General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDefying Science And Common Sense, New York Bill Would Ban GMOs In Vaccines
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2015/02/26/defying-science-and-common-sense-new-york-bill-would-ban-gmos-in-vaccines/"In a bizarre juxtaposition of irrational fears, a New York State legislator has introduced a bill to ban GMOs in vaccines. The bill, NY AB 1706, is apparently not a hoax but was introduced by assembly member Thomas J. Abinanti, who has passed other bills designed to place restrictions on so-called genetically modified organisms.
Viruses are one thing youd think people would not prefer in their natural form.
In the unlikely event this bill passed, it would set back vaccine technology a half century and would do away completely with some important vaccines. Abinanti has proposed several other bills that would require disclosure of information about GMOs in vaccines.
Paul Offit, who is chief of the division of infectious diseases at Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, said that genetic modification is at the heart of vaccine technology. Vaccines against viral diseases use a version of the virus thats been killed or altered attenuated in the medical language. The modification is what prevents the vaccines from making people sick.
..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemisse
(30,817 posts)He must be pretty red-faced right about now!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Behold the fruits of your labor, science denial crowd.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Everyone must all go back to porcine and bovine insulin?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)No fillers or preservatives, just 100% pork pancreas....fresh from our farms to your syringe.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Bunch of dumb ass anti science losers, but getting ready how to hear how their legislation does not affect anyone else.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)According to the National Institutes of Health, but what do they know?
I am not commenting on any aspect of this bill, with which I am not familiar and have no opinion. But it is not accurate to say that a killed virus, or an attenuated virus, has been genetically modified or engineered.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9514708
Despite the early success demonstrated with the hepatitis B vaccine, no other recombinant engineered vaccine has been approved for use in humans. It is unlikely that a recombinant vaccine will be developed to replace an existing licensed human vaccine with a proven record of safety and efficacy. This is due to the economic reality of making vaccines for human use. Genetically engineered subunit vaccines are more costly to manufacture than conventional vaccines, since the antigen must be purified to a higher standard than was demanded of older, conventional vaccines. Each vaccine must also be subjected to extensive testing and review by the FDA, as it would be considered a new product. This is costly to a company in terms of both time and money and is unnecessary if a licensed product is already on the market. Although recombinant subunit vaccines hold great promise, they do present some potential limitations. In addition to being less reactogenic, recombinant subunit vaccines have a tendency to be less immunogenic than their conventional counterparts. This can be attributed to these vaccines being held to a higher degree of purity than was traditionally done for an earlier generation of licensed subunit vaccines. Ironically, the contaminants often found in conventional subunit vaccines may have aided in the inflammatory process, which is essential for initiating a vigorous immune response. This potential problem may be overcome by employing one of the many new types of adjuvants that are becoming available for use in humans. Recombinant subunit vaccines may also suffer from being too well-defined, because they are composed of a single antigen. In contrast, conventional vaccines contain trace amounts of other antigens that may aid in conferring an immunity to infectious agents that is more solid than could be provided by a monovalent vaccine. This problem can be minimized, where necessary, by creating recombinant vaccines that are composed of multiple antigens from the same pathogen. These issues are less of a concern with a live attenuated vaccine, since these vaccines are less costly, require fewer steps to manufacture, and elicit long-lived immunity after only a single dose. Unfortunately, live vaccines carry a higher risk of vaccine-induced complications in recipients that make their use in highly developed, litiginous countries unlikely. In lesser developed countries, where the prevalence of disease and the need for effective vaccines outweighs the risk associated with their administration, live vaccines may play an important role in human health. This review has attempted to make the reader aware of some of the current approaches and issues that are associated with the development of these vaccines. Genetically engineered vaccines hold great promise for the future, but the potential of these vaccines to improve human and animal health has yet to be fully realized.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr. Offit's explanation in the article gets to the heart of the matter.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The bill goes far beyond banning genetically modified viruses in vaccines, to include techniques used in almost all vaccines, including ones used to make safer vaccines. And that, of course, is stupid.
But it is a mistake for us, if the aim is to encourage all parents to vaccinate their children, to pretend that all vaccines use GMO's. They don't. So why unnecessarily alienate a whole group of people who have concerns about GMO's? Unless the aim is somehow to promote GMO's by making people equate them with vaccines.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The point is that this is where some of the anti-science junk is leading, and that includes the repetitive deceptions pushed about GMOs by people working to foment fear of them via anti-science arguments.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)that have not been proven to be safe for human consumption in the amounts they are being used.
There is nothing anti-science about my concern, and it is shared by the PhD scientists and engineers in the family.
And the issue of using GMO seeds so that the plants can withstand heavy doses of herbicides is a very different issue than killing or manipulating viruses so that they can be safely used in vaccines.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Farmers use very little herbicide, and GMOs have led to the use of much safer herbicides. Thus, your stance is not based on the real world.
The issue of pushing baseless fears is very real, and it is outlandish the way the anti-GMO fear mongers have acted. Quite frankly it is very unethical.
PS: http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/herbicides/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 04:47 PM - Edit history (2)
or the EPA, or Washington State University, or the growing number of scientists worldwide who are concerned that the supposedly "inert" ingredients in Roundup and other herbicides may have a toxic effect on humans.
There is no question that herbicides, a type of pesticide, are now being far more heavily used -- with farmers relying on GMO's that are supposed to be resistant to them. And this heavy use of herbicides has not been proven to make people safer, despite a decrease in insecticides.
But it has increased profits for Monsanto, which is certainly a good thing for Monsanto.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on superweeds. It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts and often different forms of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON +0.38%s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops corn, cotton and soybeans increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012. Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.
By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmers fields as there were in 2001.
This has meant huge profits for agribusinesses developing and selling genetically engineered seeds, herbicides and pesticides. Seed revenues have septupled (increased seven fold) since 1998.
SNIP
_____________________________
From a 2012 Washington State University study:
http://cahnrs.wsu.edu/news-release/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/
HT crops have increased herbicide use by 527 million pounds over the 16-year period (1996-2011). The incremental increase per year has grown steadily from 1.5 million pounds in 1999, to 18 million five years later in 2003, and 79 million pounds in 2009. In 2011, about 90 million more pounds of herbicides were applied than likely in the absence of HT, or about 24% of total herbicide use on the three crops in 2011.
Todays major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops.
There are now two-dozen weeds resistant to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on HT crops, and many of these are spreading rapidly. Millions of acres are infested with more than one glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide use by 25% to 50%, and increases farmer-weed control costs by at least as much.
The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industrys primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/
A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for:
preventing,
destroying,
repelling, or
mitigating any pest.
Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.
Under United States law, a pesticide is also any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/
The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.
The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures, Seralinis team wrote.
Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the worlds largest exporters of soy.
Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentinas Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers arent required to publicly disclose them. Although Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar herbicides with different inert ingredients.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's the crap that all anti-GMOers hang their hats on, and it's been debunked and you know it. The data I showed make that clear.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/03/when-bad-news-stories-help-bad-science-go-viral/
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/10/cautionary-note-anti-gmo-journalism/
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/10/benbrook-2012-pesticide-usage-report.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/permalink/315516661920924/
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/10/12/scientists-journalists-challenge-organic-scientist-benbrook-claims-that-gm-crops-increase-pesticide-spraying-harm-the-environment/
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/can-green-gm-crops-convince-enviro-minded-consumers
And your last bold bit is classic anti-science conspiracy theory goofiness. Also, court BS is not science. You're really making the other thread comparing anti-GMO and anti-vaccine groups as very, very valid. Every anti-science routine they use, you're utilizing here. It's not ok.
PS:
More on the bad propaganda regarding Roundup...
