Posts Tagged National Academy Of Sciences
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff
[NaturalNews] The Institute of Medicine (IoM), an organization under the umbrella of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is currently in the process of putting together an assessment on the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And part of this process includes accepting public comments about the government’s recommended vaccination schedule, a provision that represents a key opportunity for the natural health community to collectively share with the IoM our thoughts and concerns about the safety of vaccines.
As many NaturalNews readers are well aware, there is still plenty of controversy over whether or not vaccines are safe and effective, despite what the government claims. And this debate spills over into other debates about the federal government’s official vaccination schedule, and whether or not it is appropriate for young children. The vaccine schedule is one particular area of concern that has received far less attention than it deserves, and one that the IoM seems ready to address as part of its new study.
In a commissioned paper titled “Study Designs for the Safety Evaluation of Different Childhood Immunization Schedules,” consultant Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., provides suggestions to the IoM about various ways in which a comprehensive vaccine safety study could be constructed, particularly with the CDC’s vaccination schedule in mind. The paper addresses key issues of importance such as the timing of vaccinations, the quantity of vaccines given in a single day, the interaction of various vaccines with one another, the short and long-term effects of various vaccinations, and other intricacies that are often ignored when discussing vaccine safety.
“The core of this paper is a set of proposals for the type of study designs and methods that would be appropriate for the comparative evaluation of vaccine adverse events under different vaccine schedules,” says the paper. “When evaluating the safety of different vaccine schedules, it is … important to study the whole range of issues, from the timing of a single vaccine to summary metrics based on the timing of dozens of vaccines.”
You can read the full 41-page revised commissioned paper, which was published on July 12, 2012, here: http://www.iom.edu
Submit your comments about the Childhood Immunization Schedule before July 31
As the IoM considers how it will evaluate the safety of childhood vaccinations based on the recommendations outlined in this paper, the group will also be considering what you and I have to say about the matter. To facilitate this, the IoM has set up a public survey portal through which you can express your thoughts about vaccines, and highlight specific issues related to vaccines that are most concerning to you.
You can access the survey portal here: http://www.surveygizmo.com
This is a great opportunity for health-conscious individuals everywhere, including those who have experienced first-hand the devastating effects of vaccines, or who know a family member or friend who has, to share their concerns about vaccines with a group that is well-respected among many in America and around the world. But it is important that you submit your comments by July 31 to ensure that the IoM receives them and includes them as part of its assessment considerations.
Be sure to take some time to read the report, or at least browse key portions of it, so you are familiar with the issues addressed. If you are already well-versed about the vaccination schedule, or have your own thoughts about how it should be studied to properly identify links between vaccines and health damage, be sure to include those in your survey answers as well:
It is important to note that your survey answers and comments, as well as all other personal information you enter as part of the survey, will be published in a Public Access File in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Sources for this article include:
Sunday, March 18, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes
[NaturalNews] A new study has found there are higher levels of potentially toxic manganese in a number of residential neighborhoods that are located near industrial or manufacturing sites at various locations around the country.
The study, conducted by researchers from Kansas State University (KSU), Columbia University and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Department of Environmental Health Sciences, found varying levels of manganese in analyzed samples of airborne particulate matter from Sacramento County, Calif., Pinellas County, Fla., Anoka County, Minn., Harris County, Texas and Maricopa County, Ariz.
While not much research has been done on just what levels of manganese are thought to be toxic, if any, Saugata Datta, assistant professor of geology at KSU, says the most recent research on the element, as it relates to air quality, is not looking good.
“Manganese is an element that was originally thought to have a lot of nutritional aspects for humans and was relatively harmless health-wise,” he said. “But more recently that thinking is changing. Manganese is a neurotoxin at certain levels when in water, so there is a question about if it’s toxic in air, too.”
High manganese levels problematic
The level of manganese measured at each of the five sample sites, researchers say, ranged from 0.01 micrograms/mg to 0.67 micrograms/mg. In addition, “sample compositions also varied in types of manganese, which included manganese-2 oxide, manganese-3 oxide, manganese-2 acetate, manganese-2 pyrophosphate and manganese-2 sulfate at various levels at each location,” said a synopsis of the study.
“Because the levels of manganese have not been monitored very much, it’s hard to say whether these are high, low or average levels,” Dattanoted. That said, studies of whether manganese has implications on human health have shown it to be problematic, he said.
“Toxicological studies have linked airborne particulate matter containing manganese to respiratory and cardiovascular health. Additionally, long-term inhalation of manganese has been attributed to manganism, an irreversible disease similar to Parkinson’s,” said the study synopsis.
Researchers also said levels of manganese found in areas near gas, power and petroleum manufacturing and refinery sites were higher even than those found near the industrial sites.
Arsenic and manganese connection?
Datta is also conducting research on India’s groundwater, which contains manganese and arsenic. According to preliminary data, researchers have discovered that if arsenic is found in ground water, so, too, is manganese. The KSU team may have also found that as higher levels of arsenic are found, there are lower levels of manganese, and vice versa, though they offered no explanation of this phenomenon.
“These studies are a unique set of work that not many people are looking at,” Datta said. “We’re attacking manganese, understanding the toxicity levels and understanding its chemistry in both air and in water. Both are pathways to be ingested by humans.”
“In air most of it is caused by vehicles and industries, but in water it is affected by sediments that leach out,” he continued. “We want to attack back.”
The element arsenic is a metalloid that is generally found in many minerals, usually in conjunction with sulfur and metals. It’s most often used to strengthen alloys of copper and especially lead, such as car batteries. A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that arsenic in drinking water causes bladder, lung and skin cancer, and may cause kidney and liver cancer. It can also cause harm to the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as heart and blood vessels, and causes serious skin problems, and may be responsible for birth defects and reproductive problems.
Manganese is a metal with important industrial metal alloy uses, particularly in stainless steels. It, too, is a commonly occurring element, most often found in minerals. A study in Canadafound that increased levels of the mineral in waterresulted in a measurable decrease in the intellect of children who drank the water.
Source: Natural News
Thursday, February 23, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] For the past several months, there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not to publish controversial research about a new militarized and highly-virulent strain of H5N1 avian flu capable of spreading between mammals, including between humans. The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) holds the position that certain details about how the virus was created should be withheld from publishing, while various others in the scientific community, many of which appear to work for vaccine interests, are demanding full disclosure.
The issue stems from research conducted by Dr. Ron Fouchier and his colleagues from Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands that resulted in the deliberate creation of a weaponized form of H5N1 that spreads between mammals. Prior to this research, H5N1 transmission was limited primarily to birds, as natural forms of the virus do not typically afflict mammals (http://www.naturalnews.com/034228_bioterrorism_flu_strain.html).
But after years of warning the public that H5N1 would one day magically transform into a “super virus” capable of killing billions of people, the U.S. government and others conveniently saw their prediction come true in the form of an intentional “transformation” brought about by research, the details of which many are pushing to have published for the whole world to see. And based on recent reports, those pushing for their release appear to have dollar signs in their eyes, as gaining access to how the virus was made will allow them to create vaccines for this super virus once it is “accidentally” released into the wild.
Problem – Reaction – Solution: Militarized H5N1 could generate billions of dollars for vaccine industry while killing off billions of people
At a recent closed meeting between influenza experts and U.S. security officials that was organized by the World Health Organization (WHO), only one member of the NSABB, infectious disease expert Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University, was in attendance. And according to reports, Keim “got the hell beat out of him” by many of the others in attendance with interests in developing and promoting new vaccines for H5N1.
“It was a closed meeting dominated by flu people who have a vested interest in continuing this kind of work,” said a scientist close to the NSABB, to Reuters. These attendees included the lead researchers of the study; Dr. Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Science who indicated recently that he plans to publish the full research; those who funded the research and provided viruses for it; and several bioethicists and directors from laboratories that specialize in influenza research.
Dr. Alberts, of course, used to be president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from 1993 – 2005 before taking on his current role as head ofScience. NAS, of course, is part of the same National Academies as the Institute of Medicine, which we exposed back in August 2011 as being directly tied to the military and medical industrial complexes that promote vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html).