Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by john, Dec 21, 2003.

  1. john

    john Guest

    Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1111159,00.html

    Ten years ago, we revealed the possible link between a fungicide and a
    tragic birth defect. Now a US court has found a chemical giant guilty

    Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
    Sunday December 21, 2003
    The Observer

    A group of 30 British families who blame a controversial pesticide for
    causing their babies to be born without eyes have won a historic
    breakthrough in their quest to get justice and multi-million pound
    compensation.
    Ten years after The Observer first revealed the possible link between
    the agricultural chemical Benlate and this tragic medical condition,
    the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    responsible for causing the birth defects.

    After fierce legal wrangles and appeals through the US courts, judges
    have awarded an American family almost $7 million (£3.9m) in damages
    after their son was born with empty eye sockets in 1990. The US
    chemical giant DuPont, which made Benlate and has spent millions of
    dollars fighting the case, is understood to have already handed over
    the money to the family.

    It is the first time in legal history that a chemical company has been
    found guilty of causing birth defects. The case has echoes of
    Thalidomide, the drug found to cause babies to be born with deformed
    limbs.

    The American judges concluded that John Castillo's condition was
    caused as a result of the boy's mother, Donna, being sprayed with
    Benlate when she was seven weeks pregnant in November 1989 as she
    walked past a fruit farm in Florida. Benlate was used for years on
    farms and in gardens in Britain to control fungal infections until
    DuPont took it off the market two years ago.

    Jim Ferraro, the American lawyer who acted for the Castillos and is
    representing the British families, said: 'This is a major victory and
    we now hope to win justice for the British families who have suffered
    for years from this tragedy.'

    Next year the affected British families are to sue DuPont in Delaware,
    the home state of the chemical giant. Marty Griffin from Norfolk,
    whose son Darren was born with only one eye in 1995 and who is suing
    DuPont, welcomed the development.

    'This is fantastic news,' he said. 'It shows that a large corporation
    cannot railroad over the terrible problems its chemicals have caused.
    My wife was exposed to Benlate very early on in her pregnancy and we
    are absolutely convinced that it caused Darren's problems.

    'When he was born, the hospital in King's Lynn had never seen anything
    like it before and there is no family history of any eye defects. We
    are looking forward to our day in court, when we hope to finally get
    justice for Darren.'

    The safety of benomyl, the chemical ingredient of Benlate, has been
    questioned for several years. In 1991 scientists at the University of
    California discovered that more than 40 per cent of pregnant rats fed
    high levels of benomyl produced foetuses with severe eye defects. When
    the dosage of benomyl was administered to rats given a
    protein-deficient diet, almost two out of three pregnant animals gave
    birth to babies without eyes. The study was designed to show the
    impact of the chemical on those with a poor diet.

    As long ago as 1972, the US official watchdog, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, advised that DuPont should put a label on Benlate
    warning that it could 'cause birth defects ... and exposure during
    pregnancy should be avoided'. But lobbying from DuPont persuaded the
    EPA that the warning was misleading and unnecessary, so it never
    appeared.

    One of the most dramatic pieces of evidence to emerge during the legal
    disputes has been an internal DuPont report on research the company
    funded in 1997 by an independent laboratory in Yorkshire. Scientists
    tested benomyl on rats and discovered that a 'high' proportion of the
    chemical was drawn to the eyes. The report revealed that after two
    hours a third of the benomyl was concentrated in the eyes, rising to
    two-thirds after 24 hours. After 10 days, 80 per cent of the benomyl
    was pooled around the eyes.

    Some scientists believe this reveals how the eyes act as a kind of
    powerful magnet to attract the benomyl and explains how the chemical
    destroys the eyes of a foetus. DuPont has always argued that humans
    could be exposed to large doses of this fungicide without any risks to
    health. But scientists say the risks are at a very different level for
    a foetus at the very early stages of pregnancy, when the essential
    structures of a baby's eye and brain are being formed. DuPont has
    recently withdrawn Benlate from the global market because of mounting
    litigation costs.

    The company has always denied that Benlate was the cause for the birth
    defects and argued that the families' claim was based on 'junk
    science'. It claims to have spent more than $1.3 billion over the past
    decade fighting Benlate lawsuits and paying damages. Most cases have
    emanated from hundreds of growers of flowers, ornamental plants and
    food crops who alleged that the fungicide wrecked their produce.

    [email protected]
     
    Tags:


  2. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    (...)

    > the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    > responsible for causing the birth defects.


    This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.


    Jeff
     
  3. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >
    >"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >(...)
    >
    >> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >> responsible for causing the birth defects.

    >
    >This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >
    >
    >Jeff


    Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.

    Next?

    Jan
     
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>
    >>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>(...)
    >>
    >>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >>> responsible for causing the birth defects.

    >>
    >>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >>
    >>
    >>Jeff

    >
    >Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.


    Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    that.

    Aloha,

    Rich
    ------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  5. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Rich <,@.> wrote:
    >On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>
    >>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>(...)
    >>>
    >>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    >>>
    >>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >>>
    >>>Jeff

    >>
    >>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.

    >
    >Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    >like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    >Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    >mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    >that.


    Yep -- that silly and ancient statistic has been refuted countless
    times, but the myth lingers on.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  6. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >Date: 12/21/2003 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >In article <[email protected]>, Rich <,@.> wrote:
    >>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >>>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >>>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>>
    >>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>news:[email protected]
    >>>>(...)
    >>>>
    >>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >>>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    >>>>
    >>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >>>>
    >>>>Jeff
    >>>
    >>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.

    >>
    >>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    >>like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    >>Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    >>mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    >>that.


    I see Rich is still stalking. He never obsesses or repeats the same thing over
    and over.

    Where is his proof of how much has been scientifically proven?? It is noted he
    didn't post any.


    >Yep -- that silly and ancient statistic has been refuted countless
    >times, but the myth lingers on.


    Many things here are refuted, by the debunker group. Do show us an updated
    figure, and put your money where your mouth is.

    http://www.chelationstudies.com/reliable.html

    Conventional Medicine's Unproven Therapies and Lack of Studies/Testing

    The U.S. Congress' Office of Technological Assessment reported that only 10 to
    20 percent of the medical procedures done by conventional medicine has been
    proven to be effective.("Prescription for Health," Thomas Moore, 1998) In
    Thomas Moore's 1995 book, "Deadly Medicine," he states that there are unproven
    drugs - which were suppose to be off the market by 1964 - still being sold
    thirty years later, despite lawsuits, court orders, critical government studies
    and congressional complaints.

    The editors of the Journal of Medical Ethics, writing in the British Medical
    Journal in 1991, said that 85 percent of all the current treatments out there
    have never been subjected to control trials.
    (Jonathan Wright, M.D., author of "Natural Hormone Replacement," WINA, Dr.
    Ronald Hoffman's radio program, Health Talk, Dec. 8, 2000)

    Only 15 percent of the medical interventions are supported by solid scientific
    evidence, or in other words 85 percent are not.
    (Journal of Medical Ethics, 1992)

    One-third of all medical treatments were unnecessary according to the Rand
    Corporation studies in the 1980's.
    ("Rationing Health Care," June 27, Newsweek, 1994)

    ==
    A question from John Bain:

    What percentage of conventional medicine do you consider proven? (Tip, last
    published figures I saw, Ramey & Imrie 2000, gave 38% for controlled trials,
    but you may have more up-to-date figures)

    Step right up and show us the proof, both Rich and David.

    Jan
     
  7. [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>
    >>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>(...)
    >>
    >>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >>> responsible for causing the birth defects.

    >>
    >>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >>
    >>
    >>Jeff

    >
    >Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.
    >
    >Next?
    >
    >Jan


    100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.

    Next?

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  8. WB

    WB Guest

    On 22 Dec 2003 04:38:50 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >I see Jan is still stalking. He never obsesses or repeats the same thing over
    >and over.
     
  9. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >Date: 12/22/2003 1:17 AM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    >>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    >>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]
    >>>(...)
    >>>
    >>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    >>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    >>>
    >>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Jeff

    >>
    >>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.
    >>
    >>Next?
    >>
    >>Jan

    >
    >100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.
    >
    >Next?


    Next, one can't use it as an excuse.

    Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with RESULTS.

    Jan
     
  10. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7
    >From: WB [email protected]
    >Date: 12/22/2003 12:37 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >On 22 Dec 2003 04:38:50 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>I see Jan is still stalking. He never obsesses or repeats the same thing

    >over and over.


    Thanks for proving you are a troll.

    Jan
     
  11. WB

    WB Guest

    On 22 Dec 2003 21:41:12 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7
    >>From: WB [email protected]
    >>Date: 12/22/2003 12:37 PM Central Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>On 22 Dec 2003 04:38:50 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>
    >>>I see Jan is still stalking. He always obsesses or repeats the same thing

    >>over and over.

    >
    >Thanks for proving J.anDr.E\/\/. is a troll.
    >
    >Jan
     
  12. carabelli

    carabelli Guest

    "Jan" <[email protected]> ..........


    > >100% of "alternative medicine" is NOT scientifically proven.
    > >
    > >Next?

    >
    > Next, one can't use it as an excuse.
    >
    > Many things used successfully are not proven, That's why one goes with

    RESULTS.
    >
    > Jan


    Which period of the Dark Ages did you spend your former life in?

    carabelli
     
  13. Jan

    Jan Guest

    Further proof of your trolling at the bottom.Also shows your dishonesty.

