Super Bugs from Antibiotics the FDA Knew AboutCatherine J. Frompovich Well, the super bug problem is very long-standing, thanks to FDAs inaction despite their knowing about the problems for years on end decades and doing nothing about it. I wonder why. Perhaps, they were too busy formulating vaccine regulations to be bothered. Recently a few reports were published about antibiotic/antimicrobial resistance and, instead of my telling you about them, Id like for readers to delve into them and get the real-deal-feel for how totally off the wall FDA can act with regard to important health issues by looking the other way for so long. Natural Resources Defense Council Playing Chicken with Antibiotics FOIA Documents from FDA / the link is on NRDCs website Proposed Rule document [FDA-2010-N-0155-0139] posted by the FDA Dec. 12, 2013 with Comments that will be taken until March 14, 2014 regarding Veterinary Feed Directive. Readers can make comments online until March 14. In March of 2013, Representative Slaughter introduced a bill into the 113th Congress, which has tremendous support. Its her fifth attempt to get a bill regarding antibiotics in animal feed through to legislation. Its 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. Heres 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 wouldnt 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 Companys M-M-RII 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] Lets see whats 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] Heres yet another 2013-14 flu vaccine [Fluarix Quadrivalent] package insert regarding: Pregnancy 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? Recently fromCatherine Frompovich: Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting. Catherines latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Dont Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com. Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook. Two of Catherines more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into Whats Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008). 