Thursday, January 31, 2008

Mutant Flu Virus found by Health Authorities

This is a hot one since it affects the current flu season.



Q17. What is going to happen? Is the oseltamivir resistant strain of H1N1 likely to become the predominant strain of H1N1 worldwide this influenza season?

It is simply too early to know. Information to date indicates that the resistant virus is transmissible from person to person. However, the prevalence of resistant viruses varies widely in European countries and they are predominant only in Norway at present. Previous laboratory studies have found that influenza viruses with this specific resistance mutation can transmit from one animal to another but may not be as infectious when compared with the non-resistant "parent" virus. Thus, it is possible that the resistant strain will not become more common in other countries. Careful monitoring will be required throughout the rest of the season to follow the situation globally.

Q18. How can I protect myself and my family from seasonal influenza ?

Seasonal influenza vaccination is the primary means of influenza prevention.

Following national guidance, people in high-risk groups for influenza complications (i.e older persons, those with chronic conditions, etc) should get vaccinated against influenza, if they have not already done so.

* Seasonal vaccines are effective for those who wish to reduce their risk of influenza and some countries advise use in travelers to influenza-affected countries.

People can also take steps to reduce the spread of influenza:

* Where possible, people infected with influenza should avoid close contact with others
* Basic hygiene measures, particularly covering coughs and sneezes and hand-washing, are likely effective in reducing the spread of influenza

Antiviral drugs that are active against seasonal influenza viruses, including the resistant H1N1 virus, are available in many countries.

Source:

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/oseltamivir_faqs/en/index.html

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Super Bowl Week: Muffuletta will lead right into Mardi Gras

Filed under: Lunch, Dinner, Restaurants, Grains, Vegetables, Nuts/seeds, Beef, Cheese, Condiments, America, Meat, Super Bowl XLII
The Super Bowl is Sunday, but not two days later, we jump right into Mardi Gras festivities. Since Mardi Gras is on a Tuesday and we know you’re utterly responsible on “school nights,” why not celebrate it a little early [...]

Source: http://www.meat.pro/2008/01/29/super-bowl-week-muffuletta-will-lead-right-into-mardi-gras/

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Crackdown Upends Slaughterhouse’s Work Force

The federal effort to flush out illegal immigrants is having major effects on workers and employers alike.

Source: http://www.meat.pro/2008/01/27/crackdown-upends-slaughterhouses-work-force-4/

Monday, January 28, 2008

A New Pizza Fad

Check out this new food fad, Kornet Pizza!!!

Kornet makes pizza cones like the one pictured on the left.

These have been popular in Italy since 2004 and there was a spike of intrest in South Korea.

Now is coming soon to Oak Park Mall in Overland Park, KS.

Check it out at:
http://www.kornetpizza.com

Friday, January 25, 2008

NASA Man on Mars?


A Chinese web site displayed an image that was taken in 2004 by NASA's roving robot, "Spirit."


A mysterious figure appearing in a Nasa Mars video that looks like man is sparking new rumors about life on the red planet.

Is it a man on Mars? Or just rocks with clever lighting?

Speculators imagine now that the image could either resemble Bigfoot, a man walking in mid-stride with his head tilted to the side, or it could just look like a rock!

This video appeared only in Chinese web locations.


NASA Awards Orion Project Integration Services Contract

NASA has awarded a contract for Orion Project integration services to Barrios Technology Ltd. of Houston. The small business contract has a potential value of $49 million with options.

Source: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/dec/HQ_C07061_Orion_integration.html

Chinese Military Plans Surprise Strike of US over Taiwan

In a hypothetical future scenario, the U.S. and China are poised to clash — likely over Taiwan.

The democratic Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan — which America backs and the communist People’s Republic of China considers part of its territory — frequently irritates Chinese leaders with calls for greater independence from the mainland. But while the American military mulls its options, Chinese missiles hit runways, fuel lines, barracks and supply depots at U.S. Air Force bases in Japan and South Korea. Long-range warheads destroy American satellites, crippling Air Force surveillance and communication networks. A nuclear fireball erupts high above the Pacific Ocean, ionizing the atmosphere and scrambling radars and radio feeds.

It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war.

This strategic outlook isn’t hidden in secret Chinese documents. It’s printed in China’s military journals and textbooks. And for much of last year, Mandarin literates and defense experts — working for the Santa Monica, Calif.-based Rand Corp. on an Air Force contract — combed through a range of Chinese military sources.

