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

poncho · Nov 18, 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.

SOURCE

hillclimber · Nov 18, 2005

No way this is legit.

poncho · Nov 18, 2005

I pray that you are correct.

Martin · Nov 19, 2005

I don't know if the source you are citing has any credability or not (I am not familiar with them) so I can't comment on its truthfulness. However this kind of behavior would not surprise me at all. After all we are a culture that kills how many unborn babies each year?

And for what reasons? If you will examine the reasons below they are all selfish in nature. It represents the self centered nature of our society (see 2Tim 3:1-5).

Doctors discover the child is handicap so people pretend to be god and decide the child should not live. After all it will be too hard on the parents to raise a handicap child. The mother decides that she has better things to do than have a baby (ie..make more money, go to school, have "a life", etc). The mother decides that having the baby would be "too hard" on her emotionally so the baby should die for her sins or the sins of the baby's father.

The bottom line here is that we live in a culture that promotes death. Promoting life is seen as being mean or extreme. Think about that for a moment. A person is against killing unborn babies and they are called extremists by our society! Should it not be the other way around? Sure it should. But we live in a society of fallen, sinful, evil people who condemn what is good and approve of what is evil.

Friend the judgment of God will fall on our society (if it has not already started).

"woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness" -Is 5:20
Click to expand...

"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord" -Prov 17:15
Click to expand...

The Bible is clear. Those who condemn what is good (life) and approve of what is evil (taking innocent life) are heading for eternal death (Rom 1:32) which is the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14). The Bible is clear that their fate is sure. All pro-abortion people need to repent before it is too late. Before they stand before the Lord of LIFE and give an account for every word, deed, thought, and evil motive of their hearts! REPENT!

Martin.

poncho · Nov 19, 2005

I agree Martin.

I feel God's judgment started to fall on us awhile back. According to this poll US: Nearly 50% OK with torture, from what I gather from some of the discussions here this is probably true or close to it. I guess if we call it something else or rationalize it long enough it makes it alright.

Selfishness, yeah I think that might just be the motivation underneath it all. Imho, it's a sorry state of affairs when we put our lifestyle or security ahead of our souls.

hillclimber · Nov 19, 2005

Originally posted by poncho:
I agree Martin.

I feel God's judgment started to fall on us awhile back. According to this poll US: Nearly 50% OK with torture, from what I gather from some of the discussions here this is probably true or close to it. I guess if we call it something else or rationalize it long enough it makes it alright.

Selfishness, yeah I think that might just be the motivation underneath it all. Imho, it's a sorry state of affairs when we put our lifestyle or security ahead of our souls.
Click to expand...

You seem to think the torture issue is a biggy with God. Well how does the torture (which we DO NOT DO) of a few hundred of the earths evilest humans, compare with the ongoing murder of millions of totally innocent children? You are yet again way off target Poncho. How has your "feeling" been as to God's judgement in the years of national sanctioning of abortion?

poncho · Nov 19, 2005

Originally posted by hillclimber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
I agree Martin.

I feel God's judgment started to fall on us awhile back. According to this poll US: Nearly 50% OK with torture, from what I gather from some of the discussions here this is probably true or close to it. I guess if we call it something else or rationalize it long enough it makes it alright.

Selfishness, yeah I think that might just be the motivation underneath it all. Imho, it's a sorry state of affairs when we put our lifestyle or security ahead of our souls.
Click to expand...

You seem to think the torture issue is a biggy with God. Well how does the torture (which we DO NOT DO) of a few hundred of the earths evilest humans, compare with the ongoing murder of millions of totally innocent children? You are yet again way off target Poncho. How has your "feeling" been as to God's judgement in the years of national sanctioning of abortion? </font>[/QUOTE]I have always spoken out against and even voted against abortion, but you can see just how much good that does don't ya? Try to get Christians to protest abortions enmass as we all should be doing and see what excuses you get told. Let me guess Romans 13 forbids it or our church will lose it's tax exemption if we're 'political'.

We Do Not Torture huh?

Then how come we got hundreds of pictures to prove that we do torture and plenty of mainstream articles that say we even airlift 'detainees' to other countries to do it?

Those in Washington are more worried about who leaked the information than why we are flying people to places like Romania and Jordan to 'interrorgate' them.

Just curious Hillclimber, how many of these hundreds or thousands of detainess have actually been proven guilty of being terrorists 2- 3%? Not even! How many have even had a trial in court rather than in your head? Just because George Bush, Dick Cheney you and the 'liberal' media say they are all terrorists doesn't make it so, and while I'm still curious what do think about the possiblity of the EPA testing chemicals on handicapped and orphaned children?

KenH · Nov 19, 2005

Claim: An EPA study proposed paying families to allow their children to be exposed to toxic pesticides.

Status: Multiple:
The EPA planned to deliberately expose youngsters to pesticides in order to study what effects those chemical compounds may have on children: False.

The EPA planned to study children who live in an area where pesticides are used year-round: True.

The proposed study was cancelled in April 2005: True.

- www.snopes.com/toxins/cheers.asp

Ed Edwards · Nov 19, 2005

Thank you guys for exposing yet
another conspiracy theory site.

Petrel · Nov 19, 2005

Sec. 26.408 Requirements for permission by parents or guardians and
for assent by children.

(a) In addition to the determinations required under other
applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB 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. In determining whether children are capable of assenting, the
IRB shall take into account the ages, maturity, and psychological state
of the children involved. This judgment may be made for all children to
be involved in research under a particular protocol, or for each child,
as the IRB deems appropriate. If the IRB determines that the capability
of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot
reasonably be consulted or that the intervention or procedure involved
in the research holds out a prospect of direct benefit that is
important to the health or well-being of the children and is available
only in the context of the research, 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 under circumstances in which consent
may be waived in accord with Sec. 26.116(d).
(b) In addition to the determinations required under other
applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB shall determine, in
accordance with and to the extent that consent is required by Sec.
26.116, that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the permission
of each child's parents or guardian. Where parental permission is to be
obtained, the IRB may find that the permission of one parent is
sufficient for research to be conducted under Sec. 26.404 or Sec. 26.405.
(c) In addition to the provisions for waiver contained in Sec.
26.116, 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 in subpart A of this part and paragraph (b) of this
section, provided an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children
who will participate as subjects in the research is substituted, and
provided further that the waiver is not inconsistent with Federal,
State or local law. The choice of an appropriate mechanism would depend
upon the nature and purpose of the activities described in the
protocol, the risk and anticipated benefit to the research subjects,
and their age, maturity, status, and condition.
Click to expand...

What the text actually says is a bit different than what this site says it says.

hillclimber · Nov 19, 2005

No Pocho, we do not torture. All the accusations, from the leftists have convinced many of you, of all kinds of misdeeds of this administration, and yet to this point, exactly zero have proven to be true.

The fact that born again believers can be so deluded as to believe all these evil efforts against the President, does not speak very highly of their walk with Christ.

To accuse a believer unjustly is a very serious matter.

prophecynut · Nov 20, 2005

Organic consumers Association, excellent site, already had it book marked.

They give a rebuttal to Snopes, click the link: "Note Concerns about snopes or other questions"

1) Question: I read on Snopes that this alert is false. Is that true?

Answer: The Snopes/Urban Legends posting is actually in regards to an EPA proposed study called CHEERS and an alert we had sent out regarding that in late 2004 (http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm). It is not directly related to this alert. The Snopes posting did a great disservice to that issue in their inaccuracy and lack of research into this issue. We spend massive amounts of staff time researching these issues, confer with outside experts on the topic, and cite dozens of references. The Snopes website, while valuable with most of its information, is not always accurate, and that is the case here. In fact, you'll find they reference only a couple of newspaper articles to backup their stance on this issue. Fortunately, enough concerned citizens, several nonprofits, dozens of mainstream newspapers, and many congress members, actually did their research on the EPA study and found that study was, in fact, very problematic. In fact, in early 2005, the EPA CHEERS study was permanently dropped, thanks to pressure from Congress. In August of 2005 Congress went a step further and mandated the EPA pass a rule that bans all testing of chemicals on children and pregnant women, without exception. That is what this alert pertains to. Snopes hasn't posted any information about this particular alert, and we hope they do their research this time. We ask our readers to do your research, as well. No single alert or single website will provide you with all of the information you need. We provided dozens of links on our alerts to external resources that allow you to further research and reference all of the information we provide. If you have questions, we're always happy to help out craig@organicconsumers.org
Click to expand...

prophecynut · Nov 20, 2005

For Hillclimber

President Bush -- Bad Fruits versus Good Fruits

"Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt 7:16 )

In so many occasions in my life, when contemplating a specific course of action, I have found it highly helpful to make a list of pro's and con's. Once I have completed this list, I would then examine it carefully; if the pro's outweighed the con's, then I would take the action contemplated, but if the con's outweighed the pro's, then I would not take the action.

In this hot debate amongst Christian brethren over whether the fruits (actions) of President Bush were of such Biblically "good fruit" nature to allow Fundamental, Bible-believing Christians to consider him "Born Again", I have created a list showing the fruits I have seen since he became a candidate for President in 2000. On the left, I have listed the "bad fruits" I have seen, and on the right, I have listed the "good fruits" he has produced.

Remember, words do not count: just actions. Words spoken at a Prayer Breakfast do not count, as they are only words. And, please don't repeat the Urban Legend about Mr. Bush leading a young man to salvation; we all know that story was fabricated. I am speaking of actions President Bush has taken since becoming President that we would consider Biblical "Good Fruits".

The Holy Spirit warns us in the Last Days religiously deceitful men shall arise to deceive many.
Click to expand...

Sir, you have been duped.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news_updates/nz1086.htm

Gina B · Nov 20, 2005

Poncho, it's been known for a long time that the government allows testing on wards of the state.

Now, make it common knowledge if it really concerns you. There is information out there from sources that people here will find more reliable than the one you used.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159806,00.html

Here's an article to start with. Read this, then follow through on the sources they used and you'll find more information. Unfortunately, you may have a hard time convincing people that being a ward of the state and being used as a guinea pig isn't a happy healthy life...but you shouldn't have TOO much trouble with providing documentation that it really happens.

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

poncho Well-Known Member

hillclimber New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Martin Active Member

poncho Well-Known Member

hillclimber New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Petrel New Member

hillclimber New Member

prophecynut New Member

prophecynut New Member

Gina B Active Member

Useful Searches

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

poncho Well-Known Member

hillclimber New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Martin Active Member

poncho Well-Known Member

hillclimber New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Petrel New Member

hillclimber New Member

prophecynut New Member

prophecynut New Member

Gina B Active Member