The Amazing Glyphosate Revolt Grows – F. William Engdahl

34534534544

Source: Journal-Neo.org
F. William Engdahl
May 23, 2016

I must make a confession. I never thought it would get this far. There is an absolutely amazing international revolt against the most deadly and most widely used weed killer in world agriculture–glyphosate. Those of you who have followed my earlier writings can detect my feeling of pessimism that mere “democratic” grass-roots protest, combined with a scientific assessment from an agency of WHO that glyphosate was a “probable carcinogen” would be enough to stop the pending, twice-postponed EU Commission renewal of the expiring license for glyphosate in the EU. It almost doesn’t matter at this point what the ultimate vote is when the next EU Commission glyphosate meeting is convened. The genie is out of the bottle. One of the world’s most important eugenics projects to maim and ultimately reduce human population is on the brink of being banned much as DDT decades ago.

On May 19, a revised proposal by the European Commission to re-approve glyphosate for use in Europe for 9 more years (rather than the original 15 years), but with almost no restrictions on use, failed to secure the required qualified majority among EU governments. This is an amazing and very positive development for democratic empowerment against an institution increasingly seen–not only by the British population–as an anti-democratic, even totalitarian structure irresponsive to the most basic concerns for the health and safety of EU citizens.

The agri-chemical industry bigs—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and friends–are stunned at their failure. Corruption in government corridors whether in Berlin or Brussels seems to be losing its efficacy.

The next step for the troubled glyphosate renewal process will be for the EU Commission, those faceless, unelected bureaucrats, to come up with a new revised proposal that will bring Germany to approval by end of June when the old license expires or order glyphosate withdrawn from the entire EU market within six months according to Henry Rowlands’ international GMO watchdog media, Sustainable Pulse.

They cite Brussels EU Commission sources who report that the Commission did not even dare call for a formal vote, realizing that they would fail the EU requirement of Qualified Majority “yes” vote of the 28 EU states. France and Italy would have voted against in an informal polling. Germany would have abstained along with six other EU states.

Under current EU rules incorporated in the Treaty of Rome, a matter coming for a vote in the Council of Ministers of the 28 member states requiring a Qualified Majority approval, must satisfy two criteria. First, that 55% of member states vote in favor. Second, that the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population. Under the rules, an abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against.

According to official statements of various EU governments in March before the latest May 19 meeting, in addition to open opposition to glyphosate license renewal on EU Commission terms expressed by France, Sweden and the Netherlands, the governments of Bulgaria, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Italy had joined the “no” group. Their combined populations equal 53% of total EU population when Germany as abstainer is added. In that case the “yes” to glyphosate side would have a mere 47% not the required 65%.

An EU glyphosate ban today could deal a possible death blow to the global GMO project as more of the world wakes up to the fact that the entire GMO crop cultivation is part and parcel of the consumption of deadly glyphosate. It can be said that the Rockefeller Foundation’s funding of genetic manipulation, of genetics since World War II, as I document in my Seeds of Destruction book, is about eugenics or race purity as the Nazis practiced during the Third Reich. Little known is the fact that the Nazi eugenics, otherwise known as creation of the “Master Race,” was financed by…the Rockefeller Foundation. Monsanto has been in the orbit of Rockefeller core assets, now joined by Bill Gates, since World War I.

Industry Panic

At this point the global agrichemical cartel–one getting dramatically smaller from proposed mergers between ChinaChem with Syngenta and now Bayer AG with Monsanto are approved–is in a clear panic mode, and making stupid mistakes in the process. What’s at stake is huge for the health and safety of world citizens and for the future of the deadly agrichemicals industry. Glyphosate is the major component of Monsanto’s proven-toxic Roundup, the most profitable product of the GMO giant and the world’s most widely-used weed-killer.

Now Washington wants the EU to drop all health and environmental safeguards on GMOs to pave the way for a transatlantic trade agreement (TTIP). TTIP negotiations started on 25 April in New York. EU Health Commissioner Andriukaitis’ rush to ram through a re-licensing of glyphosate in May, shortly after his New York TTIP talks, was clearly another reflection of immense Washington pressure on the unaccountable EU Commission bureaucracy.

On May 16, timed for release just hours before the scheduled EU Council of Ministers vote on approval of glyphosate license renewal, the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) released what it claimed was a scientific study. They admit in the first sentence that it was rushed to publication. The study concluded regarding glyphosate:

“The overall weight of evidence indicates that administration of glyphosate and its formulation products at doses as high as 2000 mg/kg body weight

by the oral route, the route most relevant to human dietary exposure, was not associated with genotoxic effects in an overwhelming majority of studies conducted in mammals, a model considered to be appropriate for assessing genotoxic risks to humans. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is

unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures…the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

This means that one part of the WHO says glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” while another arm of WHO, the very respected World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that glyphosate, the weed-killer used in most every GMO plant worldwide, and most other crops and even home gardens as well, was a “probable human carcinogen.”

