How About Them Apples?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 24, 2017

Over the years of watching and reporting on the GMO issue on this website, one of the things that many brought to my attention by sharing various articles and studies, is the apparent linkage between CCD (colony collapse disorder), as the populations of honey bees colonies and other pollinators have dramatically declined since the introduction of GMO foods and the heavy pesticides they involve. As a result, I have also blogged about the latest gimmick to “repair” the damage: artificial drones as pollinators. It is, after all, “no big deal” if the world’s pollinator population declines or simply goes extinct, after all, they only keep most of the world’s plant life going, and most of its food supply going. No big deal, especially if one has artificial pollinators waiting in the wings. Indeed, as I’ve previously blogged, there were scientists actually seriously proposing this as a means to get around the phenomenon of colony collapse disorder.

Well, according to this article shared by Mr. T.M., it’s now actually been accomplished:

Researchers use drone to pollinate a flower

The opening paragraphs say it all:

Researchers in Japan have successfully used a tiny drone to pollinate an actual flower, a task usually accomplished by insects and animals.

The remote-controlled drone was equipped with horsehairs coated with a special gel, which the researchers say was crucial to the process.

“This is the world’s first demonstration of pollination by an artificial robotic pollinator,” said Eijiro Miyako of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Japan, one of the authors of the study, which was published in the journal Chem.

And, lest the connection between pollinator population collapse and the artificial pollinator is missed, the article itself makes the connection:

But many pollinators are under threat, particularly insects like bees and butterflies. They belong to a group — invertebrate pollinators — in which 40 percent of species face extinction, according to the same report.

The drone is an attempt to address this problem: “The global pollination crisis is a critical issue for the natural environment and our lives,” the authors wrote in the study.
There is, however, a catch: it’s still a long way from insect pollinators, due not only to the size of the drone, but due to the lack of artificial intelligence and independent movement in the artificial pollinator itself:

The peculiarity of this project is that it focuses on the pollination process, rather than the construction of a robotic bee.

As the authors note, “practical pollination has not yet been demonstrated with the aerial robots currently available.”

However, pollination was achieved on a very large flower, and the drone was not autonomous: “I believe that some form of artificial intelligence and GPS would be very useful for the development of such automatic machines in future,” said Miyako.

Much work remains to be done before we can emulate the complex behavior of insects and animals: “There is little chance this can replace pollinators,” said Christina Grozinger, Director of the Center for Pollinator Research at Penn State University.

Hidden text: “we urgently need artificial intelligence in order to construct more efficient artificial pollinators.”

And that of course, brings me to my high octane speculation of the day: suppose such artificial intelligence was constructed. And suppose, for a moment, all those artificial pollinators were under the controlled of a networked Artificial Intelligence, coordinating it all. Who is to say that said “intelligence” would even see the need for pollinator activity, or the human and animal populations that they ultimately aid in feeding? Waves of AI pollinators could conceivably become plagues of AI locusts. If this be the case, the “technological fix” could end up being an even worse nightmare.

Of course, one could always solve the problem by the simple fix of what appears to be the basis of the pollinator problem: get rid of GMOs, and let nature do what she was designed to do.

That, of course, would be far too simple, and not issue in enough research grants and profits.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our HealthSource: GreenMedInfo.com
Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
March 23, 2017

Available for Immediate Free Download

This is the introduction to the new vaccine book by Tetyana Obukhanych (Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, New York, NY) Vaccine Illusion. Dr. Obukhaynch and GreenMedInfo.com are giving the book away for free for a limited time only. Get your copy here.  

Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.

I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.

As we hear more and more about vaccine injuries, many individuals are starting to view vaccination as a necessary evil that has helped us initially to overcome raging epidemics but now causes more damage than benefit to our children.

