Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Merck Promoting Zilmax, Despite Cattle Losing Their Hooves

English: Logo of the .
English: Logo of the . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



By Dr. Mercola
While the beta-agonist drug Zilmax (Zilpaterol) has been used to promote muscle growth in American-grown cattle since 2007, news of the dramatic adverse effects of this drug didn't hit mainstream news—and hence public consciousness—until late last year.1
In early August, 2013, Tyson Food Inc issued a statement saying it would no longer purchase Zilmax-fed cattle for slaughter due to animal welfare concerns.2The company had noticed that many of the cows that had been fed the drug had trouble walking. The cattle also displayed other behavioral issues.
Since then, Cargill Inc. has also decided to reject Zilmax-fed cattle until it is confident that any animal welfare issues associated with the drug have been resolved.
Merck, the maker of the drug, initially said it would halt US and Canadian sales of Zilmax, pending company research and review. It wasn't long however before Merck announced it had no plans to discontinue the product,3 saying the company stands behind the safety of the drug.
At present, Merck does not need approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to return Zilmax to market, as the FDA has not taken any action against the drug.
Agricultural drug use has become a major health concern for animals and humans alike, and in my view, organic, grass-fed meat that is humanely raised and butchered is really the only type of meat worth eating, if you want to maintain good health. 

It is important to understand that grass-fed animals not only produce better eggs, milk & meat - but the return to native perennial grasses is key to future.  We destroyed most of the grasslands and replaced them with monocultures like corn and soy.   We then produce hydrogenated vegetable oil and high fructose corn syrup for human consumption, and use much of the remainder for feed in concentrated animal feeding operations.

The grasslands act very much like forests, while deforestation is very well known the destruction of grasslands have similar effects.  Perennial grass farming produces more nutritious products, while work in a perfect cycle with nature.

Special Report Reveals Shocking Side Effects of Zilmax

Beta-agonist drugs such as Zilmax belong to a class of non-hormone drugs used as a growth promoter in livestock. As a class, beta-agonist drugs have been used in US cattle production since 2003. 
They're fed to cattle in the weeks prior to slaughter to increase weight by as much as 30 pounds of lean meat per cow. Due to the short window between administration of the drug and slaughter, as much as 20 percent of it may remain in the meat you buy. A recent special report by Reuters4 revealed some of the more horrific effects Zilmax has on cattle:
"As cattle trailers that had traveled up to four hours in 95-degree heat began to unload, 15 heifers and steers hobbled down the ramps on August 5, barely able to walk. The reason: the animals had lost their hooves, according to US Department of Agriculture documents reviewed by Reuters...
The next day... two more animals with missing hooves arrived by truck... The animals' feet were 'basically coming apart,' said Keith Belk, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University."
Merck responded to Reuters with a statement saying that:
"Several third-party experts were brought in to evaluate the situation, review the data and identify potential causes for the hoof issue... The findings from the investigation showed that the hoof loss was not due to the fact these animals had received Zilmax."
It would not, however, disclose the identities of these third-party experts; nor would they release any more details on the investigation. According to Reuters, Tyson Foods had noticed "cattle mobility issues" prior to the August 5 and 6 events that spurred the company to refuse Zilmax-fed cattle, but none of them had been quite this severe.

Increased Use of Livestock Drugs Is Cause for Concern

Merck is required by federal law to report all deaths occurring in treated animals, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) records show at least 285 cattle have unexpectedly died or been euthanized after receiving Zilmax since the drug's introduction in 2007. At least 75 cows lost their hooves and were euthanized within the past two years. Other reported adverse effects in cattle following the administration of Zilmax include:
Stomach ulcersBrain lesionsBlindnessLethargy and lameness
Bloody noseRespiratory problemsHeart failureSudden death

According to the featured report, it still has not been determined whether Zilmax is responsible for causing all these side effects—some of them so severe that cattle have to be euthanized. Some of the statistics are telling, however. Within the first two years of Zilmax's introduction to market, the number of euthanized cattle skyrocketed; shooting up by 175 percent compared to the pre-Zilmax range.
One working theory is that the drug might compound the adverse effects of ailments associated with confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), such as acidosis, which results when a cow eats too many grains or sugar. Excessive heat may be another compounding factor, as well as animal genetics.
"Regardless, the episode at the Tyson plant - which hasn't been publicly disclosed until now - is coming to light at a time of growing concern over risks to animal and human health posed by the increased use of pharmaceuticals in food production," Reuters5 says.
"Livestock pharmaceuticals use is expanding as part of the push to produce more meat at lower cost... The cases of hoofless cattle also raise ethical questions about whether the drive by modern agriculture to produce greater volumes of food, as cheaply as possible, is coming at the cost of animal welfare."

