text:
Background and Objectives for the Systematic Review
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), formerly known as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, is the most common rheumatologic disease in childhood, with an overall prevalence of 70 to 400 per 100,000 children.1 JIA is an important cause of chronic disease in childhood, with a prevalence similar to type 1 diabetes mellitus.2 JIA consists of at least six categories with distinct yet overlapping clinical manifestations. These are:3
- Systemic arthritis: initial presentation includes fever, rash, and arthritis; one-quarter of children may have severe destructive joint disease.
- Oligoarthritis: affects up to four joints within the first 6 months of the illness; may be persistent (i.e., involving no more than four joints) or extended (i.e., involving more than four joints after the first 6 months of illness) and may be associated with uveitis.
- Polyarthritis: affects five or more joints during the first 6 months of disease; is subclassified as rheumatoid factor-negative and rheumatoid factor-positive disease, the latter of which may be associated with more destructive joint disease.
- Enthesitis-related arthritis: may be associated with uveitis.
- Psoriatic arthritis: may be associated with uveitis.
- Other: arthritis of unknown cause with symptoms for more than 6 weeks.
JIA can place a severe physical and psychological burden on affected children and be a major stressor to families. As with all chronic conditions in childhood, treatment may be enhanced by a multidisciplinary team to address these issues. There is no curative treatment for JIA. Until recently, treatment has focused on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., ibuprofen, naproxen) and intra-articular injections of corticosteroids4 (see Table 1). Unfortunately, many patients will not respond to this first-line therapy.
Therapy with the so-called disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has become an increasingly important component of care. These drugs, which operate through a number of different mechanisms (see Table 2), share the common effect of limiting radiologic progression of disease.4 Although these drugs can dramatically improve the disease course, no evidence-based guidelines exist regarding the management of JIA with DMARDs. There are many unanswered questions about the safety and effectiveness of these drugs, especially for their long-term use in children.
Controversy and Uncertainty
A clear synthesis of the available evidence is needed to help clinicians provide care for children with JIA. This is especially important because there is a workforce shortage of pediatric rheumatologists,5 leading to treatment of children by adult-focused rheumatologists who may be less familiar with the pediatric specific evidence. Understanding when to use a DMARD is especially challenging, because JIA is heterogeneous across the various subtypes. Furthermore, there are a large number of DMARDs that cannot simply be grouped by drug class. Failure with a drug in one particular class does not necessarily predict failure with another drug in the same class. Some children may even benefit from treatment with more than one DMARD at a time.
In order to assess the benefits or harms of any therapy, it is critical to have a comparison treatment. For many therapies, this is a placebo. However, for JIA the most appropriate comparator to judge the effectiveness of a DMARD or combination of DMARDs may be methotrexate. Methotrexate is a DMARD that has been found to be highly effective, and often is the first DMARD used in children with JIA.6 Methotrexate has also been available for much longer then the other DMARDs, so there is greater clinical experience with the drug and the drug is relatively inexpensive.
Another critical component to evaluating the effect of therapies is the measurement of their impact. Evaluating changes in JIA disease status can be challenging. Most studies use the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-30 scoring system, which evaluates the following domains: patient function, patient/parent assessment of well-being, physician assessment of overall disease activity, number of joints with active arthritis, number of joints with limited range of motion, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Improvement in any three of these domains by 30 percent and worsening in not more than one by 30 percent is considered to be improvement.7 Other disease scoring systems have been developed (e.g., the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score [JADAS]).8 The key informants identified three important concerns with existing scoring systems. First, these measures evaluate relative and not absolute changes in disease progression. However, standardized "absolute" measures may provide greater insight. Second, these instruments may not reflect the goals of treatment. For example, many providers would not consider a 30 percent improvement to be a clinically significant improvement. Even the ACR-70, which evaluates for a 70 percent improvement may not be enough since the goal of treatment is remission. Finally, some key informants who are clinicians noted that having an instrument that could be rapidly used in daily practice would be more helpful in assessing the impact of DMARDs. Regardless of the measure, it is important to be able to measure clinically meaningful responses to therapy and to assess for remission.
JIA is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Affected individuals, their families, and clinicians are especially excited with the new DMARDs, which they believe may lead to more extensive resolution of symptoms for longer periods of time. Unfortunately, DMARDs are expensive and the risks of therapy are unclear. The disease experts we interviewed, including clinicians, a parent of a child with JIA, and a representative of a large health insurer, all underscored the need for a synthesis of the evidence to guide management. This is especially important because of workforce shortages in pediatric rheumatology. As a result, many adult-trained rheumatologists provide care for children. A clear summary of the evidence would help these other health care providers in making evidence-based decisions and likely lead to overall improvements in outcomes for children with JIA. Both the parent and the payer who served as key informants identified the importance of an unbiased assessment of the evidence. The experts also endorsed synthesizing available data to identify missing gaps in the evidence and to set a future agenda in JIA clinical research.
Generic Name | US Trade Name | Drug Type | Approved by FDA for JIA | Warnings – Increased Risk |
Betamethasone |
Intra-articular corticosteroid | Yes |
Triamcinolone Acetonide |
Intra-articular corticosteroid | Yes |
Triamcinolone Hexacetonide |
Intra-articular corticosteroid | No |
Celecoxib |
NSAID | Yes |
Etodolac |
NSAID | No |
Ibuprofen |
NSAID | Yes |
Indomethacin |
NSAID | Yes |
Meloxicam |
NSAID | Yes |
Naproxen |
NSAID | Yes |
Oxaprozin |
NSAID | Yes |
Tolmetin |
NSAID | Yes |
Generic Name | US Trade Name | Mechanism of Action | Approved by FDA for JIA | Warnings – Increased Risk |
Abatacept |
Yes |
Adalimumab |
Yes |
Anakinra |
No |
Canakinumab |
No |
Etanercept |
Yes |
Infliximab |
No |
No |
Rilonacept |
No |
Rituximab |
No |
Tocilizumab |
No |
Azathioprine |
No |
Cyclosporine A |
No |
D-Penicillamine |
No |
Hydroxy-chloroquine |
No |
Leflunomide |
No |
Methotrexate |
Yes |
Mycophenolate mofetil |
No |
Sulfasalazine |
Yes |
Tacrolimus (FK506) |
No |
Thalidomide |
No |
The Key Questions
The key questions for this review were developed after a topic-refinement process that included a preliminary review of the medical literature and two teleconferences with experts and key stakeholders in JIA. The following is a summary of the comments we received based on the JIA Topic Refinement posting and the resulting modifications in this document.
- The trade name of tocilizumab, Actemra, was not listed in the table of DMARDs.
This has been corrected. - Adalimunab is now approved for JIA in children.
This has been corrected. - Clarify that corticosteroids refers to intra-articular corticosteroids.
This has been corrected. - Categorize DMARDs into biologic versus nonbiologic DMARDs.
This has been added to the table. However, this classification system does not necessarily predict the effectiveness of treatment. Therefore, the analyses will not be based on this classification system alone. - Methotrexate is a DMARD.
Methotrexate is the most commonly used DMARD for childhood JIA. In our preliminary review of the literature, we found that methotrexate is rapidly becoming a component of the "traditional" therapy of intra-articular corticosteroids and NSAIDs. In our analyses, it is likely that we will need to compare other DMARDs to therapy that includes methotrexate.
In addition, the Technical Expert Panel (TEP) recommended the addition of specific NSAIDs and DMARDs that were not initially included.
The following is a list of the revised key questions based on the comments received about the JIA Topic Refinement posting:
KQ 1 | In children with JIA, does treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), when compared to conventional treatment (i.e., NSAIDs or corticosteroids) with or without methotrexate, improve laboratory measures of inflammation or radiologically evident disease progression, symptoms (e.g., pain, symptom scores), or health status (e.g., functional ability, mortality)? |
KQ 2 | In children with JIA, what are the comparative effects of DMARDs on laboratory markers of inflammation or radiologically evident progression of disease, symptoms (e.g., pain, symptom scores), or health status (e.g., functional ability, mortality)? |
KQ 3 | In children with JIA, does the rate and type of adverse events differ between the various DMARDs or between DMARDs and conventional treatment with or without methotrexate? |
KQ 4 | How do the efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and adverse effects of treatment with DMARDs differ among the various subtypes of JIA? |
KQ 5 | What is the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and feasibility of the clinical outcomes measures for JIA that are commonly used in clinical trials or within the clinical practice setting? |
- We will include children (i.e., those 18 years of age and younger) with any subtype of JIA of any severity.
- The interventions will include any DMARD (see Table 2) alone or in any combination.
- The ACR-30 and other high-priority instruments will be used to assess clinical outcomes or remission of JIA, regardless of treatment.
- The comparators will include either traditional therapy (NSAIDs with or without the intra-articular corticosteroids listed in Table 1) or traditional therapy with methotrexate. Methotrexate is the DMARD most commonly used to treat children with JIA. When possible, we will also compare DMARDs against each other as active comparators.
- Any measure that can establish psychometric properties.