As an immunologist, I have a different and perhaps a very unique perspective. I have realized that the invention of vaccination in the 18th century has precluded us from seeking to understand what naturally acquired immunity to diseases really is. Had we pursued a different route in the absence of that shortcut, we could have gained a thorough understanding of naturally acquired immunity and developed a truly effective and safe method of disease prevention compared to what vaccines can possibly offer.

The biological term immunity refers to a universally observed phenomenon of becoming unsusceptible to a number of infectious diseases through prior experience. Because of the phonetic similarity between the words immunology and immunity, it is tempting to assume that immunology is a science that studies the state of immunity, but this is not the case. Immunology is a science that studies an artificial process of immunization – i.e., the immune system’s response to injected foreign matter. Immunology does not attempt to study and therefore cannot provide understanding of natural diseases and immunity that follows them. Yet, the “knowledge” about the function of the immune system during the natural process of disease is recklessly inferred from contrived immunologic experiments, which typically consist of injecting laboratory-grown microorganisms (live or dead) or their isolated parts into research animals to represent the state of infection. Because immunologic experiments are unrealistic simulations of the natural process, immunologists’ understanding of nature is limited to understanding their own experimental models. Immunologists have confined the scope of their knowledge to the box of experimental modeling, and they do not wish to see beyond that box. Thinking within the box only reinforces the notion of vaccination and cannot provide any other solution to the problem of diseases.

Despite the fact that the biological basis of naturally acquired immunity is not understood, present day medical practices insist upon artificial manipulation of the immune response (a.k.a. immunization or vaccination) to secure “immunity” without going through the actual disease process. The vaccine-induced process, although not resembling a natural disease, is nevertheless still a disease process with its own risks. And it is not immunity that we gain via vaccination but a puny surrogate of immunity. For this reason, vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor an effective method of disease prevention. Yet, immunologists have nothing better to offer because they can only go as far as their deeply rooted immunologic dogma allows them.

Three important factors have contributed to my gradual disillusionment with immunologic paradigms and their applications – vaccines. First, several significant inconsistencies within immunologic theory made me quite unsatisfied with its attempted explanation of immunity. Second, I observed how some seasoned immunologists would omit mentioning the outcome of crucial experiments to make their publication on new vaccine development strategies look very promising. This made me suspicious about the vaccine development process in general and eager to take a look at the other side of the vaccination debate.

The third factor was the birth of my child. This event compelled me to take a break from laboratory research for a few years. I completely shed my identity of an immunologist and became a parent determined to raise a healthy child. I was amazed at how clueless I was about what really matters for health despite my proficiency in all those fancy immunologic theories amassed in the Ivory Tower. For the sake of my child, I had to reconsider everything I knew in immunology. I searched deeper and deeper for the root of vaccine problems we face today and it all came back to me in clear light.

This book is intended to give parents essential immunologic background for making vaccination decisions for their children. Making vaccination decisions is an important personal responsibility that should not be left to any medical or scientific authority. Parents should educate themselves about vaccines and diseases to the extent that they feel absolutely confident and well prepared for taking full responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

It is important to estimate risks of vaccine injuries versus risks of exposure to vaccine-targeted microorganisms. But the analysis should not stop there. I urge every parent to consider how vaccines achieve their effects, and if the desired vaccine effects truly benefit our children and our society. The implications of vaccination were not acceptable to me, neither as a parent nor as a scientist, and this book is my effort to tell other parents why.

Another goal of this book is to raise awareness in our society about the urgent necessity to change basic immunologic research in a way that will finally bring us understanding of naturally acquired immunity. It is up to future generations of immunologists to rescue this science and put it on the right track. The benefits for humankind will be enormous, as this would make both vaccine injuries and fear of diseases a matter of the past. But to make this happen, the field of immunology must first be cleared from the weeds of immunologic dogma.

And finally, this book is my attempt to heal the schism in our society between those who oppose vaccines due to vaccine safety concerns and those who oppose the anti-vaccine movement due to the fear of diseases. This schism has brought us enormous suffering by dividing families, friends, and health provider communities. But we all have the same goal: we all want the best for our children. Only by uniting our efforts will we be able to find a solution to the problem of diseases without compromising our health by means of vaccines.

Download the book for FREE now and learn the following: 

  • Why do vaccines fail to give us lasting immunity from viral diseases?
  • Why do vaccines provide no guarantee of protection from bacterial diseases?
  • Why is vaccine-based herd immunity not achievable?

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_______________________________________________________

 

Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Image: Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Will Monsanto finally get what they deserve for their crimes against humanity? The Miller Firm hopes to bring the corporate giant to their knees by pursuing a lawsuit that shows Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

And perhaps, in their pursuance of this litigation, the EPA will be taken down, too.

Email evidence indicates that not only did Monsanto help write the so-called cancer studies on Roundup, but that EPA officials colluded to keep reports on glyphosate’s carcinogenic status in favor of the industry. Former EPA scientist Marion Copley’s heartbreaking email not only illustrates the cancer-causing capacity, but that the EPA is riddled with corruption and greed.

Copley’s letter describes a host of ways in which glyphosate can cause cancer:

  • Endocrine disruption
  • Free radical formation and inhibition of free radical-scavenging enzymes
  • Genotoxicity — which is key in cancer onset
  • Inhibition of certain DNA repairing enzymes
  • Inhibiting the absorption of essential nutrients
  • Renal and pancreatic damage that may lead to cancer
  • Destruction of gut bacteria and suppression of the immune system

“Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously. It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen,’” Copley states. Copley passed away in 2014, before the IARC finally did come to reach this conclusion.

And as The Miller Firm notes, recent independent studies have shown that farm workers exposed to glyphosate or Roundup are at least twice as likely to develop lymphoma. Monsanto is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in deceptive marketing tactics by making claims that their deadly herbicide is “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic.” Worse still, several scientists have gone to federal prisons for falsifying data on the toxicity of glyphosate. According to The Miller Firm, the issues with Roundup’s safety testing date back to 1976. In spite of this, Monsanto has spent the last few decades convincing the public that glyphosate is totally safe.

Farm workers are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of glyphosate exposure. The Miller Firm has launched their lawsuit against Monsanto and taken aim at the EPA as well, citing that farmers were intentionally led to believe the cancer-causing chemical was safe — and if they had known the product was toxic, they’d have at least have known of the risks and been able to better protect themselves and further minimize contact with the herbicide.

The legal team also notes that Marion Copley’s letter points to corruption and collusion occurring between Monsanto and the EPA to protect glyphosate from being exposed as toxic.

“For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry. The CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen,” Copley writes in her email to fellow EPA scientist Jess Roland.

Court documents have continued to point to a not-so-innocent relationship between Roland and Monsanto. UPI reports that emails between Roland and Monsanto scientist Dr. William Heydens reveal that Heydens offered to write a 2013 report on glyphosate for the EPA. Roland purportedly then used the reports to conclude glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.

Emails have also shown that Monsanto sought Roland out to stop the Agency of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — another federal agency — from investigating glyphosate further. A conversation relayed to coworkers by Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, Dan Jenkins shows that Rowland said,”If I can kill this I should get a medal.”

Bloomberg reports that the ATDSR never did publish a toxicological profile on the substance.

All signs point to one thing: both the EPA and Monsanto know glyphosate is toxic and carcinogenic, but they’re doing whatever they can to keep that fact under wraps.

Will The Miller Firm be able to convince the courts to mete out the appropriate punishment in the face of such corruption?  One can only hope.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Glyphosate.news

MillerFirmLLC.com

UPI.com

Bloomberg.com

WARNING: Sugar destroys your body’s ability to absorb these 5 essential nutrients

Image: WARNING: Sugar destroys your body’s ability to absorb these 5 essential nutrients
Source: NaturalNews.com
Russel Davis
March 24, 2017

The sugar industry in the U.S. thrives at a whopping $100 billion in annual revenue. That is because Americans consume an average of 150 lbs of sugar  per year. Most people are aware of the adverse effects of excessive sugar consumption such as obesity, diabetes, and cancer. However, what is known as well-known is that high sugar intake leads to nutrient deficiency. Excessive sugar intake was shown to deplete and reduce the absorption of essential vitamins and minerals needed by the body.

