ArchiveArchive

Does the EPA have all of Monsanto’s hidden science regarding glyphosate and GMOs?

January 3, 2017 by Natural News Editors Leave a Comment

As you sit down to your various holiday feasts during the next week or so, maybe you ought to think about what’s in your food.

Do you really know the chemicals and GMO ingredients, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) probably EVEN doesn’t know many of them due to Monsanto’s probable unreported and/or hidden ‘science’ not surrendered as part of the ‘approval’ process for either glyphosate, Roundup® and Roundup Ready seeds for soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum—with wheat under development!

(Article by Catherine J Frompovich, republished from NaturalBlaze.com)

It’s bad enough that numerous crops are “staged” with glyphosate spraying several days before harvest, which impregnates them with glyphosate residues, and that could be a contributing factor and reason for “gluten intolerance.” Genetically modifying wheat is NOT a good idea, since wheat is the western world’s grain, similar to rice being the eastern world’s grain. And “Golden Rice” hasn’t been accepted very well either.

Monsanto’s lobbyist, Patrick Moore, refuses to drink some Roundup® after proclaiming it won’t hurt you because, as he says, “I’m not an idiot!” What does it tell you about that herbicide and, especially, Monsanto’s own lobbyist, who was promoting GMO Golden Rice, and their products?

Here’s an interesting article from the Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences website titled “Why Roundup Ready Crops Have Lost Their Allure”. Still, corporate interests are pushing federal approval agencies to inundate the human and animal food chains with many more GMOs. [1]

EcoWatch produced the article “15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup,” which include: ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, Anencephaly (birth defects), Autism, Brain cancer, Cancer, Celiac disease and gluten intolerance, chronic Kidney disease, Colitis, Depression, Diabetes, Heart disease, Hypothyroidism, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS) and “Leaky Gut Syndrome”, Liver disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson disease, Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths), Obesity, Reproductive problems, and Respiratory illnesses. [2]

There’s been a rather interesting rumor circulating around Monsanto and GMO foods for quite a while now and it is: In the Monsanto corporate dining room, only organically-grown foods must be served! Can a whistleblower come forth to provide proof of that? If that is factual, then that’s something not only the public must know, but all regulatory agencies dealing with approving their respective aspects of GMOs: the U.S. FDA, USDA and EPA!

In the meantime, Food Democracy NOW has a petition website going titled “Tell the EPA to Release ALL of Monsanto’s Hidden Data on Glyphosate and GMOs”.

I heartily recommend readers read and sign now.

Are you aware that “in 1985, the EPA’s own scientists declared glyphosate to be a Category C ‘possible human carcinogen’ after reviewing studies submitted by Monsanto during the original approval”?

However, there are photographs of two-year-old rats from GMO feed studies that resulted in massive tumors. Monsanto’s studies presented for GMO approvals stopped at 90 DAYS, not the normal two-year-life-cycle of rats!

Relative to Monsanto’s 90-day study, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) stated,

“With respect to the detection of potential unintended eﬀects in whole GM food and feed, it is unlikely that substances present in small amounts and with a low toxic potential will result in any observable (unintended) eﬀects in a 90-day rodent feeding study, as they would be below the no-observed-eﬀect-level and thus of unlikely impact to human health at normal intake levels.

Laboratory animal feeding studies of 90-days duration appear to be suﬃcient to pick up adverse eﬀects of diverse compounds that would also give adverse eﬀects after chronic exposure.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.1057/epdf (Pg. S-4)

However, “Seralini’s long-term study linking glyphosate to rat tumors was unfortunately retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology due to pressure from Monsanto lobbyists. The results of the study have since been republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.” [3]

Look what’s happened to food in Europe, which previously was relatively clean of GMOs!

In June 2015, EFSA issued a new guidance document on the information that companies need to provide when applying for renewed authorisation to import GM plants for food and feed into the European Union. The European Commission grants authorizations to place GM food and feed on the European market for a period of ten years. [4]

Could that impact your food shopping and buying practices regarding foods produced in Europe? It certainly ought to affect what previously was considered GMO-free foods coming from European countries.

What do you think?

Aren’t consumers entitled to know what’s in the food we are eating, e.g., GMOs and how that food was grown or produced/manufactured?

Shouldn’t there be “reverse advertising” on all food labels, e.g., no GMOs or GMO-free?

Shouldn’t the PLU identity number “8” be mandatory for all foods containing GMOs or grown as GMOs? [5]

Currently, the PLU identity number “9” identifies organically-grown food.

Won’t you please tell the EPA what you think about GMOs and sign the petition? Thanks!

Medical scientists stunned as “magic mushroom” treatment found to heal mental illness… yet it remains illegal

December 13, 2016 by Robert Jonathan Leave a Comment

Two major clinical trials have reportedly reaffirmed the effectiveness of psilocybin, a naturally occurring psychedelic found in 200 varieties of mushrooms, in treating mental illness.

Earlier this year, researchers at London’s Imperial College found that after one week of high doses of psilocybin, twelve study participants no longer suffered with depression or self loathing. Eleven weeks later, five of them no longer had any lingering depression symptoms.

U.K. researchers had to go through a protracted amount of red tape to gain permission to administer the psilocybin capsules, however, given that magic mushrooms are illegal in most countries.

Here in the U.S., the DEA classifies psilocybin as a banned Schedule 1 drug like heroin, LSD, or Ecstasy, with no currently accepted use in medical treatment.

In the minds of government regulators, magic mushrooms apparently conjure up an image of burned-out hippies staggering around Woodstock on a bad trip rather than as a legitimate treatment for mental illness.

Data published this month in the Journal of Psychopharmacology focusing on cancer patients perhaps may change the conventional thinking that stands in the way of magic mushrooms being officially adopted as an alternative to antidepressants that bring with them many toxic side effects.

In the first study, 29 mostly female patients with an average age in the mid 50s who were afflicted with cancer-related anxiety and depression received either a 0.3 mg/kg dose of psilocybin or 250 mg of niacin, plus psychotherapy.

The New York University researchers wrote that the one moderate psilocybin dose “produced immediate, substantial, and sustained improvements in anxiety and depression and led to decreases in cancer-related demoralization and hopelessness, improved spiritual wellbeing, and increased quality of life. At the 6.5-month follow-up, psilocybin was associated with enduring anxiolytic and anti-depressant effects (approximately 60–80% of participants continued with clinically significant reductions in depression or anxiety), sustained benefits in existential distress and quality of life, as well as improved attitudes towards death. The psilocybin-induced mystical experience mediated the therapeutic effect of psilocybin on anxiety and depression.”

In the second study, Johns Hopkins researchers took a different approach. They gave 51 cancer patients who were also in their mid 50s either a low/placebo-like (1 or 3 mg/70 kg) psilocybin dose or a high dose (22 or 30 mg/70 kg) with five weeks between sessions and then a six-month follow-up.

The results suggested that “High-dose psilocybin produced large decreases in clinician- and self-rated measures of depressed mood and anxiety, along with increases in quality of life, life meaning, and optimism, and decreases in death anxiety. At 6-month follow-up, these changes were sustained, with about 80% of participants continuing to show clinically significant decreases in depressed mood and anxiety. Participants attributed improvements in attitudes about life/self, mood, relationships, and spirituality to the high-dose experience…”

Both double-blind studies cautioned that more fact-finding is necessary to fully determine if psilocybin is safe and effective. According to Business Insider, scientists will seek a green light to move forward with a third clinical trial. Dr. Roland Griffiths, lead author of the Hopkins study, said that “This is a potential pathway to clinical approval. But that [approval] requires the next step of going to the FDA and getting permission to move forward.”

Participants in both groups told researchers about mystical or spiritual experiences after ingesting psilocybin, the effects of which last about four hours. “Griffiths says one way psychedelic researchers have characterized this is as the inverse of PTSD. With PTSD, one terrible experience can change the way a person’s brain causes them to perceive the world, with long-lasting effects. This is like the opposite of that — a single meaningful experience that people highly value and has transformational, enduring effects.”

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Journal of Psychopharmacology

BusinessInsider.com

Drugs.com

‘Smart’ but not safe? Multiple fires across America now linked to smart meters

August 16, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

Smart meters are being implemented across the country, and the globe, even in spite of growing concerns about their safety. Smart meters have been associated with a wave of unexplained illnesses and now they have also been associated with causing house fires.

For example, on October 26, 2012, a house burned for about 35 minutes before emergency responders could step in and do their jobs. The firefighters arrived within four minutes, but because there was a live power line involved, they were forced to stand by until the power could be shut off. Gibsons’ fire chief Bob Stevens noted that the fire was primarily located around the meter base and its connections. Fire personnel tried their best to control the blaze while they waited for the power to be cut off so they could take care of business.

While the official cause was not stated, it was highly suspected that the fire was caused by an electrical problem.

The Gibsons fire is not the only fire to be linked to smart meters. A report by the Ontario Fire Marshals’ Office attributed smart meter installations to a number of fires in the area. Faulty base plate connections, defects and careless installation were just a few mechanisms suggested to be behind the link between smart meters and house fires.

And yet, utility companies continue to assert that these devices are totally, completely safe. In fact, they are often compared to being equal to cell phones and cell towers — which have also been shown to be quite dangerous and are associated with many health problems. The World Health Organization has even listed radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen based on studies that have linked cell phone radiation to brain tumors.

Smart meters are really anything but smart. They have numerous risks to humans and their environment, and are really just another tool for Big Brother to spy on you with. Why take the risk of losing your home — or your life?

Sources:

StopSmartMetersBC.com

NaturalNews.com

CoastReporter.net

VancouverSun.com

Glyphosate herbicide disrupts the development of the uterus, affects female fertility

August 10, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

Glyphosate has already been labeled as “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organization. While many would consider this title alone to be damning enough, the evidence indicating the dangers of glyphosate continues to pile up.

A recent study conducted by researchers from Argentina found that glyphosate disrupted uterine development in female rats. What is most alarming is that these changes in development occurred with just seven days of exposure.

In just a week’s time, glyphosate elicited structural changes to the baby rats’ uteri, and also altered cellular proliferation. The expression of proteins involved in uterine development was also affected by exposure to the herbicide. In spite of these changes in development, no signs of chronic or acute toxicity were evident.

The findings of this study led the researchers to conclude that glyphosate exposure has the potential to negatively affect female fertility, and may also increase the risk of uterine cancer. The researchers also note that theirs is the first study to showcase glyphosate’s potential to disrupt endocrine function in newborn and adolescent rats.

It is important to also note that the researchers used amounts of glyphosate that were equivalent to the current United States reference dose, scaled to the individual weights of the rats. This means that the dose used on the rats was equivalent to what is currently permitted by our government, and even deemed safe for daily consumption.

Clearly, even when the dose of glyphosate is not causing toxicity, it can still cause other issues. This raises the question, “Is any amount of glyphosate actually safe?”

The answer is, probably not.

These are not the first hazardous effects of glyphosate to be seen and documented by science, and they surely will not be the last. Eco Watch has even gone so far as to create a list of some of the most pervasive diseases and conditions that have been attributed to glyphosate exposure.

Glyphosate’s capacity to disrupt thyroid hormones has been associated with an increased prevalence of ADHD in farming communities, for instance. Breast cancer, brain cancer and neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, autism, ALS, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease can all be caused by glyphosate exposure. Liver disease, kidney disease, respiratory problems, reproductive issues and birth defects have also been associated with exposure to this toxic herbicide. Digestive issues such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, celiac disease and leaky gut syndrome have also been linked to glyphosate.

Eco Watch reports that Monsanto has falsified data on the safety of their product to protect their profit margins, and between the years of 1996 and 2011, managed to increase the use of herbicides by 527 million pounds – and that’s just in the United States.

Scientists continue to study and document the ill effects of glyphosate on both humans and the environment, and yet nothing is actually being done to stop its prevalence in our lives. Even as people protest and scientific data reveals its hazardous nature, Monsanto manages to remain unscathed and without scrutiny here in the USA. Glyphosate contaminates not just the food we eat, but the water we drink and the air we breathe, and it needs to be stopped.

Sources:

GMWatch.org

EcoWatch.com

Cancer industry: Chemotherapy and radiation treatments are our moneymaking machines

August 1, 2016 by Tara Paras Leave a Comment

Studies show that one in five new cancer cases in the United States involve someone who has had the disease before. Moreover, research has further shown that second cancers, which do not include recurrent cancers, but are completely new types of cancer, have increased 300 percent since the 1970s. First-time cancers have also spiked, increasing 70 percent in the same time frame.

In response to this spike in cancer occurrences, the world of Western medicine has feigned ignorance, claiming that the real reason behind the rising global cancer epidemic remains elusive.

While genetics could be a factor, other influences, such as the food you eat, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the vaccines you inject and even the kind of medical treatment you receive could all contribute to cancer risk. Furthermore, emerging research continues to show that pesticides, heavy metals and hormone mimickers such as BPA and BPS, as well as other environmental contaminants, greatly influence the risk of developing cancer.

Are Big Pharma-induced cancer treatments causing more cancer?

A document by the American Cancer Society (ACS) titled “Second Cancers in Adults” admits that second cancers may be caused by cancer treatment.

“Radiation therapy was recognized as a potential cause of cancer many years ago,” according to the ACS, which also admits that most types of leukemia, including acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), can all be caused by radiation.

Most cancers caused by radiation therapy develop within just a few years of being irradiated, with the disease peaking at five to nine years following exposure. Similarly, chemotherapy drugs have also been linked to different kinds of second cancers, with the most common being myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and AML; ALL has also been linked to these cancer drugs.

Aside from radiation and chemotherapy, other causes include toxins present in tobacco smoke and high levels of industrial-type chemicals such as benzene, synthetic fibers, rubber lubricants, resins, dyes, detergents, drugs and pesticides.

About 13,000 people are diagnosed with MDS each year. Nearly another 20,000 people are diagnosed annually with AML,while approximately 6,000 people are diagnosed with ALL.

This means that at least 40,000 cancer occurrences may be directly attributed to so-called cancer cures. Given that the cancer industry wants nothing more than to generate more funds for their lucrative business, no well-informed individual would want to go through such potentially fatal treatments. Would you?

Sources used: