Conspiracy to Silence
Scientists Muzzled at Health Canada
by Richard Wolfson, Ph.D.
Reprinted with permission from the March 2001 issue of
Alive: Canadian
Journal of Health and Nutrition
There is war at Health Canada. On one side of the
battlefield stands Dr Shiv Chopra and other drug evaluators who firmly refuse
to approve drugs of questionable safety. On the other side stands the Drug
Directorate management-influenced by pharmaceutical companies who wish to facilitate
a fast-track of drugs to market.
The battle erupted in 1998 with the evaluation of rBGH
(genetically engineered bovine growth hormone). When rBGH is injected into
dairy cattle, cows produce more milk. Chopra and other scientists uncovered
research showing rBGH causes safety problems for animals and humans. Sparks flew when they would not approve the
drug and the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry investigated
the resulting commotion. The Committee called the scientists to testify. After
hearing about the dangers of rBGH, the senators recommended that the drug not
be approved-a decision Health Canada eventually agreed to.
The Health Canada scientists also told the Committee about
other drugs of questionable safety that had been approved against their advice including
growth hormones for animals that had been allowed even though the drugs were
known to produce deformities in animals and were linked to cancer!
Health Canada officials were frantic! Corruption in its
drug approval process was exposed. How could it silence the dissenting
scientists?
On July 23, 1999, two months after Chopra spoke before the
Senate his supervisor, Dr André Lachance, suspended him for five days without pay.
But at the end of the same year another Senate committee began investigating whether
the suspension was retaliation against Chopra for testifying before the Senate.
Such retaliation is against the law. This
investigation was stalled due to various events, including the disappearance of
Dr Lachance, Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs-a key witness. Shortly
before Lachance was to testify, his lawyer sent a letter stating that he was on
stress leave and couldn’t appear for questioning!
At about the same time, the Federal Court of Canada
investigated and removed a gag order that Health Canada imposed on Chopra in
1998 forbidding him from speaking to the press or in public about concerns
regarding the health of Canadians being risked. The court ruled Chopra was
justified in speaking to the public because he had first exhausted all possible
government channels for voicing his very serious concerns.
The Senate’s investigation of the five-day suspension was
stalled. In the meantime, Chopra filed a grievance with the Public Service
Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) of Canada, claiming he was unfairly suspended.
After various delays, including another failed attempt to get Lachance to
testify, the PSSRB heard the grievance from November 28 to December 1, 2000.
Government officials said that Chopra was suspended
because he spoke critically of Health Canada in March of the previous year at a
Heritage Canada meeting. This argument made little sense since Chopra had been making
these same allegations for many years, criticizing Health Canada’s record on
racism. In fact Chopra had actually won a landmark case on the matter in the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The grievance hearings took an amazing twist with the
testimony of Hugh Hards, Senior Human Resources Advisor at Health Canada, who unwittingly
proved that there was a conspiracy on behalf of senior management to muzzle Chopra.
Hards testified that he had attended the disciplinary
meeting with Chopra purely as a witness to take notes. New documents surfaced
that contradicted several points from his testimony. In fact, these documents
showed that Hards had actually recommended Chopra’s disciplinary action. More damning
evidence showed that Hards had even compiled the questions asked at the meeting.
Copies of e-mails and briefing notes from July 23 showed that after the
meeting, he wrote the report that recommended disciplinary action. Hards, a
member of senior management, who first said he had little role in the
disciplinary meeting or the suspension, in fact, played a key role in both!
Under cross-examination, he had no choice but to admit
that his testimony contradicted the new evidence. He also admitted to altering
his notes from the July meeting, after obtaining input from Lachance and
another colleague from the Human Resources Branch (who was not even at the
disciplinary hearing). Hards’ testimony conveniently hid facts that proved
senior management conspired against Chopra.
This case illustrates enormous underlying corruption at
Health Canada, with senior management dancing to the tune of industry pressure
and coercion.
Fortunately, Dr Chopra and other government whistleblowers
are battling against these pressures in order to safeguard the safety and
rights of Canadians.
.........
Biotech News
by Richard Wolfson, PhD
Reprinted with permission from the March 2001 issue of
Alive: Canadian
Journal of Health and Nutrition
Documents uncovered in United Kingdon show that over half
a million patents on genes or gene sequences have been granted or are
pending. These include 161,195 patents
on human genes or gene fragments, covering virtually every tissue in the body,
ranging from lung tissue to light-sensitive pigment in the eye. Other patents include 152 patents on rice,
patents covering 72 HIV genes, 1,331 patents on mice, 501 patents on chickens,
and 11 patents on spiders.
The race to patent is motivated by financial gain, because
patent owners can charge royalties and fees to anyone using the genes, whether
for medical research or for growing patented crops.
The UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
recommended Monsanto’s transgenic cotton not be approved. The cotton contains
an antibiotic resistant marker that confers resistance to the antibiotics streptomycin
and spectinomycin.
Scientists are worried that if the plant is released in
the environment, the bacterium responsible for gonorrhoea could acquire the antibiotic resistance gene
either directly from transgenic plant materials or indirectly from other
bacteria that take up the gene. This could result in strains of gonorrhoea that
are immune to treatment by antibiotics.
Amrad, an Australian company biotech company, has acquired
a European patenting on a biotech process for producing embryos containing
cells from both humans and animals, including mice, sheep, pigs, cattle, goats and
fish.
The patent covers the combining of genes between species
and includes the potential to produce a hybrid creature or chimera, with body
parts from different species, including man.
Citizen groups are outraged.
Brazil rejected a shipment of Paraguayan corn on suspicion
it contained biotech varieties. Consequently, Paraguay instituted mandatory labelling
for geneticaly engineered (GE) corn and cereal exports. Paraguay can’t afford
to lose the Brazilian market, which accounts for about half of foreign corn
sales.
A coalition of US farming groups is pushing for
legislation to make seed companies liable for any financial losses due to
gene-altered crops. A class-action lawsuit has already been filed against
Aventis, the developer of StarLink (see Alive #220), accusing the company of
harming American farmers through negligence.
The suit contends that Aventis was negligent in failing to
inform farmers that StarLink was only approved for animal feed and needed to be
segregated from other corn. Aventis
would be liable for all losses resulting from StarLink contamination, including
loses for farmers who did not plant StarLink, but whose corn was contaminated
due to cross-pollination or during grain-handling. Aventis recently announced plans to sell off its agricultural
arm, and focus more on its pharmaceutical business.
British food chains are refusing to sell meat, eggs and
dairy products from animals fed on genetically engineered crops. The development slashes the crops’ biggest
remaining market in UK and marks another severe blow for the biotech
industry. Even fast food chain such as
McDonalds are refusing to use animal products from animals fed on biotech feed.
Canada’s National Farmers Union (NFU), which represents
10,000 farmers nationwide, is demanding a moratorium on GE foods until
questions regarding consumer acceptance, health, the environment, and ownership
of the technology are resolved. At its
annual convention, Cory Ollikka, President of NFU, said farmers are doubtful of
the economic benefits of GE crops and are disconcerted by the push toward
biotechnology. He said farmers are alarmed
by the risks of genetic pollution. They
are also very concerned about GE crops being rejected by food companies and
importers.
Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign
for Mandatory labelling and long-term
testing of genetically engineered food
500 Wilbrod Street, Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
email: rwolfson@concentric.net
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.