The Truth About Cancer, A Global Quest Docu-series

The True History of Chemotherapy And The Pharmaceutical Monopoly | Episode I

The Truth About Cancer 
Published on Oct 15, 2015

Episode I uncovers the lies of chemotherapy and how Big Pharma falsifies “research” based medicine. We’ll hear about  families that donated to our medical education system… and how they created a medical monopoly.

Next, we visit the Hoxsey Clinic (Biomedical Center) in Tijuana, Mexico to interview doctors and patients. And we’ll hear stories of children taken from their parents and forced to undergo radiation and chemotherapy. If you would like to support our mission and own all episodes of this eye-opening docu-series, please follow this link: http://bit.ly/agq-silver-order

Episode II The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest docu-series

Our mission is to educate the world, expose lies and empower people. Help reveal the truth by sharing our docu-series.

Watch episode 3 and the rest of the docu-series by signing up for free here: http://bit.ly/free-signup-agq

Inside The Truth About Cancer Docu-Series, doctors, researchers, experts, and survivors show you exactly how to prevent and treat cancer in our 3 original docu-series: “The Quest for the Cures”, “The Quest for the Cures Continues”, “The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest”, and on our website: https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/

In our docu-series, you’ll travel with Ty Bollinger who lost both his mother and father to cancer (as well as 5 other family members). Ty travels the country and the globe and sits down with leading experts, doctors, researchers, and cancer conquerors to find out their proven methods for preventing and treating cancer.

Please join our email list to be notified of all upcoming events (including free airings of our docu-series): http://bit.ly/join-ttac-mission

Learn more about our latest docu-series “The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest” here: http://bit.ly/agq-silver-order

Ty and Charlene Bollinger are devoted Christians, health freedom advocates, health researchers, documentary film producers, and best-selling authors. After losing several family members to conventional cancer treatments, they set out to learn the truth about cancer and the cancer industry, working together tirelessly to help others to learn the truth that sets them free to live healthy, happy lives. Ty & Charlene’s heartbreak and grief coupled with their firm belief that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were NOT the most effective treatments available for cancer patients, led them on a path of discovery. On their journey, they interviewed cutting-edge scientists, leading alternative doctors, and groundbreaking researchers to learn about hidden alternative cancer treatments. What they uncovered helped to create The Truth About Cancer and its three awe-inspiring docu-series.

Ty & Charlene speak frequently at seminars, expos, conferences, and churches. Together, they host a biweekly internet news program: TTAC Global Health News: http://bit.ly/ghn-episodes Their message is clear: CANCER IS NOT A DEATH SENTENCE. THERE IS ALWAYS HOPE.

Thanks to Richard for sharing this docu-series with us.

“You can never say the wrong thing with the right one listening.” Aug Tellez

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net

Advertisements
Posted in Awakening humans, Call to action, Endocrine disrupters, Genetic engineering, Globalism, Great Purification, Greater well-being, Holistic/Wholistic, Nano technology, Population control, Public Notice, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Power Your Gut: Avoid 6 artificial sweeteners toxic to digestive gut microbes

A happy gut microbiome is essential to optimize health, immunity, and mental health [cognitive abilities]

Using artificial sweeteners causes biochemical changes in the body and actually throw off the body’s ability to monitor how many calories we consume. FDA-approved artificial sweeteners and sport supplements have now been found to be toxic to digestive gut microbes, according to a new paper published in Molecules.

Artificial sweeteners are one of the most common food additives worldwide, frequently consumed in diet and zero-calorie sodas and other products. Large examinations have tracked biochemical changes in the body using high-throughput metabolomics

The collaborative study by researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) in Israel and Nanyang Technological University in Singapore examined the relative toxicity of six artificial sweeteners:

1. aspartame
2. sucralose
3. saccharine
4. neotame
5. advantame
6. acesulfame potassium-k

and 10 sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners. The bacteria found in the digestive system became toxic when exposed to concentrations of only one mg./ml. of the artificial sweeteners.

“We modified bioluminescent E. coli bacteria, which luminesce when they detect toxicants and act as a sensing model representative of the complex microbial system,” says Prof. Ariel Kushmaro, John A. Ungar Chair in Biotechnology in the Avram and Stella Goldstein-Goren Department of Biotechnology Engineering, and member of the Ilse Katz Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology and the National Institute for Biotechnology in the Negev. “This is further evidence that consumption of artificial sweeteners adversely affects gut microbial activity which can cause a wide range of health issues.”

Artificial sweeteners are used in countless food products and soft drinks with reduced sugar content. Many people consume this added ingredient without their knowledge. Moreover, artificial sweeteners have been identified as emerging environmental pollutants, and can be found in drinking and surface water, and groundwater aquifers.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 11 to 27 percent of ingested sucralose is absorbed by the human body (FDA 1998). Research published by the manufacturer of sucralose (Roberts 2000) shows that when 8 healthy male adults where given sucralose (in 1 mg/kg amounts), between 10.4% and 30.6% of the sucralose was absorbed. In addition, 1.6% to 12.2% of the sucralose accumulates in the body.

Aspartame is a multi-potential carcinogen, even consumed daily at 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. That is a lower quantity than the maximum recommended by the FDA (50 mg/kg of body weight) and the European Union (40 mg/kg).

It increases the incidence of malignant tumours in rats. In the females it increases leukaemia and lymphomas, as well as cancerous cells in the pelvis and urethra. In the males, it especially increases the incidence of malignant tumours in peripheral nerves.

“The results of this study might help in understanding the relative toxicity of artificial sweeteners and the potential of negative effects on the gut microbial community as well as the environment.

Furthermore, the tested bioluminescent bacterial panel can potentially be used for detecting artificial sweeteners in the environment,” says Prof. Kushmaro.

SOURCE with thanks https://preventdisease.com/news/18/100318_Six-FDA-Approved-Sweeteners-Proven-Toxic-Human-Digestion.shtml

Why You Need Both Probiotics and Prebiotics for Good Gut Health and Overall Wellness

Probiotics and prebiotics: What’s the difference? And how do they work together? Learn what you need to know to achieve better digestion, improved immune response, and a host of other health benefits. Also, see which foods naturally have probiotics and prebiotics and whether or not you might need a supplement.

 

You’ve probably heard of probiotics, but what about prebiotics?

The names may be similar, but they each play different (and complementary) roles for your gut health.

If you want to heal your gut or keep it happy, you’ll see why getting enough of both probiotics and prebiotics is necessary — and why getting enough of these natural food components effects much more than your digestion.

Probiotics and Prebiotics: The Good Guys in Your Gut and the Food that Feeds Them

graphical depiction of intestines with the word microbiome

Probiotics are the good bacteria living in your gut. (You have both good and bad bacteria in your body, and a balance is necessary for a healthy gut.)

Probiotics help you in a variety of ways:

  • They break down and digest food.
  • They support overall gut health.
  • They ensure the immune system works well.
  • They also play a role in how you think and feel. Gut bacteria can improve the production and regulation of hormones, such as insulin and leptin. And they have been found to produce neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and GABA — which play a key role in your mood.

Prebiotics are the food for the good bacteria. They come from the non-digestible fiber in certain plant-based foods. With names such as oligosaccharides, galactooligosaccharide, and inulin, they stimulate the growth and activity of your body’s beneficial bacteria (probiotics). All prebiotics are fiber, but not all fiber is prebiotic.

You need both probiotics and prebiotics. They work together to support your microbiome — the community of trillions of bacteria in your body that help it function properly.

It’s a synergistic relationship. Without prebiotics as fuel, probiotics would starve — leaving you open to a host of problems, such as leaky gut, a compromised immune system, and constipation. And with no probiotics around to eat them, prebiotics would be of little value to your gut.

Probiotic Benefits: What These Friendly Bacteria Can Do for You

Some of the health benefits that science is discovering about probiotics include:

  • Improving gut health. Probiotics are known to be good for your digestion, your ability to stay regular, and reducing diarrhea. A healthy digestive system will help minimize gas and bloating. Probiotics may be able to help improve symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Crohn’s disease (an autoimmune disease), urinary tract infections, and other health conditions.
  • Improving the immune system. Probiotics have been shown to boost your immune system against various invaders. Having a healthy bacteria population in your gut protects you from bad bacteria, such as overgrowths of yeast, fungi, and viruses. For example, a 2003 study published in the journal Gut found that the strains Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus acidophilus protected cells against infection with E. coli. Another study found that women taking Lactobacillus crispatus reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) by 50%.
  • Preventing and treating diarrhea. A 2010 study published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found that probiotics can reduce the severity and duration of infectious diarrhea. Other studies have found that probiotics can also reduce the risk of diarrhea associated with antibiotic use. Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus casei, and the yeast Saccharomyces boulardii were found to be most effective for preventing the runs.
  • Boosting mental health. Your gut is sometimes called your “second brain,” and its balance of bacteria directly affects your mental health. In both animal and human studies, some strains of probiotics have been found to improve psychological conditions. A 2016 review published in the Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility found that probiotics helped with anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, and even memory issues. Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus helveticus, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus were the strains used in most studies.
  • Lowering blood pressure. A 2014 review of nine studies published in the journal Hypertension found that probiotics may help to reduce blood pressure. Multiple strains of probiotics (those with more than 10 million colony-forming units) were the most beneficial when consumed daily over eight weeks or more. The most commonly studied strains were Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium.
  • Losing weight. In a 2014 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, women on a diet who took Lactobacillus rhamnosus for three months dropped 50% more weight. Another study found that Lactobacillus paracasei can actually block fat storage.

Probiotic Foods: Which Foods Are The Best Sources?

A variety of plant-based foods, particularly sour and fermented foods, contain beneficial, probiotic bacteria.

Some of the best probiotic foods include:

  • Sauerkraut: A form of fermented cabbage, sauerkraut is full of probiotics created during the fermentation process. Freshly fermented is best, as it maintains the most nutrient density.
  • Kimchi: This traditional Korean food is made using fermentation with cabbage and other veggies.
  • Tempeh: A fermented soybean product that’s high in both protein and probiotics.
  • Miso: A staple in Japanese cuisine, miso paste is commonly used as a base for soups and as a flavoring in many dishes. While rich in probiotics, it’s also high in sodium so it may be best used in moderation.
  • Natto: An unusual food with a unique texture and flavor, Natto is made from fermented soybeans and is rich in probiotics.
  • Kefir: A cultured, probiotic food typically made with cow’s milk. To avoid the negative health effects of dairy, you can opt for coconut or water-based versions instead.
  • Yogurt: To stay plant-based, choose non-dairy varieties, which can also have probiotics. Steer clear of sweetened varieties because sugars can be bad for your digestive health.
  • Pickled vegetables: While cucumbers might be the most popular option, any kind of pickled veggie can provide probiotics as long as they’re unpasteurized. However, you may want to keep consumption of these relatively low, as they’re also high in sodium.

A couple more food tips: Eating a variety of probiotic foods will help you get the most benefits and the maximum number of probiotic strains.

Also, cooking does reduce or kill the probiotics, but some scientific research is showing that heat-killed probiotics are still beneficial. So while eating probiotic foods raw is best, cooking them doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t get their benefits.

Prebiotic Benefits: What They Can Do for You

Other than serving as nutrition for probiotics, supporting your gut health, and enhancing your immune system — prebiotics have additional benefits when you consume them.