They emerged with “Entering the Dragon’s Lair,” a lengthy report on how the Chinese People’s Liberation Army would likely confront the U.S. military and how the Air Force in particular can brace itself. In many cases, the theoretical enemy nation China’s officers discuss in these scenarios isn’t explicitly named but is unmistakably the U.S.

“These aren’t war plans,” said report co-author Roger Cliff, a former Defense Department strategist and China military specialist who spoke to Air Force Times from Taiwan. “This is the military talking to itself. It’s not designed for foreigners or even China’s general public to read.”

Element of surprise
When it comes to conflict with the U.S., Chinese military analysts favor age-old schoolyard wisdom: Throw the first punch and hit hard.

“Future conflicts are likely to be short, intense affairs that might consist of a single campaign,” Cliff said. “They’re thinking about ways to get the drop on us. Most of our force is not forward-deployed.”

China’s experts concede its army would lose a head-on fight, with one senior colonel comparing such a scenario to “throwing an egg against a rock.” Instead, the Chinese would attempt what Rand calls an “anti-access” strategy: slowing the deployment of U.S. forces to the Pacific theater, damaging operations within the region and forcing the U.S. to fight from a distance.

“Taking the enemy by surprise,” one Chinese military expert wrote, “would catch it unprepared and cause confusion within and huge psychological pressure on the enemy and help [China] win relatively large victories at relatively small costs.” Another military volume suggests feigning a large-scale military training exercise to conceal the attack’s buildup.

The Dragon’s Lair
Striking U.S. air bases — specifically command-and-control facilities, aircraft hangars and surface-to-air missile launchers — would be China’s first priority if a conflict arose, according to Rand’s report.

U.S. facilities in South Korea and Japan, even far-south Okinawa, sit within what Rand calls the “Dragon’s Lair”: a swath of land and sea along China’s coast. This is an area reachable by cruise missiles, jet-borne precision bombs and local covert operatives. Air Force bases within this area include Osan and Kunsan in South Korea, as well as Misawa, Yokota and Kadena in Japan. And in a conflict over Taiwan, any nation allowing “an intervening superpower” such as the U.S. to operate inside its territory can expect a Chinese attack, according to China’s defense experts.

China is designing ground-launched cruise missiles capable of nailing targets more than 900 miles away — well within striking range of South Korea and much of Japan, according to the report. Cruise missiles able to reach Okinawa — home to Kadena Air Base — are in development.

The Chinese would first launch “concentrated and unexpected” attacks on tarmacs using runway-penetrating missiles and, soon after, would target U.S. aircraft. Saboteurs would play a role in reconnaissance, harassing operations and even “assassinating key personnel,” according to another military expert.

Chinese fighter jets would scramble to intercept aerial refueling tankers and cargo planes sent to shuttle in fuel, munitions, supplies or troops. High-explosive cluster bombs would target pilot quarters and other personnel buildings.

Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. Once this hard-and-fast assault on U.S. bases commenced, the Chinese army would “swiftly divert” its forces and “guard vigilantly against enemy retaliation,” according to a Chinese expert.

Dumb and blind The PLA also would likely use less conventional attacks on the American military’s vital communications network. The goal, as one Chinese expert put it: leaving U.S. combat capabilities “blind,” “deaf” and “paralyzed.”

Losing early-warning systems designed to detect incoming missiles would be, for the Air Force, the most devastating setback — one that could force the service to exit the region altogether, according to Rand.

China could also launch a nuclear “e-bomb,” or electromagnetic explosive, that would fry U.S. communication equipment while ionizing the atmosphere for minutes to hours, according to the report. This would likely jam radio signals in a 900-mile diameter beneath the nuclear fireball.

The PLA could also employ long-range anti-satellite missiles — similar to one successfully tested last January — to destroy one or more American satellites. However, the PLA has a host of less dramatic options: short-range jammers hidden in suitcases or bombs and virus attacks on Air Force computer networks.

U.S. Air Force options
Shielding against a swift Chinese onslaught is, according to Rand, as simple as reinforcing a runway or as complex as cloaking the orbit of military satellites.

In the short term, U.S. air bases inside the Dragon’s Lair should add an extra layer of concrete to their runways and bury fuel tanks underground. All aircraft, the report said, should be parked in hardened shelters, especially fighter jets.

Parking larger aircraft — bombers, tankers and E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems jets — in hard-shell hangars would be expensive and difficult but likely worth the cost, according to the report.

U.S. fighter jets remain the best defense against incoming Chinese missile attacks. But, given China’s taste for sudden attacks, surface-launched missile defense systems must be installed long before a conflict roils. Because the PLA is expected to strike quickly, the report said, waiting for the first tremors of conflict is not an option.

