The 1958 Delaney amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibited food additives causing cancer in animals by appropriate tests. Regulators responded by adopting chronic lifetime cancer tests in rodents, soon challenged as inappropriate, for they led to very inconsistent results depending on the subjective choice of animals, test design and conduct, and interpretive assumptions. Presently, decades of discussions and trials have come to conclude it is impossible to translate chronic animal data into verifiable prospects of cancer hazards and risks in humans. Such conclusion poses an existential crisis for official agencies in the US and abroad, which for some 65 years have used animal tests to justify massive regulations of alleged human cancer hazards, with aggregated costs of $trillions and without provable evidence of public health advantages. This article addresses suitable remedies for the US and potentially worldwide, by critically exploring the practices of regulatory agencies vis-á-vis essential criteria for validating scientific evidence. According to this analysis, regulations of alleged cancer hazards and risks have been and continue to be structured around arbitrary default assumptions at odds with basic scientific and legal tests of reliable evidence. Such practices raise a manifold ethical predicament for being incompatible with basic premises of the US Constitution, and with the ensuing public expectations of testable truth and transparency from government agencies. Potential remedies in the US include amendments to the US Administrative Procedures Act, preferably requiring agencies to justify regulations compliant with the Daubert opinion of the Daubert ruling of the US Supreme Court, which codifies the criteria defining reliable scientific evidence. International reverberations are bound to follow what remedial actions may be taken in the US, the origin of current world regulatory procedures to control alleged cancer causing agents.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182921 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-022-03429-5 | DOI Listing |
In Japan, around 3,000 females have died of cervical cancer annually. Cervical cancer is caused by sexually transmitted infections of the human papillomavirus (HPV); it is preventable by vaccinations against oncogenic HPV types, such as types 16 and 18. In Japan, the proactive recommendations for HPV vaccinations were suspended in June 2013 due to public concerns about neuropsychological "diverse symptoms" following HPV vaccinations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBJU Int
November 2024
Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Objectives: To investigate the impact of the revised papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) classification and evaluate its validity with regard to oncological outcome stratification.
Patients And Methods: Identifying 527 patients with PRCC who underwent surgical resection from 1995 to 2022, a tissue microarray was constructed for immunohistochemical and molecular characterisation. Re-classification according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2022 criteria and nuclear grading according to the WHO/International Society of Urological Pathologists criteria were done.
JAMA Netw Open
November 2024
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health System, New Haven, Connecticut.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd
October 2024
Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht. Afd. Interne Geneeskunde.
Background: Apricot seeds are recommended online for their alleged cancer-fighting and energy-boosting properties. However, they contain high levels of cyanogenic glycosides. Ingesting just a few apricot pits (1-3) can result in severe symptoms and fatalities have been reported after consuming more than 20 pits.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Neurosurg
October 2024
5Department of Neurosurgery, New Jersey Pediatric Neuroscience Institute, Morristown, New Jersey.
Objective: FAIR Health-a nonprofit, state-funded database-was created as an independent repository of healthcare claims paid data to address allegations of price fixing. Many insurers have forced physicians to negotiate payments based on Medicare rates, rather than utilizing FAIR Health. The authors' objective was to provide an overview of regional differences in reimbursement rates per several sample neurosurgical Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and to compare Medicare, Medicaid, and usual, customary, and reasonable rates via FAIR Health rate estimates.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!