Outcomes for each question
- Primary outcomes: Improvement in intermediate or long-term outcomes. The intermediate outcomes include laboratory measures of inflammation, active joint count, number of joints with limited range of motion, radiographic evidence of the progression of disease, or global assessment of current status. The long-term outcomes include pain control, clinical remission, quality of life, growth, development, joint function, functional ability, and mortality.
- Secondary outcomes: None.
- Adverse events: These are specific to the interventions being examined (see Table 2). Specifically, we will examine mortality, malignancy, serious infection, hepatitis, bone marrow suppression, nausea or vomiting, and risks to fetus or pregnant mother. Because of the known risks associated with DMARDs, we anticipate our findings will focus on significant infections and the development of cancer.
- Primary Outcomes: Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, responsiveness (standardized response mean and responsiveness index), and time to administer.
- All studies must be at least 3 months in duration.
- Cross-sectional studies or longitudinal studies of any duration.
- Data will come from specialty medical settings, either from pediatric or adult rheumatology clinics.
Analytic Framework
This figure depicts the key questions within the context of the PICOTS described in the previous section. In general, the figure illustrates how treatment of JIA in children with DMARDs versus intra-articular corticosteroids and NSAIDs may result in intermediate outcomes (e.g., changes in laboratory measures of inflammation, changes in the active joint count, or radiologically evident progression of disease) and/or long-term outcomes (e.g., clinical remission, changes in quality of life, changes in growth, and changes in development). In addition, adverse events may occur at any point after the treatment is received.
A. Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion of Studies in the Review
General criteria used to identify eligible articles are described below for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Because JIA is rare, assembling a large sample size is challenging. Therefore, we will not restrict studies based on sample size alone. Depending on the specific factors or interventions being examined, additional criteria may apply.
Inclusion criteria for RCTs:
- Sample population has JIA according to the International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria or juvenile rheumatoid arthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology definition (KQ1-KQ5).
- Random allocation to the intervention or the placebo/control groups (KQ1-KQ3).
- One or more DMARDs are evaluated (KQ1-KQ4).
- Outcome is change in one of the prespecified intermediate or final outcomes and is assessed by using an acceptable standard (KQ1, KQ2).
- Study duration is at least 3 months (KQ1-KQ4). [Rationale: We expect that response to a particular treatment will take at least 3 months to be realized.]
- Population may be from primary or specialty care settings (KQ1-KQ5). [Rationale: JIA is most likely to be managed by specialists. Therefore, it is unlikely that studies will come from a primary care setting.]
- Sample consists of children 18 years of age or younger. If the study includes adults, at least 80 percent of the sample will be children or the outcomes must be reported separately for the child subgroup (KQ1-KQ5).
Exclusion criteria for RCTs:
- Non-English language publication (KQ1-KQ5).
Inclusion criteria for observational studies:
- Sample population has JIA according to the International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria or juvenile rheumatoid arthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology definition (KQ1-KQ5).
- One or more DMARDs are evaluated (KQ1-KQ4).
- Outcome is change in one of the prespecified intermediate or long-term outcomes and is assessed by using an acceptable standard (KQ1, KQ2).
- Study duration is at least 3 months (KQ1-KQ4).
- Population may be from primary or specialty care settings (KQ1-KQ5).
- Sample consists of children 18 years of age or younger. If the study includes adults, at least 80 percent of the sample will be children or the outcomes must be reported separately for the child subgroup (KQ1-KQ5).
- Outcomes are determined a priori and are assessed by using an acceptable standard (KQ1-KQ4).
- For studies of effectiveness, there must be a treatment comparator (KQ1-KQ4).
- Case control studies are acceptable to assess for adverse events of DMARD treatment (KQ3, KQ4).
- Cross-sectional studies are acceptable to evaluate clinical outcome measure tools (KQ5).
Use of gray literature
We will only include data from articles that have undergone peer-review. Research letters published in peer-reviewed journals usually undergo only minimal peer-review. We will provide a narrative overview of information available from research letters that provide information on adverse events associated with DMARDs in the treatment of JIA or JRA (depending on the diagnosis criteria) or that provide information about DMARD therapy for which few data are otherwise available (i.e., uveitis). We will not include research letters in any quantitative assessment (i.e., meta-analysis).
We will review the quarterly data files from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) from July 2008 to June 2009 for adverse events related to JIA treatment with DMARDs. These findings will be described qualitatively.
We will also search abstracts presented at key meetings to identify publications in press (see next section for search strategy). However, specific findings from abstracts will not be included in the review.
Exclusion criteria for observational studies:
- Non-English language publication (KQ1-KQ5).
- Cross-sectional studies for the evaluation of the impact of treatment (KQ1-KQ4).
B. Searching for the Evidence: Literature Search Strategies for Identification of Relevant Studies to Answer the Key Questions.
We plan to conduct a primary review of the literature by systematically searching, reviewing, and analyzing the scientific evidence for each key question. To identify articles relevant to each question, we will begin by searching MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Trials Registry. We will further evaluate the bibliographies of included primary studies and any systematic or nonsystematic reviews that are identified. To assure completeness, search strategies will be developed in consultation with the TEP.
Using prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria, titles/abstracts will be reviewed by two reviewers for potential relevance to the key questions. Articles included by either reviewer will undergo full-text screening. At the full-text screening stage, two independent reviewers must agree on a final inclusion/exclusion decision. Articles meeting eligibility criteria will be included for data abstraction.
After the draft report is submitted, we will conduct an updated literature search covering the interval since the original search was completed. These studies, along with any studies identified in the peer-review process, will be reviewed to determine if they meet study eligibility criteria.
We will search abstracts from two major scientific meetings—that is, the annual meetings of the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology—from the previous 2 years. We will contact the authors to identify in-press articles in press that would meet the criteria for inclusion in this review.
C. Data Abstraction and Data Management
Data from published reports will be abstracted into evidence tables by one reviewer and over-read by a second reviewer. Data elements include descriptors to assess applicability, quality elements, intervention/exposure details, and outcomes. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus or by obtaining a third reviewer's opinion when consensus cannot be reached. Key characteristics will include age, gender, JIA subtype, severity, study treatment, and outcomes as described previously. All results will be tracked in an Endnote database.
D. Assessment of Methodological Quality of Individual Studies
We will develop separate criteria for assessing the methodological quality of RCTs and observational studies. Quality assessment will be performed, in the first instance, by the person abstracting or evaluating the included article; this initial assessment will then be over-read by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved between the two reviewers or when needed by arbitration from a third reviewer.
For RCTs, we will use the key criteria described in the Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews,9 adapted to this specific topic. These criteria are: adequacy of randomization and allocation concealment; the comparability of groups at baseline; blinding; the completeness of followup and differential loss to followup; whether or not incomplete data were addressed appropriately; the validity of outcome measures; and conflict of interest.
To assess individual observational studies, we will adapt a basic set of quality criteria used in previous AHRQ evidence reports.10,11 These criteria concern the methods used to select the cohort, the adequacy of the sample size, the methods used to ascertain exposure status and outcomes, the adequacy and completeness of followup, and the appropriateness of the analytic methods used. Abstractors will be instructed to assign a rating of "yes," "partially," "no," or "can't tell" to each item and provide a brief rationale for their decisions. We will not attempt to assign a summary quality score (A, B, C or Good, Fair, Poor) to individual RCTs or observational studies. First, there is no evidence that the use of any particular quality scoring system has a substantial impact on the results of systematic reviews.12 Second, our experience has been that it is more helpful to identify consistent and specific quality issues that affect the majority of the literature (concerning, e.g., sample size, analytic methods, or ascertainment bias) in order to guide future research, rather than relying on a global quality score.
E. Data Synthesis
We will summarize the primary literature by abstracting relevant continuous and categorical data. We will then determine the feasibility of completing a quantitative synthesis (i.e., meta-analysis). Feasibility depends on the volume of relevant literature, conceptual homogeneity of the studies, and completeness of the results reporting.
Data synthesis will be stratified by intervention and study population (e.g., age, JIA subtype). We anticipate that studies may report dichotomous outcomes (e.g., global assessment of improvement) and continuous outcomes (e.g., change in ACR-30). We will adapt the classification approach used by Angevaren et al.13 to categorize instruments into measures addressing the same construct. We will use the weighted mean difference when studies use the same outcome scale; otherwise, standardized mean differences will be used. Preplanned sensitivity analyses include: study quality, including the quality of the measurement of exposure to the factor; thoroughness of adjustment for potential confounders; and patient characteristics, such as age, gender, and JIA subtype.
Data synthesis for observational studies is more challenging. Initially, data will be synthesized qualitatively with a particular focus on design issues that may lead to systematic bias. Design issues, including confounding, will be examined as a source for heterogeneous results. If feasible, results will be synthesized quantitatively.
F. Grading the Evidence for Each Key Question
The strength of evidence for each key question will be assessed using the approach described in the Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.9 In brief, this approach requires assessment of four domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Additional domains are to be used when appropriate: coherence, dose-response association, impact of plausible residual confounders, strength of association (magnitude of effect), and publication bias. These domains will be considered qualitatively and a summary rating will be assigned after discussion by two reviewers as "high," "moderate," or "low" strength of evidence. In some cases, high, moderate, or low ratings will be impossible or imprudent to make. In these situations, a grade of "insufficient" will be assigned.