    Jan


    >On 22 Dec 2003 21:41:12 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7
    >>>From: WB [email protected]
    >>>Date: 12/22/2003 12:37 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>
    >>>On 22 Dec 2003 04:38:50 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I see Jan is still stalking. He always obsesses or repeats the same thing
    >>>over and over.

    >>
    >>Thanks for proving J.anDr.E\/\/. is a troll.
    >>
    >>Jan

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7
    >Path:
    >lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!news

    reader.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MI
    SMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.ea
    synews.com.POSTED!not-for-m
    >ail
    >From: WB [email protected]
    >Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    >Reply-To: [email protected]
    >Message-ID: <jrqeuvgq2gtq79u61g794g3mnb[email protected]>
    >References: <[email protected]>
    ><[email protected]>
    >X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
    >MIME-Version: 1.0
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >Lines: 16
    >X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
    >Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
    >X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise
    >we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
    >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:11:05 GMT
    >
    >
     
  14. WB

    WB Guest

    On 22 Dec 2003 22:51:33 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    Further proof of my trolling at the bottom. Also shows jA.|\|dRe.\/\/'s dishonesty.

    Jan
     
  15. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    >From: WB [email protected]
    >Date: 12/22/2003 7:03 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >On 22 Dec 2003 22:51:33 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >Further proof of my trolling at the bottom. Also shows jA.|\|dRe.\/\/'s
    >dishonesty.
    >
    >Jan


    That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.

    [email protected]
     
  16. WB

    WB Guest

    On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    >
    > [email protected]


    Good one !

    I look forward to you posting your report.

    WB
     
  17. Mark

    Mark Guest

    [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    > >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    > >Date: 12/21/2003 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
    > >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, Rich <,@.> wrote:
    > >>On 22 Dec 2003 00:14:23 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>>Subject: Re: Eyeless children championed by Observer win $7m test case
    > >>>>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
    > >>>>Date: 12/21/2003 3:03 PM Central Standard Time
    > >>>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>>>news:[email protected]
    > >>>>(...)
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> the Supreme Court in Florida has ruled that the fungicide was
    > >>>>> responsible for causing the birth defects.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>This is a legal decision, not a scientific one.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Jeff
    > >>>
    > >>>Sixty two percent of conventional medicine is NOT scientifically proven.
    > >>
    > >>Jan reads something on the internet and ASSumes it is true. I would
    > >>like to see Jan's proof that 62% of CM in not scientifically proven.
    > >>Of course we will never see it. Jan will simply obsessively and
    > >>mindlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Sad
    > >>that.

    >
    > I see Rich is still stalking. He never obsesses or repeats the same thing over
    > and over.


    <snip>


    > Jan


    Pot? Kettle?

    Mark, MD
     
  18. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    >From: WB [email protected]
    >Date: 12/22/2003 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    >>
    >> [email protected]

    >
    >Good one !
    >
    >I look forward to you posting your report.
    >
    >WB


    A pity that's the sort of thing you look forward to. Get a life.

    Jan
     
  19. carabelli

    carabelli Guest

    "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    > >From: WB [email protected]
    > >Date: 12/22/2003 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
    > >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >
    > >On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    > >
    > >>That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    > >>
    > >> [email protected]

    > >
    > >Good one !
    > >
    > >I look forward to you posting your report.
    > >
    > >WB

    >
    > A pity that's the sort of thing you look forward to. Get a life.
    >
    > Jan


    And quit stalking me in SMD.

    carabelli
     
  20. WB

    WB Guest

    On 23 Dec 2003 03:24:09 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: BugEyed dogs championed by Inquirer win $0.07
    >>From: WB [email protected]
    >>Date: 12/22/2003 7:58 PM Central Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >>
    >>>That would be a lie, Troll. It show yours and your dirty tricks.
    >>>
    >>> [email protected]

    >>
    >>Good one !
    >>
    >>I look forward to you posting your report.
    >>
    >>WB

    >
    >A pity that's the sort of thing you look forward to. Get a life.
    >
    >Jan


    I do not think that you have the gumption to post
    your complaint against me privately nor publicly.

    Jan, you are a coward and have no remorse about
    your relentless lies and mis-information.
    You have no shame.
    You also have a serious problem facing the truth.

    I fear no-one.

    You, jAn.Dr.|E\/\/. are a thorn in the progression of society.
    I am willing to bet money that you are an a-typical, mislead
    <insert your religion here> mindless follower of falsehoods.
    You are welcomed to try to prove me wrong.

    I do not desire, nor need, your pity.
    In fact, I duly outright reject it.

    My life is none of your concern,
    WB
     
Loading...