies for thinly veiled research or is it knee jerk liberal zealotry ending up having a negative side effect on a populatin of people that might be in need of more, newer and possibly better medicine?

even if this did pass, do you think theres an ethics committee that would even give this a second look if there was anythign even remotely shady about it given the current policital climates?

unfortunately, even if it was for good (not 'the good' or 'the greater good') it probably would be shot down becuase too many cant separate big businesss from supposed evil.
*Bleeding Heart Liberal Commie Pinko Tree-Hugger post*

Over-reacting huh!?!

Well how about testing of drugs that have been PROVED harmful on orphans who were force fed with tubes because they fought against it.

Drugs that caused the death of most of the organs of the body including the liver and the skin (skin being an organ).

And how about the media cover up and witch hunt conducted against the investigator who revealed the practice - in SPITE of the fact that he produced IRREFUTABLE eveidence of it.

The link is below - do you have the stomach to read it and view the photographic evidence of what these drugs did then come back and tell us we are over-reacting?

Warning: Graphic images of human suffering contained in link:
Forced drugging of Black and Latino children at the Incarnation Children's Center (ICC)

[edit on 9-12-2005 by News Junkie]

[edit on 9-12-2005 by News Junkie]





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join