The new FAO/WHO rush job however is no science. It’s fatally flawed bought-and-paid for prostitution science, with no offense to the world’s oldest profession meant.

As one critic points out, “this announcement was made without one single regulatory or industry glyphosate study ever having been performed at a real-life dietary exposure level (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). This is a huge hole in the risk assessment process for glyphosate, as low levels of the herbicide may hack hormones even more than high levels and hormone hacking chemicals are often carcinogens.”

Conflicts of Interest

Moreover, the FAO/WHO rush job study committee is riddled with members with glaring conflicts of interest in terms of ties to the chemical industry desperately trying to ram through glyphosate re-approval until 2031. According to a report in the UK Guardian, Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UN’s joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, is vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs. The Guardian report pointed out that in 2012, “the ILSI group took a $500,000 (£344,234) donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US Right to Know campaign.”

Continue Reading At: Journal-Neo.org

___________________________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

Aerial Spraying To Kill Mosquitoes Linked To 25% Increase In Autism, Finds Shock Study By American Academy Of Pediatrics

Aerial spraying
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
May 3, 2016

Aerial spraying of pesticides to kill mosquitoes, may be linked to an increase in autism spectrum disorder and development delays in children, according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies on Saturday, April 30.

While health authorities have increasingly encouraged pesticide spraying to combat mosquitoes carrying a birth defect-inducing virus, new research suggests that the chemical application may actually be causing birth defects.

Scientists reached their findings after they observed a 25 percent increase in autism and developmental disorders among children living in areas where aerial spraying for mosquitoes has been used since 2003, according to the study, titled “Aerial Pesticide Exposure Increases the Risk of Developmental Delay and Autism Spectrum Disorder.”

Researchers “identified a swampy region in central New York where health officials use airplanes to spray pyrethroid pesticides each summer. The pesticides target mosquitos [sic] that carry the eastern equine encephalitis virus, which can cause swelling of the brain and spinal cord,” reports the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Pyrethroids, synthetic chemicals used to kill flea and tics, may be linked to autism

“They found that children living in ZIP codes in which aerial pesticide spraying has taken place each summer since 2003 were approximately 25 percent more likely to have an autism diagnosis or documented developmental delay compared to those in ZIP codes with other methods of pesticide distribution, such as manually spreading granules or using hoses or controlled droplet applicators.”

Pyrethroids are manmade chemicals that structurally resemble pyrethrum, a naturally occurring toxin found in certain chrysanthemum flowers, discovered to have insecticidal properties in the 1800s, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. Pyrethroids are more toxic to insects and mammals, and persist longer in the environment, than pyrethrum.

Children exposed to large amounts of pyrethroids may experience dizziness, headaches and nausea, as well as other more serious side-effects, including tremors, convulsions and loss of consciousness. The side-effects in adults are similar.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Campbell to Remove BPA Chemical from Canned Foods by 2017

image-soup-cans-bpa-735-350
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
April 5, 2016

A newly-released analysis shows just how prevalent Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical often used in plastic products and food can linings, is in the food industry. Though while the figures are scary, the information has sparked a great deal of positive changes in the food industry, such as Campbell’s move to remove BPA in its canned goods by 2017.

Bisphenol A (BPA was officially banned in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012, but it is still widely used in canned foods to line the cans, and is also used to make reusable plastic food containers, and sports water bottles.

The chemical has been shown to increase the risk for diabetes, heart disease, infertility, and many other health problems. It has been linked to breast cancer in well over 130 studies. In addition, BPA is associated with brain damage; hormonal problems; and development issues in fetuses, infants, and young children. [1]

So it’s clear why we want to find safe replacements for the chemical and avoid BPA as individuals.

If you’ve heard the rumor that microwaving plastic food containers can leech chemicals into your food, it’s not a conspiracy theory or pure hype. Heating the containers does cause BPA to enter your food. BPA is also the reason why you should avoid bottled water, and if you do chug a bottle, you should recycle it and never reuse it.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

89 Million Pounds Of Carcinogenic Herbicide-Laced Fertilizer Used ACross US On Lawns, Playgrounds & More

Herbicides
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
March 7, 2016

In a new white paper entitled Human Health and Pesticides: Glyphosate and 2,4-D, the Midwest Pesticide Action Center warns of a ubiquitous source of exposure to toxic chemicals: so-called “Weed and Feed” mixes, or combinations of herbicides and fertilizers that are spread across everything from lawns and gardens, to parks, ball fields and playgrounds.

