Thursday, November 12, 2009
Article
andemic? What flu pandemic?
First we were told swine flu could kill 65,000 Britons. Now the death toll is unlikely to top 1,000
By Jeremy Laurance
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
* Share
The Independent Close
o DiggDigg
o del.icio.usdel.icio.us
o FacebookFacebook
o RedditReddit
o GoogleGoogle
o Stumble UponStumble Upon
o FarkFark
o NewsvineNewsvine
o zYahooBuzz
o BeboBebo
o TwitterTwitter
o Independent MindsIndependent Minds
* Print
* Email
* Text Size
o Normal
o Large
o Extra Large
Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, whose hospitalisation rate is four times higher than in older age groups.
GETTY
Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, whose hospitalisation rate is four times higher than in older age groups.
* Photos enlarge
sponsored links:
Ads by Google
Voting in UK Elections
Get info on registering to vote& how to vote in UK elections.
www.AboutMyVote.co.uk/OverseasVoter
Obama & Bernanke's War
Secret War On The Dollar Exposed!Washington Doesn't Want You To Know
www.UncommonWisdomDaily.com
How to make electricity
A shocking new homeowner's kit theelectric co's hope u will never own
www.Power4Home.com
The 2009 swine flu pandemic may turn out to be the weakest in history. It is spreading more slowly than expected and the latest figures show a flattening, or even a dip, in new infections. It is mild in most people but severe in a few and, while it readily infects children, it appears to spare the elderly. With the vaccine being rolled out, its impact should be further curbed.
So far in the UK, 154 people have died from the virus, around half of whom were under 45. In addition, 1,431 were admitted to hospital with swine flu last week. But in comparison with previous pandemics – or even seasonal flu epidemics – this is a relatively low toll.
In July, shortly after the World Health Organisation declared the first flu pandemic for 40 years, Britain's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, published a worst-case scenario suggesting the country should plan for up to 65,000 deaths. That planning assumption has since been revised downwards twice. In September the "worst case" was cut to 19,000 deaths, and in October it was cut again to 1,000 deaths. This compares with an average annual toll of 4,000 to 8,000 deaths from seasonal winter flu.
Previous pandemics have had higher death tolls. In 1918 Spanish H1N1 flu claimed an estimated 230,000 lives in Britain and up to 50 million worldwide. In 1957-58, Asian HN2 flu caused 1.5 to 2 million deaths worldwide and 33,000 in Britain. That was followed by Hong Kong H3N2 flu in 1968-69 which caused one million deaths worldwide of which 30,000 were in Britain. So far, 2009 "novel H1N1" flu has caused 6,394 deaths worldwide, of which 154 have been in the UK.
Doctors say the key difference with seasonal winter flu is that it does not normally kill the young. Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, whose hospitalisation rate is four times higher than in older age groups. Pregnant women are also vulnerable.
Doctors have also been dismayed by the unpredictable ferocity with which it attacks some people. The biggest concern is the number in critical care which has risen sharply in recent weeks. In England, of 848 patients in hospital on 4 November, 172 were in critical care.
Dr Steven Field, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said: "I thought the original predictions for the number of deaths were incredibly high. Hospitals are coming under pressure but, because the care is so good, fewer people are dying."
Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the British Medical Association's GPs committee said: "The original government masterplan was for a maximum of 250,000 dead. But that was based on avian flu. It became clear that swine flu did not pose the same risk. Compared with those earlier assumptions it is looking pretty tame."
The H1N1 swine flu virus that emerged in Mexico last April was the first novel flu virus seen for more than 40 years. But it has since become clear that H1N1 virus is not quite as novel as it appeared. Unlike seasonal flu, swine flu has spread much less among the over 60s, leading scientists to speculate that they have some immunity.
Flu viruses are, however, notoriously unpredictable. The 2009 H1N1 swine flu strain proved its capacity to surprise early on by triggering the first serious flu outbreak in summer in living memory last July, when cases peaked at over 110,000.
But it could yet hold more surpises in store. John McCauley, director of the World Influenza Centre at the National Institute of Medical Research in Mill Hill, north London, said: "Of the three pandemics in the last century it is nothing like 1918 Spanish flu and it may well be milder than 1957 Asian flu or 1968 Hong Kong flu. But it is too early to tell. In the pandemic of 1968-69 we had more illness in 1969."
Professor John Oxford, a flu expert and director of Retroscreen Virology Ltd, said: "So far, this pandemic is the weakest. But the paradox is it could be worse next year. We cannot let up our guard."
Professor Angus Nicoll, head of the influenza programme at the European Centre for Disease Control in Stockholm, said: "It is a potentially manageable pandemic but there will certainly be a number of deaths among younger people that we don't normally see. For that reason I would be resistant to saying it is the weakest pandemic, especially if that were used as a reason not to be immunised."
Flu deaths: the numbers
65,000
Number of deaths in worst-case scenario for Britain published in July
19,000
Revised worst-case scenario outlined in September
1,000
Revised worst-case scenario last month
154
Number of deaths in Britain so far
4-8,000
Average annual death toll in Britain from seasonal winter flu
First we were told swine flu could kill 65,000 Britons. Now the death toll is unlikely to top 1,000
By Jeremy Laurance
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
* Share
The Independent Close
o DiggDigg
o del.icio.usdel.icio.us
o FacebookFacebook
o RedditReddit
o GoogleGoogle
o Stumble UponStumble Upon
o FarkFark
o NewsvineNewsvine
o zYahooBuzz
o BeboBebo
o TwitterTwitter
o Independent MindsIndependent Minds
* Text Size
o Normal
o Large
o Extra Large
Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, whose hospitalisation rate is four times higher than in older age groups.
GETTY
Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, whose hospitalisation rate is four times higher than in older age groups.
* Photos enlarge
sponsored links:
Ads by Google
Voting in UK Elections
Get info on registering to vote& how to vote in UK elections.
www.AboutMyVote.co.uk/OverseasVoter
Obama & Bernanke's War
Secret War On The Dollar Exposed!Washington Doesn't Want You To Know
www.UncommonWisdomDaily.com
How to make electricity
A shocking new homeowner's kit theelectric co's hope u will never own
www.Power4Home.com
The 2009 swine flu pandemic may turn out to be the weakest in history. It is spreading more slowly than expected and the latest figures show a flattening, or even a dip, in new infections. It is mild in most people but severe in a few and, while it readily infects children, it appears to spare the elderly. With the vaccine being rolled out, its impact should be further curbed.
So far in the UK, 154 people have died from the virus, around half of whom were under 45. In addition, 1,431 were admitted to hospital with swine flu last week. But in comparison with previous pandemics – or even seasonal flu epidemics – this is a relatively low toll.
In July, shortly after the World Health Organisation declared the first flu pandemic for 40 years, Britain's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, published a worst-case scenario suggesting the country should plan for up to 65,000 deaths. That planning assumption has since been revised downwards twice. In September the "worst case" was cut to 19,000 deaths, and in October it was cut again to 1,000 deaths. This compares with an average annual toll of 4,000 to 8,000 deaths from seasonal winter flu.
Previous pandemics have had higher death tolls. In 1918 Spanish H1N1 flu claimed an estimated 230,000 lives in Britain and up to 50 million worldwide. In 1957-58, Asian HN2 flu caused 1.5 to 2 million deaths worldwide and 33,000 in Britain. That was followed by Hong Kong H3N2 flu in 1968-69 which caused one million deaths worldwide of which 30,000 were in Britain. So far, 2009 "novel H1N1" flu has caused 6,394 deaths worldwide, of which 154 have been in the UK.
Doctors say the key difference with seasonal winter flu is that it does not normally kill the young. Swine flu is worst among the under-fives, whose hospitalisation rate is four times higher than in older age groups. Pregnant women are also vulnerable.
Doctors have also been dismayed by the unpredictable ferocity with which it attacks some people. The biggest concern is the number in critical care which has risen sharply in recent weeks. In England, of 848 patients in hospital on 4 November, 172 were in critical care.
Dr Steven Field, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said: "I thought the original predictions for the number of deaths were incredibly high. Hospitals are coming under pressure but, because the care is so good, fewer people are dying."
Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the British Medical Association's GPs committee said: "The original government masterplan was for a maximum of 250,000 dead. But that was based on avian flu. It became clear that swine flu did not pose the same risk. Compared with those earlier assumptions it is looking pretty tame."
The H1N1 swine flu virus that emerged in Mexico last April was the first novel flu virus seen for more than 40 years. But it has since become clear that H1N1 virus is not quite as novel as it appeared. Unlike seasonal flu, swine flu has spread much less among the over 60s, leading scientists to speculate that they have some immunity.
Flu viruses are, however, notoriously unpredictable. The 2009 H1N1 swine flu strain proved its capacity to surprise early on by triggering the first serious flu outbreak in summer in living memory last July, when cases peaked at over 110,000.
