Monsanto & EPA: toxic bedfellows

Source: RT
May 18, 2017

More than 700 lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto claiming that their popular weed-killer, ‘Roundup,’ is carcinogenic. The lawsuits bring attention to bogus studies and apparent collusion between Monsanto and the EPA, further damaging the credibility of the already embattled agency. RT America’s Manila Chan has the details. Then, Mike Papantonio, host of “America’s Lawyer,” joins “News with Ed” to offer his legal expertise and insights.

Advertisements

Monsanto Employing Troll Army To Silence Online Dissent?

Source: CorbettReport
James Corbett
May 15, 2017

New court documents allege that Monsanto is employing an army of internet trolls to literally “Let Nothing Go”–no article, no comment, no social media post is to be left unanswered by these third party proxies. Find out about the court case from which these documents have emerged, the history and context of the accusations, and what it all means in today’s thought for the day.

SHOW NOTES:
Monsanto Accused of Hiring Army of Trolls to Silence Online Dissent – Court Papers

Plaintiff Motion in court case – April 24, 2017

Internal Monsanto emails related to case

Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer

Project Censored award for Corbett Report on Monsanto

Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent

How To Make A Lobbyist Squirm

Human Embryos “Edited” In China

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 14, 2017

It has finally happened: human embryos have been genetically modified in China, by utilizing the CRISPR technique of genetic modification. Indeed, while the development is not surprising, as one might imagine, I have a few high octane speculations about it(and I would also like to thank all the readers here who sent me these two stories):

Engineering the Perfect Baby

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

Frankly, I found the second article so disturbing that it is difficult for me to write about, particularly in connection with my habit of high octane speculation. Nonetheless, I want to draw your attention to the following paragraphs from the second article:

The technique used by Huang’s team involves injecting embryos with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. The system is well studied in human adult cells and in animal embryos. But there had been no published reports of its use in human embryos.

Huang and his colleagues set out to see if the procedure could replace a gene in a single-cell fertilized human embryo; in principle, all cells produced as the embryo developed would then have the repaired gene. The embryos they obtained from the fertility clinics had been created for use in in vitro fertilization but had an extra set of chromosomes, following fertilization by two sperm. This prevents the embryos from resulting in a live birth, though they do undergo the first stages of development.

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”

His team also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” he says.

He adds that critics of the paper have noted that the low efficiencies and high number of off-target mutations could be specific to the abnormal embryos used in the study. Huang acknowledges the critique, but because there are no examples of gene editing in normal embryos he says that there is no way to know if the technique operates differently in them. (Emphasis added)

There you have it: using the latest CRISPR technique, embryos were successfully modified, and those modifications would have been hereditary had the embryos been viable. But note what I can only hazard was probably a completely unexpected (and hence, ‘played down’) result: there were “off target mutations,” in other words, DNA mutations that were not planned and not expected, and might also have been passed down. Notably, we’re not informed what those “off-target mutations” actually consisted of; would they have resulted in entirely new congenital diseases or, alternatively, special “uniquenesses”? Might they have resulted – to exaggerate my point here – in people born with three eyes or six digits or truncated brains, or conversely, with expanded intellect or physical strength and endurance? We simply don’t know; the article does not say, and in that silence, I strongly suspect lies a tale.

Of course, as the article points out, critics of the study pointed out that these “off target mutations” may simply have been the result of the unusual embryos – fertilized by sperm from two different donors and hence of non-normal genetic derivation – that were used in the study.

Herewith my high octane speculation: what if they were not the result of the unusual embryos, but rather, in innate – perhaps epigenetic – response to the whole process of this type of genetic editing altogether? what if we are looking at a kind of “programmed-in defense mechanism” against tinkering in a fundamental fashion with DNA in general, or human DNA in particular? Many geneticists are in fact already questioning the standard genetic explanations for the development of individual life and its characteristics, suggesting there is another mechanism “beyond the genes” – hence the term “epi- (beyond) genetics” (genes) – that we do not yet understand.

In short, I think humanity was just served a timely warning with the appearance of “off target mutations,” the warning being: tread with great care, and great caution, and perhaps even, “Don’t tread here at all.”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. 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”.

Monsanto back in court over misleading Roundup ads

Image: Monsanto back in court over misleading Roundup ads
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan Huff
April 27, 2017

A new lawsuit claims that Monsanto, the world’s most evil corporation, has been lying about the nature of its Roundup herbicide by claiming that it only targets an enzyme found in weeds, but not in people or pets. Challenging the very basis upon which Roundup was even granted approval in the first place, this latest suit represents yet another among many alleging that the chemical and GMO giant has been falsely advertising its products, putting the public at risk.

