Super Bugs from Antibiotics the FDA Knew About

New York Representative Louise M. Slaughter’s press release discusses how the FDA’s proposal is a voluntary regulation on antibiotic use in animal husbandry and food-animals, which is inadequate to protect public health, and that there is no enforcement mechanism.

In March of 2013, Representative Slaughter introduced a bill into the 113th Congress, which has tremendous support. It’s her fifth attempt to get a bill regarding antibiotics in animal feed through to legislation.

It’s H.R. 1150, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), which has support of 450 organizations. Maybe readers would want to ask their members of Congress to sign on and become co-sponsors.

Here’s the reason why I think every member of Congress should become a co-sponsor: H.R. 1150 will ban non-therapeutic uses of eight classes of antibiotics that currently are being fed to healthy animals, but will not prevent their use in sick animal treatment. Readers may contact any member of Congress via this link.

Furthermore, having all those co-signers will send a dramatic message that Congress is taking its role seriously and is calling “check mate” on the FDA, which apparently has been thumbing its nose to court decrees and has been lax regarding the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provisions concerning the safety of ALL vaccine ingredients with regard to carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and the ability to interfere with fertility and reproduction. Manufacturers’ vaccine package inserts repeatedly and boldly state those safety tests have not been done. Why FDA?

What else does FDA know and probably does not tell?

If FDA knew about the super bug-antibiotic connection but kept silent for decades, should we ask are there any hidden vaccine secrets? Are there any hints that can be assumed from reading vaccine package inserts?

Why wouldn’t vaccines be evaluated regarding their ability to affect cancer, birth defects, and fertility? As an illustration of what is found on vaccine package inserts, please consider this one online regarding Merck & Company’s M-M-R®II vaccine:

Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility 

M-M-R II has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility. [Pg.6] 

Nonetheless, that vaccine package insert is ‘upfront’, though, when it states:

However, it would be prudent to assume that the vaccine strain of virus is also capable of inducing adverse fetal effects. [Pg.6]

Let’s see what’s said on the package insert for the 2013-14 flu vaccine, Fluzone® Quadrivalent.

Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Fluzone Quadrivalent. It is also not known whether Fluzone Quadrivalent can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Fluzone Quadrivalent should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed. [CJF Emphasis added] [PG.15]

Here’s yet another 2013-14 flu vaccine [Fluarix® Quadrivalent] package insert regarding:

Pregnancy

Pregnancy Category B

A reproductive and developmental toxicity study has been performed in female rats at doses approximately 80 times the human dose (on a mg/kg basis) and revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility or harm to the fetus due to FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT. There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed. [CJF Emphasis added] [Pg.10]

So, why are pregnant women being mandated to get the flu vaccines if adequate studies have not been performed, and animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response?