More lawsuits against Monsanto stemming from cancer causing ingredients in its agriculture products

Monsanto
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
October 21, 2016

The makings of what could become the first successful class-action lawsuit against the world’s most evil corporation are giving a much-needed boost to the movement for clean food. Agri-giant Monsanto will soon face a barrage of lawsuits from a number of law firms over cancer-causing agents in its popular Roundup herbicide, which is reportedly making many people sick.

Two cases were recently filed in federal court in East St. Louis, and others are waiting in the wings to join them. Since the suits all claim the same thing – that glyphosate causes cancer – they may eventually be conjoined and filed as a class-action against the chemical behemoth, whose most popular herbicide was earlier this year declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) to cause cancer.

Since WHO released the findings through its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a prestigious body made up of scientific experts from all around the world, Monsanto has been the subject of increasing scrutiny over its popular herbicide product, which has been sprayed to the tune of tens of billions of pounds globally since the product was first released commercially.

Monsanto claims that the IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate probably causes cancer is bunk, and that it’s been “thoroughly discredited and rejected by the rigorous scientific research of governmental authorities around the world.” But plaintiffs in the various cases, as well as legions of independent scientists, wholeheartedly disagree, citing evidence that glyphosate is responsible for causing a number of different cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Class-action lawsuits make sense to consolidate laborious discovery process and help ensure victory

Since each individual case involving Roundup will be required to conduct extensive discovery concerning the safety, development and marketing of the herbicide going back to the mid-1970s, the plaintiffs in dozens of cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois are hoping to combine their efforts in order to increase their chances of success.

“Each Plaintiff will need to conduct the same complicated regulatory and scientific discovery (spanning over 40 years) to demonstrate that exposure to Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” a motion for the class-action states, as quoted by EcoWatch.

“To date, a few of the Roundup Cases have commenced discovery, but that discovery is being conducted under different, and sometimes conflicting, judicial constraints and orders. Centralizing these cases before one [Multidistrict Litigation] Judge to ensure that the discovery is done once for all claimants makes sense.”

The filing in Southern Illinois is strategic, as the midwestern state is the largest producer of soybeans, the vast majority of which are Roundup-Ready, genetically-modified (GM) soybeans manufactured by Monsanto. The Southern District of Illinois court is also located just 20 miles away from Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters.

But the cases aren’t limited to just the Midwest. Lawsuits are springing up all across the country, as farmers and consumers alike report serious health effects from exposure to glyphosate and the foods upon which it’s being sprayed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently filed a notice in the Federal Register concerning plans to have an eight-member scientific panel review IARC’s findings in order to reach a consensus.

Concerns over glyphosate’s continued use not only on GM crops but also on wheat as a pre-harvest desiccant have prompted many Americans to start growing their own food at home using tools like the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Box 2.0. Many others are taking the litigation route, as studies confirm that glyphosate is linked to causing breast cancer, endocrine disruption, cutaneous melanoma and many other forms of chronic disease.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

MadisonRecord.com

EcoWatch.com

HuffingtonPost.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Whole Foods in deep financial trouble; sales plummet following deceptive anti-labeling position with Monsanto

Whole Foods
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
October 21, 2016

The financial outlook for Whole Foods Market continues to look grim, as consumers seeking natural and organic products continue to take their business elsewhere.

As far back as 2014, then-CEO John Mackey admitted that the company was hurting due to an explosion in the number of stores selling organic groceries.

“The growing demand for fresh, healthy foods, the offering of natural and organic products is expanding everywhere [in] new stores, existing stores and online,” Mackey said.

The company has also been hit by several recent scandals, including allegations of price-gouging, and more recently, of colluding with Monsanto to ensure the passage of a bill that bans the labeling of foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Company profits tanking

Whole Foods was in a vulnerable financial position even before the recent scandals erupted. Organic and natural food sales have exploded in the United States in the past decade, largely due to the entry of new players into the organic grocery market. This broke what had been an all but de facto monopoly for Whole Foods.

Organic food sales were $11 billion in 2004. By 2014, they had more than tripled. The combined organic and “natural” foods market had grown to $48 billion by 2012 – from just $6 billion in 1998.

A watershed moment for organic foods availability – and perhaps the beginning of the end for Whole Foods – came when Walmart entered the market in 2014, introducing a store-brand organics line priced 25 percent lower than its other organic products.