The Air Force also should fortify itself against Chinese hackers by using software encryption, isolating critical computer systems and preparing contingency plans to communicate without a high-bandwidth network. Though China maintains a “no first use” nuclear bomb policy, the U.S., according to Rand, should warn China that nuclear electromagnetic pulse attacks will be considered acts of nuclear aggression and could prompt nuclear retaliation.

Rand insists the Air Force must defend satellites — which support communication, reconnaissance, bomb guidance and more — against China’s proven satellite-killing missiles. This could be accomplished in the Cold War tradition of mutually assured destruction by threatening to retaliate in kind if the PLA blasts U.S. satellites.

Or, Rand suggests, the U.S. could invest heavily in satellite protection or evasion techniques, including stealth, blending in with other satellite constellations or perhaps developing and deploying microsatellites capable of swarming to defend larger satellites, which the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working toward.

Could this really happen? The Chinese first-strike strategy is “more than hypothetical,” according to the report. But in the near term, at least, it’s considered unlikely.

If the most contentious issue is Taiwan, Cliff said, then the likely trigger would be Taiwanese elections, where assertions of complete independence from the mainland can infuriate Chinese leaders. China’s current president, Hu Jintao, has built up China’s military but also its ties with America. In 2012, however, when Taiwan holds an election and mainland China’s leadership is expected to turn over, perhaps for the worse, the risk of conflict could increase.

As China pours more resources into its evolving and expanding military, it buys the power to more strongly assert itself against America. In November, China denied U.S. Navy minesweepers shelter from a storm and, in another incident that month, turned down an Air Force C-17 flight shuttling supplies to the American consulate in Hong Kong. Experts speculate this was a rebuff to American arms sales to Taiwan, as well as President Bush’s autumn meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of another state China claims, Tibet.


Full article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...rategy_080121/

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Leukine - Withdrawn by Bayer: FDA

Bayer and FDA informed healthcare professionals of the market withdrawal of the current liquid formulation of Leukine, a growth factor that helps fight infection and disease in appropriate patients by enhancing immune cell function. The product was withdrawn because of an upward trend in spontaneous reports of adverse reactions, including syncope (fainting), which are temporally correlated with a change in the formulation of liquid Leukine to include edetate disodium (EDTA). The upward trend in adverse reaction reporting rates has not been observed with the use of lyophilized Leukine. Healthcare professionals should immediately stop using liquid Leukine and return unused vials to the manufacturer.



Read the complete MedWatch 2008 Safety Summary including a link to the manufacturer's Dear Healthcare Professional Letter at:



http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2008/safety08.htm#Leukine

Saturday, January 19, 2008

FDA Releases Warning of Use of Over-the-Counter Cough and Cold Products for Children Under 2

FDA Releases Recommendations Regarding Use of Over-the-Counter Cough and Cold Products
Products should not be used in children under 2 years of age; evaluation continues in older populations

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a Public Health Advisory for parents and caregivers, recommending that over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold products should not be used to treat infants and children less than 2 years of age because serious and potentially life-threatening side effects can occur from such use. OTC cough and cold products include decongestants, expectorants, antihistamines, and antitussives (cough suppressants) for the treatment of colds.

There are a wide variety of rare, serious adverse events reported with cough and cold products. They include death, convulsions, rapid heart rates, and decreased levels of consciousness.

"The FDA strongly recommends to parents and caregivers that OTC cough and cold medicines not be used for children younger than 2," said Charles Ganley, M.D., director of the FDA's Office of Nonprescription Products. "These medicines, which treat symptoms and not the underlying condition, have not been shown to be safe or effective in children under 2."

The announcement does not include the FDA's final recommendation about use of OTC cough and cold medicines in children ages 2 to 11 years. The agency's review of data for 2-to-11-year-olds is continuing. The FDA is committed to making a timely and comprehensive review of the safety of OTC cough and cold medicines in children. The agency plans to issue its recommendations on use of the products in children ages 2 to 11 years to the public as soon as the review is complete.

Today's statement is based on the FDA's review of data and discussion at a joint meeting of the Nonprescription Drugs and Pediatric Advisory Committees on Oct. 18 and 19, 2007.

Pending completion of the FDA's ongoing review, parents and caregivers that choose to use OTC cough and cold medicines to children ages 2 to 11 years should:

* Follow the dosing directions on the label of any OTC medication,
* Understand that these drugs will NOT cure or shorten the duration of the common cold,
* Check the "Drug Facts" label to learn what active ingredients are in the products because many OTC cough and cold products contain multiple active ingredients, and
* Only use measuring spoons or cups that come with the medicine or those made specially for measuring drugs.