The Truth About Glyphosate and Wheat
http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/2014/11/the-truth-about-glyphosate-and-wheat/
Salt, Vinegar, and Glyphosate
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/
GMO Myth: Farmers drown crops in dangerous glyphosate. Fact: They use eye droppers
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/22/gmo-myth-farmers-drown-crops-in-dangerous-glyphosate-fact-they-use-eye-droppers/
It should also be noted that glyphosate has replaced much more dangerous herbicides.
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/
Further, GMOs have reduced pesticide use and increased output per acre, both also wins for the planet.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)which clearly show that overall pesticide use has INCREASED, not decreased, since GMO plants came into use.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on superweeds. It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts and often different forms of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON +0.38%s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops corn, cotton and soybeans increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012. Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.
By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmers fields as there were in 2001.
This has meant huge profits for agribusinesses developing and selling genetically engineered seeds, herbicides and pesticides. Seed revenues have septupled (increased seven fold) since 1998.
SNIP
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You haven't bothered to explore why every scientist worth a lick has said his assessment failed in many, many ways.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)The whole point of GMO seeds being herbicide resistant is to allow more herbicides to be used against the weeds. OF COURSE more herbicides are being used. What was not expected by some was how quickly resistant strains of weeds would spring up, requiring the use of even more herbicides.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Shouting "Monsanto" really does show that you haven't looked into the topic in science-based way at all.
More on the matter, and there is a lot on the matter...
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsUHZwcW9vdVZUMUU/edit
https://plus.google.com/+AnastasiaBodnar/posts/ds625jsRV8w
https://petersonfarmblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/why-do-farmers-use-technologies-such-as-gmos-and-herbicidespesticides-what-are-the-acknowledged-issues/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)will survive them.
This isn't rocket science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The first link I offered showed data from the EPA, but you want to pretend otherwise. All the other links show any honest person that Benbrook was wrong, and that the anti-GMO cliches are wrong. You seem to want to live in a fantasy world.
Fine. That's your choice. Please stop pushing it on others. That makes it unethical.
PS:
http://gmoanswers.com/ask/it-true-gmos-require-massive-amounts-pesticides-herbicides-and-fungicides
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the use of MORE herbicides. That is the whole point.
Dr. Benbrook, a professor at Washington State University doing independent research, has a lot more credibility than Monsanto's army of paid apologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook
Benbrook spent 18 years (1979-1997) working in Washington, DC on agricultural policy and regulation. During this time, he served for two years (1981-1983) as the director of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives.[3] He also directed the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture from 1984 to 1990.[2][4] On a 1993 Frontline program entitled "In Our Children's Food," which focused on a NAS report on pesticides of which Benbrook was the lead author, he warned that the regulatory limits on pesticides were based on adults, even though they are more dangerous to children. He also suggested that he had been fired from the NAS panel for criticizing the pesticide industry.[5]
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)
You also fail to acknowledge that some of Benbrook's funding sources.
You fail to acknowledge that today's herbicides are safer, and that GMOs are the reason for that. You fail to acknowledge that herbicide use has not actually gone up, despite being shown overwhelming evidence in regard to that. You repeat the classic, unethical, and pointless "Monsanto" rant, which tells me that you don't actually explore the matter at all, and that you have an irrational opinion of the scientists who study the topics at hand.
You owe them all a very big apology, and that's just for starters.
PS:
Is glyphosate, used with some GM crops, dangerously toxic to humans?
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/30/is-glyphosate-used-with-some-gm-crops-dangerously-toxic-to-humans/
And more on the topic:
http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)information and many scientists believe the "inert" ingredients may have health risks. Just because an ingredient doesn't kill a plant doesn't mean it is non-toxic in any dose.
I don't owe them any apology. They owe the public more transparency, starting with a complete list of the ingredients in the products they use on our food, including the so-called "inert" ingredients.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)These items have been in public use for a long time. Nothing is hidden, and your claims are unsupported, yet again. Pretending that there is some massive conspiracy is just bizarro world stuff.