- Manners PJ, Bowers C. Worldwide prevalence of juvenile arthritis – why does it vary so much? J Rheumatol 2002;29:1520-30.
- Karvonen M, Viik-Kajander M, Moltchanova E, et al, for the Diabetes Mondiale (DiaMond) Project Group. Incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes worldwide. Diabetes Care 2000;23:1516-26.
- Goldmuntz EA, White PH. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a review for the pediatrician. Pediatr Rev 2006;27:e24-e32.
- Ilowite NT. Current treatment of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Pediatrics 2002;109:105-15.
- Deal CL, Hooker R, Harrington T, et al. The United States rheumatology workforce: supply and demand, 2005-2025. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:722-9.
- Ramanan AV, Whitworth P, Baildam EM. Use of methotrexate in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:197-200.
- Wallace CA, Ruperto N, Giannini E, for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study group. Preliminary criteria for clinical remission for select categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:2290-4.
- Consolaro A, Ruperto N, Barzso A, et al. Development and validation of a composite disease activity score for juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthrit Care Res 2009;61:658-66.
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 1st ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Draft posted October 2007. Available at: /sites/default/files/pdf/cer-methods-guide_research-2008.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2009.
- Wang C, Chung M, Balk E, et al. Effects of Omega-3 Fatty Acids on Cardiovascular Disease. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 94 (Prepared by Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No. 290-02-0022). AHRQ Publication No. 04-E009-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2004. Available at:http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/o3cardio/o3cardio.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2009.
- Myers E, McCrory D, Mills A, et al. Effectiveness of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 167 (Prepared by the Duke University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025.) AHRQ Publication No. 08-E012. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2008. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/infertility/infertility.pdf.
- Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
- Angevaren M, Aufdemkampe G, Verhaar HJJ, et al. Physical activity and enhanced fitness to improve cognitive function in older people without known cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(3):CD005381.
Definition of Terms
- American College of Rheumatology
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- CERs
- Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
- C-Reactive Protein
- DMARDs
- Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs
- Evidence-based Practice Center
- IgM
- Immunoglobulin M
- Interleukin 1
- Interleukin 6
- Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
- NSAIDs
- Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs
- Population(s), Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Timing, Settings
- RCTs
- Randomized Controlled Trials
- Technical Expert Panel
- Tumor Necrosis Factor
Summary of Protocol Amendments
In the event of protocol amendments, the date of each amendment will be accompanied by a description of the change and the rationale.
NOTE: The following protocol elements are standard procedures for all protocols.
- Review of Key Questions
For Comparative Effectiveness reviews (CERs) the key questions were posted for public comment and finalized after review of the comments. For other systematic reviews, key questions submitted by partners are reviewed and refined as needed by the EPC and the Technical Expert Panel (TEP) to assure that the questions are specific and explicit about what information is being reviewed. - Technical Expert Panel (TEP)
A TEP panel is selected to provide broad expertise and perspectives specific to the topic under development. Divergent and conflicted opinions are common and perceived as healthy scientific discourse that results in a thoughtful, relevant systematic review. Therefore study questions, design and/or methodological approaches do not necessarily represent the views of individual technical and content experts. The TEP provides information to the EPC to identify literature search strategies, review the draft report and recommend approaches to specific issues as requested by the EPC. The TEP does not do analysis of any kind nor contribute to the writing of the report. - Peer Review
Approximately five experts in the field will be asked to peer review the draft report and provide comments. The peer reviewer may represent stakeholder groups such as professional or advocacy organizations with knowledge of the topic. On some specific reports such as reports requested by the Office of Medical Applications of Research, National Institutes of Health, there may be other rules that apply regarding participation in the peer review process. Peer review comments on the preliminary draft of the report are considered by the EPC in preparation of the final draft of the report. The synthesis of the scientific literature presented in the final report does not necessarily represent the views of individual reviewers. The dispositions of the peer review comments are documented and will, for CERs and Technical briefs, be published three months after the publication of the Evidence report.
It is our policy not to release the names of the peer reviewers or TEP panel members until the report is published so that they can maintain their objectivity during the review process.


text:
Fashion Jewelry 2014 New Gold Chain Charm Bracelets with lock and Key pendants Brand Famous Kors Bracelets & Bangles for women
Gender:women /Ladies /Girls /unisex
Style :Fashion
Pendant Material :Alloy
Chain Material :Gold alloy
Length : 19cm
Package : Opp Bag + Yellow kraft paper bubble bag
Ocasion:Personal Party /Ball /Banquet /Stage statement
Weight: 60g/Piece
* We accept Alipay, West Union, TT. All major credit cards are accepted through secure payment process or ESCROW. * Payment must be made within 3 days of order. * If you can't check out immediately after auction close, please wait for a few minutes and retry Payments must be completed within 3 days. ** WORLDWIDE SHIPPING. (Except some countries and APO/FPO) ** Orders processed timely after the payment verification. ** We only ship to confirmed order addresses. Your order address must match your Shipping address. ** The images shown are not the actual item and are for your reference only. ** SERVICE TRANSIT TIME is provided by the carrier and excludes weekends and holidays. Transit times may vary, particularly during the holiday season. ** If you have not received your shipment within 30 days from payment, please contact us. We will track the shipment and get back to you as soon as possible with a reply. Our goal is customer satisfaction! ** Due to stock status and time differences, we will choose to ship your item from our first available warehouse for fast delivery. *** You have 7 days to contact us and 30 days to return it from the date it was received. If this item is in your possession more than 7 days, it is considered used and WE WILL NOT ISSUE YOU A REFUND OR REPLACEMENT. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Shipping cost is bear by both seller and buyer in half. *** All returned items MUST BE in the original packaging and you MUST PROVIDE us with the shipping tracking number, specific reason for the return. *** We will refund YOUR FULL WINNING BID AMOUNT, upon receipt of the item in its original condition and packaging with all components and accessories included, AFTER BOTH Buyer and Seller cancel the transaction from aliexpress. OR, you may choose to have a replacement. *** We will bear all the shipping cost if the product(s) is (are) not as advertised. **** 12 months Manufacturer`s limited Warranty for defective items (excluding items damaged and/or misused after receipt). Accessories come with a 3-month warranty. **** Defective items MUST BE reported and returned within the warranty period (and in the original packaging, if possible). You must tell us what the defect is and give us your order number. WE DO NOT REPAIR OR REPLACE ITEMS WITH AN EXPIRED WARRANTY. ****You agree to all of the above-listed policies upon ordering on aliexpress! We maintain high standards of excellence and strive for 100% customer satisfaction! Feedback is very important We request that you contact us immediately BEFORE you give us neutral or negative feedback, so that we can satisfactorily address your concerns. It is impossible to address issues if we do not know about them! |
0 out of 5 (0 Ratings)
Positive (0%) |
5 Stars (0)
4 Stars (0)
Neutral (0%) |
3 Stars (0)
Neutral (0%) |
2 Stars (0)
1 Star (0)
Name | Rating | Feedback |
Shipping Company | Shipping Cost | Estimated Delivery Time |
3 - 7 days | ||
3 - 7 days | ||
5 - 14 days | ||
Post Air Mail | Free Shipping | 15 - 45 days |
Return Policy | If the product you receive is not as described or low quality, the seller promises that you may return it before order completion (when you click "Confirm Order Received" or exceed confirmation timeframe) and receive a full refund. The return shipping fee will be paid by you. Or, you can choose to keep the product and agree the refund amount directly with the seller. N.B.: If the seller provides the "Longer Protection" service on this product, you may ask for refund up to 15 days after order completion. |
Seller Service | On-time DeliveryIf you do not receive your purchase within 60 days, you can ask for a full refund before order completion (when you click "Confirm Order Received" or exceed confirmation timeframe). |
Most Popular from Category
sterling silver jewelry necklaces pendants wholesale big princess temperament (Not contain chain)
Hot sale 2014 casual fashion watches men luxury brand analog sports military watch high quality quartz relogio masculino
New Free Shipping Fashion Jewelry Black Surface Quartz Wrist Watches For Men
US $5.98 / piece
Free shipping!!!Zinc Alloy Watch Bracelet,Brand jewelry, plated, nickel, lead & cadmium free, 49x44mm, 23mm
Free shipping!!!Shamballa Watch,Trendy Fashion Jewelry, Zinc Alloy, with Clay & Wax Cord & Glass, platinum color plated
ZJPEARL 2014 new Free ShIpping 8-9 mm design Natural Pearl Pendant Perfect Round White Freshwater Pearl in 925 Silver
US $50.00 / piece
online shopping, buying directly from manufacturers?
- Go to Alibaba.com and enter the wanted item into search field.
- Having made your choice, click "Contact supplier" button on the right
- On the next page enter your request and click "Send" button.
- Upon clicking you will be asked to get registered. Do it and wait for the reply.