Now that Roundup is being detected at “extreme levels” in the nation’s food supply, it is more critical than ever that the truth be revealed about the world’s most widely used chemical herbicide, glyphosate. Filed in the Superior Court in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), this latest suit could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Plaintiffs in the case, which include the D.C.-based advocacy group Beyond Pesticides and the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association, point to scientific evidence published back in 2013 showing that glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup, does, in fact, act upon enzymes in the human body contrary to what Monsanto claims. This research, entitled “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” is published in the peer-reviewed journal Entropy.

According to the paper, glyphosate’s inhibition of this important human enzyme, which also goes by the name of CYP, represents “an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals” because CYP’s role in human biologics is a critical one. For one, CYP’s purpose is to detoxify the body of xenobiotics, which is basically just a fancy word for describing any foreign chemical substance that’s not supposed to be in the body.

The paper goes on to explain how glyphosate’s interference with CYP manifests over time as a gradual buildup of inflammation throughout the body, including within the various cellular systems that support life. This interference with CYP, the paper explains, “acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport.”

The result? Serious chronic illness, including almost every major condition that people living in areas where Roundup is sprayed now suffer – conditions like gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, depression, autism, dementia, and cancer.

“It is now beyond any scientific doubt that glyphosate is extremely hazardous to human health,” explains the Health Ranger, lab science director of CWC Labs and producer of the Health Ranger Science podcast. “The mass poisoning of the food supply must be halted, or the costs to humanity and the ecosystem will be devastating.”

full abstract of this damning study is available to view online.

Fact: Monsanto has been LYING to the public for years about Roundup’s toxicity to humans

This is all a very stark detraction from the advertising claims long made by Monsanto that Roundup and glyphosate are completely safe, and that people shouldn’t be making such a big deal about them because doing so is just “anti-science.” Such an argument won’t fly anymore now that real scientific evidence conducted by independent scientists is proving, without a doubt, that Roundup is a serious threat to people and the environment.

This latest lawsuit intends to convey to the courts that Monsanto has been blatantly lying about this fact as it continues to rake in billions of dollars in profits based on false information. If the court agrees, such an indictment could – and should – lead to serious consequences for Monsanto, not the least of which include the company’s undoing. In a just world, Monsanto executives and anyone else complicit in perpetuating these lies, will also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and sent to prison.

“Consumers have been deceived into believing that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants and not in people or pets,” the suit definitively declares. “Monsanto misrepresented the nature of Roundup and/or failed to adequately disclose the fact that Roundup’s key ingredient targets an enzyme found in the gut bacteria of people and pets, which was and is false, misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers.”

Sources:

ActivistPost.com

EWG.org

MDPI.com

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

National Academy of Sciences has been totally corrupted by GMO-pushing biotech corporations that wield astonishing financial influence over science

Image: National Academy of Sciences has been totally corrupted by GMO-pushing biotech corporations that wield astonishing financial influence over science
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
April 6, 2017

Who better to provide Congress with guidance on science-related policies than a panel of the nation’s so-called experts that have been corrupted by the industry? The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have recently come under fire, thanks to a biotechnology panel that was found to be littered with financial ties to Big Biotech.

While the Academies proclaim to pride themselves as being “advisers to the nation,” it seems that at least one of their committees prides itself more on being in the industry’s back pocket.

A recent report from the Academies’ panel for biotechnology claimed to have no conflict of interest, even though their very own web page on the panel members seems to tell a different story. Several committee members boast conflicts of interest, and at least two violate the Academies’ stringent conflict-of-interest policy, according to The New York Times.

To make matters worse, an employee of the Academies’ was also searching for new employment at the time he was selecting the 13 people he recommended for the biotech panel. Three of those 13 individuals turned out to be board members belonging to his new employer. If you haven’t guessed it already, the “new employer” is a biotechnology company — surprise, surprise.

The National Academies have defended these conflicts of interest, and maintain that because the type of expertise required of their staff is “limited,” a certain level of conflict “must be tolerated.” However, many people feel these “conflicts” undermine the integrity of the organization, as well as its authority. Indeed, it leaves us all questioning whether or not their so-called facts are even real.

In total, the Times identified seven panelists who had commercial interests that could be affected by regulations, or had been associated with the industry in some way. Because there were 13 panel members, it would seem that those without a conflict of interest were in the minority. Here are the seven panel members that are potentially corrupted by industry influence, and what their ties to the biotech industry are:

Steven P. Bradbury: A professor of environmental toxicology at Iowa State University, and the owner of Steven P. Bradbury & Associates, a consulting company that advises biotech firms.

Farren Issacs: Assistant professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, and the co-founder of enEvolv, a company that “re-engineers” microbes into chemicals for industrial purposes.

Richard M. Amasino: A professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin who holds patents on several biotech processes.

Jeffrey Wolt: Professor of agronomy and toxicology at Iowa State University, and a former Dow Chemical employee. The National Academies have disclosed that he has commercial interests that violate their policies. He is still on the panel, as the Academies have concluded that the level of conflict was “unavoidable.”

Steven L. Evans: Evans currently works for Dow AgroSciences as a fellow in seeds discovery research and development. This is a clear conflict of interest that the Academies have disclosed and dismissed once again as “unavoidable.”

Richard Johnson: A former senior partner at international law firm, Arnold & Porter, and the chief executive and founder of Global Helix — a consulting company that “may” advise clients in the biotech industry. Johnson has since resigned.

Richard Murray: A professor of bioengineering at California Institute of Technology, and the co-founder Synvitrobio, a biotech start-up.

To say that these conflicts may “color” the perception of these panel members is an understatement. These people have clear ties to the biotechnology industry, with many of them being an explicit part of the industry they have been deigned to help regulate via their advisory reports. How can anything they say really be trusted, when over half the panel has a potential conflict? (RELATED: Learn more about corruption in mainstream science at FakeScience.news)

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

GMWatch.org

NationalAcademies.org

NYTimes.com

New Classroom Program Warns Children About “Fake News” – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: TheCorbettReport | MediaMonarchy
April 6, 2017

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Story #1: Doomsday Data Vault Opens In Norway
http://bit.ly/2oc4qaZ

Arctic World Archive Brochure: “Can You Imagine A Safer Place…To Safeguard Your Valuable Data?”
http://bit.ly/2ndn571

NWNW Flashback: Doomsday Seed Vault, Gates, Rockefeller & GMO Giants (Sep. 2, 2010)
http://bit.ly/2ndbcOp

The Most Important Bank in the World Gets Another Deposit
http://bit.ly/2o57g0I

Story #2: eBay Omidyar Commits $100M To Fight “Fake News”, “Hate Speech”
http://bit.ly/2oFom6z

Stephen King: Omidyar Network, Partner
http://bit.ly/2o59g9j

Secrets For Sale?: The Greenwald/Omidyar/NSA Connection
http://bit.ly/2oFrEXs

US To Train Kids To Handle “Fake News”
http://bit.ly/2nG7h7P

The News Literacy Project
http://bit.ly/1Qq3gfi

Syria Gas Attack: Assad’s Doing…Or False Flag?
http://bit.ly/2nG1yz2

Story #3: Graphene-Based Sieve Turns Seawater Into Drinking Water
http://bit.ly/2nd9koV

“Tunable Sieving Of Ions Using Graphene Oxide Membranes”
http://go.nature.com/2o8SZk1

Spinach Leaf Transformed Into Beating Human Heart Tissue
http://bit.ly/2ndlfD4

“Crossing Kingdoms: Using Decellularized Plants As Perfusable Tissue Engineering Scaffolds”
http://bit.ly/2nbQcnY

U.K. Doctors Granted License to Create 3-Parent GM Babies

DNA
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
March 30, 2017

Doctors in the U.K. have been given the first-ever license to create “three-parent babies,” with the controversial IVF treatment taking place as early as later this year. [1]

The license was granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to a team who pioneered the mitochondrial pronuclear transfer technique at the University of Newcastle.

The development takes humanity closer to the creation of “designer babies,” but the doctors at the Newcastle Fertility Centre say they only plan to use the technology “to help families affected by these devastating diseases.”

Mary Herbert, a professor of Reproductive Biology at the Centre, says:

“Many years of research have led to the development of pronuclear transfer as a treatment to reduce the risk of mothers transmitting disease to their children. It’s a great testament to the regulatory system here in the U.K. that research innovation can be applied in treatment.” [2]

Read: “Steer Clear of Creating GMO Babies,” Scientists and Ethicists Say

The IVF treatment involves halting the fertilization process to remove faulty mitochondria that can cause fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness, and muscular dystrophy. These are known as mitochondrial diseases, and they are incurable conditions that get passed down the maternal line, affecting about one in 6,500 children worldwide.

Source: Daily Mail

It’s known as “three-parent IVF” because the babies are born from genetically modified embryos, and they would have DNA from a mother, a father, and a female donor.

In 2016, Britain’s parliament voted to change the law to allow three-parent IVF if and when it was ready for licensing. However, the HFEA still had to approve each clinic and each patient on an individual basis before the treatment could occur.

Now that the Newcastle Fertility Centre has received a license, the HFEA must approve each applicant for treatment. [2]

Professor Sir Doug Turnbull, who has led the team at Newcastle in developing the new IVF therapy, says:

“This will allow women with mitochondria DNA mutations the opportunity for more reproductive choice. Mitochondria diseases can be devastating for families affected and this is a momentous day for patients who have tirelessly campaigned for this decision.” [1]

Last fall, a team of U.S. doctors announced that the world’s first three-parent baby had been born in Mexico on 6 April 2016 to a Jordanian couple. The team held off on the announcement for five months to make sure the child didn’t have the same condition that killed his siblings, Leigh syndrome – a fatal disorder that affects the central nervous system.

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com
__________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

[1] The Sun

[2] Scientific American

Daily Mail

Science Magazine