Then, last year, New York regulators accused Whole Foods of price gouging and cheating customers with false weights and measures. The company settled the charges, but the scandal only increased its image as an overpriced store that eats up your “Whole Paycheck.”

The company’s same-store sales have fallen every quarter for the past year, with another 2.1 percent drop expected for this quarter. Overall company earnings are predicted to fall both this year and next year. And the company’s stock has tanked, falling in 2014 and 2015 to a current level of 50 percent below the 2013 high. This year, the stock has fallen more than 10 percent more.

These factors left the company in a vulnerable position when food prices as a whole fell, causing an across-the-board drop in profits for all grocery stores.

Are consumers rejecting ‘organic traitors?’

A factor overlooked by many financial analysts, but potentially significant for the Whole Foods customer base, is the company’s collusion in the recent passage of the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act 2.0. Posing as a GMO labeling bill, the DARK Act 2.0 actually banned all GMO labeling initiatives passed by state or local governments. Within two years, the government is now supposed to roll out a completely voluntary labeling initiative that requires consumers to call a 1-800 number or use a smartphone to scan a QR code for GMO ingredient information.

To top it off, the bill defines “GMO” so narrowly, that 95 percent of GMO products currently on the market are allowed to be labeled as non-GMO – including products made with corn or soy with the Bt or Roundup Ready traits.

Where does Whole Foods come in? According to the Center for Food Safety and small organic farmers groups, the DARK Act 2.0 would never have passed if major organic foods companies – including Whole Foods – had not lent their support to the bill, joining forces with Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Other major “organic traitors” include UNFI (the country’s largest organic and natural foods wholesaler) and the Organic Trade Association, which represents companies such as Organic Valley, White Wave and Smuckers.

Ninety percent of U.S. residents support mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

Money.CNN.com

BusinessInsider.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

EcoWatch.com

The GMO Scrapbook: It’s Official: I.G. Farbensanto Back In…

 THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: IT’S OFFICIAL: I.G. FARBENSANTO BACK IN ...
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
September 19, 2016

This is a story to put a scowl on your face, for the “deal” I blogged about a few weeks ago about the “merger” of Mon(ster)santo and the big German chemical firm of Bayer, which along with Hoechst and BASF was a component company to the old IG Farben cartel. Well, to be truthful, it wasn’t so old, for as I pointed out in The Nazi INternational the cartel was only finally completely liquidated in 2003. As we know, the component companies live on, and one of them, Bayer, is up to its old tricks, targeting the notorious American GMO Mons(ster)santo for a merger. Well, that deal is now inked, and we’re watching the birth of a new creature: Monster-IG Farbensanto. So many people noticed this story that it would be impossible to thank them all, but here’s the stories:

Bayer Buys Monsanto

http://spitfirelist.com/news/bayer-buys-monsanto/embed/?wmode=transparent#?secret=6CFT8RqAXl

Now, as the previous article notes, the legal firm assisting with this largest cash buyout in history – yes, Bayer had that much money on hand – was Sullivan and Cromwell.

There’s also this little tidbit(shared by Ms. C.M.):

YES Monsanto did buy the blackwater mercenary group

Ok, so now Bayer, a founding corporate member of the old IG Farben cartel, has bought Mon(ster)santo, which in turn had bought the Blackwater mercenary group, and which helped the USA drop tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam – and oh, by the way, for those of you who haven’t read Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, the Carl Duisberg Society helped sponsor Mohammad Atta to Germany. Who’s Carl Duisberg? He was the former head of Bayer during and after World War One who helped found the IG Farben cartel. And… one more thing, let’s not forget under all these new “free trade” agreements, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to sue a company for just about anything, and virtually impossible for anyone to write anything without violating their twisted understanding of copyright.

Bayer, Mon(ster)santo, Blackwater mercenaries.

What could possibly go wrong?

There’s a pattern here that disturbs (well, actually, several patterns), not the least of which is Bayer’s position not only as a major pharmaceutical firm, but also as a major agribusiness company, now acquiring yet another notorious company, with notorious methods for dealing with farmers, and which owns a notorious mercenary “security” firm. This is a corporate move to consolidate control of medicine, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness in one big happy Reich… er, one big happy cartel. Then we have the 1942 IG Farben-sponsored plan for a postwar European federation which…

Continue Reading at: GizaDeathStar.com
______________________________________________________________

Profile photo of 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”.

Bayer raises bid to purchase Monsanto to over $65 BILLION

Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
September 13, 2016

German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG seems to know no limits in its quest to acquire the world’s most notorious agricultural company. The drug manufacturer has recently pushed its offer for procuring Monsanto up to a whopping $65 billion.

Bayer has confirmed that the two corporations are currently engaged in “advanced negotiations,” though it seems less like negotiating and more like Monsanto trying to take Bayer for everything they have. The original offer from Bayer averaged out to $122 per share, or $62 billion. Their new $65 billion offer averages out to about $127.50 per share. Bayer would also assume Monsanto’s $9 billion in debt, which pushes their offer up by an additional 2 percent. However, Monsanto is apparently seeking a jaw-dropping $130 per share, at least according to Bloomberg.

The attempted wooing of Monsanto is just one of many consolidations that have occurred lately in the agricultural industry. Bloomberg reports, “China National Chemical Corp. agreed in February to acquire Syngenta AG, while DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. plan to merge and then carve out a new crop-science unit.” These kinds of deals in the crop and seed industry threaten to leave just a few oversized global giants in the Big Ag industrial complex.

If Bayer and Monsanto were to merge, they would create what would be one of the world’s largest agricultural suppliers. Monsanto is presently the world’s largest seed manufacturer, and Bayer currently offers their own “crop-protection” products (if you can really call them that). Between the two, they will make for a nearly-untouchable conglomerate. Monsanto has announced that it is considering Bayer’s offer, but the company is not the GMO giant’s only suitor; several other companies are seeking to acquire Monsanto as well.

In spite of their tremendous offer, Monsanto reportedly feels that their company is somehow being undervalued, but is still “open” to negotiation. Clearly, Monsanto is blind to the growing aversion to its name and products.

While the apparent ego of the company is worrisome, there are many more things to be concerned about, especially if this deal were to come to fruition. If two massive companies tied to the agricultural industry join forces, it could spell disaster for farmers and food prices. Their consolidation would lead to fewer choices for farmers, and you know what happens when there is a monopoly: prices skyrocket. With farmer bargaining power limited, it’s natural to expect seed prices to increase. And that means that the price of produce in supermarkets will increase along with them.

Robert Lawrence, a professor from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the founding director of the Center for a Liveable Future, told Market Watch, “The consolidation and driving out of smaller competitors, and controlling the marketplace and raising prices of seeds and pesticides for farmers worldwide is going to be a real shock to the food system.”

The merger could also mean fewer options for consumers, and may even effect the availability of organic crops and crops grown with fewer pesticides. Given the size of the two companies, the potential for them to further reduce farmers’ options is very real.

You would think that with the growing demand for organic, pesticide-free produce, Bayer would not be so interested in Monsanto; after all, that name has become something of a dirty word.

However, Bayer reportedly took Monsanto’s poor image into account, but made their offer to acquire the company anyway. This isn’t surprising though; anytime two large companies such as these merge together, the net result will always be more power. Even if people don’t like them, the increase in market share will still inevitably yield more economic power. And with economic power comes political power. As if Monsanto doesn’t already have their claws deep enough into our political system, merging with Bayer would surely grant them invincibility.

The most frightening thing about this acquisition is its potential to make Monsanto a stronger force in the agricultural industry, and consequently, further reduce the availability of non-GMO foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

USAToday.com

Bloomberg.com


MarketWatch.com

Monsanto whistleblower awarded $22 million after exposing ‘shady deals’

Monsanto
Source: NaturalNews.com
Samantha Debbie
September 7, 2016

The Securities and Exchange Commission has paid out the second largest settlement in U.S. history to a former Monsanto executive who blew the whistle on the biotech giant’s shady business dealings involving Roundup, a widely used herbicide containing glyphosate which was labeled a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization last spring.

The whistleblower’s identity is being kept secret, according to reports, presumably to protect the individual from the potential backlash of powerful industry groups.

The former Monsanto executive, who exposed “accounting improprieties” involving Roundup, has been awarded more than $22 million, according to CNBC.

“The award of $22,437,800 was tied to an $80 million settlement between the SEC and Monsanto in February, according to the lawyer, Stuart Meissner in New York, in a statement.”