PS: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thus, your new defense is to post his CV instead of defend his bad science with better science, since there is no better science defense of his bad science.
Clearly your emotions have the best of you, and you don't want to recognize reality here. There's nothing anyone can do about that, well, except you.
Did you really not know that I expected you to post Benbrook, because that's the only thing you had to offer, and I knew that it was bunk, to boot? Come on. You should have known better.
PS:
AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html
Massive Review Reveals Consensus on GMO Safety
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)So he has that in his favor.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Also, your use of the shill gambit gives you away. You are attacking scientists and farmers, and hiding behind unethical stances about Monsanto and "shills." This is really basic stuff. You just don't play that kind of grade school game and get away with it.
It's really time for you to stand down.
PS:
Infographic: Climate change vs. GMOs: Comparing the independent global scientific consensus
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/08/climate-change-vs-gmos-comparing-the-independent-global-scientific-consensus/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the whole point of herbicide resistant plants is to allow for the use of MORE HERBICIDES.
And the ingredients in these formulations are protected as trade secrets, so we are supposed to trust the producers that all the ingredients are safe, despite what the researchers in France and other countries have claimed about some of the "inert" ingredients.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/
Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers arent required to publicly disclose them. Although Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar herbicides with different inert ingredients.
The term inert ingredient is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that dont harm pests as inert, she said. Inert compounds, therefore, arent necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless they simply dont kill insects or weeds.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... already.
So, again, if you can't bring new evidence to the table, what are you hoping to accomplish? Your claims have been debunked, and your only defense has been ad hominem goofiness. It's fairly astounding to watch. Also, providing anecdotal statements that have no support in peer review, and are pushed by organizations that work to get donations by conning people into fearing GMO really doesn't help your case at all. In fact, you keep using the term shill, but I don't think you understand what it means.
Also, almost everything kills things in the petri dish. You should know that. Wow!
PS: http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/
PSS: http://thefarmerslife.com/biotechnology/long-term-glyphosate-use-effect-on-wheat/
PSSS: http://wssa.net/weed/weed-myths/
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)has not been "debunked" by anyone.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Only a tiny percentage of a percentage in the scientific community agrees or cares.
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)
And by questioning the safety of GMOs you have stepped in it. Questioning is "anti-science."
--imm
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)There is only one scientifically valid opinion on any topic.
Obviously, that poster has never been to a single scientific conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Benbrook
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But there are many scientists around the world who support his work.
You also fail to mention that the large majority of GMO studies have been supported by funds from GMO producers.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)A large majority of GMO studies have been supported by funds from GMO producers because they have legal requirements to do so in order to get their products approved by the government, which is a requirement conventional genetic modification doesn't have. I guess you failed to mention that part, or never knew about it in the first place.
Organizations like Green Peace have also spent millions worldwide campaigning against, creating pseudo-scientific misinformation campaigns, and delaying Golden Rice which has resulted in the death and disability of millions of children. So while GMO isn't attributable to one single death ever, anti-GMO efforts certainly have. The anti-GMO crowd which is almost exclusively funded by the commercial organic industry, also spends millions funding junk science which has been pulled from reputable peer reviewed journals, re-published by disreputable ones, or simply issued as non-peer reviewed psuedo-science for the purpose of misinformation campaigns.
The bright side is that just like the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, the anti-fluoridation dipshits, the evolution deniers, and other assorted anti-science half-wits, bright lights tend to cause the cockroaches to scatter...
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)I was arguing.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But even if this weren't true, you're still left with the overwhelming scientific opinion which goes completely the other way, which is to say your argument is pretty much the same as the climate change deniers.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)...and instead have made a habit of pointing out what others failed to mention.
Ironic, no?