The FDA recommends that anyone with questions contact a physician, pharmacist or other health care professional to discuss how to treat a child with a cough or cold.

For more information and the full list of the FDA's recommendations, visit:

Public Health Advisory: Nonprescription Cough and Cold Medicine Use in Children
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/cough_cold_2008.htm

Questions and Answers for Consumers
http://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/coughcold011708.html

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Cloned Meat, Frankenfood and Facts

Introduction

With all of the controversy swirling around the cloned meat announcement by the FDA, it was time to collect some facts and make some sense out of the cloud of uncertainty.

Cloned meat identical to normal, study says. The European Food Safety Authority Friday said it has concluded that meat and milk from healthy cloned cattle and pigs is "very unlikely" to pose risks to consumers, opening the door to possible European sales of those controversial foods in the future. FDA unsure about safety of cloned meat. FURTHERMORE, the Food and Drug Administration is also set to rule that these CLONED meats and milk will NOT have to be labeled as CLONED meat and milk. Like most things, the FDA's statement that cloned meat and milk is safe means that it won't kill you immediately.

As far as I know there is no cloned meat sold today and it is unlikely to come anytime soon. I'm not sure if the FDA will want the word "CLONED MEAT" on packaging, but I hope so.

Safety

Safety isn't the only concern among consumers. The international scientific consensus is clear: food from these animals and their offspring is as safe to eat as any other food. The European Food Safety Authority released its draft report Friday saying that meat and milk from cloned animals are safe to eat, according to ViaGen. The FDA says meat and milk from cloned animals are just as safe as products from livestock bred the old-fashioned way.

Some now believe that Vegetarians may be the only ones safe in the future.

Industry

The FDA's 678-page report was a victory for the biotechnology industry, especially biotech companies CyAgra and Viagen, which have both invested heavily in developing cattle- and pig-cloning technology. There are currently about 570 cloned animals in the United States, but the livestock industry has so far followed a voluntary ban on marketing food from cloned animals.

Assessment

The risk assessment document basically shows how the FDA review agreed with that of the National Academy of Sciences report of 2002 that found meat and milk from clones and offspring of clones of cattle, swine and goats was safe. The finding is a strong signal that the Food and Drug Administration will endorse the use of cloning technology for cattle, goats, and pigs when it publishes a key safety assessment intended to clear the way for formal approval of the products. Weiss called the FDA's work "a weak risk assessment with people with a vested interest from the industry side" participating. Last week the FDA issued draft documents saying that the agency's risk assessment had judged meat from cloned animals to be safe to eat.

Groups

Consumer groups counter that many Americans are likely to be revolted by the idea of serving clone milk to their children or tossing meat from the progeny of clones onto the backyard grill. And when FDA convened its own focus groups, it found a third of consumers would never eat food from cloned animals, while another third weren't worried and the rest fell somewhere in the middle. Meat or dairy products from cloned animals or their offspring would however likely face deep-seated opposition from consumers groups, some of whom still routinely refer to foods such as genetically-modified corn as "Frankenfood". One big question on the minds of groups like Hanson's is how these abnormalities would affect the composition of milk and meat, whether it could change the nutritional value or introduce some harmful component. Many consumer and religious groups strongly oppose cloning, which takes cells from an adult and fuses them with others before implanting them in a surrogate mother. The first is safety -- some groups don't think there's enough research to prove that cloned animals are safe to eat. Some industry groups, such as the National Milk Producers Federation, representing 45,000 dairy farmers across the country, described the program as an encouraging step toward easing consumers' minds.

Conclusions

Cloned meat will probably be identical to normal, study says. Cloned meat will be bland, 0% fat and boring. Why do you think some people find the idea of eat cloned meat alarming? It seems that not all of the facts are available. The next issue would be the selling of cloned meat and seeing if the public will put aside their moral and ethical concerns and eat the cloned meat.

But I suspect sometime in the future we'll see reports on cloned meat being "generally regarded as safe", which is industry code for "We never really got around to fully testing the meat for it's susceptibility for disease". ViaGenAnd the site says this about a program to track cloned meat. One critic disagrees with the FDA and will make sure to be very careful not to eat cloned meat.

If an outbreak of some consequence DOES OCCUR, how will you be able to tell what is in your freezer, natural or cloned meat?

And that is real food for thought!

Copyright 2008 by Monte Luxley. Author and critic on subjects of health and wellness and organic food topics (http://Real-Food-For-Thought.com)

Worst Pills and how the FDA has Done Nothing

How The FDA Has Done Nothing About An Unsafe Drug


When you get a dangerous, expensive prescription drug that can be toxic to the heart, has serious addiction problems, has a low margin of safety, is no more effective than taking two aspirin, doesn't belong on the market at all and is banned in the United Kingdom, what happens to it in the U.S. and before the FDA?

By: Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin

Worst Pills - Darvocet Warnings

If you or a loved one have taken Darvocet and suffered from any side effects including accidental overdose, intentional overdose, suicide or any form of cardiac emergency, you should contact us immediately. You may be entitled to compensation and we can help.

The Defective Drug Litigation Group at Schmidt & Clark is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focus exclusively on the representation of plaintiffs in Darvocet and Darvon lawsuits. Schmidt & Clark is handling individual litigation nationwide and currently accepting new overdose, suicide and heart related death cases in all 50 states.

Learn More: Darvocet Lawsuit, Darvon Lawsuit
Darvocet Darvon Side Effects

The Health Research Group recently petitioned the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to ban Darvon (generic: propoxyphene) and Darvocet (generic: propoxyphene + acetaminophen ) due to the confirmed link between propoxyphene and over 10,000 confirmed deaths and 2,110 reported accidental deaths since the early 1980’s.

If you experience any of the following serious side effects, stop taking Darvocet and seek emergency medical attention:

· an allergic reaction (difficulty breathing; closing of the throat; swelling of the lips, tongue, or face; or hives);
· slow, weak breathing;
· seizures;
· cold, clammy skin;
· severe weakness or dizziness;
· unconsciousness;
· yellowing of the skin or eyes; or
· unusual fatigue, bleeding, or bruising.

• Other, less serious side effects may be more likely to occur. Continue to take Darvocet and talk to your doctor if you experience:

· constipation;
· dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, or decreased appetite;
· dizziness, tiredness, or lightheadedness;
· muscle twitches;
· sweating;
· itching;
· decreased urination; or
· decreased sex drive.

• Propoxyphene may be habit forming. Physical and/or psychological dependence can occur, and withdrawal effects are possible if the medication is stopped suddenly after prolonged or high-dose treatment. Do not stop taking Darvocet suddenly without first talking to your doctor if you have been taking it continuously for more than 5 to 7 days. Your doctor may want to gradually reduce the dose.

• Side effects other than those listed here may also occur. Talk to your doctor about any side effect that seems unusual or that is especially bothersome.
Darvocet Darvon

Darvon (generic: propoxyphene) and Darvocet (generic: propoxyphene + acetaminophen ) are products indicated for the relief of mild to moderate pain.

From Wikipedia: Dextropropoxyphene is an analgesic in the opioid category. It is used to treat mild to moderate pain and as an antitussive. It can be used to ease pain before, during and after an operation. It is often combined with paracetamol (Acetaminophen) in the preparation co-proxamol, however, there is no evidence that this combination is any more effective than paracetamol alone (This combination is known as Darvocet in the US and Capadex or Di-Gesic in Australia). It is manufactured and marketed by Eli Lilly and Company.
Top 5 “Darvocet / Darvon” Websites

1. Public Citizen (Worst Pills) - Darvon / Darvocet Warning
2. WebMD - Darvon
3. WebMD - Darvocet
4. About.com - 10 things you should know - Darvocet Safety
5. Wikipedia - Dextropropoxyphene

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextropropoxyphene

Proteus Syndrome

Proteus Syndrome is a congenital disorder that causes skin overgrowth and atypical bone development, often accompanied by tumors on over half the body.

Since Dr. Michael Cohen identified it in 1979,[1] only a few more than 200 cases have been confirmed worldwide, with estimates that about 120 people are currently with the condition.[2] There may be many more than this, but those individuals correctly diagnosed usually have the most obvious manifestations of Proteus syndrome, leaving them severely disfigured. Proteus syndrome is named after the Greek sea-god Proteus, who could change his shape.

Notable cases

This extremely rare condition would have remained obscure, were it not for the fact that Joseph Merrick — immortalized as the "Elephant Man" for a look imparted by his large facial tumours and the grayish hue of his overgrown skin — was lately diagnosed as having a particularly severe case of Proteus syndrome rather than, or in addition to, the neurofibromatosis that doctors once thought he had.[3] Oddly, Merrick's left arm and his genitals were entirely unaffected by the condition that grotesquely deformed every other portion of his body.

Presentation

Proteus syndrome causes an overgrowth of skin, bones, muscles, fatty tissues, and blood and lymphatic vessels.

Proteus syndrome is a progressive condition, wherein children are usually born without any obvious deformities. As they age, tumours as well as skin and bone growths appear. The severity and locations of these various asymmetrical growths vary greatly but typically the skull, one or more limbs and soles of the feet will be affected. There is a risk of premature death in affected individuals due to deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism caused by the vessel malformations that are associated with this disorder. Further risks may occur due to the mass of extra tissue - Merrick himself died when he was choked by the weight of his head whilst asleep.

The disorder itself does not directly cause learning impairments: the distribution of intelligence among sufferers of Proteus syndrome mirrors that of the general population. However, the growths may cause secondary damage to the nervous system leading to cognitive disability. In addition, the presence of visible deformity may have a negative effect on the social experiences of the sufferer, causing cognitive and social deficits.

[edit] Causes

Researchers are still trying to determine the cause(s) of Proteus syndrome. Some research has shown the condition linked to PTEN on chromosome 10,[4] while other research points to chromosome 16.[5]

Treatment

While doctors can treat some of the symptoms (by removing tumors, for example), there is no known cure. Research into the causes of the condition is ongoing in the UK, supported by the Medical Board of the Proteus Family Network UK.

Classification

Many sources classify Proteus syndrome to be a type of nevus syndrome. Due to the mosaic distribution of lesions, it is hypothesized (but not confirmed) that the disorder is an example of genetic mosaicism.[6]

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_syndrome

CDC to Investigate rare Disease - Morgellons

CDC Investigation

The suffering that many people associate with this condition is best addressed by a careful, objective scientific analysis. Considering the complexity of this condition, we believe that a measured and thorough approach offers the best chance for finding useful answers.

To learn more about this condition, CDC is conducting an epidemiologic investigation. CDC has awarded a contract to Kaiser Permanente's Northern California Division of Research to assist CDC in the investigation of this condition. The study is being designed and led by CDC.

The primary goals of the investigation are to help us learn more about who may be affected with this condition, the symptoms they experience, and to generate hypotheses about factors that may contribute to it. The investigation will involve: determining the clinical and epidemiologic features of this condition; assessing the histopathology of skin biopsies from affected patients; characterizing foreign material such as fibers or threads obtained from persons with the condition; describing the geographic distribution of this condition; and estimating rates of illness among the study population.

General Information

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received an increased number of inquiries regarding an unexplained skin condition which some refer to as “Morgellons.” Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms including crawling, biting and stinging sensations; granules, threads, fibers, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision.

The cause of this condition is unknown, and the medical community has insufficient information to determine whether persons who identify themselves as having this condition have a common cause for their symptoms or share common risk factors.

To assist in learning more about this condition, CDC is conducting an epidemiologic investigation. To learn more about the investigation, please refer to the following link: CDC's Unexplained Dermopathy Investigation

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Cloning People and the Jewish Law - excerpt

Cloning People and Jewish Law: A Preliminary Analysis
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde 1

Excerpt from http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cloning.html

A person without knowledge is surely not good; he who moves hurriedly blunders; Proverbs (Mishle) 19:2.
Preface

The relationship between modern technology, biomedical ethics and Jewish law has been well developed over the last fifty years. As has been noted in a variety of sources and in diverse contexts, Jewish law insists that new technologies -- and particularly new reproductive technologies -- are neither definitionally prohibited nor definitionally permissible in the eyes of Jewish law, but rather subject to a case by case analysis. Nonetheless, every legal, religious or ethical system has to insist that advances in technologies be evaluated against the touchstones of its moral systems. In the Jewish tradition, that touchstone is halacha: the corpus of Jewish law and ethics. This short paper is an attempt to create a preliminary and tentative analysis of the technology of cloning from a Jewish law perspective. Like all preliminary analysis, it is designed not to advance a rule that represents itself as definitive normative Jewish law; rather it is an attempt to outline some of the issues in the hope that others will focus on the problems and analysis found in this paper and will sharpen or correct that analysis. Such is the way that Jewish law seeks truth.