subset: commoncrawl


text: The simple answer to the question why Pope Francis is headed to South Korea, in the first papal trip to Asia in 25 years, is straightforward. The pope is going to celebrate the sixth Asian Youth Day and beatify 124 martyrs of Korea. But the more complex answer has to take into consideration the Korean Catholic Church's unique history and the pope's theological agenda. These can give us a deeper understanding of why he is making this trip. While South Korea may not be viewed as an overtly Catholic nation (compared to the Philippines, the most Christian nation in Asia), at least 10% of South Korea's population belong to the Church, according to its statistics. The Catholic Church in Korea enjoys a high level of respect from non-Catholics, maintains good relations with other religious communities, and has a history of positive social engagement for the common good. Pope Francis's visit will recognize these accomplishments, a move that will not only please Koreans, but hold up their church as a model of evangelization. Evangelizing in Asia Since it is Asia that has the greatest potential for the growth of Catholicism, it makes sense to highlight an Asian success story and to recognize the Asian youth who will be called on to continue that growth. Evangelization is in fact a key concern for Pope Francis. His apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, focused on this topic and called for the transformation of the Catholic Church to focus on "the evangelization of today's world rather than for her self-preservation." The pope's concept of evangelization does not focus simply on baptizing new Catholics, but, as seen in the chapter from that exhortation entitled "The Social Dimension of Evangelization," also includes a call for the inclusion of the "homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, [and] the elderly who are increasingly isolated and abandoned." Moreover, this pope, while recognizing the importance of ordained clergy, decried "clericalism" before the publication of this exhortation, sees the laity as having an active role in evangelization. The pope's concerns as expressed in Evengelii Gaudium therefore resonate with the historical accomplishments of the Korean Catholic Church in that it has grown into a relatively large and healthy Catholic community with much of the work of evangelization being conducted by the laity. It is no accident that during his trip the pope will visit Kkottongnae (Flower Village), a Catholic institution devoted to caring for such marginalized groups as the elderly and the homeless, where he will meet with leaders of the Apostolate of the Laity. Origins of Korean Catholic Church The Korean Catholic Church began with the baptism of a Korean scholar named Yi Seung-hun in Beijing in 1784, who had developed an interest in Catholicism after reading Chinese books on the religion. After his baptism, Yi returned to Korea and began baptizing others, so that there were already 4,000 Catholics there before a missionary – a Chinese priest named Father James Zhou Wen-mo, himself one of the martyrs to be beatified – arrived in 1794. The Korean state could not tolerate the existence of a foreign religion whose members recognized a deity outside government control and persecuted the new church. Catholics were given the choice of giving up their religion or being sentenced to death, with several thousands choosing the latter and becoming martyrs. Despite these persecutions, the church managed to survive and rebuild itself multiple times. While foreign missionaries played an important role, much of the work of maintaining the community and spreading the faith was carried out by the laity. The coming of religious tolerance in the late 19th century led to an increase in the number of Catholics, but it was not until the 1960s that the Catholic Church in Korea began to grow quickly. While that growth has slowed down in recent years, the church is quite healthy, with its approximately five million members, according to the church. At the same time, it must be stressed that the Korean Catholic Church faces challenges. Growth has declined, and many newly baptized Catholics leave the faith or become lukewarm. Likewise, Korean society has many of the difficulties post-industrial societies in the West face, such as the "unbridled consumerism" the pope decried in his apostolic exhortation. It is here that one can see the importance of the martyrs who the pope will beatify. In their stories, one sees Catholics giving up wealth, sex, and even life itself out of their love for others and for God. The pope will no doubt highlight how their devotion to the faith led to the growth and development of the Catholic Community in Korea, allowing him to echo the themes found in his exhortation. The fact that he will beatify these martyrs in Korea the day after Koreans celebrate their independence from Japan, will not be missed by Koreans. The pope likely hopes that this recognition, and the teaching opportunity it provides, will renew evangelization in Korea, and through it, the world. READ: The Pope's top 10 tips for happiness


text:
Information About Software Escrows That You Need To Know
It is crucial for one to know that this is a type of service whereby a deposit of source code software is normally made using a third party. The third party, who is the escrow, is usually requested by the person who is issuing the license of the given software so that in the event that the license provider goes bankrupt or is unable to update or maintain the given software as per the agreements made, then the particular source code will be given to the person who is the licensee. It is essential that the parties that have been licensed to acquire this kind of a certificate to understand that the third party holder also has some necessities that should be met. Since this particular type of computer program helps in providing customized services for the majority of the firms that are very significant, there is need for one to understand all about them.
If it happens that one of the parties fails to play the role that it was supposed to play in the running and maintenance of a software, then the escrow allows the person that was to receive the license to gain access to the created source code once the escrow has eventually ascertained that software maintenance cannot be guaranteed as per the agreement in the contract which the two participating parties had come into. After this has been done, the running plus also the maintenance of the given company's computer program will continue despite the fact that the licensor of the thing cannot continue to perform the functions because he or she has gone bankrupt.
It is very important for you as the owner of a firm to ensure that you get to read the terms of the contract that you are being provided with and also get to understand every detail that is in the contract since the type of agreement that you get into with the other party shall not be released to the members of the general public. The terms of the contract will be well explained but in case you find this hard for you to read and understand, you can find a legal expert that is familiar with these types of agreements so that he or she can help you understand and also direct you in the decision making process. When you get to ask for help from a officially authorized expert, things will be explained to you using the simplest words for you to understand and this will therefore enable you to get a clear picture of the things that you did not understand before.


text:
- Parks and Facilities
Park Street Garden
Other Link | Garden Wait List Form |
- Community Garden
SFRPD supports and manages 42 (and growing!) Community Gardens located across the City where garden volunteers can grow produce and ornamental plants for personal use. There are several ways to participate in one of our Community Gardens.
Individual plots allotted via a wait-list system: Some community gardens are composed entirely of plots allotted to individuals with some common areas for shared perennial herbs, native plants and fruit trees. These gardens may have regularly scheduled workdays, self-imposed annual dues to purchase shared garden tools and equipment, and either an individual volunteer garden coordinator or a steering committee that manages membership, workday plans, and plot assignments. This is the most common type of community garden experience. Individuals can request to be placed on the wait list for a specific garden.
Please Note:
Due to high interest in community gardening, you must be a resident of San Francisco to be allocated a plot. Once a plot is available, the volunteer garden coordinator will contact the next name on the wait list to offer a plot. Some gardens have very little turnover and the wait can be considerable. You are welcome to add your name to several garden wait lists but please consider travel time, parking, and access to public transportation.
When a plot becomes available, the garden coordinator will conduct a new member orientation that will include garden access, member agreements, collection of dues (when indicated), and garden practices around composting, invasive plants, water use, and waste removal. Orientation will also include introductions to current garden volunteers who can serve as mentors while you learn to garden in your new space.
Visit the Community Gardens main page


text:
by hilzoy
A few days ago I wrote about a loan John McCain had taken out, in which he tried to use his future eligibility for federal matching funds as collateral. Presumably, he did this in order to get the money he needed to keep his campaign afloat without using the matching finds themselves as collateral. And the reason it was important not to use those funds as collateral was that according to the FEC, doing so would constitute "accepting " those funds, and thus subjecting himself and his campaign to the limitations that go with it.
I am not a lawyer, and thus have no opinion about whether McCain's loan violates the, um, McCain Feingold Act, or any other provision of federal law. But I did think that this was a pretty transparent attempt to violate its spirit. Campaign finance laws ask candidates to make a choice: either you take federal money, in which case you are subject to a number of restrictions, or else you don't take it, in which case you are not. Getting a loan by using the matching funds you have not yet received as collateral is a way of trying to have it both ways: essentially, you get to spend your matching funds now, but because the money did not literally come from the government, you can delay a decision about whether or not to accept the restrictions that go with them until later. If you can leverage the money into enough wins to generate contributions, you can pay back the loan and duck the restrictions; if not, you've lost anyways, so you might as well abide by them. That's exactly what campaign finance laws do not want candidates to be able to do.
McCain tried to be tricky about this: he didn't use the matching funds he had qualified for as collateral, but he did use the fact that he could qualify for them at any time. That's why he had to give away his legal right to withdraw from the campaign if he lost: to satisfy his lenders, he had to promise to stay in long enough to actually get the matching funds he qualified for, and to give them first dibs on those funds. Whether or not this violates the law -- a law McCain authored -- I have no idea, but it is certainly an attempt to wriggle out of its requirements, and it ought to put paid, once and for all, to the idea of McCain as a straight-talking man of principle.
Apparently, the FEC has the same questions I had about McCain's loan. The AP reports (h/t TPM):
"The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign.Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November.
McCain's lawyer, Trevor Potter, said Wednesday evening that McCain has withdrawn from the system and that the FEC can't stop him. Potter said the campaign did not encumber the public funds in any way. (...)
By accepting the public money, McCain would be limited to spending about $54 million for the primaries, a ceiling his campaign is near. That would significantly hinder his ability to finance his campaign between now and the Republican National Convention in September."
The FEC's letter to McCain is here (pdf); the amount McCain has already spent during the primaries is $49,650,185.36; the exact FEC limits on primary spending are not yet available, but if this were 2007, they would have been $40.89 million, which is considerably less than McCain has already spent. I assume that the AP got its figure of "about $54 million" from the FEC; if so, then McCain has about four and a half million dollars to spend between now and the Convention in September.
One further problem:
"Complicating the dispute is the FEC's current lack of a quorum. The six-member commission has four vacancies and Senate Democrats and Republicans are at loggerheads over how to fill them.In his letter, Mason told McCain he would need the votes of four commissioners to accept his withdrawal from the system.
"The commission will consider your request at such a time as it has a quorum," Mason wrote.
Without action by the Senate, McCain could be waiting indefinitely. (...)
Potter [McCain's lawyer] said McCain will continue with his campaign and not adhere to the public financing system's limits on spending. Without a full commission, Mason has little enforcement power. Likewise, without an FEC, McCain has no way to appeal Mason's conclusion."
The FEC thinks it needs a quorum in order to approve McCain's withdrawal. But it also needs a quorum in order to enforce its decisions. And as Mark Schmitt said about McCain, "it's pretty clear that his attitude toward the Federal Election Commission on this question is, "Come and get me!""


text:
Here's the latest article from the Conception site at BellaOnline.com.
Pre-pregnancy checkup
What is involved in a pre-pregnancy checkup with your doctor? A few tests to make sure that you're good to go.
Please visit Conception.bellaonline.com for even more great content about Conception.
To participate in free, fun online discussions, this site has a community forum all about Conception located here -
I hope to hear from you sometime soon, either in the forum or in response to this email message. I thrive on your feedback!
Have fun passing this message along to family and friends, because we all love free knowledge!
Stacy Wiegman, Conception Editor
One of hundreds of sites at BellaOnline.com


text:
GMOs and the Mentality of Propaganda Control
Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
Progressive Radio Network, October 10, 2016
The evidence for genetically modified organism (GMOs) safety for human consumption and its environmental risks remains one of the nation's most contentious, controversial and debated subjects. Throughout the world, governments, national health ministries and their populations have been led to believe that there is no reason to critically object to GMOs. American mainstream media, which have now been fully absorbed into the agendas of large multinational corporate chemical and food sponsors, claim GMOs are completely harmless. We are sold a promise that they are urgently needed for feeding the world. Consequently, in the absence of critical journalism, aside from independent media, the spread of GMOs has become widespread.
Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, and Bayer dominate the global GMO market. Corn is the US' number one crop with eighty-nine percent being genetically modified. Ninety-three percent of American soybeans are GMO. GM sugar beets, certain squashes, canola, alfalfa, papaya (77% of Hawaii's crop), and new apple strains are genetically engineered. Many more GM vegetables and fruits are in the pipeline. Only during the past 15 years have voices within the environmental and public health movements, and free-thinking scientists and researchers in molecular biology, genetics and agriculture turned vocal to publicly challenge GMO safety and their exaggerated promises. One especially unfounded promise, often promulgated by Monsanto and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the GMO revolution's ability to feed the world. Yet as a senior economic analyst at the Environmental Working Group in Washington DC has reported, "this is simply a myth adopted and deployed by US agribusiness to distract the public from reality."[1]
Every leading opponent and critic of GMOs is well known to the chemical industry and its army of public relation provocateurs and internet trolls. Many have been mercilessly attacked, libeled and slandered through a sophisticated network of PR hacks, industry special interest groups, educational and pseudo-scientific organizations and projects, and the mainstream media, publications and lobbying firms. In the wake of the agri-industry's PR efforts to bolster erroneous favorable images of GMOs and chemical based agriculture, careers have been destroyed. For example, FOX journalists Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson were destroyed by Monsanto for providing scientific evidence about the dangers of genetically modified bovine growth hormone in milk.[2] Mainstream media willingly provides a red carpet for GMO advocates to promote the promises of genetic engineering but denies equal time to its scientific critics. So effective have been the chemical industry's attacks that even peer reviewed research showing GMO risks has been retracted.
Perhaps the most important and damning case of retracted science is that of Eric Gilles Seralini's studies. Seralini and his colleagues at the University of Caen in France reproduced Monsanto's own safety trials for GMO maize. However, Seralini continued the study for the entire lifespan of the laboratory animals. Monsanto only published studies conducted over a three month period. Seralini discovered a direct correlation between GM maize consumption with kidney and liver diseases, hormonal disturbance and cancer. Later investigations revealed that a sustained effort by Monsanto lobbyists and the food industry influenced the study's retraction from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Subsequently, the study was republished by another journal and now remains on the scientific record. Recently, a French court uncovered the original author behind the fraud allegations against Seralini's research, which led to the retraction. He was identified as Forbes Magazine journalist and former FDA official, Henry I Miller, a former tobacco lobbyist with a history of denying smoking's association to cancer and heart disease.[3]
The entire pseudo-scientism behind corporate sponsored GMO and pesticide trials to twist data results to support Big Ag's version of safety is an illusion. Even when their own research is proven faulty and corrupt, no explanations are given. Intellectual honesty, courage and integrity are completely absent from not only the large chemical and food companies but from all their supporters in the universities, academies, the scientific blogosphere, and public relations firms and quasi think tanks relied upon for lobbying efforts on behalf of Big Ag.
Today the lesson is clear that money, power and influence sustain the lies and deceit of private industry. Take on any powerful interest and Big Ag will come after you.
Big Ag has turned the clock back to the era of the tobacco industry's legacy. Decades ago, regardless of how many lawsuits were filed showing tobacco's causal relationship to cancer, emphysema, heart disease and nicotine addiction, none were won. Years later, and only with the emergence of an executive within the tobacco industry turned whistleblower, Jeffrey Wigand, did the government learn that the heads of the tobacco corporations had lied before Congress. Even the FDA possessed proprietary information from the tobacco industry itself proving smoking's health risks yet refused to educate the public.
During the past six decades, corporations and their hired lobbyists and PR firms have launched multi-million dollar public campaigns, largely organized and funded in the shadows, to attack critics and activist opponents of DDT, dioxin, saccharine, aspartame, the industrial meat industry, fluoride, psychiatric drugs, hydro-fracking, sugar, vaccines, alcohol, nuclear power, and other toxic substances. Regardless of the health concerns and risks of these chemicals and activities, offensive corporate behavior designed to ridicule, demonize and systematically marginalize opponents is similar and taken from the same playbook. Yet in every case it has been the independent scientific research relied upon by the critics that have been proven correct. Over the decades corporate funded science, the media and the private industries themselves have been proven wrong consistently. The agri-industry's science is faith based and full of contradictions and unsound claims. Unfortunately government regulators are slow to act on the facts. Dangerous products remain for public consumption for many years before resolute action is taken to ban them. In the meantime, millions of people have been directly harmed or killed by pervasive scientific fraud. Worse, no one in private industry who is caught for perpetuating scientific and medical deception and fraud is held accountable. Corporations settle out of court, pay fines that are a fraction of their revenues, and remain in favor with Wall Street and investors. And those at the federal level are protected and concealed from prosecution altogether.
The history of bad science propagated by private firms has always shown to be profit over health. Inevitably it is self-educated citizens and the victims of corporate greed and profit, not the federal government, who unveil the lies. It wasn't the federal agencies who raised alarm over DDT's dangers but a marine biologist, Rachel Carson, acting upon her own convictions, who uncovered the plot in her seminal book Silent Spring. Over the years, many advocates for public safety—Ralph Nader, Jim Turner, Sydney Wolf, Michael Jacobson, Ronnie Cummins, Andrew Wakefield and many others—have battled the righteous struggle to protect consumers against dangerous and unsafe drugs, chemicals and products that the federal government more often than not defends and protects on behalf of corporate interests.
In all such cases, proponents of consumer safety and health have had to struggle against an army of lobbyists, consultants, think tanks, public relations firms and a complicit media with the wealth and influence to convince people that their fears are unfounded and they should wholeheartedly embrace toxic substances. Not unlike the medical establishment, the industrial food industry has created a vast network of allies in all walks of life and within government to promote its cause. Realizing the sheer depth and breadth of this network and the endless money pumped into its public relations machine to keep the myths of GMOs alive and front and center is not only deeply disturbing but also rather impressive. It is a leviathan of enormous scale and influence. And there is little wonder that even with the most damning scientific evidence to discredit anything of long-term value regarding GMOs, virtually nothing is done at the federal level to protect the public.
After reviewing hundreds of research studies and articles, dozens of interviews, and numerous conversations, we are convinced that science overwhelming supports a cautionary position about the safety and promises of GMOs. This research is all in the public domain which begs the questions, why is the federal government reluctant to take action? And why is the chemical agricultural and Big Food industry in complete denial to accept the risks of its products, many which are known carcinogens?
For example, last year, we were made aware of a mother lode of formerly sealed Monsanto documents the EPA was forced to release through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request only after considerable political pressure was applied. The documents, over 10,000 pages worth, provide clear and unequivocal proof that Monsanto has known for many years the serious carcinogenic risks and environmental dangers associated with glyphosate (Roundup) before any GMO seed ever reached the market. Today, approximately 80% of all products with corn and soy on grocery shelves are laced with glyphosate. Monsanto, similar to the tobacco industry, concealed and covered up the health risks about their flagship product for several decades. And even more egregious, the federal EPA has known this for years and still sat on the damning documents.
Our thorough summary about the release of these Monsanto documents was published in The Ecologist. However mainstream media has completely ignored and denied the public urgency in this treasure trove of data that damns practically everything positive Monsanto and the USDA has ever stated about glyphosate's safety for animal and human consumption and the environment.[5]
Whatever scientific integrity these people may have once held, it has been compromised in a Faustian deal with private financial interests. GMO science has become a mad science, a form of pathology that hides behind the illusion of being objective.
Instead, independent researchers, their citizen supporters and anti-GMO activists are venomously attacked by every means available. Conveniently anonymous Wikipedia editors are clearly advocates of the health and food industries as any alternative doctor or health practitioner can attest when she or he attempts to change false information on their profiles. And now many otherwise independent liberal, independent media sources, such as Mother Jones and Alternet, are increasingly following suit. It pays to play the game with the powers that have money.
So who are these people behind the efforts to suppress opposition? Who are the real trolls doing agribusiness' dirty work? When we pull back the curtain, the wizards behind the chemical food industry who control the message through the media through a well-oiled public relations network are exposed.
The Genetic Literacy Project and University of California at Davis
The chemical agricultural industry relies upon American universities in many ways. Collaborations between corporations, such as Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont, and university agricultural departments are common place and this has been the increasing trend in the academic community since the 1980s and the emergence of biotechnology. What is more recent has been a new trend whereby universities across the U.S. participate directly or indirectly in the marketing promotion of GMOs. In effect, some universities now act as private industry's lobbyists. And this becomes a greater scandal when the university is a public institution receiving public funding. Such is the case of the University of California at Davis and its prestigious agriculture department.
To date, US Right to Know has filed seventeen public records requests, per the California Public Records Act, to receive information about the funding of questionable activities that go beyond serving public education and only benefit private interests such as Monsanto.[6]
Among these lobbying groups operating on the UC campus is the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP).[7] Over the years GLP has gained recognition as a credible and reliable source of information about GMOs. It is one of the most frequently quoted sources of information by pro-GMO advocates and journalists. However in our opinion, GLP is perhaps one of the most spurious, financially compromised and scientifically illiterate organizations, founded and funded for the sole purpose of disseminating false pro-GMO propaganda that distorts peer reviewed literature in order to prop up public support for GMOs and genetic engineering in general.[8]
The Project has become the GMO industry's clearing house for public relations to spin science into advertising, propaganda and character assassination of GM opponents. It is also the primary site now sourcing the review of 1,700-plus studies favoring GMO safety. This review of over 1,700 studies, also known as the Nicolia Review, is the most cited source making the broadest claims for GMO safety. Yet over the years, many independent, industry free and unbiased researchers have reviewed the Nicolia Review and their conclusions are far from what private industry wants us to believe. Many of these studies are tangential at best and barely take notice of anything related to crop genetic engineering or GMOs. Many are also completely irrelevant from a value-added perspective because they have nothing to do with GMO safety whatsoever. Furthermore, other studies in this collection conclude the exact opposite and prove GMOs environmental and animal and human health risks. When Nicolia published his review, heintentionally omitted and ignored scientifically sound research that directly investigated GMO safety as a prime target that found convincing evidence supporting GMOs risks. For example, one peer-reviewed publication by over 300 independent scientists declared that there is no scientific consensus that GM crops and food are safe. Curiously, there is no mention of this study in the Nicolia Review.[9]
The Genetic Literacy Project is not a scientific project in any proper sense of the term. Its founder and head Jon Entine has no formal academic scientific background. Nor has he ever worked in an academic or corporate research driven environment before crawling up the top of the ladder to become one of the GMO industry's leading PR gurus and propagandists. GLP will not release its exact funding sources but Entine repeatedly claims that 97% of its funding derives from non-partisan, independent foundations.[10]
This might sound impressive, but lobbying and the channeling of funds has changed dramatically during the past decade. A new and more popular generation of lobbying practices and ways to avoid K Street regulations, has reshaped the means by which public relations, propaganda, and economic and political pressures are enacted. This new model of lobbying has become an ever-spreading fungus of think tanks, foundations, associations, and nonprofit entities, often with impressive names, that serve no other purpose aside from steering funds between various entities as lobbying payoffs. For an excellent understanding about how this new form of shadow lobbying network operates, I would recommend George Mason University Professor Janine Wedel's publication Unaccountable: How Elite Power Brokers Corrupt Our Finances, Freedom and Security.
It is no secret that Monsanto and Big Ag, and more recently the USDA, have significant undue influence over all of UC-Davis agricultural department and divisions. The bogus economic studies trumped up by the Big Ag cartel to defeat California's GMO labeling bill Prop 37 were performed at this university. Gary Ruskin who has been filing FOIA requests has publicly expressed deep concerns that UC Davis has been acting as a financial conduit for private corporations and interests to develop and launch PR attacks against academics, professors, activists and other institutions who oppose those same corporate interests. Agro-ecologist Dr. Don Lotter, who was interviewed for our documentary Seeds of Death in 2011, was an employed scientist at UC-Davis' agriculture school. In 2009, Dr Lotter published a paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food that presented a "damning case against genetically modified foods, saying the technology is based on obsolete science, that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have too much influence on government regulators and "public" universities, and that university scientists are ignoring the health and environmental risks of GM crops." Lotter was subsequently forced out of the University for his truth telling.[11]
Like many plant scientists who have awakened to the serious risks GMO crops pose to the future food security of the nation and planet, Lotter advocates for agro-ecological methods in farming recommended by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Some 60 governments signed IAASTD's final report in April 2008, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The IAASTD report, the first of its kind ever produced, calls for a fundamental change in farming practices, in order to address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities, and environmental disasters. It acknowledges that GM crops are highly controversial. IAASTD director, Robert Watson, chief scientist at the UK food and farming department DEFRA, said much more research was needed to prove whether GM crops offer any benefits and do not harm human health and the environment. Biotech companies Monsanto, Syngenta, and BASF withdrew from IAASTD because it did not back GMOs as a solution to reduce poverty and hunger. The comprehensive report was produced by over 400 scientists from around the world over a 3-year period. The study was sponsored by a number of major international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, and UNESCO.Not surprisingly and conspicuously, the United States was one of only three nations present at the IAASTD conference that refused to sign the accord.[12]
Jon Entine
Jon Entine is a perfect choice to head up the GLP's well-funded propaganda operations that specializes in distributing disinformation. He is a former TV news writer and producer for ABC and NBC. Currently this non-scientist is also senior fellow at University of California at Davis' Institute for Food and Agriculture Literacy (IFAL). IFAL is another entity that has remained secretive and non-transparent, refusing to reveal its funding sources. Freedom of Information Act requests were filed to force the University to reveal its sources. But these FOIA requests continue to be thwarted.[13]
Entine is a shameless hack for mainstream big industry as is demonstrated by his record of being paid to protect dangerous and controversial products. An investigative report in the Boston Globe revealed that Monsanto executives recruited prestigious professors to write favorable papers about their products, namely GMOs and chemical pesticides.[14] Entine publicly admitted to Bloomberg that he has helped edit their work in the past. Yet, Entine doesn't limit himself to GMOs. He has viciously attacked a prestigious Harvard scientist and climate change expert, Naomi Orestes, who opposes nuclear power. He supports, without reservation, the use of neonicitinoid pesticides that have been repeatedly shown to contribute to honeybee colony collapse. In fact, Entine has written that neonics benefit bees in his attack on European nations that have formally banned neonics. He denies that phthalates, an endocrine hormone disrupter banned in Europe, are health hazards. He has supported another endocrine disruptor BPA, also partially banned in Europe. Entine defends hydraulic fracking and has consistently attacked Cornell University scientists who are perhaps the world's experts in hydro-fracking's risks and its most harsh critics. This list goes on and on.[15]
A Case Example of Public Deception about GMOs
In June 2016, 108 Nobel laureates signed a letter against Greenpeace and the international organization's opposition to genetically engineered Golden Rice. This rice, which has yet to be brought to market, was formulated in the belief that it would significantly reduce illnesses associated with Vitamin A deficiency which is primarily a problem for the poorest people on the planet, primarily Africa and Southeast Asia. There has been considerable criticism s of the letter. On the one hand, the argument doesn't follow that every one of these laureates supports all GMOs in general. Nevertheless, the Nobel letter has become the gold standard of agribusiness' industry's PR machine which propagandized the letter as it fed the letter to the mainstream media. Consequently, the news blared that the laureates are in agreement that all GMOs are safe. But nothing could be further from the truth.[16]
Looking at this more deeply, the Nobel laureates' letter has an interesting gensis. Its originator was Sir Richard Roberts, who received the Nobel Prize for discovering genetic sequences known as introns. Sir Roberts currently serves as Chief Science Officer at New England Biolabs which is involved in GMO research. Roberts also happens to have earned a somewhat controversial reputation as a leading promulgator of GMOs in India and has been accused of unfounded exaggeration of food shortage threats to the lives of millions of people unless there is wholesale, uncritical adoption of GMOs.[17] At this moment, lawsuits remain pending against Monsanto for violating India's regulations and the national government is in session to possibly ban Monsanto's GMO cotton. GMOs have been a nightmare for the Indian subcontinent; Monsanto knows this and is already making efforts to step further away from India as a market for its genetically engineered seeds. Forbes magazine recently profiled Sir Robert's most recent mission to promulgate GMOs to the world religious leaders including Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama.[18]
For many academics possessing actual experience in agricultural sciences and developmental conditions in third world nations, the laureates' letter was an outrage. According to professor Devon Pena at the University of Washington, and an expert in indigenous agriculture, the laureates' letter is "shameful." He noted that the signatories were "mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agro-ecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels." In fact one "signatory", Alfred Gilman, was already dead. And none of the Nobel signatories have any background in agriculture, which led a professor of physical sciences and statistics at UC-Berkeley to write "Science is supposed to be 'show me', not 'trust me'… Nobel Prize or not."[19]
So, how did Sir Roberts, gather 107 signatures from Nobel laureates? The press conference that first announced this PR achievement was directly connected to Monsanto's former PR man, Jay Byrne, now head of the biotech industry PR firm v-Fluence. In addition, the laureates' letter was originally housed at the website, supportprecisionagriculture.org. Curiously its sister website, supportprecisionagriculture.com finds its home with the Genetic Literacy Project. Jon Entine is a close associate of Byrne, having been the editor of Byrne's book "Let Them Eat Precaution," published by the pro-business and conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.[20]
And there is one further caveat to the Nobel laureate letter. According to the International Rice Research Institute, Golden Rice is not ready for release. It has yet to be tested for toxicity and has yet to prove efficacy in combating health conditions related to vitamin A deficiency.[21] This was the primary reason behind Greenpeace's opposition to its release on the market. Greenpeace adopted a precautionary stance. Nevertheless the GMO industry with the assistance of the GLP turned this into an opportunity for a publicity misinformation stunt to silence one of GMOs largest critics.
American Council on Science and Health
The Genetic Literacy Project is a key collaborator with another food industry front organization, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). But ACSH has very little do with actual science of health. It has been described by the independent corporate financial watchdog organization Sourcewatch as a thinly veiled corporate front that holds "a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Syngenta, Proctor Gamble, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others."[22] ACSH is also in favor of toxic pesticides, the use of biphenol A in products and hydrofracking. It is also closely aligned with pseudo-medical front organizations that criticize alternative and natural health modalities. Among ACSH's board of scientific advisors is controversial Quackbuster founder, Steven Barrett.
The extremist Koch Brother's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has also been associated with the ACSH. This information was leaked to Mother Jones and subsequently, ACSH's executive director Dr. Gilbert Ross did not deny the veracity of the leaked information. Remarkably, Ross was convicted of scamming Medicaid for $8 million in 2005, had his medical license revoked, and served half of a 46 month prison. He now has his license back and is heading one of the more powerful food lobbying organizations in the nation.[23]
Ketchum and GMO Answers
Ketchum is the principle public relations firm for Monsanto, Dow Chemical and mega grocery manufacturers such as Kraft. The GMO and food industries are among Ketchum's special focus areas. Ketchum is owned by the corporate giant Omnicom and has a checkered history that includes unsavory clients and engaging in questionable legal activities. It spearheaded the public relations efforts to improve the image of Honduras following the Obama administration's backed coup in 2009. A Mother Jones investigative report in 2010 uncovered Ketchum's espionage activities targeted against Greenpeace on behalf of Dow Chemical.
In 2013, Ketchum launched GMO Answers, an interactive, personalized website to convince the public to accept GM foods and produce. According to Gary Ruskin's investigations at US Right to Know, GMO Answers claims the public's questions and concerns about GMOs are answered by qualified scientists and professors. However it was uncovered that much of the pro-GMO materials is ghostwritten by Ketchum employees or independent contractors.
In an interview with US Right to Know founder, Gary Ruskin, Ketchum was identified as recruiting an army of journalists, trolls and private industry compromised scientists and academics to defend GMOs, pesticides and processed foods containing GMO ingredients.[25]
Cornell Alliance for Science
Many pro-GMO front organizations frame themselves as scientific organizations to seduce people into believing they are engaged in an actual scientific inquiry. In fact, these groups are nothing more than well-funded propaganda machines devoted to the distribution of misinformation and faux research in order to promote the GMO agriculture agenda. Such organizations are now commonplace in the corporate scientific community and medical establishment.
One such GMO public relations front is the Alliance for Science at Cornell University (AFS). As reported by GM Watch, AFS does not conduct any agricultural research, yet its tentacles reach far and wide largely to attack GMO opponents. Similar to the Genetic Literacy Project at University of California at Davis agriculture department, the AFS makes the unfounded claim to represent "balanced" research about genetic engineered products. One of its missions is to influence the next generation of agricultural scientists to embrace GMO science. For AFS, as for Bill Gates, GMOS are the only food solution for Africa in the future. Recently, organic farmers in New York mobilized to pressure the Trustees of Cornell University to evict AFS' presence and influence over the school's prestigious College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.[26]
Several incidents of protest against anti-GMO organizations and activists now reveal that AFS is nothing more than a propaganda campaign to attack and discredit opposition. Two of its most notable targets have been the non-profit organization US Right to Know in Oakland CA and the public appearances by the international organic food activist Vandana Shiva. US Right to Know is devoted to exposing what the food industry and Big Agriculture corporations such as Monsanto don't want the public to know. AFS waslaunched in 2014 after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation granted AFS $5.6 million in start-up money.[27]
The chemical industry's GMO tobacco science aside, what is most disturbing is that the public has become the victim of one of the greatest deceptions in our midst that will have untold detrimental consequences in the future. The public has blindly trusted the statements of our government agencies — particularly the FDA and USDA that has been headed by former Monsanto personnel since Clinton's first term. Our legislators and mainstream media profit from the industrial food firms and associations, that GMOs are safe and are saving the planet by reducing hunger. Nothing can be further from the truth as we witness more and more nations, particularly in the developing world, rejecting the GMO agricultural paradigm.
Whenever the truth is told, no matter the amount of prevailing documentation and expert witness presented, there is an enormous push back by agriculture industry spin doctors, hired professional PR firms, and internet trolls paid to promulgate lies, misinformation and character assassination of all anti-GMO advocates. There is no honor, no responsibility to accept reliable and trustworthy data or any science contrary to agribusiness interests. These corporations make every effort to reduce the urgency of their products' health risks in order to protect the guilty.
So far, the war of facts about GMO safety has had little impact in altering or shifting national policy. This is because of the overarching economic interests of large corporations that must protect the enormous financial rewards reaped from false advertising, deception, misinformation, and character assassinations of their opponents. The success of Big Agriculture's public relations strategy and operations has been fear, intimidation, and character assassination. It has never been a campaign based upon scientific facts, but only scientific deception, spin and outright falsehoods. Unfortunately, mainstream media continually laps up this misinformation while ignoring any contrary independent research.
There must be a public debate, on a nationally recognized level, of independent GMO research, not compromised by commercial or ideological interests, to commence and lay to rest GMO safety issues once and for all. This is the only way that the truth will finally come out and the propaganda control by GMO agribusiness will be broken
Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation's longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Seeds of Death about GMOs and Poverty Inc. More at the Progressive Radio Network
[1] "Despite 'Cloak of Moral Necessity,' Report Shows Big Ag Can't Feed the World" http://commondreams.org/news/2016/10/05/despite-cloak-moral-necessity-report-shows-big-ag-cant-feed-world
[2] "The BGH Scandals" PR Watch. Volume 7, No. 4, 2000. https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/rbgh/akrepart1.php
[3] http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/
[4] "Seralini wins again in court against his attackers" GM Watch, Sepetmber 26, 2016. http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17236
[5] Gale R, Null G. "Monsanto Knew All Along. Secret Studies Reveal the Truth of Roundup Toxicity," The Ecologist. September 18, 2015. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985458/monsanto_knew_all_along_secret_studies_reveal_the_truth_of_roundup_toxicity.html
[6] https://usrtk.org/news-releases/uc-davis-sued-for-failing-to-release-public-records-on-gmos-and-pesticides/
[7] https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org
[8] Katherine Paul, "How Monsanto solicited academics to bolster their pro-GMO propaganda using taxpayer dollars," Alternet. October 15, 2015. http://www.alternet.org/food/monsanto-scandal-biotech-giant-solicited-academics-fight-their-pro-gmo-war
[9] Antoniou M, Fagan M, Robinson C. "GMO Myths and Truths" 2015 second edition. http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/download/
[10] Heyes JD. "Who's funding Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project's pro-GMO propaganda?" Natural News, April 6, 2016. http://www.naturalnews.com/053565_Jon_Entine_character_assassin_funding_sources.html
[11] see documentary film Seeds of Death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OxbpLwEjQ
[12] "Scientist jeopardizes career by publishing paper criticizing GM foods". The Organic and Non-GMO Report, 2009. http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/nov09/scientists_criticizing_gm_foods.php
[13] http://www.truthwiki.org/Jon_Entine/#exactline
[14] Laura Krantz. "Harvard Professor failed to disclose connection." Boston Globe. October 1, 2015. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/01/harvard-professor-failed-disclose-monsanto-connection-paper-touting-gmos/lLJipJQmI5WKS6RAgQbnrN/story.html
[15] US Right to Know. http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/jon-entine-the-chemical-industrys-master-messenger/
[16] http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17077-pro-gmo-campaign-exploits-nobel-laureates-to-attack-greenpeace-and-fool-the-people
[17] Ibid.
[18] "Nobel laureate Sir Richard Roberts to ask religious and government leaders to support GMOs" Forbes. September 21, 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/09/21/nobel-laureate-sir-richard-roberts-to-ask-religious-and-government-leaders-to-support-gmos/#695a848e5cc8
[19] http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17077-pro-gmo-campaign-exploits-nobel-laureates-to-attack-greenpeace-and-fool-the-people
[20] Ibid.
[21] "Who is to blame for the failure of GMO golden rice?" Independent Science News. August 10, 2016. https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/millions-spent-who-is-to-blame-failure-gmo-golden-rice/
[22] http://www.truthwiki.org/jon_entine/
[23] Bill Hogan. "Paging Dr. Ross," Mother Jones. November 2005. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross
[24] James Ridgeway. "Black Ops, Green Groups" Mother Jones. April 11, 2008. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/04/exclusive-cops-and-former-secret-service-agents-ran-black-ops-green-groups?
[25] Interview with Gary Ruskin. Progressive Radio Network. September 27, 2016. https://prn.live/progressive-commentary-hour-09-27-16/
[26] Ibid.
[27] "Gates Foundation Backed Pro-GMO Cornell Alliance for Science on the Attack," Corporate Crime Reporter. March 5, 2015. http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/gates-foundation-backed-pro-gmo-cornell-alliance-science-attack/


text:
De Pere, WI-based Cleaning Systems Inc., provider of cleaning and protection products for the vehicle industry, has announced the appointment of John Antonis as vice president of sales for CSI. In his new position, Antonis will lead all of CSI sales efforts throughout each division. Antonis joined CSI in May 2013 as vice president of sales and marketing for CSI's SAS™ (Solution Application Systems) division.
CSI has three distinct divisions to focus resources and fulfill the company's vision. The Lustra division specializes in the car wash industry, the DynaEdge division specializes in commercial transportation, and the newest division, SAS, specializes in the application of cleaning and protection chemicals in the transportation industry.


text:
Nickelodeon TV Movie "Nicky Deuce" Premieres May 27
via Nickelodeon press release:
iCARLY'S NOAH MUNCK AND THE SOPRANOS' STEVE SCHIRRIPA STAR IN NICKELODEON AND MARVISTA ENTERTAINMENT'S ORIGINAL KIDS TV MOVIE NICKY DEUCE, PREMIERING MONDAY, MAY 27, AT 8PM (ET/PT) ON NICK AT NITE
NEW YORK – April 19, 2013 – Nickelodeon, R&R Productions and MarVista Entertainment have united a star-studded cast including Noah Munck (iCarly's Gibby) and The Sopranos' Steve Schirripa, for the original kids TV movie Nicky Deuce, premiering Monday, May 27, at 8:00 p.m (ET/PT) on Nick at Nite. Based on the same-titled popular children's book by Schirripa and Charles Fleming, the movie also features comedic cameos from Sopranos stars James Gandolfini, Michael Imperioli, Vincent Curatola and Tony Sirico, along with a guest appearance by Rita Moreno. Nicky Deuce will begin airing on Nickelodeon's international channels in fall 2013.
Munck stars in Nicky Deuce as Nicholas Borelli II, a nerdy, over-protected teen who transforms into the title character. Nicholas gets caught in the adventure of a lifetime when his plans to attend math camp go awry and he is sent to spend the summer with an uncle (played by Schirripa) he never knew he had in Brooklyn, NY. A fish out of water at first, Nicholas leans on local kids to help him fit in and winds up mistakenly earning a reputation as a tough guy. When confronted with some questionable dealings, Nicky uncovers family secrets and learns that the mean streets of Brooklyn aren't always what they seem.
"I'm excited for fans to see Nicky Deuce come to life from a book I wrote over seven years ago," said Schirripa. "Especially, because I was able to share it with my friends who reunited for this special project. It has been a long and rewarding road."
In addition to his co-starring role in the film, Schirripa serves as executive producer alongside R&R's Ronald Gilbert and MarVista's Fernando Szew (Beyond the Break, Radio Rebel) and Robyn Snyder (A Golden Christmas, 16 Wishes). Jon Rosenbaum (Big Time Rush, Supah Ninjas) is directing from a script by Andy Callahan (Ties That Bind), and Art Brown and Douglas Sloan (The Boy Who Cried Werewolf, DreamWorks' Dragons: Riders of Berk). R&R's Ric Nish is producing.
Noah Munck's portrayal of Gibby on iCarly marks the first series regular role for the talented comedic actor and earned him a 2011 Kids' Choice Award nomination. Munck has co-starred in several television series including All of Us, American Body Shop and 1321 Clover, and has guest starred in Rules of Engagement, Wizards of Waverly Place, and ER. He was the national spokesperson Bobby Sinclair for TruGreen lawn care. He made his feature film debut in 2010 as tough-guy Ryan Tucker in The Rainbow Tribe. Munck's filmography also includes roles in All About Steve, Four Christmases and Bad Teacher. He will next be seen in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, Nickelodeon's original TV movie Swindle and the new season of Arrested Devlopment.
Steve Schirripa is best known for playing the likeable Bobby Baccalieri on The Sopranos. In addition to his six seasons on that show and 5 seasons on The Secret Life of the American Teenager, his other many television appearances include Joey, King of Queens and My Wife and Kids. Schirripa also hosts, narrates and executive produces the television true-crime series on Investigation Discovery's Nothing Personal, and appeared in Clint Eastwood's Hereafter.
About MarVista Entertainment:
Founded in September 2003 and headquartered in Los Angeles, California, MarVista Entertainment celebrates its 10th Anniversary this year. The independent Company has grown to become a leading global producer and distributor of film and television programming with a library now featuring 2,000+ hours of content. MarVista provides programming to U.S. cable networks, including Disney Channel, Lifetime, Hallmark Channel, NBC Universal, and MTV Networks, as well as key international broadcasters, generating extensive global terrestrial and pay television viewership. In the production arena, the Company continues to build its original production slate, forging significant co-production alliances with major entertainment companies, including the Disney Channel for the top-rated features starring Debby Ryan, 16 Wishes and Radio Rebel, and with Nickelodeon the family feature, Nicky Deuce, starring cast members from the Sopranos and due to premiere this year. In the children's media arena, MarVista serves as the exclusive international distributor for Saban Brands' top rated action adventure franchise, Power Rangers, including the new seasons of Power Rangers Megaforce and Power Rangers Super Samurai, plus the classic library with over 700 episodes. Additionally, the Company was named the international distributor for Saban Brands' new animated adventure series, Digimon Fusion, and the new preschool series, Julius Jr., from the iconic Paul Frank brand. In 2010, MarVista formed a partnership with Argentina's SNAP TV for original productions and distribution in the Latin America region. In 2011, the Company secured new investment capital from a private investment group led by Brian Sheth. www.marvista.net
About R&R Productions
With a combined 50 years of production experience in the film and television industry, Ric Nish and Ronald Gilbert joined forces last summer to offer foreign producers services on their Canadian productions, from early preparation to delivery and including tax credit management and interim financing.
Ronald Gilbert is a seasoned Executive Producer based in Montreal who has worked in various Canadian provinces and European countries. He's been Head of Production for companies such as Mediabiz International, Productions La Fete and TVA International. He is a founding member of the board of the Quebec Film and Television Commission and is still a member of their Board of Directors. His credits include The Chronicles of Riddick 3, Magic Beyond Words: The JK Rowling Story, Whiteout, Orphan, and The Moth Diaries.
Ric Nish has worked as a producer, line producer and production manager for over 20 years, specializing in international productions. His feature film credits include Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, and The Fountain. His television work includes season one of Durham County (multi Gemini award winner and DGC award winner), I Me Wed and several pictures for Syfy Channel.
About Nickelodeon
Nickelodeon, now in its 34th year, is the number-one entertainment brand for kids. It has built a diverse, global business by putting kids first in everything it does. The company includes television programming and production in the United States and around the world, plus consumer products, online, recreation, books and feature films. Nickelodeon's U.S. television network is seen in almost 100 million households and has been the number-one-rated basic cable network for 18 consecutive years. Nickelodeon and all related titles, characters and logos are trademarks of Viacom Inc. (NASDAQ: VIA, VIA.B).