Some of the health benefits of prebiotics include:

  • Enhancing mineral absorption, potential anti-cancer properties, anti-inflammatory, and other immune-assisting effects. A 2011 study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology reported on these findings.
  • Encouraging normal blood sugar levels. A 2013 study published in the journal Endocrine Practice found that prebiotics may be beneficial for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.
  • Aiding weight loss. A 2002 study published in The British Journal of Nutrition found that prebiotic foods promote a feeling of fullness, which helps prevent obesity and aids weight loss.
  • Boosting bone health. A 2007 study published in The Journal of Nutrition found that prebiotics enhance the absorption of minerals in the body, including magnesium and possibly iron and calcium — which are all necessary for strong bones.

Prebiotic Foods: Which Foods Are The Best Sources?

Probiotics and prebiotics: the best food sources

Prebiotics are specific forms of dietary fiber that feed the good bacteria or probiotics.

To keep your probiotics going strong, some of the best prebiotic foods to eat include:

  • Jicama: Also known as a Mexican yam bean or a Mexican turnip, jicama is a root vegetable that contains the prebiotic fiber inulin.
  • Chicory root: Chicory root is the root of the chicory vegetable. (The endive is the leafy part.) Some people use it as a coffee substitute because it has a deep, dark flavor when roasted. Raw chicory root is one of the best prebiotic food sources because it’s 65% fiber.
  • Acacia gum: Also known as acacia fiber, you can stir the powder in water and drink it, or take it as a supplement. Amazingly, it has even more fiber than chicory root — it’s 86% fiber, and one of the most potent prebiotics on the planet!
  • Jerusalem Artichokes: These potato-like tubers are high in inulin. You can consume Jerusalem artichokes in raw, cooked, or powdered form.
  • Garlic: Garlic contains inulin and another prebiotic, fructooligosaccharides (FOS). In order to reap its full benefits, consume foods with raw garlic as an ingredient, such as hummus or salsa.
  • Onions: You can eat this kitchen staple raw or cooked to get its prebiotic benefits.
  • Leeks: Members of the Allium family (along with garlic, onions, shallots, chives, and scallions), onions contain about 16% inulin.
  • Dandelion greens: These abundant, backyard greens are 25% prebiotic fiber. You can eat them raw in salads or sautee them for use in various cooked dishes.
  • Leafy greens: In case you need another reason to eat them, researchers discovered that leafy greens, such as spinach, have abundant prebiotics.
  • Asparagus: Eating asparagus raw is best to get its prebiotic benefits. Try chopping it up in a salad. Or if the texture is too tough, you can lightly steam it or even ferment it.
  • Legumes: Legumes, such as beans, lentils, and chickpeas, are packed with oligosaccharides, a type of prebiotic.
  • Bananas: Bananas are known to soothe the gut naturally and reduce bloating. For the greatest probiotic effect, choose under-ripe bananas.

Note: Consuming prebiotic vegetables raw is often optimal because it helps preserve their fiber content.

Should You Take Probiotic Supplements?

Do you need to take supplements to get all the probiotics your need?

Food Revolution expert Dr. Joel Fuhrman says: “If you are in good health and are consuming a healthful plant-based diet you don’t necessarily need to take probiotics.

So, if you’re eating prebiotic and probiotic foods every day that are good for gut health — you may not need a supplement.

Why You Might Want to Take A Probiotic Supplement

You might want to take a probiotic supplement for these reasons:

  • When taking antibiotics
  • To improve your gut health
  • If you’re stressed or traveling,
  • To improve your immune function and when sick with a cold or flu, or
  • To treat health conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome, diarrhea, colitis, acne, and eczema

What to Look for in A Probiotic Supplement

When selecting a probiotic supplement, there are a couple of things you should consider.

First, probiotic options vary widely. According to a 2010 study published in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, there is no consensus on how many microorganisms are necessary to achieve health benefits, but “a probiotic should typically contain several billion microorganisms to increase the chance that adequate gut colonization will occur.”

Colony-forming units (CFU) are the number of active cultures in a probiotic. Try to choose a formula that includes CFUs in the billions. And generally, the more, the better. It’s also good to choose a probiotic with a broad spectrum of strains since they work best as a team.

Remember: You need to refrigerate live probiotics. Shelf-stable (freeze-dried) probiotics do not require refrigeration. However, both will have expiration dates, so be sure to stay aware of that while you’re taking them.

How To Get The Most from Your Probiotic Supplement

You should know that probiotic supplements don’t always work.

In fact, the vast majority of probiotic bacteria are active and effective in the lower portions of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, which means these bacteria must survive your highly acidic stomach environment. So how can you keep the probiotics intact?

In a 2011 study published in Beneficial Microbes, researchers looked at whether probiotic supplements were better when swallowed on an empty stomach or with a meal.

The researchers found that probiotic bacteria had the highest rates of survival when taken within 30 minutes before or simultaneously with a meal or drink that contained some fat.

Can You Take Prebiotics and Probiotics Together?

Probiotics and prebiotics infographic

You can eat prebiotic and probiotic foods together or separately, as long as you’re eating a variety of both to reap all the benefits.

But combining probiotic foods and prebiotic foods may be the best way to get all the synergistic effects of these beneficial components. The combination is called synbiotic — a word that was first coined for use in supplements but is also used for food.

For example, to achieve synbiotic eating, you might eat:

  • Beans and pickled veggies
  • Pickled asparagus
  • Sauerkraut with raw onions
  • Jerusalem artichokes with miso

Prebiotic and Probiotic Side Effects

Because probiotics work to make your digestive system more effective, some people do notice increased gas and bloating when first increasing consumption. You may want to ease into increasing your probiotic intake slowly and pay attention to any side effects.

There can also be risks for patients with compromised immune systems so you may want to consult with your doctor before starting any supplements.

Otherwise, however, negative effects tend to be rare. A 2016 paper published in the journal Nutrients concluded that both prebiotics and probiotics have a “relatively low capacity to cause adverse effects.”

Power Your Gut (and Your Overall Well-being) with Probiotics and Prebiotics

Both probiotics and prebiotics are essential to the health of your gut, your brain, and your entire body. As you add them to your daily meals, your belly, and your body will thank you for the rest of your life.

From Doreen

Citizens under our skin

Bruce Lipton is a cellular biologist, professor, lecturer, and international best-selling co-author of Spontaneous Evolution and author of The Biology of Belief. During our radio interview in 2102 Bruce responded as follows:

Q #10. Why do you say that our cells may be smarter than we are, and how can that be?

  • Human civilization – a mere 7 billion of us — is currently struggling to survive. Meanwhile, the 50 trillion cellular citizens under our skin live in harmony and bliss.
  • In a sense, our cells created us! Cellular technology is far more sophisticated than anything humans have been able to come up with.
  • The emerging science of biomimicry extrapolates what nature uses to adapt and survive, and applies that mastery to our human world.

When you consider the impact of bio-hazard S.M.A.R.T. appliances, cell towers, wireless devices, incoming 5G; chemicals discharged from planes followed by rain that carries sprayed chemicals to the ground, into the water, on crops, humans and permeates the atmosphere, you are wise to ‘power your gut‘ to optimize a healthy immune system and healthy brain functions.

Please support yourself and family by eating organic, NON-GMO food, read labels carefully, and support fellow humans by sharing information so they too can power their gut. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net
Health

Posted in Auto-immune, Awakening humans, Call to action, Cell signaling function, Empower harmlessness and truth, Endocrine disrupters, Energy, frequency, vibration, Fluorotoxicity, Genetic engineering, GMO food and clothes, Great Purification, Holistic/Wholistic, Mind control, Power Vs. Force, Public Notice, S.M.A.R.T. readers, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, Sun Creation, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vitamin D Deficiency – An Ignored Epidemic

Vitamin D3 and Vitamin K2 [MK-7] deficiency is a world-wide epidemic

Dr Zahid Naeem, MBBS, MCPS, DPH, FCPS, Professor
Jan 2010

Vitamin D deficiency is a global health problem. With all the medical advances of the century, vitamin D deficiency is still epidemic. Over a billion people worldwide are vitamin D deficient or insufficient. Yet no international health organization or governmental body has declared a health emergency to warn the public about the urgent need of achieving sufficient vitamin D blood levels.

Vitamin D, also described as “the Sun Vitamin” is a steroid with hormone like activity. It regulates the functions of over 200 genes and is essential for growth and development. There are two forms of vitamin D. Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol).(2) Vitamin D status depends on the production of vitamin D 3 in the skin under the influence of ultraviolet radiation from sun and vitamin D intake through diet or vitamin D supplements. Usually 50 to 90% of vitamin D is produced by sunshine exposure of skin and the remainder comes from the diet. Natural diet, most human consume, contain little vitamin D. Traditionally the human vitamin D system begins in the skin, not in the mouth. However, important sources of vitamin D are egg yolk, fatty fish, fortified dairy products and beef liver.

Vitamin D3 deficiency can result in obesity, diabetes, hypertension, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, osteoporosis and neuro-degenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s disease. Vitamin D deficiency may even contribute to the development of cancers, especially breast, prostate, and colon cancers. Current research indicates vitamin D deficiency plays a role in causing seventeen varieties of different cancers as well as heart disease, stroke, autoimmune diseases, birth defects, and periodontal disease.(4) Vitamin D3 is believed to play a role in controlling the immune system (possibly reducing one’s risk of cancers and autoimmune diseases), increasing neuromuscular function and improving mood, protecting the brain against toxic chemicals, and potentially reducing pain.

References and READ more at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068797/

From Doreen

Natural planetary metamorphosis

I research Vitamin D because I live under a canopy of haze for weeks at a time. No blue sky and no Sunshine vital to human health, plants, crops, and aquatic life.

Climate change, formerly called global warming, is based on incomplete science and omissions. It is believed that Earth is currently on an orbital trajectory bringing us closer to the Sun each day; hence, we see the phenomenon of global warming all around us. Orbital Variance Theory explained in greater detail:

Further details at http://cosmicconvergence.org/?p=13 

Solar radiation management a.k.a. stratospheric aerosol injection or chemtrails involve chemicals discharged from planes that block Sunlight to avert global warming; not caused by humans, caused by natural planetary metamorphosis.

John Owen Brennan, former CIA Director speaks to the Council on Foreign Relations: “The array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.” https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html

Planes modified with spray nozzles in line with exhaust output, discharge chemicals into the atmosphere that block Sunlight vital to everyone.

Take responsibility for your health: Vitamin D3 + K2 Combo

Current evidence supports the notion that joint supplementation of vitamins D and K might be more effective than the consumption of either alone for bone and cardiovascular health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5613455/

And let me add, immune system support, which will become even more important unless 5G technology is stopped. https://ourgreaterdestiny.wordpress.com/2018/09/05/one-politician-exposes-health-risks-and-dangers-of-5g-and-wireless/

Silence is acquiescence

To end globalist’s rule requires the military to defend humans instead of the rich and powerful. Two ways to accomplish this are:

1] A legitimate civil authority in de jure capacity, and compliant with the United States Constitution, instructs the military to do so. A legitimate civil authority could be the Mayor of a city. In accordance with the United States’ Constitution, military leadership is rightfully subordinate to civilian authority. http://armedforcesjournal.com/limits-to-civilian-authority

2] The majority of American people stand together … 51% minimum ‘demand’ it.

