Sperimentazione dei nazisti USA su bambini orfani e handicappati..

[pietro]

ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Send a letter to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

Note: Concerns about Snopes or other questions are answered here

Friday, November 18, 2005

Public Comment Period for this rule Closes
December 12, 2005

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:

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.
Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

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..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

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..."

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

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..."


(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)

Send an email to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

By mail: Send two copies of your comments to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 7502C
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC, 20460-0001
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132

The OCA also needs your financial support to continue working on these important issues. Please donate today!



www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

[Zefram_Cochrane]

In Origine Postato da pietro
ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Send a letter to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

Note: Concerns about Snopes or other questions are answered here

Friday, November 18, 2005

Public Comment Period for this rule Closes
December 12, 2005

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:

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.
Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

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..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

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..."

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

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..."


(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)

Send an email to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

By mail: Send two copies of your comments to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 7502C
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC, 20460-0001
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132

The OCA also needs your financial support to continue working on these important issues. Please donate today!



www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

SCHIFOSI BASTARDI

[legio_taurinensis]

sono delle merde. Ma lo hanno fatto tutti: nazisti tedeschi, fascisti, comunisti e americani.

Dai, ste cose sono vecchie come il mondo....

[pietro]

Onestamente non mi risulta che il fascismo o regimi comunisti abbiano fatto queste cose..i nazisti e gli americani Si.

In Origine Postato da Emiliano
sono delle merde. Ma lo hanno fatto tutti: nazisti tedeschi, fascisti, comunisti e americani.

Dai, ste cose sono vecchie come il mondo....

[legio_taurinensis]

Sai molte cose non risultano di primo acchito.

Mi vuoi far credere che regimi dispotici e sanguinari come il comunismo o il fascismo, non abbiano trattato queste persone come subumani, anche se non hanno fatto esperimenti su di loro?

mah....

[pietro]

Se hai del materiale in proposito postalo..la differenza è che nel 2005 la "grande democrazia americana " e non un totalitarismo novecentesco possa commettere tali aberrazioni..ed è una differenza di non poco conto permettimi..

[legio_taurinensis]

Materiale non ne ho...pero' ricordo anni fa di aver letto un articolo su un quotidiano, in cui intervistavano un'infermiera che parlava di come esistevano reparti speciali nei gulag sovietici, in cui venivano rinchiusi malati di mente e disabili.....non posso darti la certezza di tutto perchè non ricordo bene, però ricordo di aver letto cose simili...

Non venivano sterminati, a differenza del nazismo, ma non venivano nemmeno considerati esseri come gli altri. A quanto ne so.

Lessi in un libro che in Cambogia, sotto Pol Pot, anche le persone handicappate venivano torturate come tutti gli altri dissidenti politici e chi non obbediva non mangiava...

Sul fascismo non lo so con precisione, però a me han sempre detto "i fascisti mettevano nelle camere a gas queste persone"....

[pietro]

Ti ripeto che il punto centrale è che queste azioni vengono fatte da chi erge a campione mondiale della democrazia e non da qualche dittatura del novecento.

[unodeitanti]

Sul fascismo non lo so con precisione, però a me han sempre detto "i fascisti mettevano nelle camere a gas queste persone".... [/B]

sono sgomento.

qui proprio parole al vento..

a me han sempre detto che i comunisti mangiano bambini, dev'essere vero.

ma come si fa ad aprir bocca non avendo altra cosa su cui basarsi che il racconto (di chi? quando? dove? perchè?) pusillanime.

non metto bocca sul comunismo, non m'interessa la polemica con loro e su questo punto, perchè le cagate le fan tutti, e non necessariamente corrodono le idee e chi le porta avanti onestamente.

ma per il fascismo, sinceramente, come si fa a dire che fosse un "regime sanguinario" e che gasava gli handicappati....

vediamo di non parlare per iperboli, altrimenti si coprono i fatti storici di orpelli altisonanti che mascherano il bene, ma anche il male delle cose.

[legio_taurinensis]

Amico, a me le frottole non le ha dette nessuno...ho letto un libro sulla dottrina fascista in cui parlava che all'italia servivano baldi giovanotti, virili alti e pronti....non credo che un handicappato risponda a queste caratteristiche. Che li abbia gasati non credo, ma di sicuro non li ergeva a italiani modello, come probabilmente non lo faceva l'urss egualitarista (a parole).

Si sono d'accordo che finchè lo fa un regime totalitario, in un certo senso si puo' anche capire, se lo fanno i paladini della democrazia e della giustizia...