In the case of cloning -- as with all advances in reproductive technology -- the Jewish tradition is betwixt and between two obligations. On one side is the general Jewish obligation to help those who are in need, and particularly exemplified by the specific obligation to reproduce, thus inclining one to permit advances in reproductive technologies that allows those unable to reproduce, to, in fact, reproduce. On the other side is the general inherent moral conservatism associated with the Jewish tradition's insistence that there is an objective God-given morality, and that not everything that humanity wants or can do is proper; this specifically is manifest in the areas of sexuality where the Jewish tradition recognizes a number of halachic doctrines which restrict sexual activity. In addition, the Jewish tradition advises one to pause before one permits that which can lead down a variety of slippery slopes whose consequences we do not fully understand, and whose results we cannot predict.

It is the balance between these various needs that drives the Jewish law discussion of all assisted reproductive technology and it is in that spirit that this is intended to be a preliminary analysis of the problem of cloning.

For full article go to to:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cloning.html

FDA Cloned Meat - Ethics Issues

Eating Cloned Meat has raised ethical issues from various religions.

Christian View

Roman Catholicism and many conservative Christian groups have opposed human cloning and the cloning of human embryos, believing that life begins at the moment of conception. Other Christian denominations such as the United Church of Christ do not believe a fertilized egg constitutes a living being, but still they oppose the cloning of embryonic cells. The World Council of Churches, representing nearly 400 Christian denominations worldwide, opposed cloning of both human embryos and whole humans in February 2006. The United Methodist Church opposed research and reproductive cloning in May 2000 and again in May 2004.

Jewish View

Judaism does not equate life with conception and, though some question the wisdom of cloning, Orthodox rabbis generally find no firm reason in Jewish law and ethics to object to cloning.[1] Liberal Jewish thinkers have cautioned against cloning, among other genetic engineering efforts, though some eye the potential medical advantages.

Other Views

At present, the main non-religious objection to human cloning is that the cloned individual may be biologically damaged, due to the inherent unreliability of its origin; for example, researchers currently are unable to safely and reliably clone non-human primates.

Some believe that as cloning research and methods improve, concerns of safety and reliability will no longer be an issue. However, it must be pointed out that this has yet to occur.

Rudolph Jaenisch, a professor at Harvard, has pointed out that we have become more efficient at producing clones which are still defective.[2] Other arguments against cloning come from various religious orders (believing cloning violates God's will or the natural order of life), and a general discomfort some have with the idea of "meddling" with the creation and basic function of life. This unease often manifests itself in contemporary novels, movies, and popular culture, as it did with numerous prior scientific discoveries and inventions. Various fictional scenarios portray clones being unhappy, soulless, or unable to integrate into society. Furthermore, clones are often depicted not as unique individuals but as "spare parts," providing organs for the clone's original (or any non-clone that requires replacement organs).

Cloning Progress

On December 28, 2006, the FDA approved eating meat from cloned animals[1]. It was said to be virtually indistinguishable from the non-cloned animals. Furthermore, companies would not be required to provide labels informing the consumer that the meat comes from a cloned animal. On December 19, 2007, the FDA announced plans to track all cloned animals as they move through the food chain in a national database system that will allow food to be clearly labeled [2].

This tracking system is part of the National Animal Identification System [3].

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_cloning

FDA Clone Meat- What are People Saying

This week the FDA announced cloned meat is safe for you and your family to eat.
"Why would you clone something? Then why would you eat it. It just doesn't sound good, it just sounds disgusting."-said Shopper Jean Hostrander

That's the what a grocery store shopper had to say after hearing the FDA's announcement about cloned meat.

The FDA says meat and milk from cloned farm animals are just as safe as the meat and milk we're used to eating.
But people at Farm Sanctuary in Schuyler County say the cloning of pigs, cows, and goats should be prohibited.

He does not agree with FDA saying this type of meat is safe.


"We don't agree the slaughtering and cloning of Farm animals for human food is appropriate or safe or humane. We think it should be prohibited."-said Farm Sanctuary President Gene Baur

However, experts say you probably won't be eating cloned meat for several years.

Many companies are reluctant and cloning is expensive.

The meat you eat and milk you drink would probably come from the offspring of the cloned animals, not the animals themselves.
You might not even know the difference between the cloned meats and regular meats at the grocery store. The FDA says there will be no "special label". Some say there should be.
"I guess this could be cloned and we wouldn't know it I think we should be given a choice. I think I would need to think more about whether I'd eat cloned meat or not."-said shopper Kirsten Fenn
"I mean, it's copied, if that makes sense. If I knew that's what it was I probably wouldn't eat it."-said Shopper Kathleen McKinney

"I'd eat it, I'd eat some clone meat, whatever I eat Mcdonald's. So I might as well eat some clone meat."-said Shopper Sam Somostrada

Whether you will eat the clone meat or not, the f-d-a says the ingredients will be exactly the same.


Food regulators in Europe and several other nations have already said ok to the sale of food from cloned animals.
Reported by: Camille Williams
Email: cwilliams@wetmtv.com

FDA Issues Safety Assessment of meat from Animal Clones

It was bound to happen sooner or later. The controversy will start as it has in other countries about the safety of eating meat from cloned animals. Look for more posts as this subject unravels. Here's the report from the FDA.





FDA Issues Documents on the Safety of Food from Animal Clones
Agency Concludes that Meat and Milk from Clones of Cattle, Swine, and Goats, and the Offspring of All Clones, are as Safe to Eat as Food from Conventionally Bred Animals

After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. There was insufficient information for the agency to reach a conclusion on the safety of food from clones of other animal species, such as sheep.

FDA today issued three documents on animal cloning outlining the agency's regulatory approach – a risk assessment; a risk management plan; and guidance for industry.

The documents were originally released in draft form in December 2006. Since that time, the risk assessment has been updated to include new scientific information. That new information reinforces the food safety conclusions of the drafts.

In 2001, U.S. producers agreed to refrain from introducing meat or milk from clones or their progeny into the food supply until FDA could further evaluate the issue. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will convene stakeholders to discuss efforts to provide a smooth and orderly market transition, as industry determines next steps with respect to the existing voluntary moratorium.

The agency is not requiring labeling or any other additional measures for food from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or their offspring because food derived from these sources is no different from food derived from conventionally bred animals. Should a producer express a desire for voluntary labeling (e.g., "this product is clone-free"), it will be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with statutory requirements that labeling be truthful and not misleading.

Because clones would be used for breeding, they would not be expected to enter the food supply in any significant number. Instead, their sexually reproduced offspring would be used for producing meat and milk for the marketplace. At this time, the agency continues to recommend that food from clones of species other than cattle, swine and goat (e.g., sheep) not be introduced into the food supply.

An animal clone is a genetic copy of a donor animal, similar to an identical twin, but born at a different time. Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering, which involves altering, adding or deleting DNA; cloning does not change the gene sequence. Due to their cost and rarity, clones are intended to be used as elite breeding animals to introduce desirable traits into herds more rapidly than would be possible using conventional breeding.
Risk assessment

The risk assessment finds that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and food from the sexually reproduced offspring of clones, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. The science-based conclusions agree with those of the National Academy of Sciences, released in a 2002 report. The assessment was peer-reviewed by a group of independent scientific experts in cloning and animal health. They found the methods FDA used to evaluate the data were adequate and agreed with the conclusions set out in the document.

The risk assessment presents an overview of assisted reproductive technologies widely used in animal agriculture, the extensive scientific information available on the health of animal clones and their sexually reproduced offspring, and an assessment of whether food from clones or their sexually reproduced offspring could pose food consumption risks different from the risks posed by food from conventionally bred animals. These conclusions were first presented in draft documents over a year ago. Since then, the agency has updated the risk assessment with data that became available, as well as taking into account comments from the public comment period.

"After reviewing additional data and the public comments in the intervening year since the release of our draft documents on cloning, we conclude that meat and milk from cattle, swine, and goat clones are as safe as food we eat every day," said Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "Our additional review strengthens our conclusions on food safety."
Risk management plan

The risk management plan outlines measures that FDA has taken to address the risks that cloning poses to animals involved in the cloning process. These risks all have been observed in other assisted reproductive technologies currently used in common agricultural practices in the United States.
FDA is currently working with scientific and professional societies with expertise in animal health and reproduction to develop standards of care for animals involved in the cloning process. Although the agency is not charged with addressing ethical issues related to animal cloning for agricultural purposes, FDA plans to continue to provide scientific expertise to interested parties working on these issues.
Guidance for industry

The guidance for industry addresses the use of food and feed products derived from clones and their offspring. It is directed at clone producers, livestock breeders, and farmers and ranchers purchasing clones, and provides the agency's current thinking on use of clones and their offspring in human food or animal feed.

In the guidance, FDA does not recommend any special measures relating to the use of products from cattle, swine, or goat clones as human food or animal feed. Because insufficient information was available on clones from other species, e.g., sheep clones, to make a decision on the food consumption risks, the guidance recommends that food products from clones of other species continue to be excluded from the human food supply. The guidance states that food products from the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed for food are suitable to enter the food and feed supply.

For more information, visit http://www.fda.gov/cvm/cloning.htm.