Menu Bar
Needs Plugin: Flash | Not Working?
Toxicity Experiments on US Children
<< Baby Fart
|
Breakdancing Baby >>
Bush adminstration supports Program to deliberately subject
infants and small children to known toxins.
Of course they manipulate poor people into subjecting themselves to poison for money.
infants and small children to known toxins.
Of course they manipulate poor people into subjecting themselves to poison for money.
Oct 7, 2007 1:35 PM
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
The thing is all those laws were designed to prevent testing on people against their will. All these people getting paid to have testing done to them are doing it of their own free will. And how are we to know if it is bad for people in the first place if we don't test it out? True, it is designed to kill things, but something that is lethal to ant isn't necessarily lethal to a human. no one is putting a gun to their head and saying "TAKE THE CASH AND THE PESTICIDE NOW!" these people are doing it cause they want to.
By: ipwnzj00
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
But how ethical is it to offer this choice to someone when you know there's the potential for harm? What kind of society is okay with this? Most of us realize that people will do almost anything for money when they are broke and have limited options. The legality of it makes it more insidious than a gun to the head.
By: athomascrawley
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
True but the majority of people participating, from what I have heard from this press conference, are poor minorities. That's the big problem, people who are desperate for income can be taken advantage of. And while I can relate to what you're saying- these people can always just choose not to become involved- what about their kids? Tiny children don't have the ability to decide whether or not they want to participate. That is essentially child abuse. While it is clear to me that those who run these studies are taking advantage of poor minorities, who is responsible for the poor treatment of the children involved, the parents or the administration that allows it?
By: keleona
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
Sure, they WANT to ingest pesticides.
Watch again in slow motion? These people are being forced to choose between telling little Johnny why he has to go to bed hungry AGAIN versus running the risk of him developing a bad reaction to the tests. Nice.
Watch again in slow motion? These people are being forced to choose between telling little Johnny why he has to go to bed hungry AGAIN versus running the risk of him developing a bad reaction to the tests. Nice.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
This test isnt forcing anyone to eat pesticides. People spray pesticides in their homes all the time. Do you really think those are healthy? Nobody thinks twice about parents smoking in a house where children live, do kids have a choice about this? Exposing kids to any chemical that may harm them isnt a good thing, but knowingly or not people do it all the time and take the risk. More often than not there are no serious effects but that doesnt make it right, especially if they cant make the decision.
Fact is, they werent making the kids eat pesticide tabs or spraying them onto the kids. They were spraying the homes and studying the health of the kids to see possible side effects or problems of pesticides. Everyone wants to know if products are dangerous but nobody ever wants to be the one to test them. Sure pesticides arent healthy but the amounts they spray into houses for treatment arent going to kill anyone. I'm no expert but at 9-12 months i think some systems are sufficiently developed. Notice how when they talk about childrens systems needing to be developed to excrete toxins they dont have any information about hold old a child has to be before these specific systems are developed. I cant stand seeing one sided stories, this clip is missing many aspects of a full argument.
Fact is, they werent making the kids eat pesticide tabs or spraying them onto the kids. They were spraying the homes and studying the health of the kids to see possible side effects or problems of pesticides. Everyone wants to know if products are dangerous but nobody ever wants to be the one to test them. Sure pesticides arent healthy but the amounts they spray into houses for treatment arent going to kill anyone. I'm no expert but at 9-12 months i think some systems are sufficiently developed. Notice how when they talk about childrens systems needing to be developed to excrete toxins they dont have any information about hold old a child has to be before these specific systems are developed. I cant stand seeing one sided stories, this clip is missing many aspects of a full argument.
By: shadowbot
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
Were talking about children.Are you saying that they are capable of making responsible decisions like that?It is child exploitation,plain and simple.What if they offer you money to beat your children in the name of medical science?That is the same kind of rationalization organizations like N.A.M.B.L.A. use,And I'm not talking about the National Organization of Marlin Brando Look Alikes!It certainly isn't ok to prostitute your children for money.Same logic.Twisted&immoral.
By: bowcat
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
Many of you argue as if this was a straightforward Libertarian proposition: these people volunteered to ingest toxic substances for money, so they made an economic choice and have to pay the consequences.
But actually, the issue of testing any substance on human subjects is highly regulated, and there also ethical guidelines that are agreed upon both domestically in the US and internationally. These rules were at least partly inspired in reaction to the horror of Nazi experimentation on prisoners, but also by historical cases (e.g. the Tuskogee experiment) in the US and other countries.
In the pharmaceutical industry, the ethical guidelines are largely set out by The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Their website is www.ich.org.
These corporations testing pesticides etc. on human subjects should fall under the same regulations and ethical guidelines as companies testing new drugs or food additives.
What they were doing is clearly unethical, and should be illegal, if not for some regulatory gray areas and loopholes...
But actually, the issue of testing any substance on human subjects is highly regulated, and there also ethical guidelines that are agreed upon both domestically in the US and internationally. These rules were at least partly inspired in reaction to the horror of Nazi experimentation on prisoners, but also by historical cases (e.g. the Tuskogee experiment) in the US and other countries.
In the pharmaceutical industry, the ethical guidelines are largely set out by The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Their website is www.ich.org.
These corporations testing pesticides etc. on human subjects should fall under the same regulations and ethical guidelines as companies testing new drugs or food additives.
What they were doing is clearly unethical, and should be illegal, if not for some regulatory gray areas and loopholes...
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
"These corporations testing pesticides etc. on human subjects should fall under the same regulations and ethical guidelines as companies testing new drugs or food additives."
Actually I take that back. She brings up a good point in the video -- testing pesticides on humans has no therapeutic value (unlike drugs) and violates the Geneva convention.
They shouldn't be doing it at all.
Actually I take that back. She brings up a good point in the video -- testing pesticides on humans has no therapeutic value (unlike drugs) and violates the Geneva convention.
They shouldn't be doing it at all.
By: StrangeAttractor
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
Yet another reason to haul Bush and his cronies into jail.
By: kirigi
Re: Toxicity Experiments on US Children
This was from 2005, just after Stephen Johnson was nominated by Bush to head the EPA.
After Senator Boxer made these statements, Johnson's nomination was put on hold. On April 8th he canceled this toxicity study, and on April 29th he was confirmed as head of the EPA and is still in that position now.
The kids being subjected to these test didn't have a choice and were in no capacity to make a choice. If a parent agreed to these tests, the child had no say whatsoever, nor any understanding of what was involved.
Sen. Boxer was absolutely right when she said "this is just sick".
The key points here:
1. it violated the Helsinki and Geneva declarations on the human testing of chemicals that have nothing to do with health benefits.
2. Allowing this opened the door for the EPA to do damn near anything else they wanted. "If the EPA can get away with testing babies... then they can get away with anything, and that's why this proposal is still alive."
3. "funded in part by the lobbying organization for the pesticide companies"
4. The head of the EPA, nominated by the Bush administration, originally refused to cancel the study until the Senate refused to confirm him over it, and that's the only reason he gave in and finally canceled it.
After Senator Boxer made these statements, Johnson's nomination was put on hold. On April 8th he canceled this toxicity study, and on April 29th he was confirmed as head of the EPA and is still in that position now.
The kids being subjected to these test didn't have a choice and were in no capacity to make a choice. If a parent agreed to these tests, the child had no say whatsoever, nor any understanding of what was involved.
Sen. Boxer was absolutely right when she said "this is just sick".
The key points here:
1. it violated the Helsinki and Geneva declarations on the human testing of chemicals that have nothing to do with health benefits.
2. Allowing this opened the door for the EPA to do damn near anything else they wanted. "If the EPA can get away with testing babies... then they can get away with anything, and that's why this proposal is still alive."
3. "funded in part by the lobbying organization for the pesticide companies"
4. The head of the EPA, nominated by the Bush administration, originally refused to cancel the study until the Senate refused to confirm him over it, and that's the only reason he gave in and finally canceled it.
By: decavolt
