None other than ol' Greeezy Palms Himself.

Is there nothing that can't be bought off?
Certainly not the worst of it, but this is nutty.

Imagine - college kids getting paid 15 bucks an hour to test poisons.

Mo

From YubaNet.com

US
Waxman and Boxer Release Report on Human Pesticide Experiments

Author: Committee on Government Reform Minority Office
Published on Jun 16, 2005, 07:47

Rep. Waxman and Senator Barbara Boxer released a report this morning that finds significant and widespread ethical violations in human pesticide experiments currently under review by the EPA.

The report finds that these controversial experiments, in which participants were intentionally dosed with toxic pesticides, appear to have routinely violated ethical standards by failing to obtain informed consent, dismissing adverse outcomes, and inflicting harm on human subjects.

In one experiment under EPA review, human subjects were exposed to MITC, a dangerous pesticide closely related to the chemical that killed thousands in Bhopal, India, in 1984. In another, human subjects -- mostly college students and minorities paid $15 per hour -- were placed in a chamber with chloropicrin, an active ingredient in tear gas, for up to one hour at a time for four consecutive days. In some experiments, subjects were instructed to swallow capsules of pesticides with orange juice or water at breakfast.

The report also finds that the adverse health effects of these studies were downplayed. In one study, headaches, abdominal pain, nausea, coughing, and rashes experienced by study participants dosed with azinphos-methyl for nearly a month were dismissed as having been caused by "viral illness," "ward conditions," or diet. Human subjects were often inadequately notified of about the health risks of participating in experiments. In one experiment in which subjects were exposed to dimethoate, a pesticide that EPA considers a neurotoxicant and suspected carcinogen, the consent form stated that the chemical is "used to protect or cure" plants and that "not a single health effect is expected."

The Bush Administration reversed a moratorium on human pesticide experiments at the urging of the pesticide industry. EPA justified the move on the grounds that such studies are "available, relevant, and appropriate." The review released today by Rep. Waxman and Sen. Boxer shows the opposite: the experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed.

Executive Summary

Reversing a moratorium established by the Clinton Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration is reviewing or plans to review over 20 studies that intentionally dosed human subjects with pesticides. The pesticides administered to human subjects in these experiments include ``highly hazardous'' poisons, suspected carcinogens, and suspected neurotoxicants. The studies, most of which were submitted to EPA by pesticide manufacturers, appear to routinely violate ethical standards.

The testing of pesticides on humans is controversial. Unlike pharmaceutical products, pesticides are designed to be toxic. And unlike pharmaceutical studies, experiments that expose human subjects to doses of pesticides offer no promise of therapeutic benefit to the subjects. For these reasons, former EPA Administrator Carol Browner implemented a moratorium in 1998 on considering or relying upon human pesticide experiments.

At the urging of pesticide manufacturers, the Bush Administration reversed this moratorium. Although the Administration's first EPA Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, tried at one point to maintain a moratorium on agency consideration of human pesticide experiments, this effort was abandoned by the Administration after she resigned and a court ruling identified procedural defects in her actions. Under its new permissive policy, EPA has stated that ``the Agency is reviewing ... or expects to review'' 24 separate human pesticide experiments as part of its ``hazard characterization'' process. The pesticide manufacturers view EPA consideration of these experiments as central to the industry's efforts to obtain lenient regulatory standards.

At the request of Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Henry A. Waxman, this report evaluates 22 of the 24 human pesticide experiments submitted to EPA. The report assesses whether the experiments comply with the ethical and scientific requirements for research involving human subjects, including the standards in the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the ``Common Rule'' that guides medical research in the United States, and a recent report on human pesticides studies by the National Academy of Sciences. The two remaining experiments submitted to EPA could not be reviewed in this report because they were not provided by the agency.

The report finds significant and widespread deficiencies in the 22 human pesticide experiments being reviewed by EPA. In violation of ethical standards, the experiments appear to have inflicted harm on human subjects, failed to obtain informed consent, dismissed adverse outcomes, and lacked scientific validity.

The report finds:

* Human testing of hazardous substances. The experiments deliberately exposed human subjects to dangerous pesticides, such as organophosphates, which were developed in the 1930s for use in nerve gas, and methyl isothiocyanate, which is closely related to the chemical that killed thousands in Bhopal, India. In one experiment, human subjects were placed in a chamber with vapors of chloropicrin, an active ingredient in tear gas, at levels substantially greater than the federal exposure limit, causing some subjects to experience ``severe'' adverse effects. An older experiment administered the pesticide carbofuran to human subjects for the explicit objective of determining ``the minimum dose necessary to induce toxic effects (e.g. headache, nausea, and vomiting).'' In many of the experiments, the subjects were instructed to swallow capsules of toxic pesticides with orange juice or water at breakfast.

* Serious deficiencies in informed consent. The informed consent forms used in the experiments do not appear to meet ethical standards. Some used complex jargon that participants would be unlikely to understand. Others failed to disclose the potential risks involved. One experiment exposed subjects to dimethoate, a pesticide that EPA considers a suspected carcinogen, a developmental toxicant, and a neurotoxicant. Yet the informed consent form failed to mention these or any other potential health effects, stating instead that the chemical is ``used to protect or cure all kinds of plants'' and that ``not a single health effect is expected.'' The informed consent forms for other experiments repeatedly referred to the pesticide as a ``drug,'' potentially giving the test subject the false impression that the experiment was for a pharmaceutical product. In some of the experiments, there may not even have been any attempt to obtain informed consent.

* Unethical liability waivers. The Common Rule governing medical research provides expressly that ``[n]o informed consent ... may ... waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights.'' Contrary to this requirement, the informed consent forms used in some experiments include explicit waivers of liability. For example, the consent form for the chloropicrin experiment states that the sponsor would not pay ``any ... form of compensation if you are injured'' other than medical costs.

* Questionable scientific validity. According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``a study cannot be ethically acceptable if it is scientifically invalid.'' Yet in many of the experiments that exposed human subjects to harmful pesticides, the number of human subjects involved was too small to provide reliable results. Three of the experiments had just six subjects. One study had a single subject.

* Questionable interpretation of results. One experiment dosed eight subjects with the pesticide azinphos-methyl for 28 days, with all eight of the subjects reporting multiple adverse health effects, including headaches, abdominal pain, nausea, coughing, and rashes. In the written report of the experiment, the researchers discounted these events, attributing them variously to ``viral illness,'' ``ward conditions,'' or diet. Other studies similarly dismissed unfavorable experimental outcomes.

* Failure to conduct long-term monitoring. Exposure to many of the pesticides used in the experiments can cause long-term health effects, but the studies examined only the short-term impacts on the human subjects. In 14 of the studies, there was no medical follow up after the first 24 hours after the completion of the experiment. The Bush Administration has justified the decision to accept human pesticide experiments by arguing that such studies are ``available, relevant, and appropriate.'' In fact, this review shows the opposite: the actual experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed and rife with ethical violations.

Full report: Human Pesticide Experiments

No different than what they have inflicted on the american and canadian people and Lord knows who else with lyme disease and co-infections, agent orange spraying, chemtrails, etc. Heck, population was not even told about these.

Hear my silent scream. What can I say - murderous, inhuman, evil individuals. Weren't the Nazis, Russians and Japanese involved with these sort of experiments. Boy, we have come a long way. My disgust is also against the Canadian government/military, they are just as complicit. I do feel for the people who will most likely suffer long term bad effects for a very long time, or die young.

And LabRat, it's not doom and gloom as you so often say. The likes of people who support and elect individuals who perpetuate these "experiments" which result in enormous pain, suffering and death are the CAUSE OF so much doom and gloom, they glorify it.

But most of us are too brainwahed or too discouraged to raise a big enough stink to cut through the pernicious odor of "amerika incorpulated" as various automotonized citizens among us kill American kids and Iraqi citizens in the name of. um, uh, ... 'freedom'... ..., ...'progress'...., and ...'growth'.... (yeah right! cubed). But somehow; some way, we must DEFINITELY start right now, to begin a new wave of awareness; of advancement against the rotten scum that has infected our beautiful land.

It's in the pipes, folks, and it's getting closer to the fan by the day; by the hour; by the minute...!!

The only being in the universe who can stop up those pipes is You (you-to the nth where n is large...).
DaveS

I saw her interviewed..(let's also not forget she's a Republican) and was not happy under Bush.

Mo

he'd be the only one I'd trust to do this kind of experimentation if I were to volunteer for such an experiment. Unfortunately he died years ago.
the researchers could expedite their findings of safe and efficacious pesticides if they followed his methods of approach to diseases.
=========================
On a related note,I beleive that the members of the IDSA would be ideal naturalistic volunteer subjects, because of their unique "insights."

I was with a pharm co and this testing is done ALL of the time to our govt employees. They are part of the clinical trials and randomization studies.

Under a newly-proposed rule (that will most likely be formally adopted), the EPA would allow pesticide manufacturers to test their products on human "volunteers." The volunteers would include pregnant women and prisoners, as well as newborns and children. Further, the EPA...

...would not establish an independent ethics review board to scrutinize human studies on the grounds that this would "unnecessarily confine EPA's discretion."
So prisoners, who "might be 'vulnerable to coercion or undue influence,'" and children who are volunteered by their parents, would be turned into guinea pigs.

Now I know there are some who will ask, "Isn't it better to find out the toxicity of a pesticide through controlled scientific means, rather than having to deal with thousands of public cases stemming from a lack of research?" I will concede that point.

However, the EPA's refusal to establish an independent ethics review panel to ensure that these test subjects are fully-informed about the experiments and will be given full medical coverage in the event of injury raises my hackles.

Do the American people really want the U.S. government to conduct Mengele-like experiments on babies, kids, and convicts? I don't think so. Contact the EPA with your concerns if you agree with me.

So...

No ethics involved??? Medical experiments with no ethics??

You'll get one good guy if you dig hard enough, but even then they risk their job, reputation and other things if they stick their necks out for someone they don't know.

It is extremely frightening what you run into.