Like Vitamin D3 and Vitamin K2, people are most effective together.

Please inform others so they can take responsibility for their health and safeguard the health of family and others. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net

Posted in Awakening humans, Call to action, Cell signaling function, Cell towers, Chemtrails, EMF/EMR, Empower harmlessness and truth, Energy, frequency, vibration, Great Purification, Holistic/Wholistic, Power Vs. Force, Public Notice, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, Sun Creation, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

FOUND: Autism Causation | Vaccine Data Base

Vaccines don’t save lives, healthy immune systems do

Medical doctors and PhD scientists below, review in great detail that vaccines
a) aren’t safe
b) aren’t effective
c) have never been proven to reduce disease or improve immunity in real world populations and
d) have only be proven to worsen the health of all people injected, no exceptions, and in many cases kill the person vaccinated on the spot or within days of taking the shot.

The poisoning of our children is starting to become a religion and people in government, science and medicine are leading the charge for the new sacrificial doctrine. Take the poison or else. Or else what? Or else the people who poison the children won’t have jobs anymore? That’s not a good enough reason to keep poisoning the children.

International scientists have found autism’s cause. What will Americans do?

BY J.B. HANDLEY April 2, 2018
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018

Dr. Bob Zajac is a board-certified pediatrician with additional expertise in asthma/allergy care, developmental/behavioral pediatric care, and natural/holistic care. He received his degree in Child Development, and pursued an additional four years of training in a PhD program (Early Childhood Special Education), followed by his medical degree (MD – University of Minnesota – 2000) and residency training (pediatrics – 2000-2003). Prior to starting New Kingdom Pediatrics, Dr. Bob completed his masters of business degree (MBA, Crown College, 2011-2013).
“I was a vaccine bully,”

VAXXED TV 
Streamed live on Aug 25, 2017

1. Dr. Nancy Banks – http://bit.ly/1Ip0aIm
2. Dr. Russell Blaylock – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5xHV8_Njfc
3. Dr. Shiv Chopra – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDg490zBsmU&t=3s
4. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny – http://bit.ly/2GpCVS4
5. Dr. Suzanne Humphries – http://bit.ly/2Hzn17l
6. Dr. Larry Palevsky – http://bit.ly/1LLEjf6
7. Dr. Toni Bark – http://bit.ly/1CYM9RB
8. Dr. Andrew Wakefield – http://bit.ly/1eXfTTa
9. Dr. Meryl Nass – http://bit.ly/1DGzJsc
10. Dr. Raymond Obomsawin – http://bit.ly/1G9ZXYl
11. Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot – this medical doctor’s talk against vaccines is BANNED by facebook so you will have to look her up yourself on youtube. She was a Canadian medical doctor who started to warn the public about the documented toxins in vaccines and was literally hunted and chased out of Canada. https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/tag/dr-ghislaine-lanctot/
12. Dr. Robert Rowen – http://bit.ly/1SIELeF
13. Dr. David Ayoub – http://bit.ly/1SIELve
14. Dr. Boyd Haley PhD – http://bit.ly/1KsdVby
15. Dr. Rashid Buttar – http://bit.ly/1gWOkL6
16. Dr. Roby Mitchell – http://bit.ly/1gdgEZU
17. Dr. Ken Stoller – http://bit.ly/1MPVqLI
18. Dr. Mayer Eisenstein – http://bit.ly/2IpHbBC
19. Dr. Frank Engley, PhD – http://bit.ly/1OHbLDI
20. Dr. David Davis – http://bit.ly/1gdgJwo
21. Dr Tetyana Obukhanych – http://bit.ly/16Z7k6J
22. Dr. Harold E Buttram – http://bit.ly/1Kru6Df
23. Dr. Kelly Brogan – http://bit.ly/1D31pfQ
24. Dr. RC Tent – http://bit.ly/1MPVwmu
25. Dr. Rebecca Carley – http://bit.ly/K49F4d
26. Dr. Andrew Moulden – http://bit.ly/1fwzKJu
27. Dr. Jack Wolfson – http://bit.ly/2tO7luD
28. Dr. Michael Elice – http://bit.ly/1KsdpKA
29. Dr. Terry Wahls – http://bit.ly/1gWOBhd
30. Dr. Stephanie Seneff – http://bit.ly/1OtWxAY
31. Dr. Paul Thomas – http://bit.ly/1DpeXPf
32. Many doctors talking at once – http://bit.ly/1MPVHOv
33. Dr. Richard Moskowitz – http://bit.ly/1OtWG7D
34. Dr. Jane Orient – http://bit.ly/1MXX7pb
35. Dr. Richard Deth – http://bit.ly/1GQDL10
36. Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic – http://bit.ly/1eqiPr5
37. Dr Chris Shaw – http://bit.ly/1IlGiBp
38. Dr. Susan McCreadie – http://bit.ly/1CqqN83
39. Dr. Mary Ann Block – http://bit.ly/1OHcyUX
40. Dr. David Brownstein – http://bit.ly/2pbtD4Z
41. Dr. Jayne Donegan – http://bit.ly/1wOk4Zz
42. Dr. Troy Ross – http://bit.ly/1IlGlNH
43. Dr. Philip Incao – http://bit.ly/1ghE7sS
44. Dr. Joseph Mercola – http://bit.ly/18dE38I
45. Dr. Jeff Bradstreet – http://bit.ly/1MaX0cC
46. Dr. Robert Mendelson – http://bit.ly/1JpAEQr
47. Dr. Garth Nicolson – http://bit.ly/2pcGK4R
48. Dr. Marc Girard – http://bit.ly/1iw0smT
49. Dr. Charles Richet – http://bit.ly/2DrLd8Z
50. Dr. Zac Bush – http://bit.ly/1LS19OZ
51. Dr. Lawrence Wilson – http://bit.ly/1kcdirf
52. Dr. James Howenstine – http://bit.ly/1iNyFOy
53. Dr Burton A. Waisbren, Sr., M.D. – http://bit.ly/1Nj8LRe
54. Dr. Sam Eggertsen – http://bit.ly/1Mww9XV
55. Dr. Bonnie Dunbar – http://bit.ly/1N5DXNi
56. Dr. Judy Mikovits – http://bit.ly/1QIzmHU
57. Dr. John Bergan – http://bit.ly/1KYv1yY
58. Dr. Rima E. Laibow – bit.ly/1RmW73C
59. Dr. Lee Hieb – http://bit.ly/1VElDUv
60. Dr. Daniel Kalb – http://bit.ly/22FPmxv
61. Dr. Rachel Ross – http://bit.ly/1r7Doik
62. Dr. Kathryn H Hale – http://bit.ly/2GsBxym
63. Dr. Gibson – http://bit.ly/2sLlNSt
64. Dr. Anthony Phan – http://bit.ly/2squqxN
65. Dr. Daniel Neides – http://bit.ly/2xdg2vz
66. Dr. Christiane Northrup – http://bit.ly/2vWOdqi
67. Dr. James Neuenschwander – http://bit.ly/2gCsl1w
68. Dr. James Meehan – http://bit.ly/2EPLdoU
69. Dr. Christopher Exley – http://bit.ly/2sSVgny
70. Dr. Graham Downing – http://bit.ly/2FUg03G
71. Dr. Judy Wilyman – https://bit.ly/2vUVegp
72. Dr. Jamie Deckoff-Jones – https://bit.ly/1M1DJZm

Documentaries that Include 100’s of Health Professionals WARNING The Public About The Dangers of Vaccination….
1. Vaccination – The Silent Epidemic – http://bit.ly/1vvQJ2W
2. The Greater Good – http://bit.ly/2Cg8PkZ
3. Shots In The Dark – http://bit.ly/1ObtC8h
4. Vaccination The Hidden Truth – http://bit.ly/KEYDUh
5. Vaccine Nation – http://bit.ly/2IrdksA
6. Vaccination – The Truth About Vaccineshttp://bit.ly/1vlpwvU
7. Lethal Injection – http://bit.ly/1URN7BJ
8. Bought – http://bit.ly/2olaeOm
9. Deadly Immunity – http://bit.ly/1KUg64Z
10. Autism – Made in the USA – http://bit.ly/1J8WQN5
11. Beyond Treason – http://bit.ly/1B7kmvt
12. Trace Amounts – http://bit.ly/2ELnUZm
13. Why We Don’t Vaccinate – http://bit.ly/1KbXhuf
14. Autism Yesterday – http://bit.ly/1URU2A7
15. Denmark Documentary on HPV Vaccinehttp://bit.ly/2jmrG1T
16. Vaxxed – http://bit.ly/2pWau9h
17. Man Made Epidemic – http://bit.ly/1XsOi0R
18. 50 Cents A Dose – http://bit.ly/2c0h07P
19. Direct Orders – http://bit.ly/1ivShHg
20. Dtap – Vaccine Roulette http://bit.ly/2dBnc3u
21. Truthstream News: About All Those Vaccineshttp://bit.ly/2gCMa4o
22. Hear The Silence – http://bit.ly/2g7NYpd
23. Cervical Cancer Vaccine – Is It Safe? – http://bit.ly/2h3Dvsh
24. Vaccines Revealed – https://www.vaccinesrevealed.com/free/
25. The Truth About Vaccineshttp://bit.ly/2mX4Tyc
26. Vaccine Syndrome – http://bit.ly/2phXCKt
27. Injecting Aluminum – http://bit.ly/2qPkFwo
28. Manufactured Crisis: HPV, Hype & Horror – http://bit.ly/2qT0X3j
29. Sacrificial Virgins – http://bit.ly/2xGOfnb

Vaccines and Their Direct Link to Autism – http://bit.ly/2FDVS2C

The Polio Vaccine Lie Explained – http://bit.ly/2FKhAWv

The HPV Gardasil Cervical Cancer Vaccine Fraud – https://bit.ly/2IIp22k

5 Vaccine Facts Very Few Are Aware Of – https://bit.ly/2kclTA3

Here we see how aluminum in vaccines causes brain damage. http://bit.ly/1O8c4VQ

Here we see how mercury in vaccines causes brain damage.http://bit.ly/1NtU5O5

Here we see how each and every vaccine, causes some form of brain damage, in each and every person injected….no exceptions. https://bit.ly/2wSapEC

The government and vaccine manufacturers have already admitted legally that vaccines do cause the brain damage known as Autism. Only the public seems confused about this. https://bit.ly/2FDVS2C

At this added link https://bit.ly/2c9tf0z Dr. James Chestnut explains CLEARLY that genes actually control nothing directly in our body and therefore by blaming disease on genes (and not the environment that is proven to control the genes), helps an entire society deflect as to why the children are really sick. Our children are sick because of what we’re being tricked to do to them by extremely corrupt forces within science, medicine and government. The genes aren’t making our children sick, we are, and that means we can also make our children healthy…….but we need to stop poisoning them first. It’s that simple.

Hear This Well Parents Speak Out

Hear This Well: Breaking the Silence on Vaccine Violence
Introduction to Hear This Well – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsLuR3X6cpg&list=PLJpPObXpZncOfT0bG2ghgkVb2Nxjd_bNe

SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS: USELESS EATERS vs. NEW WORLD ORDER

We are at WAR! Or, at least, it appears that way! This apparent war is both undeclared and unacknowledged, and is literally unbeknownst to half of the players on the field of battle. It has been on going for at least 60 or more years, AND is still being fought! It is a “hidden” war, and thus the first word in the title of this article “SILENT”.
It is a battle for total control over the entire planet that we live on.

This SILENT WAR involves only two sides — USELESS EATERS and THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term: USELESS EATER, that is the term that was given to the common man – the everyday, average guy and gal – by the Super Elite, most of whom support the New World Order Agenda! So this is THEIR TERM for the common man, not mine.

Depending upon which side you are on, that will be the indicator of how much information you have about this battle. If you are on the side of the people – the “USELESS EATERS” – you will know nothing, or at least as close to nothing as possible about this war, or that it is even being waged, you will, in effect, BE OBLIVIOUS!
Author: Bradley Loves

Deal with reality, before it deals with you.

If your waiting for someone to save us, it’s not going to happen.

It’s S.O.S = Save Our Selves

“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”  William Wilberforce

THE SILENT WAR BEING WAGED ON OUR CHILDREN

The new estimate represents a 15 percent increase in prevalence nationally: to 1 in 59 children, from 1 in 68 two years previous.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science-news/cdc-increases-estimate-autisms-prevalence-15-percent-1-59-children

Childhood cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in the USA in young people. Probably close to that here in Canada. When I was growing up, I never heard of or new of any classmates that had or died from cancer. There is something terribly wrong happening and most people are oblivious to it. The next generation is being decimated by diseases (like Autism and ADHD) unheard of in my youth. We have a growing epidemic of diseases like MS, Type 2 diabetes, peanut allergies, autoimmune disorders and more. What I find disturbing is that everyone is looking for a fix when they should should be asking “What the hell is going on here”. What is causing our children to be afflicted with so many illnesses and disorders. http://thesilentwaronourchildren.wordpress.com/

The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The human mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent. • J. Edgar Hoover, as quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956).

SOURCE with thanks https://tabublog.com/2018/09/30/excellent-pro-choice-vaccine-data-base/

From Doreen

Rich and powerful beings with frozen hearts and no conscience own and control mainstream media, social media, the legal system, money system, education system, food system, atmosphere, and soon all the water because people vote, which is consent for politicians to do as they please once selected, and silence, which by Maxim of Law, is tacit or implied consent.

The silent war waged against humanity decades ago using silent weapons, how this war affects you, your family, food, water, atmosphere, Sun, Earth and other life forms are revealed along with proposed remedies at https://ourgreaterdestiny.wordpress.com/

We can assist others to help themselves by spreading the word. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net

Posted in Auto-immune, Awakening humans, Call to action, Empower harmlessness and truth, Endocrine disrupters, Energy, frequency, vibration, Fluorotoxicity, Genetic engineering, Globalism, GMO food and clothes, Great Purification, Holistic/Wholistic, Population control, Power Vs. Force, Public Notice, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, VAXXED, Voters | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals

US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show “Clear Evidence of Cancer” in Experimental Animals.

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH has issued this scientific  critique of ICNIRPs dismissal of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings. On September 4, 2018 ICNIRP   issued a “Note on Recent Animal Studies” that concluded the 28 million dollar US National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences study did “not provide a reliable basis” for changing the over two decades old ICNIRP guidelines on radiofrequency- cell phones and wireless – radiation. In response, Dr. Ronald Melnick went through the ICNIRP document point by point and presented the data to show the document has “numerous false and misleading statements.”

Two Additional Notes

The Ramazzini Institute Director of Research Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi  also posted comments on the ICNIRP   note stating that, “both NTP and RI studies were well performed, no bias affecting the results. ICNIRP confirms that,” and “We are scientists, our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vinyl chloride.” (Ramazzini Institute Statement on ICNIRP Note)

A paper was just published by scientists stating that radio frequency radiation can cause cancer based on the human and animal evidence. The NTP study was highlighted in the research review.  Read it here Cancer Epidemiology Update, following the 2011 IARC Evaluation of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (Monograph 102)” 

Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH

September 12, 2018

The International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2018) recently issued a report (dated September 4, 2018) that contains numerous false and misleading statements, particularly those about the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies on cell phone radiofrequency radiation by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). This flawed analysis by ICNIRP served as the basis for ICNIRP  to support their conclusion that existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines do not need to be revised despite new evidence showing that exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) causes cancers in experimental animals. ICNIRP also does not take into account evidence on other harmful effects of cellphone radiation including damage to brain DNA, reduced pup birth weights, and decreased sperm quality.

The number of extensive incorrect and misleading statements in this ICNIRP document includes the following:

1) The ICNIRP statement that “the NTP reports have not yet undergone full peer–review” is wrong; the NTP reports on cell phone RFR underwent multiple peer reviews, including an unprecedented 3-day independent review more than five months earlier in March 2018.

2) The ICNIRP statement that many endpoints presented in the NTP reports were not defined “a priori” is also wrong. All of the endpoints presented in the NTP reports were specified in the Statement of Work for the conduct of the NTP studies that was developed during my tenure at NTP.

3) ICNIRP incorrectly states many critical conclusions from the NTP studies (NTP 2018a, 2018b). The peer review panel in March 2018 (NTP 2018c) concluded that there was “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity for heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, “some evidence” of carcinogenic activity for brain gliomas in male rats (both GSM and CDMA), and “equivocal evidence” for heart schwannomas in female rats (both GSM and CDMA). These categories of evidence are defined in all NTP technical reports: some evidence of carcinogenic activity means that the test agent caused an increased incidence in neoplasms, but “the strength of the response was less than that required for clear evidence.” Equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity means that there was “a marginal increase in neoplasms that may be test-agent related.” Therefore, any analysis of the NTP data must include the brain gliomas and the heart schwannomas; the ICNIRP report excluded consideration of the RFR-induced gliomas.

4) The statement by ICNIRP that animals in the NTP study were exposed “over the whole of their lives” is incorrect. Surviving animals were killed at about 110 weeks of age; e.g., more than 70% of mice were still alive at the end of the study (NTP 2018a, 2018b).

5) The ICNIRP report criticized the exposure intensities used in the NTP studies as being “75 times higher than the whole-body exposure limit for the general public” and therefore “not able to inform on mobile-phone radiofrequency exposures.” This issue had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018):

“While the exposure limit to RFR for the general population in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue (FCC, 1997); for occupational exposures, the limit is five times higher (0.4 W/kg and 8 W/kg, respectively). Thus, the whole-body exposure levels in the NTP study were higher than the FCC’s whole-body exposure limits (3.8 to 15 times higher than the occupational whole-body exposure limit). Whole-body SAR, however, provides little information about organ-specific exposure levels (IARC, 2013). When an individual uses a cell phone and holds it next to his or her head, body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than parts of the body that are located distant from the antenna. Consequently, the localized exposure level is more important for understanding and assessing human health risks from cell phone RFR. When considering organ-specific risk (e.g., risk to the brain) from cell phone RFR, the important measure of potential human exposure is the local SAR value of 1.6 W/kg (the FCC’s SAR limit for portable RF transmitters in the US, FCC 1997) averaged over any gram of tissue. In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RFR at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg, exposures in the brain were within 10% of the whole-body exposure levels. Consider the converse scenario. If the brain and whole-body exposures were limited to 0.08 W/kg, then localized exposures in humans from use of cell phones held next to the ear could be 20 times greater than exposures to the brain of rats in the NTP study. Under this condition, a negative study would be uninformative for evaluating organ-specific human health risks associated with exposure to RFR. Therefore, exposure intensities in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to or only slightly higher than potential, localized human exposures resulting from cell phones held next to the head, and lower than the FCC’s permissible localized limit for occupational exposures.”

6) The claim by ICNIRP that the whole-body exposures in the NTP study can produce adverse health effects is without foundation; the animals tolerated the exposure levels used in the NTP study without significant effects on body temperature, body weights, or induction of tissue damage (NTP 2018a, 2018b). The current RF exposure guidelines from the Federal Communication Commission, which are similar to those of ICNIRP, are based on a whole-body SAR of 4 W/kg, in order to ‘protect’ against adverse effects that might occur due to increases in tissue or body temperature of 1OC or higher from acute exposures. The whole-body exposure limit of 0.4 W/kg SAR for occupational exposures and 0.08 W/kg SAR for the general public is based simply on dividing the 4W/kg value by 10 for occupational exposures and by 50 for the general public, while the exposure guideline limit for localized exposures in the US is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue for the general population and 8 W/kg for occupational exposures (FCC, 1997) is based simply on multiplying the whole-body exposure limits by 20. For localized exposures, the ICNIRP guideline is 2 W/kg averaged over any 10 grams of contiguous tissue for the general population, and 10 W/kg for occupational exposures.  The NTP thermal pilot study showed that rats and mice could maintain body temperatures within 1OC at 6 W/kg and 10 W/kg, respectively (Wyde et al., 2018). Thus, the exposures used in the NTP study are consistent with FCC and ICNIRP guidelines that limit whole body exposures to levels that do not cause any significant temperature increase. The 10x or 50x uncertainty factors applied to the 4 W/kg SAR are aimed at minimizing potential acute thermal effects, but do not address health risks from non-thermal or minimally thermal exposures. The ICNIRP report also criticized the use of subcutaneously implanted transponders to monitor the effects of RF exposure on core body temperature; however, Kort et al. (1998) showed that temperature changes recorded by the subcutaneous transponders did not differ significantly from rectal temperature measurements in rats or mice.

7) Criticism by ICNIRP concerning the consistency between the NTP studies (NTP 2018a) and the Ramazzini study (Falcioni et al., 2018) is disingenuous. The fact that both studies carried out in independent laboratories in Italy and the U.S. found increased incidences of heart schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in Sprague-Dawley rats under different exposure environments and different RF intensity levels is  remarkable. Without knowledge or analysis of the true dose-response relationship between RFR exposure and the induction of schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias of the heart, it is unreasonable to expect a linear dose-response by combining data from these two separate studies.

8) The discussion by ICNIRP concerning the “expected ratio’” of about 30% for schwannomas to hyperplasias is based on the paper by Novilla et al., 1991, and is a misrepresentation of the data and its relevance to the NTP study on cell phone RFR. In the Novilla paper, there were zero hyperplasias and zero schwannomas among 100 male Sprague-Dawley rats (there was one hyperplasia and one schwannoma in female Sprague Dawley rats). Most of the spontaneous hyperplasias and schwannomas reported in that paper were observed in Wistar rats (ratio ~ 3). However, even if there had been a difference in the ratio of spontaneous hyperplasias to schwannomas in that study, it still would not reflect the impact of cell phone RFR on that ratio. The fact that Novilla et al. did not see either hyperplasias or schwannomas in male Sprague-Dawley rats lends further credibility to the absence of these lesions in the NTP study in Sprague-Dawley rats and the increased incidences of schwannomas in exposed rats being due to the exposures to cell phone RFR.

9) It is noteworthy that ICNIRP cites two reviews that conclude there is no association between RFR and acoustic neuromas, while ignoring any mention of the IARC monograph (IARC, 2013) that reported positive associations between RFR from cell phone and glioma and acoustic neuroma in humans.

10) The issue raised by ICNIRP on the lack of cardiac schwannomas in control male rats in the NTP study and the expected incidence (0-2%) based on historical control rates had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018) for both schwannomas and gliomas:

“Gliomas and schwannomas of the heart are uncommon tumors that occur rarely in control Sprague-Dawley rats. It is not unusual to observe a zero incidence of uncommon tumors in groups of 50-90 control rats. In experimental carcinogenicity studies, the most important control group is the concurrent control group. As mentioned above, the uniquely designed reverberation chambers used in the NTP study were fully shielded from external EMFs, and the lighting source was incandescent instead of fluorescent light bulbs. The housing of rats in the RFR shielded reverberation chambers could affect tumor rates in control animals. No data are available on expected tumor rates in control rats of the same strain (Hsd: Sprague Dawley rats) held under these specific environmental conditions. Thus, historical control data from previous NTP studies are not reliably informative for comparison to the results obtained in the cell phone RFR study.”

11) The hypothetical argument raised by ICNIRP about the effect of one additional schwannoma in the control group is nonsense; one must analyze the available data rather than inserting arbitrary values to downplay the significance of a true response.

12) The discussion in the ICNIRP concerning survival differences between controls and exposure groups affecting the relative tumor response had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018)

“This comment is an inaccurate portrayal and interpretation of the data for at least two reasons: (1) there was no statistical difference in survival between control male rats and the exposure group with the highest rate of gliomas and heart schwannomas (CDMA-exposed male rats, SAR = 6.0 W/kg), and (2) no glial cell hyperplasias (potential precancerous lesions) or heart schwannomas were observed in any control rat, even though glial cell hyperplasia was detected in exposed rats as early at week 58 of the 2-year study and heart schwannoma was detected as early as week 70 in exposed rats. Thus, survival was sufficient to detect tumors or pre-cancerous lesions in the brain and heart of control rats.”

13) The issue in the ICNIRP report about the need for blind pathology to avoid biases related to exposure status is discussed in my paper (Melnick, 2018).

“The reviews of the histopathology slides and final diagnoses of lesions in the RFR studies by the pathology working groups were conducted similar to all other NTP studies in that the pathologists did not know whether the slides they were examining came from an exposed or an unexposed animal (Maronpot and Boorman, 1982). In fact, the reviewing pathologists didn’t even know that the test agent was RFR. For anyone questioning the diagnosis of any tissue in this study, all of the slides are available for examination at the NTP archives.”

Also, the designations ‘test agent A’ and ‘test agent B’ refer to the separate studies of GSM and CDMA exposures and not to exposure status within a study. Therefore, these designations would not “result in bias because perceived patterns within a group’s samples can affect how subsequent samples are evaluated.”

14) The issue of multiple comparisons leading to possible false positives (with a probability of 0.5) was addressed by the NTP in its release of the partial findings of the RFR study (NTP, 2016):

“Although the NTP conducts statistical tests on multiple cancer endpoints in any given study, numerous authors have shown that the study-wide false positive rate does not greatly exceed 0.05 (Fears et al., 1977; Haseman,1983; Office of Science and Technology Policy,1985; Haseman, 1990; Haseman and Elwell, 1996; Lin and Rahman, 1998; Rahman and Lin, 2008; Kissling et al., 2014). One reason for this is that NTP’s carcinogenicity decisions are not based solely on statistics and in many instances statistically significant findings are not concluded to be due to the test agent. Many factors go in to this determination including whether there were pre-neoplastic lesions, whether there was a dose-response relationship, biological plausibility, background rates and variability of the tumor, etc. Additionally, with rare tumors especially, the actual false positive rate of each individual test is well below 0.05, due to the discrete nature of the data, so the cumulative false positive rate from many such tests is less than a person would expect by multiplying 0.05 by the number of tests conducted (Fears et al., 1977; Haseman, 1983; Kissling et al., 2015).”

15) The conclusion in the ICNIRP report that the NTP study is not consistent with the RFR cancer literature is wrong, and the claim by ICNIRP that epidemiological studies have not found evidence for cardiac schwannomas neglects to note that no studies of cell phone users have examined relationships between RFR exposure to the heart and risk of cardiac schwannomas. While it is true that the NTP did not report an increase in vestibular schwannomas in rats, it must be recognized that the vestibular nerve was not examined microscopically.  The NTP findings of significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain and schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats are most important because the IARC classified RFR as a “possible human carcinogen” based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR is remarkable and strengthens the animal-to-human association.

Based on numerous incorrect and misleading claims, the ICNIRP report concludes that “these studies (NTP and Ramazzini) do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines.” The data on gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart induced by cell phone radiation are suitable for conducting a quantitative risk assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of health-based exposure limits. The ‘P’ in ICNIRP stands for Protection. One must wonder who this commission is trying to protect – evidently, it is not public health.

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D

References

Falcioni, L., Bua L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., DeAngelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Manservigi, M., Manservisi, F., Manzoli, I., Menghetti, I., Montella, R., Panzacchi, S., Sgargi, D., Strollo, V., Vornoli, A., Belpoggi, F. 2018. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission. Environ. Res. 165, 496-503.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1997. Evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. OET Bulletin 65. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology, Washington, DC

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2013. IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Lyon, France, Volume 102.

ICNIRP (2018) International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf

Kort, W.J., Hekking-Weijma, J.M., TenKate, M.T., Sorm, V., VanStrik, R.  1998. A microchip implant system as a method to determine body temperature of terminally ill rats and mice. Lab Anim. 32: 260-269.

Maronpot, R.R., Boorman, G.A. 1982. Interpretation of rodent hepatocellular proliferative alterations and hepatocellular tumors in chemical safety assessment. Tox. Pathol. 10, 71-80.

Melnick, R.L. 2018. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ. Res. (in press).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2016. Report of partial findings from the National Toxicology Program carcinogenesis studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats (whole body exposures).

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/23/055699.full.pdf

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018a. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR 595 (in final preparation).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018b. NTP technical report on the toxicology and

carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1,900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones.  NTP TR 596 (in final preparation).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018c. Peer review of the draft NTP technical reports on cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf

Wyde, M.E., Horn, T.L., Capstick, M.H., Ladbury, J.M., Koepke, G., Wilson, P.F., Kissling,

G.E., Stout, M.D., Kuster, N., Melnick, R.L., Gauger, J., Bucher, J.R., and McCormick, D.L. 2018. Effect of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on body temperature in rodents: Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s reverberation chamber exposure system. Bioelectromagnetics 39, 190-199.

Dr. Ronald L. Melnick  served as a toxicologist for 28+ years at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), before retiring in 2009. Dr. Melnick received his B.S. from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He was a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Physiology-Anatomy at the University of California in Berkeley and then an assistant professor of Life Sciences at the Polytechnic Institute of New York. At NTP/NIEHS, Dr. Melnick was involved in the design, monitoring and interpretation of toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of numerous environmental and occupational agents including 1,3-butadiene, chloroprene, isoprene, water disinfection byproducts, etc. He led the design of the NTP carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in rodents. In addition, his research has focused on the use of mechanistic data in assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He was manager of the NIEHS Experimental Toxicology Unit, Carcinogenesis and Toxicology Evaluation Branch, and group leader of the NIEHS Toxicokinetics and Biochemical Modeling Group, in the Laboratory of Computational Biology and Risk Analysis. He spent one year as an agency representative at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to work on interagency assessments of health risks of environmental agents and on risk assessment research needs in the Federal government. Dr. Melnick has organized several national and international symposiums and workshops on health risks associated with exposure to toxic and carcinogenic agents, and he has served on numerous scientific review boards and advisory panels, including those of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a fellow (emeritus) of the Collegium Ramazzini. Dr. Melnick is the recipient of the American Public Health Association’s 2007 David P. Rall Award for science based advocacy in public health.

SOURCE with thanks and additional links https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/

From Doreen

Cell phone usage is linked to both malignant and benign brain tumors

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/brain-radiation-wireless-1663.html

Since dependency on cellphones is now well established, informed people can still take precautions, minimize use and inform others. Please share. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net

 

Posted in Awakening humans, Call to action, Cell towers, Cirdadian Rhythm, EMF/EMR, Empower harmlessness and truth, Endocrine disrupters, Energy, frequency, vibration, Genetic engineering, Population control, Public Notice, S.M.A.R.T. readers, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Silent Weapon Lighting

Dangers of Blue Light [screens]

Blue Light is Making Us Blind - Prevent blue light blindness

by Heather CallaghanEditor

Our addiction to screens isn’t just hurting our social lives or nature – it’s making us physically blind.

Molecules that we need to be able to see, called retinal, turn into cell killers when they interact with blue light, researchers have just discovered.

University of Toledo researchers made a shocking discovery that the “blue light” emanating from our smartphones and other screens is literally doing permanent damage to our vision. READ the Report and more AT https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/08/blue-light-making-us-blind.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+naturalblaze+%28Natural+Blaze%29

This article  was created by and appeared first at Natural Blaze. It can be re-shared with attribution but MUST include link to homepage, bio, intact links and this message.

Heather Callaghan is an Energy Healer, consultant, independent researcher/writer, speaker and food & health freedom advocate. She is the Editor and co-founder of NaturalBlaze as well as a certified Self-Referencing IITM Practitioner. She has written over 1,200 articles and wants readers to empower themselves to take back their health!

Internet Causes Sleep Deprivation Not Just in Teens

By Anna Hunt

It has never been more challenging to disconnect from technology than it is today. In most homes, laptops, TVs and smartphones easily distract us, often sucking us into media time-warps. Research now shows that broadband Internet access is creating an environment that results in sleep deprivation.

Why Your Brain Needs Sleep

Lack of sleep can have quite a serious effect on your health. Firstly, the body uses sleep time to rebuild and heal tissues. As well, the brain gets what one might call a “makeover” every time you sleep. Specifically, support cells in the brain clear away residue left over from the day when you are asleep.

Research has shown that these support cells go into overdrive when you’re not getting sufficient sleep. As as result, they clear away more than unneeded residue. Thus, they actually harm the brain. READ MORE AT https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/08/internet-causes-sleep-deprivation-and-not-just-in-teens-study-shows.html?utm_source=Natural+Blaze+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=56828d9a19-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b73c66b129-56828d9a19-388229733

From Doreen
Blue light has a dark side https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side

By Dr Neil Cherry: EMR Reduces Melatonin vital to many of the bodies biochemical systems, including sleep and learning, and is free radical scavenging in all cells hence a potent antioxidant with anti-aging and anti-cancer properties. http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/emf-emr/EMR-Reduces-Melatonin.htm

https://ourgreaterdestiny.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/blue-light-silent-weapon/

Pleas share so others can protect themselves. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net

Posted in Awakening humans, Call to action, Cell signaling function, Cirdadian Rhythm, EMF/EMR, Empower harmlessness and truth, Endocrine disrupters, Genetic engineering, Holistic/Wholistic, Public Notice, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Excellent Exposé on Grave Risks, Dangers of GMOs in Your Food

Seeds of DeceptionBy Jeffrey M. Smith [10 page Summary]

Exposing Industry and Government Deception About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating

Note: For a two-page summary of this article, click here

Seeds of Deception.