Federal government accuses Monsanto of fudging sales numbers for weed killer

The SEC has accused Monsanto of lying about its earnings for Roundup. The allegations specifically involve a corporate rebate program designed to increase sales of the product.

The agency said that the seed giant “lacked sufficient internal controls to account for millions of dollars in rebates that it offered to retailers and distributors. It ultimately booked a sizeable amount of revenue, but then failed to recognize the costs of the rebate programs on its books.”

Monsanto reportedly “materially” distorted its consolidated earnings over a three-year period. The company is said to have “neither admitted nor denied” the allegations, while stating in the fiscal year 2015 that it was fully prepared to pay the resulting penalties.

“Company employees are in unique positions behind-the-scenes to unravel complex or deeply buried wrongdoing. Without this whistleblower’s courage, information, and assistance, it would have been extremely difficult for law enforcement to discover this securities fraud on its own,” said Jane Norberg, acting chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower.

SEC’s whistleblower program issues $107 million in five years

The agency was given the power to award whistleblowers under the Dodd Frank financial reform law, signed by President Obama in 2010 to prevent institutions from becoming “too big to fail.”

The program has so far awarded more than $107 million to 33 whistleblowers since its implementation in 2011. The largest award was issued in 2014, totaling $30 million.

Monsanto, of course, is no stranger to the legal system. The company is facing more resistance from the government over its plans to merge with John Deere, which manufactures farming, construction and forestry equipment.

Justice Department sues to block Monsanto, John Deere deal

Headquartered in Moline, Illinois, John Deere revealed its plans to acquire Monsanto’s Precision Planting back in November.

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit to block the deal, arguing that if it goes through, it will give John Deere “a stranglehold on the market for high-speed precision-planting devices,” USA Today reports.

The two companies together sell 86 percent of all equipment in the precision-planting sector.

“If this deal were allowed to proceed, Deere would dominate the market for high-speed precision-planting systems and be able to raise prices and slow innovation at the expense of American farmers who rely on these systems,” said Renata Hesse, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice’s antitrust division.

John Deere and Monsanto claim that the merger is necessary to protect farmers, and will fight the lawsuit.

Monsanto is also considering an offer by the chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer. The German-based company offered $64 billion to purchase its agribusiness rival, Monsanto.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Investopedia.com

USAToday.com

CNBC.com

RT.com

If Genetically Modified Foods Are Safe, Why Aren’t They Labeled

QuestionEverything2
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 2, 2016

“The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.”
– Thomas Berger

“The greatest gift is not to be afraid to question.”
– Ruby Dee

Imagine yourself being the CEO of a big Biotech Corporation.

Imagine yourself being CEO of the most powerful Biotech Corporation on Earth.

The Board of Directors and yourself are having a meeting, and everyone’s discussing data on how genetically modified organisms [GMOs] are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Every single one of you in this room is in agreement that Genetically Modified Foods, that your company has helped create, is a safe, great product.

Please keep in mind, as CEO, your ultimate job is that of increased profits for the company.  If you don’t perform, no profits are had, and you lose your jobs. 

Now, knowing this, as CEO of the most powerful Biotech corporation on the planet, wouldn’t it behoove you to label your product so people realize what type of product they are getting – that of a ‘safe’ variety?  Wouldn’t you and your company want people to realize which products you helped create as head of this corporation, since, not only they are ‘safe’, but ‘nutritious’?  Wouldn’t you, and your company, and ALL other Big Biotech companies want people to know who’s creating a more superior product as compared with everyone else, so that profits can begin and a pipeline of profits can be streamlined directly into your company?

The profit motive alone would lead one to believe that that if you wish people to use more of your product, as CEO, and if you wish to increase profits, then therefore you would want people to know when they are using to your product so they can stick with it, thus increasing profits year over year.  After all, as CEO, that’s your job.

Furthermore, even if other companies didn’t want to label their products [for whatever reason that would be], wouldn’t you, as CEO, want to distance yourself and your Biotech Company from other companies that will cut into your profits [since no genetically modified food products are labeled], in order to show that not only does your product works, but you are proud of it, and you want people knowing which product you help create so they can further support you and your righteous endeavours?

Ruminate upon that a bit.

_________________________________________________________

Decoupling from the above foray into the realm of imagination, let’s use another analogy.

Imagine yourself a prospective buyer of a new vehicle.  You just got a huge signing bonus to a job, and you have enough money to spend to purchase a brand spanking new $50,000 vehicle.

You and your other half go to the car dealership looking for this new vehicle.

Excitedly, both of you set off into the parking lot and begin browsing vehicles.  But then, you realize something rather odd.  None of the cars have logos on them.  You can’t tell which company made which car.  Well shucks, that would be quite suspect, right?

How could you verify from which company which car came?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the claims of the car’s performance match that of the official company specs?  You couldn’t.  How could you verify if the car’s safety data matches that of the official tests?  You couldn’t. 

Knowing all this, would you as prospective buyer, purchase a car from – Heaven knows whom? – this dealership?  Or would you go elsewhere where they tell you exactly what you’re getting?

Ruminate on that for a bit.

__________________________________________________________

Both examples are quite salient, because we have products, whose claims are being made are safe and effective, but which have no labels.

Except this has a direct correlation to the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms/Foods.

If you wouldn’t purchase a car if you didn’t know who made it and couldn’t verify its safety et al., why would you purchase foods that have genetically modified organisms from company _______ [we don’t know from which company, they aren’t labeled after all]?

After thinking long and incisively, you probably wouldn’t, would you?

This is one of the greatest issues that we as a society are faced with.

While other countries like Russia and others are banning [not labeling, banning] genetically modified foods/organisms, here in the United States, sell-out politicians and corrupt corporations just finished creating a law that obfuscates the issue even more that’s Orwellianly called Dark Act [who are they keeping in the dark?].

Thankfully, there is a solution at hand.  There are healthier alternatives, and for that please read this.

In our information age, individuals need to be cognizant when they are eating real food and when they are not.  If we don’t, we set ourselves up for failure at the outset and stand to lose greatly.

If we don’t look out for our health and that of our kith and kin, nobody will.

Vote with your dollars.  Make it count.

Support yourself, rather than those to seek to profit from you at your expensive.

If we don’t, humanity’s next chapter will be a Dark Act indeed.

General Mills sued for false use of ‘natural’ claim on Nature Valley Granola Bars, found to contain glyphosate

Glyphosate
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
August 31, 2016

General Mills is being sued for misleading use of the term “natural” on packages of Nature Valley granola bars, which have been shown to contain residues of the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup).

The lawsuit, filed by Moms Across America, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association, alleges that consumers expect products labeled “natural” to be free of synthetic toxins. Yet the granola bars in question bear a label that reads “Made with 100% NATURAL whole grain OATS.”

“As a mother, when I read “100% Natural” I would expect that to mean no synthetic or toxic chemicals at all,” said Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America. “Glyphosate is a toxic chemical that the EPA recognizes as a ‘reproductive effector’ which ‘can cause liver and kidney damage’ and ‘digestive effects.’ It is unacceptable that Nature Valley granola bars contain any amount of this chemical.”

Glyphosate not ‘natural’

For years, consumer groups have criticized the FDA for failing to define a clear standard for what constitutes a “natural” food or ingredient. To date, the FDA has only stated that a “natural” claim must be “truthful and not misleading.” The only ingredients that the FDA has prohibited are artificial colors, artificial flavors and the vaguely defined catchall “synthetic substances” – a category that does not even include major industrially manufactured chemicals such as high fructose corn syrup!

The FDA also prohibits the use of the term on ingredients other than “natural flavors” (which are themselves isolated chemicals extracted in labs).

Yet, according to a 2015 survey by Consumer Reports, 66 percent of consumers seek out products labeled “natural” because they believe these foods to be produced without pesticides (including herbicides), hormones, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or artificial ingredients of any kind.

“Food grown with dangerous pesticides like glyphosate isn’t natural,” said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Consumers understand this. That’s why sales of natural products are booming. Unfortunately, companies’ misleading claims trick consumers into buying just what they’re trying to avoid. This has to be stopped.”

A number of recent lawsuits have caused food companies to move away from the “natural” label, replacing it with terms such as “honest” and simple.” For example, General Mills itself agreed in a 2014 lawsuit settlement to stop using the term “100 percent natural” for Nature Valley granola bars that contain any of several highly processed ingredients, including high fructose corn syrup or maltodextrin.

Yet now the company has found a way around that agreement, labeling the oats – rather than the bars – as “100 percent natural.”

Levels high enough to poison kidneys, liver

The lawsuit charges that the oats used in Nature Valley granola bars cannot be considered 100 percent natural, because tests have shown that they contain residues from a toxic synthetic chemical, glyphosate. It also accuses General Mills of misleading consumers about glyphosate’s harmful effects.

“Glyphosate cannot be considered ‘natural’ because it is a toxic, synthetic herbicide,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a carcinogen, it should not be allowed for use in food production, and certainly not in food with a label that suggests to consumers that the major ingredient – oats – is 100% natural.”

Glyphosate is one of world’s top selling herbicides. Its use has ballooned due to the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant GMOs, but it is also used on non-GMO crops, such as oats. Other than buying organic produce, one of the only ways to avoid glyphosate is to grow your own food at home.

Although the glyphosate levels found in the granola bars are “only” 0.45 parts per billion (ppb), well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe exposure threshold, studies have found that concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb can cause damage to the liver and kidneys. Glyphosate has also been linked to chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease, and to a wide range of other problems, including birth defects.

In a recent letter to the EPA, a group of leading scientists warmed that glyphosate also contributes to antibiotic resistance and causes devastation to soil and wildlife health.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

FoodNavigator-USA.com

SustainablePulse.com

OrganicConsumers.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Top 7 ways a hospital stay can go downhill

[Editor’s Note]

Given the fact that there is irrefutable verifiable evidence that shows that preventable medical mistakes kill 250,000 people like clockwork [conservative estimate] every year in and out is highly disturbing.  It lays a troubling foundation for the post that follows.  For more please read:

Preventable Medical Mistakes Are 3rd Leading Cause Of Death In The US

Superbugs
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
August 31, 2016

Even if you eat 99 percent organic food, take herbal supplements, exercise, consult a nutritionist and live responsibly, at some point you will wind up in a hospital for something – either a broken bone, severe laceration, emergency operation or maybe just to bring in a loved one for some other reason. Believe it or not, the scariest part of your visit to the hospital or emergency room goes beyond the pressing need you have for a doctor to cut you open, sew you up or reset that broken “wing.” Sure, you don’t want to bleed to death from your injury, and you’re probably just praying the pain will subside soon, but there are dangers lurking in that medical center; in fact, your “dire” situation could get far worse, and in a short period of time.

Welcome to America, where people think medical insurance is the best thing since sliced bread, but many find out the hard way that the slippery slope of medical care can rapidly decline, sending them tumbling down, down, down, into the abyss of the chronic sick-care nightmare that’s sadly become commonplace.

Here they come: The top 7 ways a hospital stay can go downhill – and fast!

1. Superbugs: Hospitals across America are well aware that the MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) superbug bacterium causes potentially deadly staph infections and is completely immune to antibiotics. The biggest irony is that MRSA can be killed by natural medicines like colloidal silver, garlic and aloe vera, but hospitals refuse to use any natural medicines since doctors can’t prescribe them, and they can’t be patented by Big Pharma.

MRSA can enter the body through the skin, mouth or nasal passages, then travel to the bloodstream, urinary tract, lungs or other organs, leading to sepsis, severe inflammation, pneumonia and other potentially fatal complications. Watch out for electronic thermometers, the doctor and nurses’ laboratory coats, soiled gowns, endoscopes, food and flies!

Even scarier than MRSA are gram-negative superbugs (carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae – or CRE). Diagnosed mostly in hospital patients, CRE produce an enzyme that’s resistant to “last resort” antibiotics, and are fatal in up to 60 percent of cases. Gram-negative superbugs have been reported in 35 states, and have played a large part in the nearly 2 million hospital-associated infections to date, contributing to about 100,000 deaths every year. That means hospital-acquired infections are among the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S.

2. The pneumonia vaccine: The pneumococcal vaccine is brewed in growth mediums and manufactured with scary carcinogenic processing ingredients that you simply wouldn’t believe. The highly secretive vaccine industry uses genetically modified soy peptone broth, ammonium sulfate (which is 21 percent nitrogen and flame retardant) and polysorbate 80, which when injected into muscle tissue can cause anaphylactic shock. What was it you came into the hospital for again? Polysorbate 80 also suppresses your immune system while causing severe allergic reactions – a combination of events that can kill you. The pneumonia vaccine called Prevnar contains over 20 strains of pneumonia, diphtheria and streptococcus infectious bacteria – a completely unpredictable combination. Some surgeons actually recommend this toxic jab for seniors immediately after major operations, during recovery.