But it could yet hold more surpises in store. John McCauley, director of the World Influenza Centre at the National Institute of Medical Research in Mill Hill, north London, said: "Of the three pandemics in the last century it is nothing like 1918 Spanish flu and it may well be milder than 1957 Asian flu or 1968 Hong Kong flu. But it is too early to tell. In the pandemic of 1968-69 we had more illness in 1969."
Professor John Oxford, a flu expert and director of Retroscreen Virology Ltd, said: "So far, this pandemic is the weakest. But the paradox is it could be worse next year. We cannot let up our guard."
Professor Angus Nicoll, head of the influenza programme at the European Centre for Disease Control in Stockholm, said: "It is a potentially manageable pandemic but there will certainly be a number of deaths among younger people that we don't normally see. For that reason I would be resistant to saying it is the weakest pandemic, especially if that were used as a reason not to be immunised."
Flu deaths: the numbers
65,000
Number of deaths in worst-case scenario for Britain published in July
19,000
Revised worst-case scenario outlined in September
1,000
Revised worst-case scenario last month
154
Number of deaths in Britain so far
4-8,000
Average annual death toll in Britain from seasonal winter flu
Article
Print | Close this window
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
(Editing by Eric Beech)
© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
By Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
(Editing by Eric Beech)
© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Article
Special Reports
Millions of children damaged by toxic chemicals
'Silent pandemic' alert on industrial pollution
2006 11 09
From: yorkshiretoday.co.uk
Millions of children worldwide may have suffered brain damage as a direct result of industrial pollution, scientists said yesterday.
An explosive report from American and Danish researchers talks of a "silent pandemic" of disorders caused by toxic chemicals spilling into the environment.
They include conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation and cerebral palsy.
All are common and can result in lifelong disability, but their causes are largely unknown.
The scientists identified 202 industrial chemicals with the potential to damage the human brain and said they were likely to be the "tip of a very large iceberg".
More than 1,000 chemicals are known to be neurotoxic in animals and are also likely to be harmful to humans.
The researchers made an urgent call for much tighter worldwide controls on chemicals and a "precautionary approach" to testing.
Tougher regulations being introduced by the European Union do not go far enough, said the researchers. In the USA, there are only minimal requirements for companies to carry out safety test on chemicals, which are often not enforced.
One of the study's two authors, Dr Philippe Grandjean, from the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark in Winslowparken, said: "The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences.
"Even if substantial documentation on their toxicity is available, most chemicals are not regulated to protect the developing brain.
"Only a few substances, such as lead and mercury, are controlled with the purpose of protecting children. The 200 other chemicals that are known to be toxic to the human brain are not regulated to prevent adverse effects on the foetus or a small child."
Dr Grandjean and co-author Prof Philip Landrigan, from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, trawled a range of scientific data sources to compile their evidence.
Five substances for which sufficient toxicity evidence exist were examined in detail – lead, methylmercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and toluene.
Pinning down the effects of industrial chemical pollution is extremely difficult because they may not produce symptoms for several years or even decades, said the scientists.
This was why the pandemic is "silent". The damage caused by individual toxic chemicals is not obviously apparent in available health statistics.
But the extent of the sub-clinical risk to large populations is illustrated by the legacy of lead. Virtually all children born in industrialised countries between 1960 and 1980 must have been exposed to lead from petrol, said the researchers.
Based on what is known about the toxic effects of lead, this may have reduced exceptional IQ scores of above 130 by more than half, and increased the number of scores less than 70.
Other results of lead exposure included shortened attention span, slowed motor co-ordination and heightened aggression.
In later life, early damage from lead can increase the risk of Parkinson's and other degenerative diseases.
Today, it is estimated that lead poisoning in children costs the US economy $43bn (£22.6bn) each year.
One in six children is thought to have some kind of developmental disability, usually involving the nervous system.
Writing in the on-line version of The Lancet medical journal, the scientists conclude: "The combined evidence suggests that neurodevelopmental disorders caused by industrial chemicals has created a silent pandemic in modern society."
In the EU, 100,000 chemicals were registered for commercial use in 1981, while 80,000 are registered in the US.
Yet fewer than half had been subjected to even token laboratory testing, said the report, and in 80 per cent of cases there was no information about potential danger to children.
Although new chemicals went through more rigorous testing, access to the data could be restricted for commercial reasons.
In the EU, a new testing programme called Reach is planned under proposed legislation that will enforce tighter controls.
But the scientists say that even this does not go far enough.
Article from http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=55&ArticleID=1864622
Comment on this article
Related: The Mass Poisoning Of Humanity
MSG & Aspartame
Vaccines & Fluoride
Depleted Uranium For Dummies
Depleted Uranium In India, Spreading Worldwide
© Red Ice Creations
.
Millions of children damaged by toxic chemicals
'Silent pandemic' alert on industrial pollution
2006 11 09
From: yorkshiretoday.co.uk
Millions of children worldwide may have suffered brain damage as a direct result of industrial pollution, scientists said yesterday.
An explosive report from American and Danish researchers talks of a "silent pandemic" of disorders caused by toxic chemicals spilling into the environment.
They include conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation and cerebral palsy.
All are common and can result in lifelong disability, but their causes are largely unknown.
The scientists identified 202 industrial chemicals with the potential to damage the human brain and said they were likely to be the "tip of a very large iceberg".
More than 1,000 chemicals are known to be neurotoxic in animals and are also likely to be harmful to humans.
The researchers made an urgent call for much tighter worldwide controls on chemicals and a "precautionary approach" to testing.
Tougher regulations being introduced by the European Union do not go far enough, said the researchers. In the USA, there are only minimal requirements for companies to carry out safety test on chemicals, which are often not enforced.
One of the study's two authors, Dr Philippe Grandjean, from the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark in Winslowparken, said: "The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences.
"Even if substantial documentation on their toxicity is available, most chemicals are not regulated to protect the developing brain.
"Only a few substances, such as lead and mercury, are controlled with the purpose of protecting children. The 200 other chemicals that are known to be toxic to the human brain are not regulated to prevent adverse effects on the foetus or a small child."
Dr Grandjean and co-author Prof Philip Landrigan, from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, trawled a range of scientific data sources to compile their evidence.
Five substances for which sufficient toxicity evidence exist were examined in detail – lead, methylmercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and toluene.
Pinning down the effects of industrial chemical pollution is extremely difficult because they may not produce symptoms for several years or even decades, said the scientists.
This was why the pandemic is "silent". The damage caused by individual toxic chemicals is not obviously apparent in available health statistics.
But the extent of the sub-clinical risk to large populations is illustrated by the legacy of lead. Virtually all children born in industrialised countries between 1960 and 1980 must have been exposed to lead from petrol, said the researchers.
Based on what is known about the toxic effects of lead, this may have reduced exceptional IQ scores of above 130 by more than half, and increased the number of scores less than 70.
Other results of lead exposure included shortened attention span, slowed motor co-ordination and heightened aggression.
In later life, early damage from lead can increase the risk of Parkinson's and other degenerative diseases.
Today, it is estimated that lead poisoning in children costs the US economy $43bn (£22.6bn) each year.
One in six children is thought to have some kind of developmental disability, usually involving the nervous system.
Writing in the on-line version of The Lancet medical journal, the scientists conclude: "The combined evidence suggests that neurodevelopmental disorders caused by industrial chemicals has created a silent pandemic in modern society."
In the EU, 100,000 chemicals were registered for commercial use in 1981, while 80,000 are registered in the US.
Yet fewer than half had been subjected to even token laboratory testing, said the report, and in 80 per cent of cases there was no information about potential danger to children.
Although new chemicals went through more rigorous testing, access to the data could be restricted for commercial reasons.
In the EU, a new testing programme called Reach is planned under proposed legislation that will enforce tighter controls.
But the scientists say that even this does not go far enough.
Article from http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=55&ArticleID=1864622
Comment on this article
Related: The Mass Poisoning Of Humanity
MSG & Aspartame
Vaccines & Fluoride
Depleted Uranium For Dummies
Depleted Uranium In India, Spreading Worldwide
© Red Ice Creations
.
Special Reports
The Mass Poisoning Of Humanity
An Exploration Of Human Stupidity
2005 11 30
By Mike Adams | rense.com
Image source: ipmthailand.org
The mass poisoning of humanity: an exploration of human stupidity As human beings, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. As part of modern living, we create a wide variety of chemical toxins that go into the ecosystem through rivers and streams, the air, the soil and so on. Not only that, we actually synthesize toxic chemicals and then inject them directly into the food supply -- knowing full well that they are poisonous and are major contributors to the epidemic rates of chronic disease we are experiencing today.