High sugar intake robs the body of essential nutrients

The human body can synthesize vitamin C on its own, but eating too much sugar limits the beneficial effects of the vitamin. Sugar and vitamin C use the same transporters to reach the cells. More sugar in the blood stream means more competition for vitamin C absorption. Increased glucose levels appear to inhibit vitamin C from entering the cells, thereby resulting in limited vitamin absorption. Sugar-induced vitamin C deficiency may result in suppressed tissue regeneration and decreased immune function.

Vitamin D, another important nutrient, can also fall prey to sugar’s unwanted effects. Sugar promotes the expression of enzymes that degrade vitamin D, while simultaneously decreasing enzymes needed to synthesize the vitamin. This then results in vitamin D deficiency. Low vitamin levels were tied to various health conditions such as autoimmunity, dementia, and infection as well as inflammation and certain types of cancer. Vitamin D deficiency was more common in regions with the least amount of sunlight.

Excessive sugar intake results in high blood sugar levels and increased insulin rates. In turn, higher blood sugar and insulin levels promote magnesium excretion by the kidneys, thereby inhibiting tubular reabsorption of the mineral. This prompts the body to use up its magnesium reserves. Magnesium is essential in certain body functions such as blood sugar control, muscle and nerve regulation, and bone building. Excreting this essential mineral from the body can lead to adverse health effects.

Eating too much sugar greatly affects chromium absorption in the body. Similar to magnesium, sugar triggers chromium deficiency by prompting the body to excrete the essential mineral. One study revealed that eating a diet containing 35% sugar leads to a 10% increase in chromium excretion. Chromium is a key mineral the promotes blood glucose control, insulin binding, and macronutient metabolism. Chromium deficiency leads to high blood sugar levels and poor glucose tolerance.

Calcium is vital for skeletal health, blood clotting, and electrolyte balance. Vitamin D expedites calcium absorption in the body by regulating calcium transport in the small intestine. Excessive sugar intake was shown to negatively affect vitamin D absorption, which in turn causes a ripple effect to the body’s calcium absorption. Sugar was also shown to promote calcium excretion by inhibiting tubular reabsorption by the kidneys. Low calcium levels result in unwanted health conditions.

Sweet killer: The nasty effects of high sugar intake on the body

People are becoming more aware of the undesirable health consequences of excessive sugar intake through extensive research and information dissemination. Sugar is associated with a host of other damaging reactions.  To wit: eating too much sugar leads to suppressed immune function and triggers hyperactivity in children. It may lead to kidney damage, increased blood acidity, and advanced aging.

Tooth decay, arthritis, asthma, as well as digestive disorders and candida albicans (a fungus that causes yeast infections) are also among the results of excessive sugar intake. Consuming high amounts of sugar can result in atherosclerosis, eczema, asthma, depression, and free radical formation. Decreased cardiac blood flow, brittle tendons and increased liver and kidney sizes were also among the most hazardous effects of sugar.

Follow more news on sugar and other sweeteners at Sweeteners.news.

Read more At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalHealth365.com

ThePaleoMom.com

TheDoctorWithin.com

An A-Bomb for Herr Bormann (Part 2 of 2) – A conversation with Carter Hydrick

Source: ForumBorealis
March 24, 2017

And now the crescendo of the Bormann-Dulles plot: How did Bormann escape? What was the route? What’s the evidence pro & con? How did he outplay Himmler, Goebbles, & Goring? What happened to the Japanese on board the uboat? How did Bormann get passed Donitz? Who was the 6 people airlifted out of the bunker? How did Bormann usurp Hitler? How extensive is the Bormann Brotherhood? What’s their relationship to the CIA? Did they kill FDR? Did they invent modern corporate globalism? When & where did Bormann die? Check in to learn the rest of this amazing story that the outstanding researcher Hydrick has documented…

:: :: :: ::

FORUM BOREALIS = in depth conversations with the most interesting and important authors, researchers, & thinkers of today, who’s work often overlaps in areas including :

Health Solutions
Structures of Consciousness
Human Relationships
Innovative Culture
Front-Line Dissidence
The Crisis of Academia
Esoteric Philosophy
Planetary Mysteries
The Antediluvian Civilization
Covert History
The Deep State
The Black Economy
The Nazi International
Fringe Science
Anti-Gravity & Zero Point Energy
The Breakaway Civilization
The Classified Space Program

Monsanto caught colluding with EPA in Roundup cancer cover-up

Image: Monsanto caught colluding with EPA in Roundup cancer cover-up
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Is the day we’ve all been waiting for finally on the horizon? Monsanto and the EPA have been caught red-handed in the midst of a legal controversy. Unsealed court documents have shown that not only is the EPA severely lacking in the standards department, but that the federal agency colluded with one of the nation’s most menacing companies, Monsanto. And in doing so, the EPA helped to keep Monsanto’s star product, Roundup, on store shelves and safe from being reviewed for its cancer-causing effects.

Court documents show that the EPA declared that Roundup was safe for use without ever testing the entire formulation’s effects, and instead relied on the industry testing done on just the key active ingredient, glyphosate.

As you can see in the graphic below, not only does the EPA not require testing of the actual product in its entirety, Monsanto itself as not conducted any studies on the chronic carcinogenic studies related to Roundup’s formulation. While this alone is certainly more than enough cause for concern — both about Roundup’s safety and the EPA’s apparent lack of integrity — this revelation is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

(source: Zerohedge)

Recently, former EPA official Jess Rowland has come under fire for his collusion with Monsanto. The industry giant even reached out to Rowland to garner his assistance in putting the brakes on an investigation of glyphosate that was being pioneered by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland said to a Monsanto employee, who then relayed the conversation to coworkers via email.

Another damning email shows that Monsanto executive William Heydens even conspired to “ghostwrite” a paper on glyphosate’s safety. Heydens claimed that having the company write their own research on key areas of the product’s safety would be “less expensive” and “more palatable.” It also appears that they were preparing for what may come of the IARC’s report on glyphosate, and how they would go about defending themselves.  See below:

(source: ZeroHedge)

Heydens also noted that this same practice of ghostwriting and getting “independent” researchers to “sign their names” on studies is how they’d handled research on glyphosate’s safety in the past. And as NPR explains, while that earlier paper that is mentioned in the email did note that Monsanto helped to “assemble” the information, no Monsanto employees are noted as co-authors.

While the EPA contends that glyphosate is safe, the World Health Organization and numerous independent studies on the chemical’s safety seem to disagree. The WHO made tremendous waves when they declared that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, and several independent investigations of the product’s safety have shown that it’s linked to liver damage, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, digestive disorders and other ailments.

Monsanto, of course, has wasted no time defending their product and themselves. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, has reportedly said that it would be “remarkable” if the corporate giant was capable of manipulating the EPA under the Obama administration.

This comment surely must have been in jest, as the EPA’s corruption runs deep; impervious to the rules of reality, the EPA has continuously proven itself to either be an agency of sheer ineptitude or great deception — look no further than the Gold King Mine spill for proof of that.

Regardless, Partridge — like any corporate talking head — maintains that glyphosate is completely safe, and cites the EPA’s assessment as proof. But as the emails show, the EPA’s assessment is little more than a regurgitated form of Monsanto’s data. So, who’s really calling the shots here?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

Bloomberg.com

NPR.org

OrganicAuthority.com