Probe launched into dengue fever vaccine

Dengue Fever Swept Southeast Asia in 2013 and in February 2016 Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of France’s Sanofi SA, made Dengvaxia, its vaccine for dengue fever, widely available in the Philippines. Sanofi said the vaccine had later been launched in ten other countries: Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Guatemala, Salvador, Peru, Singapore, Paraguay and Thailand.

Dengvaxia was said to have been recommended for use by the World Health Organization in April 2016 – but WHO denies this.

In a July report, the World Health Organization noted that the vaccination “may be ineffective or may theoretically increase the future risk of hospitalized or severe dengue illness” in those who have not had dengue at the time of vaccination.

After a fast-track approval process more than 730,000 people, mostly children older than nine, were given the vaccine, manufactured by the vaccinations division of French pharma giant Sanofi SA.

However, Jake Maxwell Watts, writing in the Wall Street Journal on December 4^th, reports that the Philippines has suspended the Dengvaxia dengue fever vaccine. An investigation has been launched, after evidence showed it could worsen symptoms in some cases.

Representative of Paris based pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Pasteur, Thomas Triumphe Head for Asia Pacific, answers questions during the senate inquiry on the Dengvaxia vaccine

Sanofi said new data found the vaccine was effective for people who had already had dengue, but not for those who hadn’t. Regulators have now been asked to change the vaccine label to recommend that people don’t take the vaccine if they haven’t been infected previously to avoid developing a more severe form of the disease.

The government has suspended its vaccination program. Though no deaths or cases of severe dengue have been definitely linked to the vaccine, some politicians have pointed to cases of children who have died since receiving it.

Philippine Health Secretary Francisco Duque III told local media that the government would assess responsibility for the vaccine, which was approved under the previous administration, and consider charges against its manufacturer.

 

 

 

o

Mr Paterson, please note: more evidence that glyphosate causes genetic damage

Monsanto produces seeds which grow into plants genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate – Roundup Ready crops. Soy was the first crop to use this technology.

Though several studies have not found that glyphosate causes genetic damage, last year one did: see Agricultural and Biological Sciences » “Herbicides – Properties, Synthesis and Control of Weeds”, published in 2012. See Chapter 14, Forty Years with Glyphosate, by András Székács and Béla Darvas.

A few days ago, Science Direct reported that genetic damage has been found in soybean workers exposed to pesticides, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul (RS, Brazil), especially in the city of Espumoso.

Glyphosate and 2,4-D were among the herbicides used by the exposed group. 2,4-D is increasingly used to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds in GM soybean fields.

Gradually – despite the industry’s power – the truth about glyphosate is emerging; how many more will suffer before such substances are banned?

Message to Tesco, Sainsburys, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op: Brazil can supply all the non-GM soya feed needed in Europe but . . .

Farming Online reports a statement by  Cesar Borges de Sousa, President of ABRANGE, the Brazilian Association for Producers of Non-GMO, assuring the four supermarkets, that Brazil has had a record harvest, producing over 20 million metric tons of non-GMO soya. Statistics can be seen here.

Three factors in the supply problem

First: there is a temporary shortage of supply getting through due to lack of available berths for mooring ships caused by spiralling export demand and some labour unrest. The BBC reports that some ships wait for two weeks and the approach roads are also congested with lines of lorries waiting to load. Exporters are actively seeking solutions to circumvent the export slow down.

Second: suppliers of the UK supermarket listed above do not arrange advance purchase contracts giving farmers an assured market for their non-GM crop, instead relying on “spot” purchase, when the crop actually comes on to the market hoping to get the soy cheaper. Unfortunately UK consumers and farm animals are the losers as European retailers who do enter into advance purchase contracts are given preference.

Third: it is said that one large supplier of non-GMO soy has withdrawn from the market and there is speculation that ‘considering national affiliations’, this change is related to the desire to open the UK to imports of GM soy from the USA. As yet no independent verification of this statement has been found.

A recent FSA poll indicated that nearly 70% of UK citizens prefer milk, eggs, poultry and meat produced with non-GMO feed. Mainland European retailers are responding to these consumer preferences by making strenuous efforts to expand the Non-GMO soy supply chain.

 . . . should there be a switch, over time, to grass and forage and a short supply chain instead of soy?

 

 

Why did this Bt cotton field have an inherent “yield advantage” ?

Devinder Sharma highlights another factor in assessing reports of the success of GM crops. He quotes from a blog by Glenn Stone, a professor of sociocultural anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University in St. Louis:

A Warangal woman farmer who was an early adopter of Bt cotton hand-waters her recently planted seeds.

Normally hand-watering is unheard of, but like most early adopters, she lavished extra-ordinary attention on the field with the expensive Bt cotton seed.

Such a field was then reported by economists as evidence that Bt cotton has an inherent “yield advantage” (Smale, et al. 2010; Smale, et al. 2006; Stone, 2011).

Sharma’s comment:

“I now realise how correct he is in his observation, and assessment. I have seen this happening around me. Farmers tend to take more than adequate care of anything that is expensive. Why only farmers, even at our homes, we tend to be more careful and protective of anything that comes from a distant land (and of course is more expensive). It deserves special attention. This is how it has been, and still continues to be.

Read the article at Ground Reality at 1/11/2013