What are these chemicals I'm talking about? Well, you're about to get a whirlwind tour of humanity's toxic chemicals. And if you look at toxic chemicals, you have to start in the realm of dentistry, because in no other profession (save medicine) will you find the use of so many toxic chemicals that are deliberately prescribed to patients or injected into their bodies. We're talking about, of course, mercury fillings and fluoride dripped into the public water supplies.
Dr. Poison Mercury, DDS
When we talk about mercury fillings, you have to keep in mind that mercury is simply one of the most toxic substances you can put into the human body, aside from radioactive substances. Right now, today, dentists all across the country and around the world are taking this highly toxic metal and literally putting it into the teeth of human beings. Those teeth are then used to chew food, and as a person chews; they effectively grind away the surfaces of these mercury fillings. These fillings release gas mercury vapor and mercury particles, which people then breathe into their lungs, or digest in their stomachs.
Now, I can understand that maybe 50 years ago, the dental industry was too ignorant to realize that it was advocating this toxic metal and putting it into patients' mouths. The industrial revolution is full of examples of companies that used lots of toxic substances and therapies, thinking they were good for you. Recall the X-rays and radiation of the first half of the twentieth century, people thought that radiation was great for you. Manufacturers were equating radiation with energy and thinking that if you consumed radiation pills, you would be more energetic. These were actually sold and sponsored by p hysicians and doctors, it was a mainstay of the medical industry in those days.
Later, we had the lead issue with industrial companies like DuPont, which has an interesting history in the manufacture and distribution of lead. People were convinced lead was great for everything. They put it into the gasoline, and leaded gasoline was born. We later found out that lead causes nervous system disorders and that it's very unhealthy to have lead emissions in the air. We ended up getting rid of lead paint, and banning the use of lead in foods and cosmetics.
But for some reason, today dentists still think mercury is perfectly good for you. It's like they're living in the Dark Ages. Gee, why don't they have you swallow radiation pills at the same time they're putting mercury fillings in your mouth? That way you can be energized and have fillings, too!
Some of the greatest quackery in the world right now takes place in dentists' offices; and dentists strongly deny the problems associated with mercury toxicity and mercury fillings. Of course, I don't mean all dentists, some dentists are slowly coming around to this issue. In fact, these selected dentists are leading the change; they are pioneering dentists, just as those in the world of medicine that are trying to change conventional medicine.
These few dentists that are trying to make changes and get mercury fillings banned deserve tremendous credit for taking the lead and standing up and fighting against the dogma of their own industry to protect their patients. There's no doubt in my mind that within a few years, mercury fillings will be banned and they will join the ranks of lead paint, asbestos insulation, leaded gasoline and radiation pills. They will go into the historical annals of bad medicine, and some day future generations will think we were absolutely crazy to be putting mercury in people's mouths.
More Poison From Dentists - Fluoride
That's not the end of the toxicity in the world of dentistry, we also h ave dentists pushing for, get this, the dripping of a highly toxic chemical waste product into the water supply... a substance that's scraped off the smokestacks of industrial polluters. They want every person in the community to actually drink this substance.
This material is a toxic waste that's regulated by the EPA. It would be illegal to drip it into a river or a stream, but for some reason, it is perfectly legal to drip it into the public water supply and let people drink it. It's a bizarre cycle of rationalization that can only be called medical lunacy. They no longer consider this toxic substance toxic if it passes through the bodies of human beings first. What substance am I talking about? Fluorosilicic acid, otherwise known by its short name, fluoride.
Across the country and around the world, dentists are insisting that we drip fluoride into the public water supply. For what purpose? To protect the teeth? Can you be serious? People are swallowing this liquid. They're not rinsing it in their mouth and spitting it out, they're ingesting it. Now as a result we have fluorosis, and bone disorders that are related to the over-consumption of fluoride.
For some reason, dentists have decided that they now have medical degrees, and that they want to medicate the entire population with a drug, a biologically active drug, without first diagnosing any individual in that community. In other words, they want to medicate everyone across the board with the exact same dosage, regardless of that person's individual health needs, and regardless of how much other fluoride they may be exposed to on a regular basis. This is the insanity of the modern dentistry community. Remember, these are the same people that want to put mercury in your mouth, so it only makes sense that they also want to poison your entire body by putting fluorosilicic acid into the water supply.
They don't call it fluorosilicic acid of course, because that might scare people. They call it fluoride -- and in fact they will even deceive the public and call it "naturally-occurring fluoride." There's nothing natural about fluorosilicic acid.
If you go to any community water supply where they are dripping so called "fluoride" into the water system, you will find out where they actually get the fluoride -- ask them, "Hey, do you dig this out of the ground in natural fluoride deposits?," and they will tell you "No, we buy it from an industrial waste processing company because it's cheaper than fluoride out of the ground." I've asked this question myself of people who are in charge of dripping fluoride into the public water supply, and that's exactly what they have told me. You can verify this yourself and find out just how your local community is poisoning you and your family with this highly toxic waste chemical.
How To Poison The Entire Population
Again, we are the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. And we do it in highly efficient ways. If you want to poison a population, there's no easier way than to drip a substance into the water supply. And if you really want to make sure everyone is poisoned, you would pass laws that mandate the dripping of this poison into the water supply (i.e. fluoridation laws). That would ensure that everybody gets some, whether it's an infant, an adult or a senior citizen. This is increasingly what is happening across the United States and around the world.
There's absolutely no good science behind any of the fluoride arguments. Even if they were using genuine natural fluoride, there are no studies that show the ingestion of fluoride decreases the incidence of dental caries in modern society. Yet this myth persists in the dental community, and the American Dental Association stands firmly behind this national poisoning agenda. They will call anybody who disagrees with it a "nut," and they will say that every population must be fluoridated -- for their own good, of course. That's the only way to ensure they have healthy teeth, the logic goes.
Put More Chemicals In Our Food, Please
If you wanted to poison the entire population, but you were worried that not everyone drinks from the water supply, there is another way: just poison the food supply. This, too, is happening today, with food manufacturing practices and the FDA looking the other way on toxic food ingredients.
Our population is being poisoned with artificial chemical sweeteners. Let's take a look at these. Aspartame is a sweetener that was never proven safe; in fact, the original safety recommendation panel at the FDA recommended that aspartame be denied approval as a safe food ingredient. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld at the time who helped push aspartame through the FDA to get it legalized as a food additive.
Today, we now see the vast majority of complaints of food side effects sent to the FDA being caused by aspartame. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, that is, a neurotoxic chemical, and it breaks down in your body into both formic acid and formaldehyde. Now, would you like to go out and drink some formaldehyde? Well, you might do that if you were a biological specimen that needed to be preserved for dissection, but if you're a normal, healthy, sane human being, you'd never drink formaldehyde. Unless, of course, they put it in an artificial sweetener compound and added it to cans of your favorite carbonated soft drink, in which case Americans will gladly drink formaldehyde in can after can, poisoning their nervous systems, going half blind, experiencing epilepsy and increasing the onset of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.
Again, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves with these chemicals. And yet we have entire groups, food lobbies and public apologizers who run around saying that these ingredients are perfectly good for you. There's nothing wrong with drinking formaldehyde and formic acid. You'll be fine! Drink more! Here, in fact here's a 50 percent more coupon, so you can buy even more!
Want Some Chlorine In Your Food Today?
Some say, "Well, aspartame is on the way out -- the big sweetener now is Sucralose or Splenda." This is the artificial sweetener that claims to be made from sugar. Well, I suppose you can claim that it starts out as sugar, but it's made by removing some of the atoms from sugar and replacing them with atoms of chlorine, which is of course one of the chemical elements used during the atrocities of World War II to create poison gas, the same element used in chlorine to disinfect pools and public water supplies.
When it's put that way, you might start thinking, "Well, gee, maybe there's something wrong with this sugar, maybe I shouldn't be putting chlorine atoms into my body." Would you go out and drink chlorine? If you know anybody who works on pools, or who has a pool maintenance business, they will tell you that chlorine gas will kill you. In fact, just to handle chlorine, they have to wear protective rubber gloves and protective respiration devices, because if they get chlorine powder wet and touch it or inhale it, they are in for a world of hurt. Chlorine gas can cause serious injury or even death. In fact, if you just take household ingredients like chlorine bleach and mix it with ammonia, you will create a highly toxic gas that will literally kill you, which is why these products often contain warnings that they should not be mixed.
And yet, in our food supply, we take chlorine atoms and we attach them to molecules that used to be sugar, and we call that a safe sweetener. And now we're putting it into all kinds of foods, whether it's soft drinks, muffins, pancake mixes and pretty much everything in the low-carb arena. I'm not sure people realize that they are actually ingesting chlorine atoms. Maybe they're too dazed from the fluoride.