Zilmax Banned for Use in Horses Due to Side Effects

Zilmax is already banned for use in horses due to severe side effects, including muscle tremors and rapid heart rates.6 According to a 2008 veterinary case report7 involving three horses that were given Zilmax:
"Within 90 minutes the horses had muscular tremors which began in the skeletal muscles of the neck, shoulder, and foreleg and spread throughout the visible skeletal muscles. Intermittent visible muscular tremors continued for up to 1 week after the initial dose of zilpaterol. They also all had certain changes to their blood chemistry, such as elevated BUN, creatinine, and glucose and mild hyponatremia and hypochloremia... Liver and kidney changes were also noted."
Ractopamine, another beta-agonist, is yet another drug used in the US, even though it's been banned in 160 other countries due to its potential health hazards. The researchers also noted that Zilmax is about 125 times more potent than ractopamine, saying this may be why side effects were overlooked in connection with ractopamine studies.
It's worth noting that, in human medicine, the same class of drugs (beta-agonists) can be found in certain asthma medications, such as Advair. One long-acting beta-agonist called salmeterol was linked to an epidemic of asthma deaths in the 1960s. Weight gain is also a common complaint among Advair users—so much so that the manufacturer has added weight gain to the post-marketing side effects. Other adverse reactions to beta-agonist drugs include increased heart rate, insomnia, headaches, and essential tremor—eerily similar to those experienced by horses. So why wouldn't the drug affect cows in a similar fashion?

Might Beta-Agonists in Meat Pose Human Health Hazards?

According to Randox Food Diagnostics,8 which has created tests for Zilmax residue in beef, use of beta-agonists prior to slaughter is of particular concern "as this poses a risk to the consumer and may result in consumer toxicity." Research findings to this effect include:
  • A 2003 study in Analytica Chimica Acta:9 residue behaviour of Zilmax in urine, plasma, muscle, liver, kidney, and retina of cattle and pig was assessed. Two heifers and 16 pigs were treated with Zilmax and slaughtered after withdrawal times varying from 1 to 10 days. The drug was detectable at each point of time examined in all matrices except plasma after a withdrawal period of 10 days. It's worth noting that in the US, the recommended market window is three to 10 days after discontinuing Zilmax10
  • A 2006 study11 on residues of Zilmax  in sheep found detectable levels in liver and muscle tissues up to nine days after discontinuation of the drug
Even before it was approved, scientists expressed concerns that beta-agonists might result in increased cardiovascular risk for consumers.12 According to an article published in the Journal of Animal Science in 1998:13
"The use of highly active beta-agonists as growth promoters is not appropriate because of the potential hazard for human and animal health, as was recently concluded at the scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (Nov. 1995, Brussels)."