Why do you keep making claims without basis? A couple of "researchers" whose stuff has been debunked by thousands of others does not warrant pushing the BS you are pushing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your desire for reality to be different than it is does not change that.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The fact that you pretend otherwise is nothing short of bizarre.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'm just pointing out that even if pnwmom had used her own link she could have gotten to the same information. So relinking to the exact same bogus source of information over and over doesn't cause the misinformation to become any truer, nor does it challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject any more than the agenda driven "scientists" that form the extreme minority opinion on climate change.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)My apologies.
bananas
(27,509 posts)12 CONSISTING EXCLUSIVELY OF BREEDING, CONJUGATION, FERMENTATION, HYBRIDI-
13 ZATION, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION, OR TISSUE CULTURE
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)No surprise there. The Democrats don't totally own the irrational fear of GMOs, but they have the majority share.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)But, yeah, it does appear that many of our fellows have been taken in by the fear mongering on this one.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Sláinte!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)These people are unfuckling believably ignorant of biology, both the anti-vaccine idiots, and the anti-GMO idiots.
Sheesh!
All I can say is what has been said before.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)On May 7, 2010, the FDA announced that RotaTeq vaccine was contaminated with DNA from two porcine circoviruses: PCV1 and PCV2. To date the vaccine manufacturer, Merck, has not given any information regarding if, or when, PCV1 and PCV2 will be removed from this vaccine.
Although PCV1 has not been associated with clinical disease in pigs, PCV2 is a lethal pig virus that causes immune suppression and a serious wasting disease in baby pigs that damages lungs, kidneys, the reproductive system, brain and ultimately causes death. The FDA recommended temorpary suspension of the use of Rotarix vaccine on March 22nd after DNA from PCV1 was identified in Rotarix, but did not call for suspension of the use of RotaTeq vaccine after PCV2 was found in RotaTeq. On June 1st, NVIC called on Merck to volunartarily withdraw RotaTeq from the market until PCV2, especially, is removed from the vaccine.
RotaTeq vaccine is manufactured by Merck and was licensed by the FDA in 2006. Description: RotaTeq is a genetically engineered vaccine made of live, attenuated human-bovine hybridized reassortant rotaviruses. Other ingredients include sucrose, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate, sodium hydroxide, polysorbate 80, cell culture media, and trace amounts of fetal bovine serum. It does not contain preservatives.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm212140.htm
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/May-2010/Vaccine-Safety-Critics-Call-For-RotaTeq-Vaccine-Re.aspx
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/rotateq/rotateq_pi.pdf
Contaminants? Oh, joy.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Your conspiracy theories are noted. Your deceitful attempt at confusing others by posting something from the anti-vaccine NVIC, and putting that link under one from the FDA that has nothing to do with the NVIC goofiness is also noted. This is typical behavior from you, and it is not ok.
Response to HuckleB (Reply #46)
Post removed
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)
It's time to realize that you're con isn't working on anyone. Promoting disease through lies and deceit is not something people find to be an act they appreciate, after all. Who woulduvthunkit?
BTW, why did you lie and pretend you're not familiar with NVIC? You do realize how ridiculous that statement is, right?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024020249#post36
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014512596#post47
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002312035#post106
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014148376#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025464912#post13
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026156971#post20
So he doesn't read it, yet has been describing it as a "best source" and "essential reading" for years.
Also seems to be a pimp for anti-vax quackery sales:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002692506#post4
progressoid
(49,999 posts)On Mon Mar 2, 2015, 12:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Par for the course. When his bullshit is challenged, he simply throws more bullshit against the wall
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6298153
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"...seems to be a pimp" is a personal attack. Worse it implies financial gain via exploitation. Does DU permit nastiness like this even against unpopular posters? I hope not.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 2, 2015, 12:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I read nothing offensive here. Grow up people.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This can be re-posted without the pimp/quackery remarks.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I thought I did better than just imply financial gain via exploitation.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That statement was just too rich.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)so quite possibly this bill is a reductio ad absurdum reply to anti GMO food bills also churning their way through the NY lege.
It's got no chance of passing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That doesn't mean the guy has a clue about GMOs, as there is nothing showing that he does, despite your claims.