Okay, so far we have dentists putting mercury fillings in your mouth that give off mercury vapor and cause neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. We have the same insane dentists mandating the dripping of EPA-regulated environmental pollutants into the public water supply, making sure that human beings in the United States have to drink toxic waste product... after which it enters into the rivers and streams as part of human waste, even though if such chemicals were dripped directly into the rivers and streams in this country it would be a violation of federal law. We have food and beverage companies using artificial chemical sweeteners to replace sugar and claiming that their products are healthier than sugar products. And yet, these artificial chemical sweeteners break down into dangerous chemical components such as formaldehyde and formic acid, or they are made with chlorine atoms that simply do not belong in the human body. These chemicals do not appear anywhere in nature attached to a sugar molecule.
Yummy Poison: Hydrogenated Oils
So, what else can the money-hungry corporations think of to put into the food or the water to poison America? They are quite creative and they have a lot of poisons at their disposal. The next terrible poison on the list is hydrogenated oils. They're called brain poisons, and they're present in perhaps half of all the foods found at every grocery store. It's listed right on the label -- you can see it as hydrogenated oil" or "partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil".
This artificial fat directly causes cardiovascular heart disease, it destroys normal cardiovascular health, it destroys the healthy functioning of the nervous system, it causes brain disorders, it causes heart attacks -- it is one of the most prominent and yet toxic ingredients put into the food supply. It also causes birth defects and essential fatty acid deficiencies in both the mother and her fetus.
And it's put in foods on purpose, for the convenience of the food manufacturers. Hydrogenated oils don't go bad, which means they save money for the food manufacturing companies, because their foods don't go bad on the shelves. And how do you make hydrogenated oils? Well, you don't find them anywhere in nature -- you have to have a chemical processing facility to make hydrogenated oils. And you do it by bubbling hydrogen gas through liquid soybean oil or other types of oils, using a catalyst (in most cases the catalyst is nickel). So with this nickel and the bubbling of hydrogen gas, you get extra hydrogen atoms attached to the molecules in oil, which makes them solid at room temperature. Since they are solid at room temperature, they can be more easily used to make margarine products, or used in crackers and cookies. And all of this, again, is for the convenience of the food manufacturing companies.
Food manufactures don't care what happens to your health, their job is just to sell food products. If you have a health problem as a result, that's your problem, not theirs. You won't find food companies offering to pay for your medical bills if you have a heart attack from eating hydrogenated oils. They are basically passing the buck and demanding that you pay for the health consequences caused by their foods. In fact, they're working hard to pass legislation that would outlaw lawsuits against food companies!
Pepperoni-Shaped Poison
Not to be outdone, the meat processing companies in this country also want to make sure they get lots of poison into your food products. It's not enough to just sell you red meat, which is by itself an extremely unhealthy food ingredient that promotes colon cancer, heart disease, obesity and many other disorders, they also have to put cancer-causing chemicals in various meat products.
This makes sure that you get colon cancer from the additives, if not from the red meat itself. This additive is called sodium nitrite, and you'll find it in virtually every packaged meat product found at the grocery store, whether it's pepperoni, breakfast sausage, or bacon. You can buy sliced ham, sliced chicken, deli slices, lunch meat, packaged ham, pepperoni, the meat that goes into soups, the meat that goes into those little lunch trays ... pretty much any form of packaged meat at the grocery store has this toxic ingredient in it. That's why the daily consumption of processed meats has now been clinically shown to produce a 6,700% increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer!
Guinea Pig People
And what is this ingredient again? Sodium nitrite! When you ingest sodium nitrite, it mixes with the digestive juices of your stomach and creates a class of chemical compounds called nitrosamines. These nitrosamines are potent cancer-causing chemicals. In fact, as I've mentioned before, they are so potent that lab researchers actually inject mice with nitrosamines when they want to give those mice breast cancer or other form of cancer they can study. And yet, as humans, we put sodium nitrite (see related ebook on sodium nitrite) right into the food supply. It's almost as if we were treating the entire population as lab rats -- and in fact that's not far from the truth.
Drugs are frequently released in this country on an experimental basis, using the population as guinea pigs to find out how many people might die from that drug in order to get more safety data. Let's face it, when the FDA approves drugs for public use, they are not at all proven safe. The American public is routinely treated as a collection of guinea pigs in order to promote prescription drugs, foods, artificial sweeteners or other elements.
Toxic Personal Care Products
So now we've got toxic chemicals in our mouths, in our public water supplies, and in our foods and beverages. Where else can money hungry corporations put toxic chemicals into our immediate environment and get them into our bodies? Well, think hard and you might come up with some other ideas. Let's look at the personal care products industry, because practically every brand name shampoo, cologne, perfume, deodorant, antiperspirant or other personal care product on the market is made with toxic fragrance chemicals. These can contain solvents, carcinogens and compounds that are registered in government databases as having strong liver toxicity.
The reason these ingredients are allowed in these products are because the FDA has mistakenly assumed for many, many years that whatever you put on your body doesn't get absorbed into your body. They think, for example, that you could just coat your body with toxic chemicals and you would be fine, because your skin is a barrier. I've even heard pharmacists tell me that the skin is a great barrier, so whatever you put on your skin won't go into your body.
That's utterly ridiculous! As pharmacists, haven't these people ever sold nicotine patches? How do you think those work? They work by releasing nicotine that gets absorbed directly through your skin into your bloodstream. If your skin didn't absorb nicotine, the nicotine patches wouldn't deliver a dosage. You have to be half-crazy to think that the skin is some kind of permanent barrier that keeps out everything you put on it.
In fact, the skin is very porous -- the skin breathes. Yes, it keeps out bacteria, but it sure doesn't keep out chemical solvents, and it doesn't keep out molecules as big as nicotine. Nicotine molecules are not very small, by the way. There are many things that go right through your skin, and those include fragrance chemicals, solvents, and a lot of other toxic ingredients that are found in personal care products. One such ingredient called MIT was recently discovered in most brand-name shampoos, and this MIT ingredient is known to cause brain cancer.
Voluntary Chemical Suicide
So now we are really stupid as a species, because we've poisoned our mouths, our water supply, our food, our beverages and even our shampoos and personal care products. And if you use dryer sheets, then you've got your clothes poisoned as well, they're coated in a layer of toxic chemicals found in dryer sheet products. So what else could we use to poison the population? There are still many other options.
One way would be to sell a toxic chemical that people voluntarily put into their mouths because another person in a position of authority told them to do so. This is describing the prescription drug industry, where people are poisoning themselves each and every day with toxic painkiller drugs like COX-2 inhibitors or toxic anti-cholesterol drugs like statin drugs. People are poisoning their minds with antidepressant drugs that promote violent behavior and suicides. They're poisoning their cardiovascular system with beta-blockers and other drugs. And of course they're poisoning their livers.
And yet people volunteer to do this -- each and every day they will put these toxic chemicals into their bodies simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them to do so. And, not only that, they will actually pay for the privilege of poisoning their own bodies.
They'll pay good money too, not just a few hundred dollars a month, but several thousand dollars a month. Some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their doctor told them to do so. And, then when something goes wrong and they have a small tumor show up on a mammogram, or some other blood test comes back positive that indicates they may have some sort of cancer tumor, they will gladly pay another $100,000 or more in order to destroy their entire immune system with a treatment known as chemotherapy.
They will literally sit there and let other doctors inject highly toxic poisons directly into the bloodstream and allow them to circulate through their body. How toxic is this stuff? Well, gee, think about it, your hair falls out, you get sick and you vomit -- are these signs that maybe this stuff doesn't belong in your body? I don't know about you, but I think that's a very strange way to heal someone.
If I were a medical professional and I were healing someone, and I had them do something which made their hair fall out and they started vomiting and it looked like they were going to melt away right before my very eyes, I would think that, hey, maybe this isn't good for them.
But that's not what conventional oncologists think. They think, oh, this is great stuff. Look, we're going to destroy the cancer tumor and, if we're lucky, there may even be a patient left by the time we're done. And if not -- that's alright, as long as they pay the bill.
Official, Government-Approved Drug Dealers
We as a species actually have a class of professionals, highly-paid professionals, who we give the right to poison us with toxic chemicals. These people are called doctors. I call them drug dealers. Just like illegal drugs, their drugs kill people. The main difference is that these "legal" drugs enrich politically influential corporations, whereas illegal drugs enrich drug lords. Our national "War on Drugs" is quite selective in its targets, don't you think? Industrial hemp is outlawed, but doping up millions of children on powerful narcotics is perfectly legal: it's called Ritalin.
So, remember, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. And if we don't do it in just one or two ways, we do it in half a dozen different ways! Then we regulate that poisoning, we make it federal law! And we have lobbyists and groups out there defending this use of poison in the food supply, and defending the use of it in cosmetic products and personal care products. We have defenders of the drug industry, people who say, "Yeah, well there was a study five years ago that showed a 1200 percent heart attack increase, but we thought that really wasn't relevant to this drug and we decided to go ahead and market that drug anyway." That's what we have today. And the real details of this gruesome story have only begun to be uncovered. Wait until the rest of the story comes out...
We're #1!
Is it any wonder, with all of the poisoning going on at all the different levels in our bodies, that we are now the most chronically diseased population that has ever been recorded in the history of civilization? It's true -- there is no population that has suffered from diseases like we do in America today. You would have to be clinically insane to not think that there's a correlation between the poison we are putting into our bodies and the diseases we are getting as a result.
Plus, as recent studies have shown, we're the #1 nation in the world in terms of mental disorders as well! Let's see: #1 in obesity, #1 in diabetes, #1 in cancer, #1 mental disorders, and we have the HIGHEST health care costs in the world, too. We have the most expensive drugs in the world. We have more doctors and health care professionals per capita than any country in the world. And, frighteningly, we're the country with the most nukes. Great idea, huh? Put the nuclear weapons under control of the most mentally disturbed population in the world... now if only our leaders were at least sane...
But no, wait a minute -- the doctors are right, all diseases are just genetic. None of these poisons matter, it's just your genes. They say the gene pool of the human race was perfectly fine 100 years ago when people didn't have all these diseases, but it has somehow mutated to a gene pool that gives you heart disease and cancer and osteoporosis and diabetes, and, by the way, there's nothing you can do about it. That's what they want you to believe, because then they take away your power. Then you have no ability to make changes.
Actually, We're Pretty Darned Clever, Aren't We?
Not only are we the most stupid species on the planet, because we're poisoning ourselves, we are simultaneously the cleverest species, because we find ways to justify all that poisoning. We find scientific gobbledygook to claim that, yes, NutraSweet is good for you! Or that these chlorine atoms attached to sugar are great for you, or that mercury in your mouth somehow doesn't have a toxic effect on your body. Or that hydrogenated oils are perfectly fine for your heart health.
We stupidly say if you take those and you drink this weight loss shake made with sugar, you'll be healthy. And if you have this barbaric surgical procedure called gastric bypass surgery, you'll no longer be obese. And if you're not healthy, don't worry; we have magic bullet prescription drugs that will make you even healthier. So we're a clever population at the same time that we're incredibly stupid. Do you know what that's called? That's called being a population of great technicians and lousy healers. And that's exactly what we are today.
Having used the word "stupid" throughout this editorial, I use it deliberately. I don't mean it in the way that a teenager might say, "My stupid little brother flipped me off." I mean it in a more precise way, in the way defined by Dictionary.com:
Stupid:
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Can you think of a better word to describe the people around here?
As Einstein once said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Article from: http://www.newstarget.com/008511.html
Related: Fluoride & Vaccines
DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA)
© Red Ice Creations
.
The Mass Poisoning Of Humanity
An Exploration Of Human Stupidity
2005 11 30
By Mike Adams | rense.com
Image source: ipmthailand.org
The mass poisoning of humanity: an exploration of human stupidity As human beings, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. As part of modern living, we create a wide variety of chemical toxins that go into the ecosystem through rivers and streams, the air, the soil and so on. Not only that, we actually synthesize toxic chemicals and then inject them directly into the food supply -- knowing full well that they are poisonous and are major contributors to the epidemic rates of chronic disease we are experiencing today.
What are these chemicals I'm talking about? Well, you're about to get a whirlwind tour of humanity's toxic chemicals. And if you look at toxic chemicals, you have to start in the realm of dentistry, because in no other profession (save medicine) will you find the use of so many toxic chemicals that are deliberately prescribed to patients or injected into their bodies. We're talking about, of course, mercury fillings and fluoride dripped into the public water supplies.
Dr. Poison Mercury, DDS
When we talk about mercury fillings, you have to keep in mind that mercury is simply one of the most toxic substances you can put into the human body, aside from radioactive substances. Right now, today, dentists all across the country and around the world are taking this highly toxic metal and literally putting it into the teeth of human beings. Those teeth are then used to chew food, and as a person chews; they effectively grind away the surfaces of these mercury fillings. These fillings release gas mercury vapor and mercury particles, which people then breathe into their lungs, or digest in their stomachs.
Now, I can understand that maybe 50 years ago, the dental industry was too ignorant to realize that it was advocating this toxic metal and putting it into patients' mouths. The industrial revolution is full of examples of companies that used lots of toxic substances and therapies, thinking they were good for you. Recall the X-rays and radiation of the first half of the twentieth century, people thought that radiation was great for you. Manufacturers were equating radiation with energy and thinking that if you consumed radiation pills, you would be more energetic. These were actually sold and sponsored by p hysicians and doctors, it was a mainstay of the medical industry in those days.
Later, we had the lead issue with industrial companies like DuPont, which has an interesting history in the manufacture and distribution of lead. People were convinced lead was great for everything. They put it into the gasoline, and leaded gasoline was born. We later found out that lead causes nervous system disorders and that it's very unhealthy to have lead emissions in the air. We ended up getting rid of lead paint, and banning the use of lead in foods and cosmetics.
But for some reason, today dentists still think mercury is perfectly good for you. It's like they're living in the Dark Ages. Gee, why don't they have you swallow radiation pills at the same time they're putting mercury fillings in your mouth? That way you can be energized and have fillings, too!
Some of the greatest quackery in the world right now takes place in dentists' offices; and dentists strongly deny the problems associated with mercury toxicity and mercury fillings. Of course, I don't mean all dentists, some dentists are slowly coming around to this issue. In fact, these selected dentists are leading the change; they are pioneering dentists, just as those in the world of medicine that are trying to change conventional medicine.
These few dentists that are trying to make changes and get mercury fillings banned deserve tremendous credit for taking the lead and standing up and fighting against the dogma of their own industry to protect their patients. There's no doubt in my mind that within a few years, mercury fillings will be banned and they will join the ranks of lead paint, asbestos insulation, leaded gasoline and radiation pills. They will go into the historical annals of bad medicine, and some day future generations will think we were absolutely crazy to be putting mercury in people's mouths.
More Poison From Dentists - Fluoride
That's not the end of the toxicity in the world of dentistry, we also h ave dentists pushing for, get this, the dripping of a highly toxic chemical waste product into the water supply... a substance that's scraped off the smokestacks of industrial polluters. They want every person in the community to actually drink this substance.
This material is a toxic waste that's regulated by the EPA. It would be illegal to drip it into a river or a stream, but for some reason, it is perfectly legal to drip it into the public water supply and let people drink it. It's a bizarre cycle of rationalization that can only be called medical lunacy. They no longer consider this toxic substance toxic if it passes through the bodies of human beings first. What substance am I talking about? Fluorosilicic acid, otherwise known by its short name, fluoride.
Across the country and around the world, dentists are insisting that we drip fluoride into the public water supply. For what purpose? To protect the teeth? Can you be serious? People are swallowing this liquid. They're not rinsing it in their mouth and spitting it out, they're ingesting it. Now as a result we have fluorosis, and bone disorders that are related to the over-consumption of fluoride.
For some reason, dentists have decided that they now have medical degrees, and that they want to medicate the entire population with a drug, a biologically active drug, without first diagnosing any individual in that community. In other words, they want to medicate everyone across the board with the exact same dosage, regardless of that person's individual health needs, and regardless of how much other fluoride they may be exposed to on a regular basis. This is the insanity of the modern dentistry community. Remember, these are the same people that want to put mercury in your mouth, so it only makes sense that they also want to poison your entire body by putting fluorosilicic acid into the water supply.
They don't call it fluorosilicic acid of course, because that might scare people. They call it fluoride -- and in fact they will even deceive the public and call it "naturally-occurring fluoride." There's nothing natural about fluorosilicic acid.
If you go to any community water supply where they are dripping so called "fluoride" into the water system, you will find out where they actually get the fluoride -- ask them, "Hey, do you dig this out of the ground in natural fluoride deposits?," and they will tell you "No, we buy it from an industrial waste processing company because it's cheaper than fluoride out of the ground." I've asked this question myself of people who are in charge of dripping fluoride into the public water supply, and that's exactly what they have told me. You can verify this yourself and find out just how your local community is poisoning you and your family with this highly toxic waste chemical.
How To Poison The Entire Population
Again, we are the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. And we do it in highly efficient ways. If you want to poison a population, there's no easier way than to drip a substance into the water supply. And if you really want to make sure everyone is poisoned, you would pass laws that mandate the dripping of this poison into the water supply (i.e. fluoridation laws). That would ensure that everybody gets some, whether it's an infant, an adult or a senior citizen. This is increasingly what is happening across the United States and around the world.