Not All Meat Is Created Equal

I believe the movement toward ethical and sustainable meat eating is an important one, both in terms of animal welfare and human health. Agricultural drug use is indeed becoming a major health concern for animals and humans alike, courtesy of factory farming methods where efficiency and low cost is the primary objective.
Besides beta-agonist drugs like Zilmax and Ractopamine (the latter of which, by the way, is banned in 160 countries), animals raised in American confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also typically given a number of other drugs, including antibiotics and hormones.
You are essentially getting a concoction of drugs in every piece of meat you eat. The routine use of antibiotics alone now poses a significant threat to human health, as it has spawned a dramatic rise in antibiotic-resistant disease. Instead of their natural diet, which is plain grass, CAFO cattle are also fed a wholly unnatural diet consisting of pesticide-laden and oftentimes genetically engineered (GE) grains—primarilyGE corn and soy.
Organic, grass-fed and finished meat that is humanely raised and butchered is really about the only type of meat that is healthy to eat. By purchasing your meat from smaller farms that raise their animals in a humane fashion, according to organic principles, you're promoting the proliferation of such farms, which in the end will benefit everyone, including all the animals.
I've also previously written about the atrocities that take place in some U.S. CAFOs, where filthy, crowded conditions are the norm, and I think most people would agree that such animal abuse is inexcusable, even if they're "only" being raised for food. It would be foolish to think that the end result—the meat from these animals—would have any major health benefits.
In fact, the differences between CAFO beef and organic grass-fed beef are so vast; you're really talking about two different animals, and two separate industries with entirely different farming practices and environmental impact. The latter also tends to favor far more humane butchering practices, which is also a very important part of "ethical meat."

Rethink Your Shopping Habits, to Protect Your Family's Health

Whether you do so for ethical, environmental, or health reasons — or all of the above -- the closer you can get to the "backyard barnyard," the better. Ideally, you'll want to get all your animal products, including meat, chicken and eggs, from smaller community farms with free-ranging animals that are organically fed and locally marketed. This is the way food has been raised and distributed for centuries... before it was corrupted by politics, corporate greed, and the blaring arrogance of the food industry.
You can do this not only by visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also by taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area, raised in a humane, sustainable manner:
  1. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
  2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
  3. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
  4. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
  5. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust Updated Jan. 2014

Based on new information, we have a correction to make about the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust, or as it is legally known, the "Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust.  The correction we are making is that it appears that this organization is in fact a non profit organization.

  Now, here is where the news lies.  They are not a charitable organization.  They are legally considered a fraternity according to online legal status information.  They are also a Trust.  What they have to do with preservation, other than their own capital, we are not sure of.  In fact, that becomes a very good question according to the financial documents we pulled from the public domain.  Why they are involved with stating they are promoting Gloucester Main Street and business is really highly questionable in our view and the views of many people who have looked at this organization.

  This organization, the way it is structured as a Trust, one has an extremely difficult time finding exactly what assets they own.  Since it's all under a trust, it is not public information.  It's listed on their 2011 tax returns that it is real estate and that the real estate is commercial and some may be residential.  Since they are a fraternity, they are a secret organization that is not required to divulge any of it's information to the public.  What we found very strange is that the organization has over 5 million dollars in real estate holdings and for 2011 depreciated over 1.7 million dollars off of the little over 5 million in said holdings.

  We can not explain it, it's right there in the 2011 tax form, a copy is just below.  They have no money stated as going out to any organizations or businesses as grants.  Yet the local paper has reported grant money given out by this organization.  How is that?  The trust was formed in 2011 but the GMSPT has been in existence since 2005.  Thier financial statements show them in a steady downhill slide since it's inception.  All because of it's massive depreciation each year?

http://non-profit-organizations.findthebest.com/l/1791869/Main-Street-Gloucester-Preservation-Trust

Here is a link to the page showing their information.  Based in Norfolk, Virginia, they are supposed to be serving Gloucester, Virginia?  Again, we found that very strange.  The office phone number is a Gloucester extension, but again, the main office is listed in Norfolk.  Towards the bottom of the tax records, you will see a section where money should be listed as held for grants to be made by the GMSPT, yet there are no monies held in account for any grants.  So where is the grant money coming from?

  Salaries are mainly one to Jenny Crittendon, Executive Director for the GMSPT and listed as 50 thousand per year plus the costs of her employment are separated on the tax form.  Wages, some basic costs and then event expenses are the only reported liabilities of the GMSPT.

  Other similar, at least supposed to be, organizations are listed as charitable corporations.  That means pretty much everything they do is open to inspection.  But not the GMSPT.  Why is a fraternity so embedded into the Gloucester County government?  We are continuing to dig through all of this mess.



Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust Financial Statement, 2011 from Chuck Thompson

To open the above document into full screen mode, right click the icon at the far bottom right of the above container.  To exit full screen mode, hit the escape button on your keyboard.  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Government Officials And Employees Use of Personal Emails Updated

To Whom It May Concern:
 
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act, the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, (A state agency with the expertise to help resolve disputes over Freedom of Information issues) the Virginia Public Records Act (PRA) and the Code of Virginia do not allow, support or condone the use of private email accounts to conduct government business.  The following is the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council’s opinion on email communications.  This opinion is basically the Commonwealth’s adopted legal opinion on the use, access and retention of email communications as pertains to government use. 
 
 E-MAIL:
USE, ACCESS & RETENTION
The use of e-mail in the business place has become routine and is a preferred mode of communication. For state and local government officials and employees, the application of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) relating to access to records and the Virginia Public Records Act (the PRA) relating to the retention of records comes into play.
 
Government officials and employees frequently ask two key questions about the use of e-mail --"Can the public and media access my e-mail under FOIA?" and "Do I have to save my e-mail?"
 
This document will attempt to answer these questions and provide guidance about the use and management of e-mail by state and local government.
 
The nature of e-mail
E-mail generally refers to any communication that requires an electronic device for storage and/or transmission.1 E-mail is a medium for correspondence -- essentially, e-mail is the "envelope" for the communication. For purposes of FOIA & the PRA, e-mail provides a medium for communication, much like a telephone or the U.S. Mail provides a means of communication. The fact that a communication is sent via e-mail is not alone conclusive of whether that e-mail must be accessible to the public under FOIA or retained pursuant to the PRA; one must look at the text and substance of the communication to determine whether it is indeed a public record.
 
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act
FOIA addresses access to public records. Section 2.2-3701 of the Code of Virginia defines public records for purposes of FOIA to include "all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business."
 
Clearly an e-mail would fall under this broad definition of a public record, because it applies to all writings and recordings…set down by…mechanical or electronic recording…however stored, regardless of physical form or characteristics. As noted above, e-mail is just the medium, or the envelope, used to convey the communication. Just as a letter sent via U.S. Mail from one public official to another concerning public business would be a public record under FOIA, so would that same communication sent via e-mail.
 
FOIA requires that unless subject to a statutory exemption, all public records must be open to inspection and copying. Therefore, an e-mail relating to public business would be accessible just like any other public record, and may be withheld from public disclosure only if a particular exemption applies to the content of the e-mail.
 
The Virginia Public Records Act
While FOIA governs access to records held by state and local government, the PRA governs how long a government entity must retain certain records. The PRA defines "public record" for purposes of records retention, and like FOIA, the definition is fairly broad and would include e-mail as a public record. Section 42.1-77 defines a public record to include recorded information that documents a transaction or activity by or with any public officer, agency or employee of the state government or its political subdivisions. Regardless of physical form or characteristic, the recorded information is a public record if it is produced, collected, received or retained in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business.
 
The PRA sets forth different retention schedules for different types of records. Several factors shape how long a record needs to be held. Many records are only kept for so long as business requires them to be kept, although if a record has historical significance or is created by an agency head or director, it may need to be kept longer. For example, certain records are required to be maintained permanently, such as records from standing committees of the General Assembly, annual reports of state agencies, and correspondence of agency directors. Other records need only be kept so long as they are administratively necessary, such as reminders of events like blood drives or fund raisers, courtesy copies of correspondence, or messages received from a listserv. Along the continuum, other records may be required to be retained for 30 days to ten years, depending on their content. After the retention time has expired for a particular document, then that record may be destroyed pursuant to the guidelines set forth by the Library of Virginia.2

2 PRA is administered by the Library of Virginia. For more details on retention schedules for particular types of records or for a particular agency, or for information regarding the proper disposal of records, please contact the Library of Virginia. Records retention information and contact information is also available on the Library's website at http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whatwedo/records/index.htm.
 
In providing guidance for adhering to the PRA, the Library of Virginia notes that e-mail should be treated the same as paper correspondence. Again, e-mail is only the medium, or the envelope, by which the correspondence is sent; the retention schedule for a particular e-mail will depend on its content and should be preserved the same as its paper equivalent. Both incoming and outgoing e-mail should be retained, along with any attachments sent via e-mail.
 
Tips for using and managing e-mail
All e-mails related to public business are subject to the provisions of FOIA and the PRA, and should be managed in the same manner as all other public records.
 
There is a tendency with e-mail to hit the delete button as soon as you are finished with a particular message. However, consideration must be given to whether that particular e-mail must be retained for purposes of the PRA -- you can't automatically delete your e-mail, just as you can't automatically throw away paper correspondence and records.
 
FOIA governs access to records. The PRA dictates how long you are required to keep certain records. If a government entity keeps an e-mail (or any other record) for longer than its retention schedule requires, that e-mail will still be subject to FOIA if requested. Conversely, if a government entity properly disposes of a record pursuant to a retention schedule, and a subsequent FOIA request is made for that record, FOIA does not require the government entity to recreate the record.
 
E-mail is often used as a substitute for a telephone call, and is quite informal. However, e-mail creates a record of that communication that must be retained pursuant to the PRA and will be available upon request to the public under FOIA. Consider the consequence of choice to use e-mail instead of the telephone -- it may not be in your best interest to be as informal on e-mail as you are on the telephone.
 
The Library of Virginia discourages the practice of maintaining permanent records solely in electronic format, without a paper or microfilm backup.3 For records that do not need to be maintained permanently, these e-mails can be printed out and stored in a traditional, paper file (and the electronic copy can be deleted) or electronic folders can be created on the computer to organize e-mails based on functions, subjects or activities. The Library of Virginia suggests that these folders are assigned to your home directory on the computer, and not on the network. By way of example, at the FOIA Council we print a copy of all of the FOIA questions that we receive via e-mail, along with our corresponding response, and file the paper copy in a chronological file. After we have printed a copy to retain for our records, we delete the e-mail off of the computer.
 
Public officials and employees should not commingle personal and official e-mails. Private e-mails do not need to be retained; e-mails relating to the transaction of public business do. From an e-mail management perspective, it is probably not a good idea to mix personal and official business in the same e-mail. Official e-mails that need to be retained should be maintained with other public records that relate to the same content.
________________________________________________________________________
 
As is clearly evident; the Commonwealth of Virginia does have established guidance pertaining to the use of private email to conduct government business by elected officials and government employees. 
 
A look at email addresses for Gloucester County Supervisors on the Gloucester County website will reveal each Supervisor having there own county government email address.  A look at the Gloucester County Public Schools website will reveal six of the seven Gloucester County School Board members list private email addresses.  FOIA obtained Gloucester County Public Schools email conversations contain email conversations that either originated from, were sent to, forwarded to or carbon copied to private email addresses belonging to Gloucester County School Board members and school administration personnel.
 
The following are private email addresses of officials and employees within the Gloucester Public School System that have been identified thus far as using non-Gloucester County government email accounts to conduct government business or to send government business to.

Betty Jane Duncan…BJDuncan12@cox.net
Ben Kiser…Kiserben@gmail.com  AND
Ben Kiser… hkiser1@cox.net
Diane Gamache…dgamache2@cox.net
Charles Records…crecords@zandler-dev.com
Ann Burruss…Aburruss2@cox.net
Carla Hook…hookc@cox.net
Kevin Smith…kevinsmith914@gmail.com   AND  
Kevin Smith…rev.kev2@verizon.net
Kimberly Hensley… kimberlyehensley@gmail.com
Randy Burack…georgeburak@cox.net 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Bitcoin 101 - Understanding Bitcoin (pt. 2 of 3) Video

The bitcoin logo
The bitcoin logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Because Bitcoin is the number one story of the century so far.  One of the main ideas we should explain here is that Bitcoin requires multi dimensional thinking.  
This series is top notch and explains what others are not able to even begin to cover to answer many of your questions.  We are staying on top of this news as much as we possibly can which is challenging considering all the other research we now have going on.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wall Street Journal This Morning Jan. 14, 2014

Emiri Miyasaka
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Half hour segment from yesterday morning's radio broadcast.  If you missed it then, you get to check it out now.  Don't have time to play it?  Download a copy and play it on the fly when you have time.  News on the Fly.  The Wall Street Journal This Morning.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Criminal Charges Not Expected in IRS Probe