3. GMO food: So you arrive at the hospital injured, stressed, worried, sick and weak. Your body needs nutrients as it drains what it has to save you from this hopefully short-lived nightmare. But guess what? You’ve just entered the danger zone, where not a single morsel of food, beverage or “medicine” has one lick of nutrition, and even worse, most of it contains genetically modified, pesticide-laden and processed ingredients that destroy immunity and make you even weaker. Not one hospital in America serves organic food, and the “protein” drinks they offer are loaded with GM soy and canola oil that strip your body of nutrients and add to the health chaos, sending you straight downhill.

4. Antibiotics: Doctors in America just love slinging those prescriptions! They scribble some secret language on a little piece of paper and give you some warm, fuzzy advice to make you feel safe, all while crippling your immunity, ensuring your stay at the hospital travels in one direction: downhill.

5. Unnecessary surgery: You may not know that doctors have a financial incentive to perform surgery on dying seniors because Medicare is guaranteed to pay for it. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health reported that over 34 percent of people over age 65 are operated on during their last year, 25 percent in their last month, and 10 percent in their last week of life. How do they die? The stress of surgery and poor conditions in hospitals leads to post surgery pneumonia, superbug infections and heart attacks.

6. The wrong diagnosis: American medical doctors and oncologists are trained to do surgery, read x-rays, run expensive tests and prescribe multiple chemical-based medications. That’s about it. They often make major mistakes that can cost you your life. They’ll tell you your sickness is inherited when it’s not. They’ll prescribe antibiotics for viral infections because the symptoms are similar. They’ll remove organs (ie: gall bladder removed for gall stones) for illnesses that can be healed by simply changing patient diet plans to a plant-based regimen.

7. Your chart gets misread or mixed up with that of someone else: Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for your left arm, knee or hip to get operated on when it’s really your right one that needed the work. Many hospitals today are so overcrowded that nurses and surgeons often mix up charts or files when more than one person has the same last name.

Bottom line: Eat organic food, research natural medicine and live carefully so you can stay healthy and avoid the hospital. Good luck!

Sources for this article include:

SafePatientProject.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Vaccines.ProCon.org

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

Herbs-Info.com

Hungary destroys GMO corn fields

GMO corn fields
Source:NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z
August 31, 2016

Are you tired of GMOs working their way into so many of the foods you buy? Do you ever wish you could just burn down all the GMO crops out there so they can stop compromising our food supply for good? Some Hungarian officials did exactly that when they burned down 1,000 acres of maize in 2011.

The deputy state secretary of Hungary’s Ministry of Rural Development, Lajos Bognar, said at the time that the crops had been grown using genetically modified seeds. Since these seeds are banned in the country, the government decided that the best option was to destroy the crops. Bognar said that the maize had been plowed under, but its pollen had not spread. The farmers in question had mistakenly bought the seeds without realizing that they had been genetically modified.

Even though seed traders in the country are required to make sure their products do not contain GMOs, authorities say that they will continue to actively verify this. GMO seeds from Pioneer and Monsanto have been found mixed in with natural seeds, presumably accidentally. Hungary has burned down thousands of these illegal GM crops over the years. Fire is the best way to get rid of these crops, as it destroys their artificial DNA and stops it from working its way into non-GMO plants.

Hungary has taken a strong stance against GMOs. In fact, the country’s Constitution says:

Hungary shall promote the effective application of the right referred to in Paragraph (1) by an agriculture free of genetically modified organisms, by ensuring access to healthy food and drinking water, by organising safety at work and healthcare provision, by supporting sports and regular physical exercise, as well as by ensuring the protection of the environment.

Contrast this with America, where GMOs are not illegal, and there are no serious labeling requirements. Monsanto’s hold on the legal and political systems in our country is simply too strong, and they are not above discrediting scientists who reveal the dangers caused by their products.

In fact, America is increasingly standing out as being far too lenient in this matter. Russia has also banned all GMO crops, and a number of countries in Europe have banned the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM corn, including Switzerland, Italy, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Greece, Luxembourg and Romania.

Plenty of reasons to avoid GMOs

Why would people in any of these countries want GMO food? One only needs to look at the results of the famous study by Gilles-Eric Seralini in which rats who drank amounts of Roundup that are legally allowed in our water supply noted a 200 to 300 percent increase in large tumors. In addition, those fed GM corn suffered severe damage to their organs, including their livers and kidneys. As many as half of the male rats and 70 percent of the female ones died prematurely after being fed Monsanto’s GM corn, NK603, which is found in many corn-based breakfast cereals, snack chips and tortillas.

When will America wake up?

Will our government ever adopt a similar stance to that of Hungary? This seems highly unlikely at the moment, so don’t expect to see GM crops throughout the nation being destroyed anytime soon. However, you can grow your own GMO-free food in the meantime, and be sure to spread the word to all you know about the dangers of these foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

OurDailyIdeas.com

Newstarget.com

MyHealthyFeed.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

FarmToConsumer.org

Study: Glyphosate damages reproductive development in rats, increasing risk for cancer and infertility

Glyphosate
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
August 29, 2016

Glyphosate — the active ingredient of Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide Roundup — may disrupt development of the uterus, leading to fertility problems and cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from Argentina and published in the journal Toxicology.

Roundup is one of the most widely used herbicides on the planet. Its popularity has been almost entirely driven by the adoption of Monsanto-engineered genetically modified (GM) crops that are resistant to the chemical.

Argentina is the world’s leading user of glyphosate, largely due to its heavy planting of GM soybeans. Yet doctors and scientists have pointed to an alarming trend of high miscarriage rates in soybean growing areas. Meanwhile, local farmers have blamed herbicides including glyphosate for alarmingly high rates of mutations in farm animals, which quadrupled following a recent surge in GM soy cultivation.

May cause uterine cancer

In the new study, researchers injected newborn female rats with glyphosate for seven days following birth, at doses of 2 mg/kg of body weight — the same dose that US regulators have ruled is safe to consume daily over the course of a lifetime.

The researchers observed abnormal cell proliferation and structural changes to the uteri of the rats, as well as disruptions to the expression of proteins that play a role in uterine development. These changes occurred even though there were no signs of toxicity (acute or chronic) in the rats, and no changes in their weight relative to untreated rats.

The findings suggest that glyphosate may harm female fertility and lead to uterine cancer, the researchers concluded.

Notably, among the effects observed were disruptions to hormonal activity (endocrine disruption), supporting growing concern that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Significantly, many endocrine disruptors are more potent at very small concentrations (on the orders of parts per billion) than at the higher one typically tested by regulatory agencies.

The researchers note that they deliberately chose to use injected rather than oral glyphosate, even though oral administration is favored for pesticide and herbicide safety studies. That’s because the rats being studied were so young that they were only consuming their mothers’ milk, and there was no other way to give them the relevant doses. This decision was supported by scientists interviewed by The Ecologist; unfortunately, chemical-friendly regulators may use it as an excuse to ignore the study’s findings.

Roundup worse than glyphosate alone

Yet the new study is only one of many recent trials implicating glyphosate and Roundup in reproductive harm. Earlier this year, in a study published in Environmental Health, researchers from Kings College London found that ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate — like humans might get from drinking water or from residue on their food — caused large-scale changes to the genome of rats. Some of these changes appear to be epigenetic — changes in gene expression that can be passed on to future generations.

The same researchers also successfully reverse-engineered the proprietary “inactive ingredients” of Roundup, and demonstrated that some of these may also have toxic effects. This is a highly significant finding, as most regulatory agencies simply presume that inactive ingredients are chemically neutral and therefore harmless.

But when it comes to Roundup, that consensus is starting to crack. Last year, an Australian study found that at levels commonly found in US and Australian drinking water, both Roundup and glyphosate alone caused endocrine disrupting effects, in part by killing off cells that produce the female hormone progesterone. That study actually found that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Also last year, the European Union Food Safety Authority (EFSA), while attempting to claim that glyphosate does not cause cancer, admitted that studies performed on Roundup have indeed suggested that the herbicide causes genetic damage. Thus, the EFSA said, Roundup is likely to lead to cancer.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:
www.theecologist.org
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com