There's absolutely no good science behind any of the fluoride arguments. Even if they were using genuine natural fluoride, there are no studies that show the ingestion of fluoride decreases the incidence of dental caries in modern society. Yet this myth persists in the dental community, and the American Dental Association stands firmly behind this national poisoning agenda. They will call anybody who disagrees with it a "nut," and they will say that every population must be fluoridated -- for their own good, of course. That's the only way to ensure they have healthy teeth, the logic goes.
Put More Chemicals In Our Food, Please
If you wanted to poison the entire population, but you were worried that not everyone drinks from the water supply, there is another way: just poison the food supply. This, too, is happening today, with food manufacturing practices and the FDA looking the other way on toxic food ingredients.
Our population is being poisoned with artificial chemical sweeteners. Let's take a look at these. Aspartame is a sweetener that was never proven safe; in fact, the original safety recommendation panel at the FDA recommended that aspartame be denied approval as a safe food ingredient. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld at the time who helped push aspartame through the FDA to get it legalized as a food additive.
Today, we now see the vast majority of complaints of food side effects sent to the FDA being caused by aspartame. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, that is, a neurotoxic chemical, and it breaks down in your body into both formic acid and formaldehyde. Now, would you like to go out and drink some formaldehyde? Well, you might do that if you were a biological specimen that needed to be preserved for dissection, but if you're a normal, healthy, sane human being, you'd never drink formaldehyde. Unless, of course, they put it in an artificial sweetener compound and added it to cans of your favorite carbonated soft drink, in which case Americans will gladly drink formaldehyde in can after can, poisoning their nervous systems, going half blind, experiencing epilepsy and increasing the onset of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.
Again, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves with these chemicals. And yet we have entire groups, food lobbies and public apologizers who run around saying that these ingredients are perfectly good for you. There's nothing wrong with drinking formaldehyde and formic acid. You'll be fine! Drink more! Here, in fact here's a 50 percent more coupon, so you can buy even more!
Want Some Chlorine In Your Food Today?
Some say, "Well, aspartame is on the way out -- the big sweetener now is Sucralose or Splenda." This is the artificial sweetener that claims to be made from sugar. Well, I suppose you can claim that it starts out as sugar, but it's made by removing some of the atoms from sugar and replacing them with atoms of chlorine, which is of course one of the chemical elements used during the atrocities of World War II to create poison gas, the same element used in chlorine to disinfect pools and public water supplies.
When it's put that way, you might start thinking, "Well, gee, maybe there's something wrong with this sugar, maybe I shouldn't be putting chlorine atoms into my body." Would you go out and drink chlorine? If you know anybody who works on pools, or who has a pool maintenance business, they will tell you that chlorine gas will kill you. In fact, just to handle chlorine, they have to wear protective rubber gloves and protective respiration devices, because if they get chlorine powder wet and touch it or inhale it, they are in for a world of hurt. Chlorine gas can cause serious injury or even death. In fact, if you just take household ingredients like chlorine bleach and mix it with ammonia, you will create a highly toxic gas that will literally kill you, which is why these products often contain warnings that they should not be mixed.
And yet, in our food supply, we take chlorine atoms and we attach them to molecules that used to be sugar, and we call that a safe sweetener. And now we're putting it into all kinds of foods, whether it's soft drinks, muffins, pancake mixes and pretty much everything in the low-carb arena. I'm not sure people realize that they are actually ingesting chlorine atoms. Maybe they're too dazed from the fluoride.
Okay, so far we have dentists putting mercury fillings in your mouth that give off mercury vapor and cause neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. We have the same insane dentists mandating the dripping of EPA-regulated environmental pollutants into the public water supply, making sure that human beings in the United States have to drink toxic waste product... after which it enters into the rivers and streams as part of human waste, even though if such chemicals were dripped directly into the rivers and streams in this country it would be a violation of federal law. We have food and beverage companies using artificial chemical sweeteners to replace sugar and claiming that their products are healthier than sugar products. And yet, these artificial chemical sweeteners break down into dangerous chemical components such as formaldehyde and formic acid, or they are made with chlorine atoms that simply do not belong in the human body. These chemicals do not appear anywhere in nature attached to a sugar molecule.
Yummy Poison: Hydrogenated Oils
So, what else can the money-hungry corporations think of to put into the food or the water to poison America? They are quite creative and they have a lot of poisons at their disposal. The next terrible poison on the list is hydrogenated oils. They're called brain poisons, and they're present in perhaps half of all the foods found at every grocery store. It's listed right on the label -- you can see it as hydrogenated oil" or "partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil".
This artificial fat directly causes cardiovascular heart disease, it destroys normal cardiovascular health, it destroys the healthy functioning of the nervous system, it causes brain disorders, it causes heart attacks -- it is one of the most prominent and yet toxic ingredients put into the food supply. It also causes birth defects and essential fatty acid deficiencies in both the mother and her fetus.
And it's put in foods on purpose, for the convenience of the food manufacturers. Hydrogenated oils don't go bad, which means they save money for the food manufacturing companies, because their foods don't go bad on the shelves. And how do you make hydrogenated oils? Well, you don't find them anywhere in nature -- you have to have a chemical processing facility to make hydrogenated oils. And you do it by bubbling hydrogen gas through liquid soybean oil or other types of oils, using a catalyst (in most cases the catalyst is nickel). So with this nickel and the bubbling of hydrogen gas, you get extra hydrogen atoms attached to the molecules in oil, which makes them solid at room temperature. Since they are solid at room temperature, they can be more easily used to make margarine products, or used in crackers and cookies. And all of this, again, is for the convenience of the food manufacturing companies.
Food manufactures don't care what happens to your health, their job is just to sell food products. If you have a health problem as a result, that's your problem, not theirs. You won't find food companies offering to pay for your medical bills if you have a heart attack from eating hydrogenated oils. They are basically passing the buck and demanding that you pay for the health consequences caused by their foods. In fact, they're working hard to pass legislation that would outlaw lawsuits against food companies!
Pepperoni-Shaped Poison
Not to be outdone, the meat processing companies in this country also want to make sure they get lots of poison into your food products. It's not enough to just sell you red meat, which is by itself an extremely unhealthy food ingredient that promotes colon cancer, heart disease, obesity and many other disorders, they also have to put cancer-causing chemicals in various meat products.
This makes sure that you get colon cancer from the additives, if not from the red meat itself. This additive is called sodium nitrite, and you'll find it in virtually every packaged meat product found at the grocery store, whether it's pepperoni, breakfast sausage, or bacon. You can buy sliced ham, sliced chicken, deli slices, lunch meat, packaged ham, pepperoni, the meat that goes into soups, the meat that goes into those little lunch trays ... pretty much any form of packaged meat at the grocery store has this toxic ingredient in it. That's why the daily consumption of processed meats has now been clinically shown to produce a 6,700% increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer!
Guinea Pig People
And what is this ingredient again? Sodium nitrite! When you ingest sodium nitrite, it mixes with the digestive juices of your stomach and creates a class of chemical compounds called nitrosamines. These nitrosamines are potent cancer-causing chemicals. In fact, as I've mentioned before, they are so potent that lab researchers actually inject mice with nitrosamines when they want to give those mice breast cancer or other form of cancer they can study. And yet, as humans, we put sodium nitrite (see related ebook on sodium nitrite) right into the food supply. It's almost as if we were treating the entire population as lab rats -- and in fact that's not far from the truth.
Drugs are frequently released in this country on an experimental basis, using the population as guinea pigs to find out how many people might die from that drug in order to get more safety data. Let's face it, when the FDA approves drugs for public use, they are not at all proven safe. The American public is routinely treated as a collection of guinea pigs in order to promote prescription drugs, foods, artificial sweeteners or other elements.
Toxic Personal Care Products
So now we've got toxic chemicals in our mouths, in our public water supplies, and in our foods and beverages. Where else can money hungry corporations put toxic chemicals into our immediate environment and get them into our bodies? Well, think hard and you might come up with some other ideas. Let's look at the personal care products industry, because practically every brand name shampoo, cologne, perfume, deodorant, antiperspirant or other personal care product on the market is made with toxic fragrance chemicals. These can contain solvents, carcinogens and compounds that are registered in government databases as having strong liver toxicity.
The reason these ingredients are allowed in these products are because the FDA has mistakenly assumed for many, many years that whatever you put on your body doesn't get absorbed into your body. They think, for example, that you could just coat your body with toxic chemicals and you would be fine, because your skin is a barrier. I've even heard pharmacists tell me that the skin is a great barrier, so whatever you put on your skin won't go into your body.
That's utterly ridiculous! As pharmacists, haven't these people ever sold nicotine patches? How do you think those work? They work by releasing nicotine that gets absorbed directly through your skin into your bloodstream. If your skin didn't absorb nicotine, the nicotine patches wouldn't deliver a dosage. You have to be half-crazy to think that the skin is some kind of permanent barrier that keeps out everything you put on it.
In fact, the skin is very porous -- the skin breathes. Yes, it keeps out bacteria, but it sure doesn't keep out chemical solvents, and it doesn't keep out molecules as big as nicotine. Nicotine molecules are not very small, by the way. There are many things that go right through your skin, and those include fragrance chemicals, solvents, and a lot of other toxic ingredients that are found in personal care products. One such ingredient called MIT was recently discovered in most brand-name shampoos, and this MIT ingredient is known to cause brain cancer.
Voluntary Chemical Suicide
So now we are really stupid as a species, because we've poisoned our mouths, our water supply, our food, our beverages and even our shampoos and personal care products. And if you use dryer sheets, then you've got your clothes poisoned as well, they're coated in a layer of toxic chemicals found in dryer sheet products. So what else could we use to poison the population? There are still many other options.
One way would be to sell a toxic chemical that people voluntarily put into their mouths because another person in a position of authority told them to do so. This is describing the prescription drug industry, where people are poisoning themselves each and every day with toxic painkiller drugs like COX-2 inhibitors or toxic anti-cholesterol drugs like statin drugs. People are poisoning their minds with antidepressant drugs that promote violent behavior and suicides. They're poisoning their cardiovascular system with beta-blockers and other drugs. And of course they're poisoning their livers.
And yet people volunteer to do this -- each and every day they will put these toxic chemicals into their bodies simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them to do so. And, not only that, they will actually pay for the privilege of poisoning their own bodies.
They'll pay good money too, not just a few hundred dollars a month, but several thousand dollars a month. Some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their doctor told them to do so. And, then when something goes wrong and they have a small tumor show up on a mammogram, or some other blood test comes back positive that indicates they may have some sort of cancer tumor, they will gladly pay another $100,000 or more in order to destroy their entire immune system with a treatment known as chemotherapy.
They will literally sit there and let other doctors inject highly toxic poisons directly into the bloodstream and allow them to circulate through their body. How toxic is this stuff? Well, gee, think about it, your hair falls out, you get sick and you vomit -- are these signs that maybe this stuff doesn't belong in your body? I don't know about you, but I think that's a very strange way to heal someone.
If I were a medical professional and I were healing someone, and I had them do something which made their hair fall out and they started vomiting and it looked like they were going to melt away right before my very eyes, I would think that, hey, maybe this isn't good for them.
But that's not what conventional oncologists think. They think, oh, this is great stuff. Look, we're going to destroy the cancer tumor and, if we're lucky, there may even be a patient left by the time we're done. And if not -- that's alright, as long as they pay the bill.
Official, Government-Approved Drug Dealers
We as a species actually have a class of professionals, highly-paid professionals, who we give the right to poison us with toxic chemicals. These people are called doctors. I call them drug dealers. Just like illegal drugs, their drugs kill people. The main difference is that these "legal" drugs enrich politically influential corporations, whereas illegal drugs enrich drug lords. Our national "War on Drugs" is quite selective in its targets, don't you think? Industrial hemp is outlawed, but doping up millions of children on powerful narcotics is perfectly legal: it's called Ritalin.
So, remember, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. And if we don't do it in just one or two ways, we do it in half a dozen different ways! Then we regulate that poisoning, we make it federal law! And we have lobbyists and groups out there defending this use of poison in the food supply, and defending the use of it in cosmetic products and personal care products. We have defenders of the drug industry, people who say, "Yeah, well there was a study five years ago that showed a 1200 percent heart attack increase, but we thought that really wasn't relevant to this drug and we decided to go ahead and market that drug anyway." That's what we have today. And the real details of this gruesome story have only begun to be uncovered. Wait until the rest of the story comes out...
We're #1!
Is it any wonder, with all of the poisoning going on at all the different levels in our bodies, that we are now the most chronically diseased population that has ever been recorded in the history of civilization? It's true -- there is no population that has suffered from diseases like we do in America today. You would have to be clinically insane to not think that there's a correlation between the poison we are putting into our bodies and the diseases we are getting as a result.
Plus, as recent studies have shown, we're the #1 nation in the world in terms of mental disorders as well! Let's see: #1 in obesity, #1 in diabetes, #1 in cancer, #1 mental disorders, and we have the HIGHEST health care costs in the world, too. We have the most expensive drugs in the world. We have more doctors and health care professionals per capita than any country in the world. And, frighteningly, we're the country with the most nukes. Great idea, huh? Put the nuclear weapons under control of the most mentally disturbed population in the world... now if only our leaders were at least sane...
But no, wait a minute -- the doctors are right, all diseases are just genetic. None of these poisons matter, it's just your genes. They say the gene pool of the human race was perfectly fine 100 years ago when people didn't have all these diseases, but it has somehow mutated to a gene pool that gives you heart disease and cancer and osteoporosis and diabetes, and, by the way, there's nothing you can do about it. That's what they want you to believe, because then they take away your power. Then you have no ability to make changes.
Actually, We're Pretty Darned Clever, Aren't We?
Not only are we the most stupid species on the planet, because we're poisoning ourselves, we are simultaneously the cleverest species, because we find ways to justify all that poisoning. We find scientific gobbledygook to claim that, yes, NutraSweet is good for you! Or that these chlorine atoms attached to sugar are great for you, or that mercury in your mouth somehow doesn't have a toxic effect on your body. Or that hydrogenated oils are perfectly fine for your heart health.
We stupidly say if you take those and you drink this weight loss shake made with sugar, you'll be healthy. And if you have this barbaric surgical procedure called gastric bypass surgery, you'll no longer be obese. And if you're not healthy, don't worry; we have magic bullet prescription drugs that will make you even healthier. So we're a clever population at the same time that we're incredibly stupid. Do you know what that's called? That's called being a population of great technicians and lousy healers. And that's exactly what we are today.
Having used the word "stupid" throughout this editorial, I use it deliberately. I don't mean it in the way that a teenager might say, "My stupid little brother flipped me off." I mean it in a more precise way, in the way defined by Dictionary.com:
Stupid:
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Can you think of a better word to describe the people around here?
As Einstein once said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Article from: http://www.newstarget.com/008511.html
Related: Fluoride & Vaccines
DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA)
© Red Ice Creations
.
Special Reports
The Unethical Biopharming of America
2006 06 03
By Dr. Mercola | mercola.com
The company Ventria Bioscience has provoked controversy by growing an experimental diarrhea drug in rice genetically engineered with a human gene. Environmental groups, food corporations, and farmers have managed to keep Ventria's rice farms out of California and Missouri, and they continue to allege that Ventria is recklessly using untested technology.
Will it Mix With Food Crops?
Ventria's rice, now grown in North Carolina, produces two proteins found in human milk, saliva and tears, which could help reduce the severity of diarrhea attacks. Diarrhea is a leading killer of children in developing countries. But many fear that Ventria's experimental crops will intermix with food crops, rendering them unsafe to eat.
Natural Bananas Disappearing
At the same time as companies throughout the world are bioengineering new crops, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization warns that natural wild banana species could soon become extinct. Without wild bananas for hybridization, the world banana crop, threatened by disease, could very well collapse.
Yahoo News May 14, 2006
New Scientist May 13, 2006
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I am absolutely convinced that genetic engineering is one of the most significant threats to the future health of this world. I am currently in the process of writing a book on this topic that should be out in 2007.
I am equally convinced that Monsanto is one of the most evil companies I have ever reviewed. They have manipulated the legal system to actually be able to patent their destructive changes and sue innocent farmers after their manipulated plants have infected their fields through the process of natural pollination.
Folks, it doesn't get much more morally reprehensible than this. Monsanto's plans to control the future of food in the world are literally some of the most frightening issues I have ever encountered in health.
Last year I ran an article about Ventria Bioscience, and their practice of growing transgenic rice containing human genes. Unfortunately, Ventria was granted clearance in March from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand its operations to some 335 acres near Greenville, N.C.
Coincidently, one "neighbor" of the Ventria farm was a USDA test site for new breeds of rice. That is, until the agency promptly moved its testing facility to Maryland. Looks like they don't want to be anywhere near this stuff either ...
Ventria has petitioned the FDA for approval of its protein powder used to fight diarrhea, not as a drug but a medical food, which means it wouldn't require extensive human testing. And, despite growing opposition, the company has a long-range plan of adding its unnatural protein product to baby formula, although food manufacturers aren't interested.
The company claims it's virtually impossible for its genetically modified rice, when mixed with conventional crops, to create a deadly product.
Nevertheless, it's a certainty that they will mix at some point and, when that happens, who really knows how these Frankenstein-like crop combinations will affect your health. Hybrids between GM plants and wild plants have already created weeds resistant to herbicides. Now we are presented with the frightening possibility that medical drugs could end up in our food supply.
The effects of genetic modification on the environment and on our health are unknown. Essentially, it is a massive and risky experiment on the whole human race and the earth's biosphere. And it isn't a question of whether or not GM plants will mix with non-GM crops; they will do so. We do not have control over the wind, the birds and the soil.
And while GM crops continue to proliferate, some natural, healthy foods may get killed off.
Unless something is done, there may come a time when a natural banana is unobtainable, and only genetically modified varieties remain, with all the potential risks to your health that entails. If there isn't a concerted effort to favor natural foods over GM foods, and soon, the human race will be making a dangerous gamble with their physical health and fragile biosphere.
Unfortunately, you've probably eaten GM foods, because there's no labeling policy forcing manufacturers to list them on food labels in America. And at least seven out of 10 items on the shelf have been genetically modified. There are, however, ways to identify GM foods.
If you want to steer clear of eating GM food for good, take the following steps:
#
Avoid processed foods. Some 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients.
#
Read produce and food labels. GM soybeans and corn make up the largest portion of genetically modified crops. When looking at a product label, if any of the ingredients are corn flour or meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, or tofu (to name a few), there's a good chance it has come from GM corn or soy, unless it's listed as organic.
#
Buy organic produce. Buying organic is currently the best way to ensure that your food has not been genetically modified. Food that is certified organic is by definition free from all GM organisms.
#
Look at produce stickers. Those little stickers on fruit and vegetables contain different PLU codes depending on whether the fruit was conventionally grown, organically grown, or genetically modified. The PLU code for conventionally grown fruit has four numbers, organically grown fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number nine, and GM fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number eight.
Related Articles:
Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Prepare a Takeover
The Damage GM Foods Can do to Your Body
The Damaging Effects of GMOs Revealed
Article from: http://www.mercola.com/2006/jun/
3/the_unethical_biopharming_of_america.htm
Related: Pharming Underground - Can subterranean laboratories ease safety woes over crops that sprout medicine?
Monsanto's Government Ties
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy
GM food must be allowed into Europe, WTO rules
Scientists suspect health threat from GM corn
© Red Ice Creations
.
The Unethical Biopharming of America
2006 06 03
By Dr. Mercola | mercola.com
The company Ventria Bioscience has provoked controversy by growing an experimental diarrhea drug in rice genetically engineered with a human gene. Environmental groups, food corporations, and farmers have managed to keep Ventria's rice farms out of California and Missouri, and they continue to allege that Ventria is recklessly using untested technology.
Will it Mix With Food Crops?
Ventria's rice, now grown in North Carolina, produces two proteins found in human milk, saliva and tears, which could help reduce the severity of diarrhea attacks. Diarrhea is a leading killer of children in developing countries. But many fear that Ventria's experimental crops will intermix with food crops, rendering them unsafe to eat.
Natural Bananas Disappearing
At the same time as companies throughout the world are bioengineering new crops, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization warns that natural wild banana species could soon become extinct. Without wild bananas for hybridization, the world banana crop, threatened by disease, could very well collapse.
Yahoo News May 14, 2006
New Scientist May 13, 2006
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
I am absolutely convinced that genetic engineering is one of the most significant threats to the future health of this world. I am currently in the process of writing a book on this topic that should be out in 2007.
I am equally convinced that Monsanto is one of the most evil companies I have ever reviewed. They have manipulated the legal system to actually be able to patent their destructive changes and sue innocent farmers after their manipulated plants have infected their fields through the process of natural pollination.
Folks, it doesn't get much more morally reprehensible than this. Monsanto's plans to control the future of food in the world are literally some of the most frightening issues I have ever encountered in health.
Last year I ran an article about Ventria Bioscience, and their practice of growing transgenic rice containing human genes. Unfortunately, Ventria was granted clearance in March from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand its operations to some 335 acres near Greenville, N.C.
Coincidently, one "neighbor" of the Ventria farm was a USDA test site for new breeds of rice. That is, until the agency promptly moved its testing facility to Maryland. Looks like they don't want to be anywhere near this stuff either ...
Ventria has petitioned the FDA for approval of its protein powder used to fight diarrhea, not as a drug but a medical food, which means it wouldn't require extensive human testing. And, despite growing opposition, the company has a long-range plan of adding its unnatural protein product to baby formula, although food manufacturers aren't interested.
The company claims it's virtually impossible for its genetically modified rice, when mixed with conventional crops, to create a deadly product.
Nevertheless, it's a certainty that they will mix at some point and, when that happens, who really knows how these Frankenstein-like crop combinations will affect your health. Hybrids between GM plants and wild plants have already created weeds resistant to herbicides. Now we are presented with the frightening possibility that medical drugs could end up in our food supply.
The effects of genetic modification on the environment and on our health are unknown. Essentially, it is a massive and risky experiment on the whole human race and the earth's biosphere. And it isn't a question of whether or not GM plants will mix with non-GM crops; they will do so. We do not have control over the wind, the birds and the soil.
And while GM crops continue to proliferate, some natural, healthy foods may get killed off.
Unless something is done, there may come a time when a natural banana is unobtainable, and only genetically modified varieties remain, with all the potential risks to your health that entails. If there isn't a concerted effort to favor natural foods over GM foods, and soon, the human race will be making a dangerous gamble with their physical health and fragile biosphere.
Unfortunately, you've probably eaten GM foods, because there's no labeling policy forcing manufacturers to list them on food labels in America. And at least seven out of 10 items on the shelf have been genetically modified. There are, however, ways to identify GM foods.
If you want to steer clear of eating GM food for good, take the following steps:
#
Avoid processed foods. Some 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients.
#
Read produce and food labels. GM soybeans and corn make up the largest portion of genetically modified crops. When looking at a product label, if any of the ingredients are corn flour or meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, or tofu (to name a few), there's a good chance it has come from GM corn or soy, unless it's listed as organic.
#
Buy organic produce. Buying organic is currently the best way to ensure that your food has not been genetically modified. Food that is certified organic is by definition free from all GM organisms.
#
Look at produce stickers. Those little stickers on fruit and vegetables contain different PLU codes depending on whether the fruit was conventionally grown, organically grown, or genetically modified. The PLU code for conventionally grown fruit has four numbers, organically grown fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number nine, and GM fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number eight.
Related Articles:
Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Prepare a Takeover
The Damage GM Foods Can do to Your Body
The Damaging Effects of GMOs Revealed
Article from: http://www.mercola.com/2006/jun/
3/the_unethical_biopharming_of_america.htm
Related: Pharming Underground - Can subterranean laboratories ease safety woes over crops that sprout medicine?
Monsanto's Government Ties
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy
GM food must be allowed into Europe, WTO rules
Scientists suspect health threat from GM corn
© Red Ice Creations
.
Special Reports
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy
2005 11 01
By Jeffrey M. Smith | GMWatch.com
Jeffrey M. Smith is the Author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo above).
(Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the "GM soy" group.)
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.
GM Soy's Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that states, "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as "just a political document" without scientific basis, and warned that industry would "not do the tests that they would normally do" since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that rats fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that organ. Rats also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study's nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk."
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins-ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin-created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US. It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.
Click here for press release on Russian rat study.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=296
Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.
_____
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.
_____
[1]"Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, "Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry," Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, "Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues," Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume 14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose, "Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert," European Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk
[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith.
Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=297
Article from: http://www.rense.com/general68/rats.htm
Related: seedsofdeception.com
thefutureoffood.com
Rats' Internal Organs, Blood Altered By GM Corn - Monsanto
Scientists suspect health threat from GM corn
Monsanto's Government Ties
© Red Ice Creations
.
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy
2005 11 01
By Jeffrey M. Smith | GMWatch.com
Jeffrey M. Smith is the Author of Seeds of Deception
The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.
Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.
Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo above).
(Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the "GM soy" group.)
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.
Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.
GM Soy's Divisive Past
The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.
The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that states, "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as "just a political document" without scientific basis, and warned that industry would "not do the tests that they would normally do" since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was correct.
There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its kind.
Past Studies Show Significant Effects
Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that rats fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that organ. Rats also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]
An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study's nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.
The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.
The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.
The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations throughout the DNA.
Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's detection.
Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.
Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable option.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study
I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk."
Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins-ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.
Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin-created by the GM corn.
These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]
With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US. It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.
I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.
Click here for press release on Russian rat study.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle?objectID=296
Click here for downloadable photos of the rats.
Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals.
_____
Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org.
_____
[1]"Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992
[2]Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001.
[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180.
[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002
[6]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.)
[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245.
[8]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996
[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003
[10]Doerfler W; Schubbert R, "Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry," Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994
[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, "Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues," Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume 14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784
[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose, "Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert," European Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112
[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003
[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk
[15] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php
[16] http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith.
Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=297
Article from: http://www.rense.com/general68/rats.htm
Related: seedsofdeception.com
thefutureoffood.com
Rats' Internal Organs, Blood Altered By GM Corn - Monsanto
Scientists suspect health threat from GM corn
Monsanto's Government Ties
© Red Ice Creations
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)