89 Million pounds of Weed and Feed products are used in the United States each year, solely by the non-agricultural sector. The white paper summarizes the research to date on the negative health consequences of the two most common herbicides in those mixes: glyphosate (Roundup) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).

Insidious, wide-reaching damage

The report utilizes the term “pesticide” as “an umbrella term that includes insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides.” Placing the health risks of glyphosate and 2,4-D into context, the report says, “Most pesticides contain chemicals that can be harmful to humans, and exposure to these chemicals can cause illnesses (ranging from mild irritation to severe poisoning, seizures and death).”

Specifically, the paper notes, glyphosate and 2,4-D have both been linked to cancer and to disorders of the reproductive, nervous, endocrine (hormonal) and respiratory systems. They are both known to be especially dangerous to children. Like all biocides, these chemicals can cause both short- and long-term health problems, and the risks only increase with prolonged contact.

The report specifically highlights the growing concern over the ability of toxic chemicals to introduce epigenetic changes: changes in gene expression (without changing DNA) that can be passed on to future generations. Research has linked certain pesticides to epigenetic changes, but this research has not yet been done on glyphosate or 2,4-D specifically. However, both herbicides have been shown to cause genetic damage. 2,4-D causes both chromosomal damage and changes in gene expression.

A 2013 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that consuming glyphosate just at the levels found on food as residue, caused enough damage to the immune system and gut to damage the microbiome and encourage the development of every disease associated with the Western diet, including obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility and Alzheimer’s disease. This “insidious” effect occurs slowly and steadily over time, the researchers found, due to glyphosate blocking key detoxification enzymes on a cellular level.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

What Chemical Cocktail Is In Your Food?

QuestionEverything
Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
February 24, 2016

One of the simplest choices you can make in support of your health is to eat real food. Real food refers to vegetables, meats and wild-caught seafood, nuts, seeds, eggs, fruits and raw grass-fed dairy; foods that are in their whole, primarily unaltered form.

Such foods will not only reward you with rich concentrations of vitamins, minerals, fiber and antioxidants, but they’re also beneficial for what they do not contain — food additives.

If you eat processed foods, you’re consuming a chemical cocktail with each bite. Even seemingly simple foods like bread, processed cheese, salad dressing or pasta sauce are typically loaded with preservatives, emulsifiers, flavorings, colorings and other “enhancers.”

9 Top Food Additives to Avoid

Since the 1950s, the number of food additives allowed in U.S. food has grown from about 800 to more than 10,000. We’re not talking only about simple natural ingredients like vinegar and table salt anymore, but countless chemical concoctions that are putting Americans’ health at risk.

What little risk assessment done on such chemicals is typically done on individual chemicals in isolation, but mounting research suggests that when you consume multiple additives in combination, the health effects may be more serious than previously imagined.

One assessment by the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark found that even small amounts of chemicals can amplify each other’s adverse effects when combined.1

Really, the only way to avoid this chemical cocktail is to avoid processed foods. But at the very least, you’ll want to read food labels carefully and avoid those that follow.

  1. High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

It’s often claimed that HFCS is no worse for you than sugar, but this is not the case.

Because high-fructose corn syrup contains free-form monosaccharides of fructose and glucose, it cannot be considered biologically equivalent to sucrose (sugar), which has a glycosidic bond that links the fructose and glucose together, and which slows its breakdown in your body.

Fructose is primarily metabolized by your liver, because your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.

Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, and, if you eat a typical Western-style diet, you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do.

And just like alcohol, fructose is metabolized directly into fat — it just gets stored in your fat cells, which leads to mitochondrial malfunction, obesity and obesity-related diseases.

The more fructose or HFCS a food contains, and the more total fructose you consume, the worse it is for your health.

For example, female mice fed a diet that contained 25 percent of calories from corn syrup had nearly twice the death rate and 26 percent fewer offspring compared to those fed a diet in which 25 percent of calories came from table sugar.2

As a standard recommendation, I advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day, which is very difficult to do if you eat processed foods.

For most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you’re virtually guaranteed to consume “hidden” sources of fructose if you drink beverages other than water and eat processed food.

Fifteen grams of fructose is not much — it represents two bananas, one-third cup of raisins, or two Medjool dates. The average 12-ounce can of soda contains 40 grams of sugar, at least half of which is fructose, so one can of soda alone would exceed your daily allotment.

  1. Artificial Sweeteners

Experiments have found that sweet taste, regardless of its caloric content, enhances your appetite, and consuming artificial sweeteners has been shown to lead to even greater weight gain than consuming sugar.

Aspartame has been found to have the most pronounced effect, but the same applies for other artificial sweeteners, such as acesulfame potassium, sucralose and saccharin. Yet, weight gain is only the beginning of why artificial sweeteners should generally be avoided.

Aspartame, for instance, is a sweet-tasting neurotoxin. As a result of its unnatural structure, your body processes the amino acids found in aspartame very differently from a steak or a piece of fish.

The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation, called excitotoxicity, similar to monosodium glutamate (MSG).

Further, inflammatory bowel disease may be caused or exacerbated by the regular consumption of the popular artificial sweetener Splenda (sucralose), as it inactivates digestive enzymes and alters gut barrier function.3

Previous research also found that sucralose can destroy up to 50 percent of your beneficial gut flora.4 While you certainly don’t want to overdo it on sugar, there’s little doubt in my mind that artificial sweeteners can be even worse for your health than sugar and even fructose.

  1. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)

This flavor enhancer is most often associated with Chinese food, but it’s actually in countless processed food products ranging from frozen dinners and salad dressing to snack chips and meats.

MSG is an excitotoxin, which means it overexcites your cells to the point of damage or death, causing brain dysfunction and damage to varying degrees — and potentially even triggering or worsening learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease and more.

Part of the problem is that free glutamic acid (MSG is approximately 78 percent free glutamic acid) is the same neurotransmitter that your brain, nervous system, eyes, pancreas and other organs use to initiate certain processes in your body.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to claim that consuming MSG in food does not cause these ill effects, many other experts say otherwise.

  1. Synthetic Trans Fats

Synthetic trans fats, found in margarine, vegetable shortening, and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, are known to promote inflammation, which is a hallmark of most chronic and/or serious diseases.

These synthetic fats have been linked to stroke, cancer, diabetes, decreased immune function, reproductive problems, heart disease and more.

Fortunately, in June 2015 the FDA announced partially hydrogenated oils (a primary source of trans fat) will no longer be allowed in food due to their health risks, unless authorized by the agency.

According to the FDA, this change may help prevent around 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 heart disease deaths each year.

The new regulation won’t take effect until 2018. In the interim, food companies have to either reformulate their products to remove partially hydrogenated oils or file a limited use petition with the FDA to continue using them.

  1. Artificial Colors

Fifteen million pounds of artificial food dyes are added into U.S. foods every year — and that amount only factors in eight different varieties.3 As of July 2010, most foods in the European Union (EU) that contain artificial food dyes were labeled with warning labels stating the food “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

The British government also asked that food manufacturers remove most artificial colors from foods back in 2009 due to health concerns. Nine of the food dyes currently approved for use in the U.S. are linked to health issues ranging from cancer and hyperactivity to allergy-like reactions — and these results were from studies conducted by the chemical industry itself.5

For instance, Red # 40, which is the most widely used dye, may accelerate the appearance of immune system tumors in mice, while also triggering hyperactivity in children. Blue # 2, used in candies, beverages, pet foods and more, was linked to brain tumors.

And Yellow 5, used in baked goods, candies, cereal and more, may not only be contaminated with several cancer-causing chemicals, but it’s also linked to hyperactivity, hypersensitivity and other behavioral effects in children. Even the innocuous-sounding caramel color, which is widely used in brown soft drinks, may cause cancer due to 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI), a chemical byproduct formed when certain types of caramel coloring are manufactured.

Some U.S. companies are moving ahead of regulatory agencies to get these controversial additives out of their products. Mars, Inc., for instance, announced in February 2016 that it will be removing synthetic food dyes from its entire line of food products, including M&Ms candies.6

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

 

GMOs & Health – The Scientific Basis For Serious Concern & Immediate Action

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Nathan Daley, MD, MPH

You might ask, “why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?” After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right?  Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that  works to protect our health.  At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread.  At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved.  This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT.  A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.  This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I’m not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).

The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application.  Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects.  GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don’t experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice.  Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.

In this article, I’ll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done.  Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been “Proven” Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology.  It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health.  Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods.  A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release.  This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto.  Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient.  In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study.  I’ll list just a few of them here:

  1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done.  However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.
  2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model.  Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems.  Remember, rat studies “proved” that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use… but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed “proved” that it caused birth defects!  Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.
  3. The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.  Yet, captive rats live about 24 months.  No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed.  This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20.  Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.
  4. No reproductive or developmental studies were done.  Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.  Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.
  5. Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!  Clearly genders are different.  For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer.  In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders.  This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2].   It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.
  6. Adverse outcomes which are consider “normal” in old rats were omitted in this young rat population.  For instance, the researchers did not consider “chronic progressive nephropathy”, a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.

Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.  Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented.  As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3].  They summarize:

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn.

This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes.  Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review.  I’ll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems.  In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells.  The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.  Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin.  The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion.  The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis.  The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome.  The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

Is The Dreaded Zika Virus Another Giant Scam

QuestionEverything

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 28, 2016

Hysteria sells and…

It’s hysteria time again. Let me run it down for you.

This is the word: The dreaded Zika virus! Watch out! It’s carried by mosquitos! It can cause birth defects—babies are born with very small heads and impaired brains!

Here are a few scare headlines that were running on Drudge as of 1/26:

“Brazil sends 200,000 soldiers to stop spread of Zika.”

“Stay away from Rio if you’re pregnant.”

“’Losing battle’ against mosquito.”

“Virus threatening two continents.”

Want more hysteria? The Daily Mail indicates pregnant women are being warned not to travel to 22 countries in Latin America and Africa. Several Zika cases are being reported in Italy, the UK, and Spain.

Then we have this from the Washington Post (“As Zika virus spreads, El Salvador asks women not to get pregnant until 2018,” 1/22, with italics added):

“The rapid spread of the Zika virus has prompted Latin American governments to urge women not to get pregnant for up to two years, an extraordinary precaution aimed at avoiding birth defects believed to be linked to the mosquito-borne illness.

…a potentially culture-shaping phenomenon in which the populations of several nations have been asked to delay procreation. The World Health Organization says at least 20 countries or territories in the region, including Barbados and Bolivia, Guadeloupe and Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Panama, have registered transmission of the virus.”

So we now have governments warning women not to get pregnant. A new form of depopulation. Don’t get pregnant. If you do, and a mosquito bites you, you could give birth to a severely damaged child. Not only that, we have massive advisories against travel, for pregnant women. And 200,000 soldiers in Brazil, the site of the upcoming Olympics, are going door to door and distributing information about this new “plague.” Are the soldiers also telling men and women not to have sex? Who knows?

So let’s take a little side trip to Scam City and examine the science behind the Zika virus and the assertion that it is causing birth defects.

Before a virus can be said to cause disease, a few procedures need to occur. First, the virus must be proved to exist. It has to be isolated from a human carrier as diseased tissue, and then that tissue has to be put under an electron microscope, where many, many (Zika) viruses can be seen. Second, tests have to be run on many suspected human cases, and these tests have to reveal very large amounts of Zika in the body. That’s your basic starter kit for deciding that a virus might be causing actual human disease.

In examining the published literature on Zika, so far I see no reports of diseased-tissue removal from a human, followed by electron microscope photos revealing large amounts of Zika.

As far as diagnostic tests on suspected human cases are concerned, I see, as usual, two major types of testing: antibody, and PCR. I’ll briefly review the egregious flaws in these tests.

Antibodies are immune-system scouts which identify invaders in the body. The antibodies ID these villains so other elements of the immune system can repel and destroy them. When a test shows that antibodies geared to a specific virus/villain (like Zika) are present in the body, it means the body has contacted that Zika virus—if the test was done well and didn’t come up with a falsely-positive result. False positives are frequent. But more disastrously, proving the body had contact with a specific virus says absolutely nothing about whether the patient is sick or will get sick. In fact, before 1985, a positive antibody test was generally taken to be a good sign: the body’s immune system had encountered and overcome the invader. After 1985, the “science” was turned upside down: a positive test meant the person was sick or going to get sick. And that meant, of course, more (false) diagnoses of disease and more profit from treatments. In announced “epidemics,” health agencies can falsely inflate the numbers of cases to the moon.

The PCR is a very sophisticated and tricky test to run. It is prone to errors. It takes a tiny, tiny amount of material assumed to be a fragment of a virus, and it amplifies (blows up) that fragment so it can be observed. The first problem with the test is: did technicians indeed choose a tiny sample that actually is a piece of the virus in question? Or is it simply a bit of genetic debris? The second problem is: the test, despite claims to the contrary, says nothing reliable about the amount of virus (like Zika) that is in the patient’s body. Why is this important? Because you need a great deal of virus in the body to begin to say it is causing disease. A very small amount is trivial.

With these two useless tests in tow—the antibody and the PCR—researchers and doctors don’t have a meaningful clue about whether a patient is ill as a result of Zika infection. All case-number reports are suspect, to say the very least.

Therefore, attributing very serious problems to Zika on a worldwide basis is insupportable and speculative. It isn’t science.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com