National Cancer Institute Caught Killing Promising Cancer Treatment

… A spectacularly promising medicine, hydrazine sulfate had shown good results in trials at Harbor/UCLA hospital and in Russia. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) felt obligated to test the drug. But there was a catch.

The drug’s discoverer, Dr. Joseph Gold, had found that HS could provoke very dangerous effects if patients were taking other drugs, especially tranquilizers. Several warnings were given to NCI before it began its test. The warnings were explicit. Patients could die if they were taking tranquilizers.

It turned out that none of the NCI patients were warned about this. It turned out that 94% of those patients were in fact on tranquilizers.

Barry Tice, an investigator for the US General Accounting Office (GAO), looked into the NCI trial of hydrazine sulfate after it was over. He called Dr. Gold and told him he had found a “smoking gun.” There was an internal NCI memo which showed that NCI was well aware of the problems involved in the drug combinations.

But the GAO did not back up its own investigator. The final GAO report on the NCI clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate simply accused NCI of sloppy bookkeeping.

In the June 1995 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a letter from the NCI was published. The letter stated that NCI had omitted mentioning, in its own published account of its cancer study, that 94% of the patients had been on tranquilizers. But, because this letter did NOT mention how dangerous that situation was, it looked like NCI was simply admitting to a technical and unimportant mistake. A clerical error.

So what did happen to the patients in the NCI hydrazine sulfate study?

The results have been suppressed. But NCI concluded that hydrazine sulfate was ineffective.

The drug, hydrazine sulfate, a competitor for chemotherapy dollars, was eliminated. Hydrazine sulfate is a cheap, widely available, unpatentable substance. No profit there. …

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/deleting-a-promising-cancer-treatment/

Comment on the FCC’s Proposed Net Neutrality Rule

The main battlefield for the net neutrality fight right now is at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a “rulemaking” underway this summer, which asks for public comment about a new set of proposed rules that the FCC claims will protect the open Internet. This process is one of the most important ways Internet users, businesses, trade groups, and public interest organizations can make their voice heard in this critically important national debate. To help that along, let’s take a close look at the process and the proposal the FCC has put on the table.

The quick version

This isn’t the FCC’s first neutrality rodeo.  Time and again, the FCC has proposed open Internet rules but they keep getting knockeddown in court. The FCC’s latest proposed rules are intended to replace a prior set of regulations that a court threw out in January. The new proposal has three main parts. The first is a transparency rule that requires Internet access providers to disclose how they manage traffic and price their services. The second is a ban on blocking websites or other Internet services, and the third is a “no commercially unreasonable practices” rule that the FCC says will stop the sort of non-neutral practices by Internet providers that many people are concerned about.

EFF and many others believe the “commercially unreasonable practices” rule won’t stop non-neutral practices like special access deals, pay-for-play, and preferential treatment for privileged Internet users. And we continue to have the same concern about the proposed rules that we raised about the 2010 rules – namely, that the exceptions are too broad.

The public can comment on the FCC’s new proposal. Public comments are due July 15th, and “reply” comments in response to other commenters are due September 10th. EFF will be weighing in, and you should too.

Now for a slightly longer explanation. …

http://rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-technology/earth-going-fcc/

What’s in Your Beer?

On June 11, 2014, I launched a petition to ask 2 major beer companies – Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors to disclose their ingredients online. The alcohol industry lobbied for years to keep this information secret from us – and now finally due to your support, signatures and activism, we’re finally going to get some information. The Food Babe Army succeeded where other organizations have not. To think beer companies have gotten away with this for decades is mind-boggling.

“This is pretty incredible: 24 hours, and 43,000 signatures after her petition went online, Vani Hari, aka the “Food Babe,” has convinced Anheiser-Busch to publicly reveal the list of ingredients for its beers. To put that into context, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been lobbying the government to require beer companies to list their ingredients — something they’re not currently required to do by law — for three decades.” – Salon

I am so amazed by the power of the #FoodBabeArmy. What we have done is truly astonishing. In just one day, we received not only responses from these huge multi-billion dollar corporations, but they are already taking steps in the right direction and beginning to publish their ingredients online. But the fight is not over, I’m still going to need you to pay attention and learn the facts about what’s happening right now. I spent last weekend gathering this critical information to share with you – I want you to have all the details.

On the afternoon of June 12, 2014, I received a phone call and a letter from Anheuser-Busch, in which they told me that they they will agree to publish their ingredients online at TapIntoYourBeer.com and invited me to meet with their head brewmasters in St. Louis. When I heard the news, I was obviously thrilled (one of my lovely team members took a photo right at that moment, see below). I had been thinking and preparing for this petition for almost a year and was honestly quite shocked at the fast response. …

http://foodbabe.com/2014/06/17/not-so-fast-beer-companies-why-arent-you-disclosing-these-additives/#more-16991

Note: corn syrup means GMO corn syrup.