Praise for the Book Seeds of Deception

“Outrageous! That’s what you’ll say when you read how the biotechnology companies have manipulated the government, our food, and the media, and put an entire generation at risk.
~~  Ben Cohen, Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry’s

“Clear, profound, and unerringly accurate, Seeds of Deception tells what you need to know about genetically engineered food – and what Monsanto won’t tell you. If you care about the safety of our food supply, if you care what corporations are doing to your food and health, this is the book to get.”
~~  John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution and Diet For A New America

“This pivotal exposé leaves no doubt that politics and corporate influence, not sound science, allowed these potentially dangerous GM foods onto supermarket shelves.”
~~  Joe Mendelson, Legal Director, Center for Food Safety

“I’ve seen first hand how Monsanto and the FDA resorted to scientific deceit of the highest order to market genetically engineered milk. With captivating style and a flair for describing science in clear, accurate language, Seeds of Deception unveils the distortions, omissions, and lies for all to see.”
~~  Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus environmental and occupational medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

Introduction

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa [1] using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe’s “unfounded, unscientific fears” of these foods for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world’s food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan.

First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

Integral to the plan was Monsanto’s influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, “The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.” [2]

The anticipated pace of conquest was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be genetically modified.

While some audience members were appalled at what they judged to be an arrogant and dangerous disrespect for nature, to the industry this was good business. Their attitude was illustrated in an excerpt from one of Monsanto’s advertisements: “So you see, there really isn’t much difference between foods made by Mother Nature and those made by man. What’s artificial is the line drawn between them.” [3]

To implement their strategy, the biotech companies needed to control the seeds–so they went on a buying spree, taking possession of about 23 percent of the world’s seed companies. Monsanto did achieve the dominant position, capturing 91 percent of the GM food market. [4] But the industry has not met their projections of converting the natural seed supply. Citizens around the world, who do not share the industry’s conviction that these foods are safe or better, have not “just sort of surrendered.”

Widespread resistance to GM food has resulted in a global showdown. U.S. exports of genetically modified corn and soy are down, and hungry African nations won’t even accept the crops as food aid. Monsanto is faltering financially and is desperate to open new markets. The U.S. government is convinced that EU resistance is the primary obstacle and is determined to change that. On May 13, 2003, the U.S. filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging that the European Union’s restrictive policy on GM food violates international agreements.

On the day the WTO suit was filed, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick declared, “Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods are safe and healthy.” [5] This has been industry’s chant from the start. It is the key assumption at the basis of their master plan, the WTO challenge, and the president’s campaign to end hunger. It is also, however, untrue.

The following chapters reveal that it was industry influence, not sound science, which allowed these foods onto the market. Moreover, if overwhelming scientific research suggests anything, it is that THE FOODS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

Just as the magnitude of the industry’s plan was breathtaking, so too are the distortions and cover-ups. While many of the stories in this book reveal government and corporate maneuvering worthy of an adventure novel, the impact of GM foods is personal. Most people in North America eat them at every meal. These chapters not only dismantle the U.S. position that the foods are safe, they inform you of the steps you can take to protect yourself and your family.

Chapter 1: A Lesson From Overseas

When eminent scientist Arpad Pusztai went public about his accidental discovery that genetically modified (GM) potatoes severely damage the immune system and organs of rats, he was suspended from the prestigious Scottish research institute where he had worked for thirty-five years. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit while the Institute denied or distorted his findings.

In the ensuing war over public opinion, biotech advocates tried to spin the science in favor of GM foods, but were thwarted at each attempt by leaked documents and compelling evidence. Pusztai, who describes this chapter as “the most thorough and accurate report on the topic,” was ultimately vindicated when his potato study was published in the Lancet. His remains the only independent safety assessment in a peer-reviewed journal. It contrasts sharply with the handful of published industry studies, an analysis of which reveals how they were designed to avoid finding problems.

Excerpt:

When Susan answered the door, she was startled to see several reporters standing in front of her. Several more were running from their cars in her direction and she could see more cars and TV news vans parking along the street.

“But you all know that we can’t speak about what happened. We would be sued and–” [6]

“It’s OK now,” the reporter from Channel Four Television interrupted, waving a paper in front of her. “They’ve released your husband. He can talk to us.”

Susan took the paper. “Arpad, come here,” she called to her husband.

Arpad Pusztai (pronounced: Are-pod Poos-tie), a distinguished looking man in his late sixties, was already on his way. As his wife showed him the document, the reporters slipped past them into the house. But Arpad didn’t notice; he was staring at the paper his wife had just handed him. He recognized the letterhead at once–The Rowett Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was one of the world’s leading nutritional institutes and his employer for the previous thirty-five years–until his sudden suspension seven months ago. And there it was, clearly spelled out. They had released their gag order. He could speak.

The document was dated that same day, February 16, 1999. In fact, less than twenty minutes before, thirty reporters had sat in the Rowett Institute press conference listening to its director, Professor Phillip James, casually mention that the restrictions on Dr. Pusztai’s speaking to the press had been lifted. Before James had finished his sentence, the reporters leaped for the door. They jumped into their cars and headed straight to the Pusztai’s house on Ashley Park North, an address most were familiar with, having virtually camped out there seven months earlier. Now those thirty reporters, with TV cameras and tape recorders, were piled into the Pusztai’s living room.

Arpad Pusztai read the document–twice. As he looked up, the reporters started asking him questions all at once. He smiled, and breathed more easily than he had in a long time. He had all but given up hope. Now he finally had the chance to share what he knew about the dangers of genetically engineered foods.

The story of Arpad Pusztai made headlines throughout Europe for months, alerting readers to some of the serious health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods. It was barely mentioned, however, in the U.S. press; the media watchdog group Project Censored described it as one of the ten most underreported events of the year. [7] In fact, major U.S. media avoided almost any discussion of the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) until May 1999. But that was all about saving the monarch butterfly from GM corn pollen, not about human food safety.

It wasn’t until the massive food recall prompted by StarLink corn that Americans were even alerted to the fact that they were eating GM foods everyday. Moreover, the American press was forced to question whether GM foods were safe. Up until then, the media had portrayed European resistance to America’s GM crops as unscientific anti-Americanism. But as the story of Arpad Pusztai reveals, the European anti-GMO sentiment had been fueled, in part, by far greater health risks than the scattered allergic reactions attributed to StarLink.

Between the Chapters: The Wisdom of Animals

Mice avoid eating GM foods when they have the chance, as do rats, cows, pigs, geese, elk, squirrels, and others. What do these animals know that we don’t? At the end of each chapter is a one-page story describing how farmers, students, and scientists discovered that animals refuse to eat the same GM foods that we consume everyday.

Excerpt:

The Washington Post reported that laboratory mice, usually happy to munch on tomatoes, turned their noses up at the genetically modified FlavrSavr tomato. Scientist Roger Salquist said of his tomato, “I gotta tell you, you can be Chef Boyardee and mice are still not going to like them.” [8] The mice were eventually force fed the tomato through gastric tubes and stomach washes. Several developed stomach lesions; seven of forty died within two weeks. The tomato was approved without further tests.

Chapter 2: What Could Go Wrong–A Partial List

Genetic engineers continually encounter unintended side effects–plants create toxins, react to weather differently, contain too much or too little nutrients, become diseased or malfunction and die. This chapter describes the process of genetic engineering and twenty-one ways in which it can create unexpected, potentially serious problems.

Excerpt:

New DNA chip technology has recently allowed scientists to monitor changes in DNA functioning when foreign genes are inserted. In one experiment, there was a staggering 5 percent disruption of gene expression. In other words, after a single foreign gene had been added through genetic engineering, one out of every 20 genes that were creating proteins either increased or decreased their output. According to Professor David Schubert, “while these types of unpredicted changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention outside the community of the DNA chip users.” He adds that, “there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis” [9]

Chapter 3: Spilled Milk

“The scientists’ testimony before a Senate committee was like a scene from the conspiratorial television show The X-Files.” [10] This was how Canada’s leading paper described the story of six Canadian government scientists who tried to stand up to pressure to approve Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) which they believed was unsafe. The scientists were threatened by senior government officials, files were stolen from their locked file cabinets, Monsanto allegedly offered them a bribe of $1-2 million, and one senior official suddenly quit and disappeared, avoiding an appearance before a Parliamentary Committee. [11]

What was happening to the Canadian scientists in 1998 amounted to “re-runs” of what U.S. government scientists faced in the 1980s. When FDA scientists tried to blow the whistle on what was happening, they were stripped of responsibilities or fired. The FDA eventually approved rbGH on the basis of a research summary submitted by Monsanto that had distorted and deleted data about serious health effects, including cancer.

Excerpt:

The FDA’s article states, “it has also been determined that at least 90 percent of bovine growth hormone (bGH) activity is destroyed upon pasteurization of milk. Therefore, bGH residues do not present a human food safety concern.” [12] Robert Cohen decided to investigate this claim. He uncovered what he considers to be blatant scientific fraud. The research had been conducted by undergraduate Paul Groenewegan. His three co-authors all had close ties with Monsanto. The paper described how they heated milk at 162 degrees F for thirty minutes.

Cohen said, “when I read that, I said, wait a second, milk is pasteurized for 15 seconds at that temperature–not 30 minutes. They intentionally tried to destroy the hormone…. That must have been their mission. Why else would they heat the milk for 30 minutes at a high temperature reserved for a 15 second treatment?” But even after thirty minutes only 19 percent of the bGH in milk from hormone-treated cows was destroyed.

According to Cohen, “They then ‘spiked’ the milk. This is their word, ‘spike.’ They added artificial bGH … 146 times the level of naturally occurring bST in powdered form to the milk and heated it. The powdered bGH in milk was destroyed! They saved the day for Monsanto. The experiment worked. These men of science could claim that heat treatment destroys bGH.” [13]

Chapter 4: Deadly Epidemic

In 1989, first dozens, then thousands fell sick. About one hundred people died, others struggled with paralysis, unbearable pain, and debilitating symptoms. [14] Authorities eventually tracked its cause: contaminants produced in one company’s genetically modified variety of the food supplement L-tryptophan. [15] This chapter describes the evidence implicating genetic engineering as the cause of the epidemic and the efforts by industry and the FDA to divert the blame. Current regulations are so loose, they would allow that same type of deadly supplement onto the market today.

Chapter 5: Government By the Industry, For the Industry

Henry Miller was in charge of biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994. According to Miller, “U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.” [16] This chapter reveals how industry influence has dictated policy, and how the FDA ignored the recommendations by the majority of their own scientists by approving GM foods without requiring safety tests.

Excerpts:

The biotech industry’s success with these government leaders became apparent on May 26, 1992 in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Building. There, Vice President Dan Quayle announced the Bush administration’s new policy on genetically engineered food: “The reforms we announce today will speed up and simplify the process of bringing better agricultural products, developed through biotech, to consumers, food processors and farmers. We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation.” [17]

By “receive the same oversight as other products,” Quayle meant that GM foods would be considered just as safe as natural, non-GM foods. And sidestepping “unnecessary regulation” meant that the government would not require any safety tests or any special labels identifying the foods as genetically engineered. The rationale for this hands-off policy was spelled out in an FDA document dated three days after Quayle’s announcement. “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.” [18] Monsanto had what it wanted: government endorsement of safety, and no regulations that would interfere with its plans for rapid worldwide sales.

Political Science at the FDA

Attorney Michael Taylor was involved in the development of FDA policy. Prior to working at the FDA, Monsanto was his personal client. Taylor had helped Monsanto draft pro-biotech regulations that the industry would lobby for. While working for the FDA, Taylor could implement those laws himself. For Monsanto, there was no better person to step into a leadership role at the FDA.

Taylor did not simply fill a vacant position at the agency. In 1991 the FDA created a new position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He instantly became the FDA official with the greatest influence on GM food regulation, overseeing the development of government policy.

According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, who has studied the FDA’s internal files, “During Mr. Taylor’s tenure as Deputy Commissioner, references to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists), and a final statement was issued claiming (a) that [GM] foods are no riskier than others and (b) that the agency has no information to the contrary.” [19] In 1994, Taylor became the administrator at the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, where he was also involved in biotechnology issues. He later became Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto.

When the FDA announced its policy, the public was not aware of any internal dissent. The policy boldly claimed that there was no information to indicate that GM foods were different or more risky than natural varieties. Since the American public generally trusts the FDA, people assumed that no such risks existed. But nearly a decade later, the agency’s internal documents–made public for the first time through a lawsuit–told a different story.

Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, protested that by “trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices,” the agency was “trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.” She insisted, “the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” [20]

One such expert was FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl. “There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering,” wrote Pribyl in a letter to James Maryanski, the FDA’s biotech coordinator. Pribyl said that several aspects of gene splicing “may be more hazardous.” [21] According to the New York Times, “Dr. Pribyl knew from studies that toxins could be unintentionally created when new genes were introduced into a plant’s cells.” [22] Moreover, Pribyl wrote “there is no certainty that [the breeders of GM foods] will be able to pick up effects that might not be obvious.” He declared, “This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to back up their contention.” [23]

Pribyl was only one of many FDA scientists asked to provide input during the formulation of the FDA’s policy on genetically engineered food. According to Druker, records show that the majority of these scientists identified potential risks of GM foods. Druker was the main organizer of the lawsuit that forced the FDA documents into the public domain. His nonprofit organization, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, was the lead plaintiff. Having sorted through tens of thousands of pages of FDA documents, he described the opinion of the agency’s scientists as follows: “The predominant view was that genetic engineering entails distinct risks and that its products cannot be regarded as safe unless they have been confirmed to be so through appropriate feeding studies.” Druker says several scientists “issued strong warnings.” [24]

The Toxicology Group, for example, warned that genetically modified plants could “contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants,” and described the reasons why these might be very difficult to identify. [25] Their director wrote, “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study.” [26]

The Division of Food Chemistry and Technology outlined four potential dangers:

  • “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins”
  • “Appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins
  • Increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals”
  • “Undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients”

They warned, “unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes,” these four “may escape breeders’ attention.” The division recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.” [27]

Gerald Guest, the director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) sent a letter to the FDA’s Biotech Coordinator, James Maryanski, saying that he and the other CVM scientists concluded that there is “ample scientific justification” to require testing and review of each GM food before it is eaten by the public. He stated, “CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” He pointed out that, “residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety concerns.” [28]

In spite of repeated internal memos outlining the potential for increased health risks posed by this new technology, subsequent drafts of the FDA’s policy statement, overseen by Taylor, deleted more and more of the scientist’s input. In a fiery memo to Maryanski, Pribyl challenged the direction the policy statement had taken: “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document…. It will look like and probably be just a political document…. It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.”

But while the FDA’s scientists were emphasizing caution and testing, its leaders were beholden to an altogether different lobbying effort. A March 1992 memo from FDA Commissioner David Kessler, confirmed the White House’s influence in the crafting of the agency’s policy. “The approach and provisions of the policy statement are consistent with the general biotechnology policy established by the Office of the President…. It also responds to White House interest in assuring the safe, speedy development of the U.S. biotechnology industry.” [29]

But even the draft of the policy that Kessler praised as White House-friendly was subject to further revision as it went up the political chain of command. A memo from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, at the Department of Health & Human Services, expressed reservations about the length and depth of the policy statement’s concern for environmental effects of GM crops. The letter said, “The extensive twelve page discussion seems to be … dangerously detailed and drawn-out.” [30] In the end, it was the political, rather than scientific considerations that prevailed.

The agency not only ignored its scientists, it claimed their concerns never existed. For example, the State Department’s Melinda Kimble, while negotiating GMO trade policy said, “I want to make very clear that it is the position of the United States government that we do not believe there is a difference between GMO commodities and non-GMO commodities.” [31] Likewise, a March 2003 statement by Speaker of the House Hastert declared, “There is general consensus among the scientific community that genetically modified food is no different from conventional food.” [32]

When the FDA documents eventually became public, Maryanski defended the agency’s policy. On February 28, 2000, he told the OECD Conference on GM Food Safety in Edinburgh, Scotland that the FDA scientists had merely been asking questions about the various issues involved in bioengineered food. Maryanski was unpleasantly surprised when Druker, who was a member of the conference, stood up and invited the audience to read the FDA memos that were posted on his organization’s website. They could see for themselves that the agency’s scientists were not merely asking questions; many of their statements were quite emphatic about the unique risks of GM foods.

Maryanski, other FDA officials, and representatives throughout the U.S. government continue to claim there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe. In an Oct. 1991 letter to a Canadian official, however, Maryanski himself had admitted that this was not true. He said, “there are a number of specific issues… for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests.” Maryanski also said, “I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict.” [33]

Commenting on statements made by FDA scientists, the New York Times wrote. “The scientists were displaying precisely the concerns that Monsanto executives from the 1980’s had anticipated — and indeed had considered reasonable. But now, rather than trying to address those concerns, Monsanto, the industry and official Washington were dismissing them as the insignificant worries of the uninformed.” [34]

Many scientists who understood the dangers, however, were not convinced by the FDA’s assurances. Geneticist David Suzuki, for example, said, “Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done.” [35] A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada likewise supported the conclusions of the FDA scientists.

The Royal Society of Canada report said it was “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe. The report explains that the “default prediction” for any GM foods is that “expression of a new gene (and its products) … will be accompanied by a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.” This could result in novel toxins or other harmful substances.

The report emphasized the need for safety testing, looking for short and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity, and other health effects. The panel began their comprehensive 245-page report by quoting the editors of the UK’s Nature Biotechnology. “The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behavior.” [36]

FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs described the changes he saw at the FDA. “There seemed to be a trend in the place toward approval at any price. It went from a university-like setting where there was independent scientific review to an atmosphere of ‘approve, approve, approve.” He said, “the thinking is, ‘How many things can we approve this year?’ Somewhere along the way they abdicated their responsibility to the public welfare.” [37]

A congressional aide said, “At FDA morale stinks. Hundreds of people have either retired or quit in disgust. All the best people, who believed in working on behalf of public health, have gone.” Dan Glickman, former Secretary of Agriculture, describes the government’s pro-biotech mind-set. “It was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked.” He said, “You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view…. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric… It was written into my speeches.” [38]

Chapter 6: Rolling the Dice With Allergies

An infant girl in England broke out in cold sores from drinking soymilk, but was tested as “not allergic” to normal soy. Was she allergic to something in GM soy instead? Perhaps it was the increased amount of the allergen–trypsin inhibitor–found in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans? Could this also explain why soy allergies in the UK jumped by 50 percent after Roundup Ready soy was introduced? It’s difficult to say, because although scientists have confirmed that deadly allergies can be transferred into foods via genetic engineering, there are no robust allergy tests done on GM foods. This was brought to the public’s attention only after StarLink had been blamed for severe, potentially fatal allergic reactions. It took the FDA nearly a year to develop a test to see if StarLink was allergenic. The test was so poorly designed and unreliable, even the EPA rejected the results.

Excerpts:

In March 1999, the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe’s leading specialists on food sensitivity, reported that soy allergies skyrocketed over the previous year, jumping 50 percent. The increase propelled soy into the top ten list of allergens for the first time in the 17 years of testing York scientists tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions to a wide range of foods. In previous years, soy affected 10 percent of consumers. Now, 15 percent reacted with a range of chronic illnesses, including irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, and skin complaints, as well as neurological problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and lethargy. Researchers confirmed the link with soy by detecting increased levels of antibodies in the blood. Furthermore, the soy tested in the study was likely to contain significant percentages of the genetically modified Roundup Ready variety.

The fact that GM soy had just entered the food supply was not lost to the researchers, who, according to the Daily Express, “said their findings provide real evidence that GM food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body.” A spokesman said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”

The British Medical Association had already “warned that the technology may lead to the emergence of new allergies.” With the York’s research in hand, now British scientists urged their government to impose an immediate ban on GM food until further testing evaluated their safety. Pathologist Michael Antoniou said that the increased allergic responses “points to the fact that far more work is needed to assess their safety. At the moment no allergy tests are carried out before GM foods are marketed.” [39]

At a business lunch with co-workers, 35-year-old Grace Booth dined on three chicken enchiladas, which she later recalled were very good. Within about fifteen minutes, however, something went wrong. She felt hot, itchy. Her lips swelled; she lost her voice and developed severe diarrhea. “I felt my chest getting tight, it was hard to breathe,” recalled Booth. “She didn’t know but she was going into shock,” reported CBS news. “I thought, oh my God, what is happening to me? I felt like I was going to die.” Her co-workers called an ambulance . . . . [40]

Booth didn’t know what had caused her nearly deadly allergic reaction But this was September 2000 and within a few days she heard the news. A genetically modified corn product called StarLink, a potential allergen not approved for human consumption, was discovered in tacos, tortillas, and other corn products. More than 300 items were eventually recalled from the grocery store shelves in what was to become one of the world’s biggest GM food debacles.

Chapter 7: Muscling the Media

The biotech industry uses its considerable resources to mold public opinion on genetically modified foods. In addition to promoting a one-sided image of the foods as safe and necessary, they stifle coverage about health and environmental damage. For example, a Fox TV station canceled a news series, a publisher canceled a book contract, [41] scientific journals refused papers, and a printer shredded 14,000 magazines, all due to fear of lawsuits by Monsanto. Other stories in this chapter describe how the industry manipulated news that was reported.

Excerpt:

A national TV commercial showed a montage of smiling Asian children, caring doctors, rice paddies, and a narrator who says that golden rice can ‘help prevent blindness and infection in millions of children’ suffering from vitamin-A deficiency.” [42] Time magazine went so far as to claim on their cover, “This rice could save a million kids a year” The biotech company Syngenta claims one month of a delay in marketing Golden Rice, would cause 50,000 children to go blind. [43]

The biotech industry had found its poster child, genetically engineered rice that makes its own beta-carotene–a precursor to vitamin A. In his New York Times Magazine article, “The Great Yellow Hype,” Michael Pollan says that golden rice impales Americans on the horns of a moral dilemma: “if we don’t get over our queasiness about eating genetically modified food, kids in the third world will go blind.”

“Yet the more one learns about biotechnology’s Great Yellow Hope,” Pollan continues, “the more uncertain seems its promise.” [44] A closer look reveals some interesting omissions in the industry’s numbers. According to a Greenpeace report, golden rice provides so little vitamin A, “a two-year-old child would need to eat seven pounds per day.” [45] Likewise, an adult would need to eat nearly twenty pounds to get the daily-recommended dose.

“This whole project is actually based on what can only be characterized as intentional deception,” writes Benedikt Haerlin, former international coordinator of Greenpeace’s genetic engineering campaign. “We recalculated their figures again and again. We just could not believe serious scientists and companies would do this.” [46]

Even the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which funded development of golden rice, said “the public-relations uses of golden rice have gone too far” and are misleading the public and media. He adds, “We do not consider golden rice the solution to the Vitamin A deficiency problem.” [47]

There are other considerations as well. No published study has confirmed that the human body could actually convert the beta-carotene in golden rice. Also other nutrients such as fat and protein, often lacking in the diets on malnourished children, are needed in order to absorb Vitamin A. And it is not clear whether the genes from the daffodil, which are used to create golden rice, will transfer known allergens from the flower. [48]

The biotech proponents also admit that to persuade people to eat yellow rice may require an educational campaign. But if they are going to spend the time to educate, Pollan asks, why not instead teach “people how to grow green vegetables [that are rich in vitamin A and other nutrients] on the margins of their rice fields, and maybe even give them the seeds to do so? Or what about handing out vitamin-A supplements to children so severely malnourished their bodies can’t metabolize beta-carotene?”

Distributing supplements is precisely what the Vitamin Angel Alliance is doing. They give children who are at risk a high potency tablet, strong enough so that only two are required per year to prevent blindness. At a cost of only $.05 per tablet, only $25,000 is needed to prevent 500,000 children from going blind per year. [49] Contrast this with golden rice, which has cost more than $100 million dollars so far, and is not yet ready.

Michael Khoo of Greenpeace says golden rice “isn’t about solving childhood blindness, it’s about solving biotech’s public relations problem.” If the industry were truly dedicated to the problems of malnutrition and starvation, a tiny fraction of their advertising budget could have been diverted to make an enormous difference already. Khoo says, “It is shameful that the biotech industry is using starving children to promote a dubious product.” [50]

Grains of Delusion, a research report jointly released by humanitarian organizations in Thailand, Cambodia, India, Philippines, Indonesia and Bangladesh, concluded that, “the main agenda for golden rice is not malnutrition but garnering greater support and acceptance for genetic engineering amongst the public, the scientific community and funding agencies. Given this reality, the promise of golden rice should be taken with a pinch of salt.” [51]

Chapter 8: Changing Your Diet

This chapter describes all the sources of GM foods and explains how to remove them from your diet. It also provides additional motivation to make a change, describing how food can dramatically influence mood and behavior.

Chapter 9: What You Can Do

This chapter offers some practical ways to stay informed and to make a real change. One of these is to get this book into the hands of those who can make a difference.

Excerpt:

Books have power. Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle exposed the unsanitary conditions of the meat packing industry. After Teddy Roosevelt read the book on a long train trip, he pushed a bill through congress creating meat inspection. At a press conference, President Kennedy acknowledged the importance of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which exposed the dangers of pesticides. Kennedy then had his scientific advisor look into the issue. The book was eventually “credited with beginning the American environmental movement, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 1972 ban on DDT.” [52]

Officials around the world who are in charge of GM food policy need to be made aware of the foods’ dangers and of how their approval was based on politics, not science. They have been subjected to relentless promotion by the biotech industry and bullying by the U.S. government to accept GM foods and crops. The revelations in this book might change that.

Epilogue

This section ties in recent events with a summary of some of the salient points from the book.

Excerpt:

There are the numerous ways in which industry researchers apparently doctored their studies to avoid finding problems with GM foods. For example, Aventis heated StarLink corn four times longer than standard before testing for intact protein; Monsanto fed mature animals diets with only one tenth of their protein derived from GM soy; researchers injected cows with one forty-seventh the amount of rbGH before testing the level of hormone in the milk and pasteurized milk 120 times longer than normal to see if the hormone was destroyed; and Monsanto used stronger acid and more than 1,250 times the amount of a digestive enzyme recommended by international standards to prove how quickly their protein degraded.

Cows that got sick were dropped from Monsanto’s rbGH studies, while cows that got pregnant before treatment were counted as support that the drug didn’t interfere with fertility; differences in composition between Roundup Ready soy and natural soy were omitted from a published paper; antibody reactions by rats fed rbGH were ignored by the FDA; and deaths from rats fed the FlavrSavr tomato remain unexplained.

Overturning a myth is not easy and cannot be accomplished by only a few individuals. Please join with those of us who are dedicated to getting the truth out.

Order Your Copy of Seeds of Deception Here

For other reliable resources on health cover-up issues, see Health Information Center
For an excellent website on the GMO cover-up, see
www.seedsofdeception.com
For reliable information on other major cover-ups, see
www.WantToKnow.info

What you can do:

  • Inform your media and political representatives of this important information on genetically engineered foods and the GMO cover-up. To contact those close to you, click here.
  • Learn more about major health cover-ups which put your health at risk and other ways to improve your health in this lesson from the free Insight Course.
  • Read concise summaries of revealing major media reports on the GMO cover-up available here.
  • Visit our Health Information Center at WantToKnow.info/healthinformation.
  • Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and bookmark this article on key news websites using the “Share” icon on this page, so that we can fill the role at which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a difference.

Seeds of Deception – Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the Food You Eat

[1] See the White House press release on this available here. The comments mentioned are about two-thirds of the way down the web page

[2] Stuart Laidlaw, “StarLink Fallout Could Cost Billions,” The Toronto Star, Jan. 9, 2001. Article can be purchased in the Toronto Star archives available here, or find a free copy by clicking here.

[3] Robert Cohen, Milk, The Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998, p. 133

[4] See www.foodfirst.org/media/news/2003/butterfliesvsusda.html

[5] See www.ustrade-wto.gov/03052102.html

[6] Unless otherwise indicated, quotes from Arpad Pusztai, his wife Susan, or Philip James are based on personal communications with Arpad Pusztai.

[7] Project Censored, www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-independent-study-points-to-dangers-of-genetically-altered-foods/

[8] Rick Weiss, “Biotech Food Crop Raises a Crop of Questions,” Washington Post, August 15, 1999; p. A1

[9] David Schubert, “A different perspective on GM food,” Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 20, 2002, p. 969

[10] Anne McIlroy, “Pierre Blaise thought it was his duty,” Globe and Mail (Canada), Nov. 18, 1998

[11] James Baxter, The Ottawa Citizen, October 23, 1998, p. A1

[12] Judith C. Juskevich, C. Greg Guyer, “Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation,” Science, 1990, vol. 249, pp. 875-884

[13] Robert Cohen, Milk, The Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998

[14] Phillip A. Hertzman and others, The Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome: The Los Alamos Conference, Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 18, no. 6, 1991, pp. 867-873

[15] William Crist, Investigative report on L-tryptophan, found at www.biointegrity.org

[16] Kurt Eichenwald, and others, “Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle,” The New York Times, January 25, 2001

[17] Ibid.

[18]Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties,” Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991. May 29, 1992

[19] Steve Druker, www.biointegrity.org

[20] Linda Kahl to James Maryanski, about Federal Register document “Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants,” January 8, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[21] Louis J. Pribyl “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[22] Kurt Eichenwald and others, “Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle,” New York Times, January 25, 2001. Read the full article on the Times website at this link.

[23] Louis J. Pribyl “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[24] Steve Druker, www.biointegrity.org

[25] Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. “Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants.” October 28, 1991, www.biointegrity.org

[26] Samuel I. Shibko to James Maryanski, “Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants,” January 31, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[27] Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods; Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991, www.biointegrity.org

[28] Gerald B. Guest to James Maryanski, “Regulation of Transgenic Plants–FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology.” February 5, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[29] David Kessler, “FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants–DECISION.” March 20, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[30] Eric Katz to John Gallivan, “Food Biotechnology Policy Statement,” March 27, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[31] Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p 322

[32]Speaker Hastert Calls for End of European Union’s ‘Protectionist, Discriminatory Trade Policies,” U.S. Newswire, March 26, 2003

[33] James Maryanski, to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada, “The safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology,” October 23, 1991, www.biointegrity.org

[34] Kurt Eichenwald, and others, “Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle,” The New York Times, January 25, 2001. Read the full article on the Times website at this link.

[35] Andrea Baillie, “Suzuki Warns of Frankenstein Foods,” CP Wire, October 18, 1999

[36] “Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology,” January, 2001, www.WantToKnow.info/health/deception_panel_food_biotechnology.pdf

[37] Craig Canine, “Hear No Evil,” Eating Well, July/August 1991

[38] Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, p 139

[39] Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999

[40] “Life-Threatening Food?” CBS News, May 17, 2001, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/17/eveningnews/main291992.shtml

[41] Read this unbelievable account at www.WantToKnow.info/massmedia, first story

[42] Michael Pollan, “The Great Yellow Hype,” New York Times, March 4, 2001, Section 6; p 15

[43] “GE rice is fool’s gold,” Greenpeace, https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-new-zealand/en/press/genetically-engineered-golden/

[44] Michael Pollan, “The Great Yellow Hype,” New York Times, March 4, 2001, Section 6; p 15

[45] Greenpeace demands false biotech advertising be removed from TV, Letter, Feb. 9, 2001

[46] Opinion piece about Golden Rice by Benedikt Haerlin, http://archive.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/food/benny.htm

[47] Greenpeace demands false biotech advertising be removed from TV, Letter, Feb. 9, 2001

[48] “Grains of Delusion,” Jointly published by BIOTHAI (Thailand), CEDAC (Cambodia), DRCSC (India), GRAIN, MASIPAG (Philippines), PAN-Indonesia and UBINIG (Bangladesh), February 2001, www.grain.org/publications/delusion-en.cfm

[49] Vitamin Angel Alliance, http://www.vitaminangelalliance.com/vitamina.html

[50] FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), Open Meeting, July 17, 2001

[51] “Grains of Delusion,” Jointly published by BIOTHAI (Thailand), CEDAC (Cambodia), DRCSC (India), GRAIN, MASIPAG (Philippines), PAN-Indonesia and UBINIG (Bangladesh), February 2001, www.grain.org/publications/delusion-en.cfm

[52] Dorothy Mclaughlin, “Fooling with Nature, Silent Spring Revisited,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/disrupt/sspring.html

copyright © 2003 Jeffrey M. Smith, posted here with permission

SOURCE with thanks https://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg

From Doreen
It’s not just GMO food. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their health and health of family [water, air, harmful wireless technology, vaccines].

Individuals reporting the facts are trying to educate people who are unaware of globalism on the doorstep of countries world-wide.

People in democratic countries can ‘end’ crimes against humanity, geoengineering the weather a.k.a. chemtrails, perpetual wars, etc. by taking legal, peaceful action to retrieve final decision-making authority from de facto governments at all levels or do nothing, which is implied consent to globalism. https://ourgreaterdestiny.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/the-people-solution-come-to-power/

Time is short. Sharing is caring. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Doreen Ann Agostino
[c]
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
http://freetobewealthy.net

Posted in 5G, Awakening humans, Call to action, Chemtrails, Empower harmlessness and truth, Energy, frequency, vibration, Freedom reign, GMO food and clothes, Public Notice, Science and technology, Silence is agreement | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment