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

 

Advertisements
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

Heart of the matter: New Cholesterol Guidelines a Disgrace and Benefit for Big Pharma

By Heather CallaghanEditor

“We have a saying in medicine. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” – Cardiologist Dr. Barbara Roberts on cholesterol guidelines.

May 27, 2018

https://www.naturalblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/cardiologist-.jpg

It seems like every time the mainstream media reports some new changes to health guidelines, another recruit of people is suddenly considered in the unhealthy class.

Nowhere is this pattern seen more prominently than in the heart health industry. After all, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the United States, having killed 597,000 Americans in 2011.

A Few Notable Examples of Changing Health Guidelines:

In 1998, around 29 million Americans became overweight overnight without gaining a single pound, thanks to new body mass index (BMI) standards by the NIH. Many were suddenly considered obese, including most athletes. 

In 2013, the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology published new cholesterol guidelines that increased the number of people who could be offered statin drugs by the tens of millions. A study came out that same year challenging these new calculators

In early 2018, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology again tinkered with guidelines, and lowered what constitutes hypertension (high blood pressure). Now, readings above 130/80 are categorized as high blood pressure, meaning many people are now considered hypertensive.

So, as you can see, the AHA is mainly responsible for some of these major changes. We’d like to circle back to the 2013 change – the one that determined many Americans were now at risk with their cholesterol and should be placed on statins.

Cardiologist Dr. Barbara Roberts had plenty to say about this change and even authored a book called The Truth about Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs. She is director of the Women’s Cardiac Center at The Miriam Hospital and associate clinical professor of Medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

Convergence R.I. reported that the doctor was angry and had to speak out about this change:

She does not mince her words when it comes to the new cholesterol guidelines recently published by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology – which have suggested that millions of healthy Americans should start taking statins.

“The new guidelines are based on shoddy science and misinterpretation of the data,” she told ConvergenceRI in a recent interview. “This is a gift to Big Pharma. The American Heart Association has become little more than a propaganda arm of Big Pharma and Big Food. It’s a disgrace.”

Expanding the number of healthy people who take statins by the tens of millions, Roberts continued, “is going to reap a holocaust of adverse effects.”

Holocaust? Isn’t that too strong a word to use?

“No,” countered Roberts.

I will stand by that. For example, we may see upward of more than a quarter-million new cases of diabetes as a result. At a minimum, about 10 percent of new users of statins will suffer serious muscle side effects.

We will see increased instances of cognitive dysfunction, nerve damage, liver damage and an increased risk of kidney injury.

Nobody’s life is going to be extended; nobody’s life is going to be saved [by having healthy people taking statins].

To make matters worse, she said most doctors would not even read the entire 85-page guideline and that it was up to people to become informed patients because most people believe statins are innocuous. An op-ed in The New York Times, written by John D. Abramson, a Harvard Medical School lecturer, and Dr. Rita F. Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center and the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine actually echoed her concerns. In the end, though, many doctors are going to offer statins based on the 2013 guideline changes.

“Statins are effective for people with known heart disease. But for people who have less than a 20 percent risk of getting heart disease in the next 10 years, statins not only fail to reduce the risk of death, but also fail even to reduce the risk of serious illness,” Abramson and Redberg wrote. –“140 people in this risk group would need to be treated with statins in order to prevent a single heart attack or stroke, without any overall reduction in death or serious illness.”

What Can I Do?

Roberts dismisses statins as a preventative and instead offers this prescription for health: The Mediterranean Diet!

Along with an active lifestyle, a Mediterranean diet with monounsaturated fats like those in coconut and olive oil and one low in red meat is the way to go.

From Doreen [Re-consider eating fish due to radioactive water discharged  into the Pacific Ocean from Fukishima, Daiichi nuclear plant meltdown since 2011]  http://www.eatingwell.com/article/16372/8-ways-to-follow-the-mediterranean-diet-for-better-health/

“Adhering to the plant-based Mediterranean diet will lower your risk of heart disease just as much as any use of statins – without any side effects,” she said.

On a social level, Roberts demands these changes:

We need to stop subsidizing the production of corn and soy, which are the ingredients in many of the unhealthy foods that are foisted on people. We need to try to limit the advertising to children of unhealthy food products such as Cocoa Puffs. We need to raise cigarette taxes even more. And we need to stop eliminating physical education classes.

She wishes doctors hadn’t “swallowed the Kool-Aid.” “I would be happy to talk with them and give them my perspective, that the use of statins is not supported by the medical literature,” she added. “…we really don’t know the truth about statins. The reason I say that is because we know that a lot of studies that are undertaken never get published.” (29% of studies to be exact.)

“Industry-sponsored clinical trials are four times more likely to report positive results than non-industry sponsored clinical trials. There could be a lot of studies that showed statins were not efficacious that we don’t know about because they have never been published.” she said.


This article (Cardiologist Called New Cholesterol Guidelines a Disgrace and Benefit for Big Pharma) was created by and appeared first at Natural Blaze. It can be reshared with attribution but MUST include link to homepage, bio, intact links and this message.

favorite-velva-smallHeather Callaghan is an independent researcher, writer, speaker and food freedom activist. She is the Editor and co-founder of NaturalBlaze as well as a certified Self-Referencing IITM Practitioner.

Get a nifty FREE eBook

SOURCE with thanks https://www.naturalblaze.com/2018/05/cardiologist-called-new-cholesterol-guidelines-statins-disgrace-benefit-big-pharma.html?utm_source=Natural+Blaze+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=d3ea809882-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b73c66b129-d3ea809882-388229733

Cardiologist: Millions of People Taking Statin Drugs Will Continue to Have Far Greater Chance of Harm than Benefit

Rita Redberg, MD
Rita Redberg, MD. Image source

by Paul Fassa
Health Impact News

Two recent articles published in the UK mainstream hard copy and online newspaper Express revealed there’s something wrong with cholesterol-lowering statin drug prescription policies, quoting several doctors who claim statins cause more harm than benefit.

Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist professor at the San Francisco Medical Center, states:

“Unfortunately, until all data is available and discussed with patients, millions of people taking these [statin] drugs will continue to have far greater chance of harm than benefit.” (Source.)

Dr. Rita Redberg’s name might be familiar to our readers, because she appeared in an Australian two-part TV news documentary that has often been featured in several Health Impact News articles. Both parts were connected thematically and produced by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D.

And it was Dr. Demasi’s British Medical Journal (BMJ) article and study review that the Express article was reporting rather favorably with quotes from other doctors supporting her findings. The article’s focus was on the controversy it had ignited regarding the widespread use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.

Dr. Demasi’s Determination to Expose the Harsh Realities of Statin Drugs Was Underestimated

dr-maryanne-demasi

A few years back around 2013/14, Dr. Demasi produced two Catalyst science show productions on the ABC Australia TV network. It’s as mainstream as it gets down under.

Part one, “Dietary Villains,” of the two-part series, “The Heart of the Matter,” exposes the big fat lie of heart disease, the “lipid theory of heart disease,” which has become the foundation of producing processed foods to avoid natural, healthy, edible fats. (Sources)

As the cholesterol count paranoia peaked, statin drugs were created and became huge blockbuster drugs, creating billions for Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Demasi’s second report covered the successful statin hoax, based on the false premise of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease – cholesterol. The doctors and others that Demasi interviewed focused on the fact that yes, statins reduce cholesterol, but that’s bad for you! The reasons were expertly and clearly presented.

Her investigative reporting also revealed that statins not only reduced cholesterol, an important building block of the brain and central nervous system and hormone production, it also blocked the production of a heart nutrient, CoQ10. CoQ10 is also vital for mitochondria, the energy packages inside each of our cells.

The successful intent of reducing cholesterol is unnecessary as the lipid theory of heart disease has been proven false, it is still clung to by most mainstream practitioners and unfortunately too many holistic doctors as well. Inadvertently, impeding CoQ10 creates debilitating, even crippling, side effects.

If you’re doubtful about this information or not fully informed, Health Impact News has several articles and study references, you can educate yourself here. 

The first show of “The Heart of the Matter” aired on Australian national TV. Immediately, the medical establishment demanded that ABC not air the second show, the one that discusses the downfalls of statin drugs. One even commented there would be blood on their hands while another medical bureaucratic claimed many would die after viewing the second segment and quitting their statin regimens.

The second show did also air, but the medical industry pressure persisted and ABC agreed to never air either documentary again and took both episodes off their website. But Health Impact News has them and you can view both from this site – episode one here and episode two here.

Both parts of Demasi’s two-part investigative report were high-quality productions and made their case very well. After such a backlash and removal of a fine production, many would have thrown in the towel thinking the powers that be are too big.

But Dr. Demasi returned with her BMJ article published in late 2017, titled “Statin wars: have we been misled about the evidence? A narrative review,” which was reported in the UK Express with some doctors expressing their support of Dr. Demasi questioning the claims of statin drugs and their research reports from the drug companies who make them.

Some Highlights of Dr. Demasi’s Publicized Narrative Review

Dr. Demasi reports how an independent study showed people who took a daily statin for five years only increased their life expectancy by 4.1 days after a serious negative heart health event or 3.2 days with primary prevention prescriptions for healthy individuals. (Source)

Her review mentions the actual drug company practices of omitting negative trial study reports from final complete reports to the FDA. Then there is the tendency to omit trial subjects who were “non-compliant” while not listing the side effects that may have caused them to quit. In her article, Dr. Demasi asks,

“If the data are hidden, can we even have a debate?”

One major non-industry-funded study on statins has been done showing that the statin drug pravastatin had no significant benefit in reducing either all-cause mortality or coronary heart disease when prescribed as a preventative, she wrote.

There remained the question of how much harm those statins caused. So Dr. Demasi decided it would benefit her investigation to gather raw data from all the statin study materials for a better understanding of actual efficacy and safety.

In England, an Oxford University group had established the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, which handled a good deal of statin clinical trial reports from statin producing pharmaceutical companies.

The CTT Collaboration also cheerled for the statin industry by submitting dogmatic editorials to journals promoting greater distribution of statin drugs for lower ages without high cholesterol levels.

When Demasi queried the CTT Collaboration in an effort to obtain all their study reports to obtain the raw data disclosing what was filtered out, she got this official response:

“The CTT secretariat has an agreement with the principal investigators of the trials and, in those instances where trial data were provided directly by the drug manufacturers, with the companies themselves, that individual trial data will not be released to third parties. Such an agreement was necessary in order that analyses of the totality of the available trial data could be conducted by the CTT Collaboration: without such an agreement the trial data could not have been brought together for systematic analysis.”

Other interesting events disclosed in Dr. Demasi’s review is how two statin guideline committees, one in the UK, and the other in the USA, decided to expand statin prescriptions for larger population segments by lowering the age levels and cholesterol count levels and reducing symptoms required for recommending statin drugs.

Both committees were stacked with doctors having financial interests with the very pharmaceutical companies that make and market statin drugs. The 2004 US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) committee’s membership had eight of its nine members with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies who marketed statin drugs.

Shortly after the NCEP committee’s guideline release, the UK’s National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) created statin prescription guidelines that reduced the risk profile for statin drug prescriptions by half, greatly expanding statin use in the UK. Eight of the 12 committee members were financially involved with statin producers.

Dr. Demasi’s review also included how editorial efforts to nullify doubts about statin efficacy and safety included claims that negative media reporting on statins would be the death knell for many who should be taking statins, and most reported side effects were nocebo events.

A nocebo effect occurs when known negative expectations from treatments cause the patient to experience a more negative effect than if it were unknown.

All this and more led Dr. Demasi to conclude:

“Dissenting views about statins have been publicly derided and effectively silenced by proponents who are often funded by statin manufacturers.”

Among medical experts interviewed by the Express who supported Dr. Demasi’s views was the Queen’s former personal physician, Sir Richard Thompson, who added his perspective:

“This formidable review adds to the voices that are questioning the cholesterol/statin/cardiovascular disease hypothesis and are criticizing the presentation of many of the trial data. Physicians should emphasize the benefits on cardiovascular disease of physical activity and a Mediterranean diet, both of which are effective and safer and cheaper than drugs.” (Source)

Dr. Demasi’s BMJ article can be viewed here.

Another Dissenting Statin Report Publicized in UK Mainstream Press

The same newspaper, The Express, offered more coverage of dissenting doctors in a different publication. This exposure was covered in an Express article, “STATINS WARNING: Heart medicine pills ‘do more HARM than good’.”

Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malholtra led a coalition of medical experts whose study concluded statin drugs did more harm than good.

Again, Sir Richard Thompson, the Queen’s former personal physician, registered his support, this time also referring to the bogus lipid theory of heart disease:

“The seductive theory that cholesterol in the blood and the diet is the enemy, and therefore must be lowered at all costs, has diverted attention from the unnatural increase in sugar intake that has a greater influence on obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. It’s time for a rethink and a change in our diets.” (Source)

Here in the United States, mainstream media is hostage to the revenue from rampant direct to consumer advertising: print, radio, and especially TV advertising meant for convincing many to “… ask your doctor about [pharmaceutical product].”

Direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising is allowed only in the USA and New Zealand. But most other industrialized nations don’t allow it.

This allows the media, especially print media, to step outside the boundaries of pharmaceutical propaganda, even if it’s only to create controversy. Unfortunately, it takes a lot to pry most out of the illusion that Big Pharma rules the mainstream medical establishment with an iron fist, and the motive is money and more money, not a concern for human health.

A good start here would be to stop allowing drug companies advertising direct to consumers via mainstream media outlets. This would allow the media to listen and report dissenting expert viewpoints, on at least statin drugs, for starters.

They [the media] could start with Dr. Jeffrey Dach of South Florida, who reports in his newsletter how Duane Graveline MD, MPH, a former NASA astronaut, suffered an unusual form of amnesia called transient global amnesia (TGA) from the statin Lipitor, twice. Dr. Dach has his own statin commentary as well in his newsletter, where he also recommends a cardiovascular disease remedy from Linus Pauling.

The second time was shame on him. So he researched why and how this happens when suppressing the main ingredient of brain and nerve matter, cholesterol, is drastically reduced. He explained this in his article “Lipitor: Thief of Memory” on his blog – space doc.

Sources and References

https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/abc-australia-exposes-cholesterol-lowering-statin-drug-scam-and-pharmaceutical-criminal-activity/

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/908399/UK-statins-health-news-cholesterol-heart-pills-drug-no-millions-without-benefit

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/828448/statins-warning-heart-medicine-fail-harms-health-study-reveals

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2018/01/16/bjsports-2017-098497.full.pdf?ijkey=Rsap0XafljfcOCR&keytype=ref

http://www.drdach.com/Lipitor_Jarvik_Dracula.html

http://www.drdach.com/Heart_Disease.html

https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2015/10/05/statins-are-not-a-magic-bullet-for-longer-life/ http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e007118

SOURCE with thanks https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/cardiologist-millions-of-people-taking-statin-drugs-will-continue-to-have-far-greater-chance-of-harm-than-benefit/

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

 

Posted in Awakening humans, Empower harmlessness and truth, Energy, frequency, vibration, Public Notice, Science and technology, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Manuka Honey Effective Against Antibiotic Resistant MRSA [Re-think hand sanitizers]

Posted in Awakening humans, Empower harmlessness and truth, Energy, frequency, vibration, Holistic/Wholistic, Public Notice | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson

Avert infertility, DNA damage, and eventually cancer

TEDx Talks
Published on Feb 18, 2016

A Silicon-valley engineer turned technology health advocate, Jeromy Johnson discusses our attachment to technology and the health hazards such an addiction may hold. AV and event video provided by http://repertoireproductions.com

Jeromy Johnson is an expert in mitigating the negative impacts of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) exposure. He has a leading website on the topic and consults with individuals, families and organizations around the world to implement solutions that reduce and eliminate EMF pollution. Jeromy has an advanced degree in Civil Engineering and  worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years. After becoming what medical doctors call “Electro-hypersensitive” (EHS) in 2011 after extensive exposure to EMF radiation, he embarked on a journey of regaining his own health and educating others to critically evaluate theirs. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.

Jeromy Johnson https://www.emfanalysis.com/products/ 

EMF research

https://www.google.ca/search?q=EMF+research&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=umHPWrCaHOGS8Qe1t7CQDw

F.A.C.T.S. about interaction between electromagnetic fields and biological systems

Dr. Henry Lai and low level radiation on DNA

https://www.google.ca/search?q=dr+heny+lai+low+level+radiation+on+DNA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=kWbPWtTFI8LT8AfXzIqQCA

Please share to inform others so they can protect themselves and family. Thank you.

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

 

 

Posted in 5G, Awakening humans, Call to action, Cell signaling function, Cell towers, EMF/EMR, Empower harmlessness and truth, Energy, frequency, vibration, Silence is agreement, Silent weapons, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Liver Cleansing: A Simple Step-by-Step Guide

January 2nd, 2018
By Dr. Edward Group

Guest writer for Wake Up World

The liver is the human body’s largest internal organ and one of the most important for survival. Without it, bodily tissues would die from lack of nutrients and oxygen and the digestive process would not be able to take place. One of the liver’s most important functions is the removal of toxins from your system. This function is why cleansing your liver and living a healthy lifestyle is so crucial. Performing an organic liver cleanse can help remove toxic buildup for overall health and wellness. Before doing a liver cleanse, it is important to understand what the liver is and all of the necessary functions it performs.

The Liver’s Location and Design

Inside your body, the liver sits primarily on the right side. It spans across the top of the abdominal cavity, above your stomach and below your diaphragm, leaning down towards the right kidney. This vital organ is soft and rubbery with a reddish-brown color, weighs about three pounds, and contains one pint of blood at any given moment. It is triangular and consists of two primary lobes made up of 1,000 lobules. These tiny lobules contain small tubes that are connected to larger tubes which form the common hepatic duct. This duct is responsible for transporting bile made by the liver to the gallbladder and the first part of the small intestine known as the duodenum.[1]

Functions of the Liver

The importance of this organ is immense. The liver is responsible for essential activities beyond digestion and filtering toxins. The functions it performs on a daily basis warrant regular health maintenance and care.

Metabolism

The liver is the metabolic center of the body. Controlled by the central nervous system, the liver is responsible for the metabolization of macronutrients (fats, carbohydrates, and proteins). This metabolic process also produces free radicals that antioxidants scavenge to maintain the oxidative and antioxidative balance in the liver. Insulin and glucagon hormones are what drive the metabolic function of this organ.[2]

Production

The liver is responsible for the production of bile, proteins for blood plasma, glucose, and cholesterol. The bile your liver produces helps break down fats in the small intestine and take away waste. The proteins needed for blood plasma are also made in the liver and consist of fibrinogen, prothrombin, and albumins. The first two proteins are coagulation components that aid in the blood-clotting process, while albumins maintain the blood’s environment to keep blood cells at an even hydration level. The production of cholesterol and other proteins help transport fats throughout the body.

The liver helps keep your blood sugar levels even. It produces and distributes glucose depending on your body’s needs. When you eat, your liver holds onto sugar, or glucose, to use as fuel for a later time. If there is little to no sugar present in your body but your organs and red blood cells need it, your liver produces another kind of fuel called ketones derived from fats. A low level of insulin in your body is what triggers this process called ketogenesis.[1]

Storage

The liver acts as a storage unit holding your glucose supply, nutrients, minerals such as iron and copper, and vitamins A, D, E, K, and B-12. Many of these components are collected from blood passing through the hepatic duct. This function of the liver ensures that a constant supply of these essential nutrients will be provided to the body’s tissues when they need it.[3]

Immunity

The liver is part of the innate immune system, also known as the nonspecific immune system. This type of immune system provides immediate action against infection but does not generate long-lasting immunity to the organism, which is a trait the adaptive immune system carries. The innate immune system identifies an issue and deploys immune cells to the area in need of defense and repair. The liver’s primary immunity function is to identify and remove harmful toxins in the body. It also helps with the production of cells responsible for the activation of the adaptive immune system.[4, 5]

Digestion

It’s the production of bile that places the liver in yet another category — digestion. The cells responsible for this process, called hepatocytes, are found in the parenchymal tissue of the liver. They make up 70-85% of the liver’s mass.[6] Bile is passed through bile ducts and either stored in the gallbladder or released into the duodenum to help with digestion. It is comprised of cholesterol, water, bile salts, and a pigment called bilirubin. These components that make up bile help break down fats into fatty acids.[7]

Detoxification

The liver and kidneys are the main organs responsible for detoxification. The liver protects the body from toxic chemicals by cleaning blood and filtering out harmful chemicals in red blood cells. This process transforms these chemicals into compounds that can then be safely and efficiently removed from the body through urine.[8]

Signs of a Poorly Performing Liver

You are exposed to toxins every day. These toxins can come in the form of water-borne pollutants, food preservatives, chemicals, pesticides, and electromagnetic radiation, which can greatly affect the liver. There are several signs to look for regarding a troubled liver.[9]

  • Tendency for the body to overheat resulting in excessive perspiration
  • Difficulty digesting fatty foods
  • Heartburn and acid reflux
  • Inflammation of the liver
  • The development of dark spots, commonly referred to as liver spots, on the skin
  • New weight gain or the failure to lose weight even after lowering calorie intake
  • Bloating in the abdomen
  • Fat around the upper part of the abdomen
  • Pain over or around the liver
  • High blood pressure
  • Fatigue
  • High levels of triglycerides
  • Mood swings and depression
  • Sleep apnea

What Is a Liver Cleanse?

Sometimes referred to as a “liver detox,” a liver cleanse involves following a regulated diet over a period of four to five days and ends with a “flush day.” The objective of a liver cleanse is to reduce or eliminate toxins in the liver so that it can perform all of its functions more effectively.

Why Is a Liver Cleanse Necessary?

The liver is your filter for toxins. After a time it can become clogged with toxic residue, hindering its ability to keep your body free of these unhealthy components.

Think of the liver like the air conditioning filter in your house. You know it’s time to replace or clean it when it becomes dark and clogged. In this state, the filter can no longer keep your house clear of things like dust, pet dander, dirt, and toxins. Before the liver gets to a similar state, it’s time for it to be cleansed of the toxic residue that has built up over time. This will also give the liver time to heal itself.

Steps to Cleanse the Liver

To safely and efficiently detox the liver, try to eat healthy organic meals leading up to a cleanse. Avoid meat, fatty foods, and foods high in sodium such as processed foods. Following a liver cleanse diet lasts about five days and has two phases: the preparation for your liver’s flush (the first four days), and the purge itself on day five.

Following a healthy liver cleanse diet is crucial in the first days of your cleanse. Eat fresh, organic foods and drink purified or distilled water.

A week before the cleanse you should rid your home of toxins, and eliminate the use of products that contain chemicals like nail polish, hairspray, or other chemically-produced beauty products. Stay away from alcohol before and after a cleanse, and consider eliminating alcohol from your life altogether. Consult a healthcare professional before undergoing a cleanse.[10]

Days 1-4: Foods to Avoid

There are several foods to avoid during a liver cleanse. Because the liver acts as a filter, only fresh, healthy organic foods are advisable, to avoid added buildup and aid the liver to eradicate residual toxins. Foods to avoid during this time are:[11]

  • Meat
  • Dairy products
  • Fried foods
  • Processed foods
  • Frozen foods
  • Heavy sauces
  • Condiments
  • Pastries
  • Spicy foods
  • Soda, energy drinks, caffeinated beverages, and unfiltered tap water
  • Tobacco products
  • Alcohol

Days 1-4: Foods to Embrace

In order to support a healthy liver cleanse, there are specific liver-friendly foods that can aid in digestion and promote a healthy evacuation of toxins from your body. These foods contain vitamins and minerals, namely potassium, that are linked to healthy liver function.

  • Fruits
  • Vegetables (preferably eaten raw)
  • Nuts
  • Seeds
  • Foods high in potassium
  • Water (only distilled, purified, or fluoride-free)
  • Fresh, natural juices
  • Herbal teas (non-caffeinated)

Recipes

A healthy liver cleanse should involve homemade meals using only fresh, organic ingredients. Try using these recipes when undergoing a detoxification process.

Dr. Group’s Liver Cleanse Soup

Instructions and ingredients for a healthy liver cleanse soup:

  • 1 organic beet
  • 2 organic carrots
  • 1 cup broccoli
  • 10 organic garlic cloves
  • ½ organic onion
  • ¼ organic lemon
  • 2 bay leaves
  • 1 tablespoon Himalayan crystal salt

Wash the vegetables and finely chop the ingredients to your preferred consistency. Pour 32 ounces of distilled or purified water into a soup pot and add all ingredients. Bring to a boil, reduce heat, and then simmer on low heat for one hour.

Dr. Group’s Liver Cleanse Juice

To alternate meals during your cleanse week, try a blended drink:

  • 3 organic carrots (washed and peeled)
  • 2 organic apples (washed and cut)
  • 1 organic beet (washed and peeled)
  • 6 organic kale leaves
  • ½ organic lemon (washed and peeled)
  • ½ inch ginger root

Blend until the desired consistency is reached.

Days 1-4: Meals

Instead of three large meals, eat five small portions per day (this includes two snacks). Chew your food thoroughly and eat at a slow pace to ensure proper digestion. Drink only distilled water. To enhance flavor and nutrition, you can mix two tablespoons of raw organic apple cider vinegar (ACV) to one gallon of distilled water. Shake and refrigerate. You can prepare this in the morning and enjoy it throughout the day.

Breakfast

Start each morning (between 8:00 and 10:00 am) with an eight-ounce glass of the ACV and water mix accompanied by a small bowl of fresh fruit. Choose only one fruit for this meal. Watermelon is a great choice due to its water and fiber content. Other beneficial choices are:

  • Papaya
  • Kiwi
  • Plums
  • Pears
  • Apples
  • Cherries
  • Figs
  • Grapefruit

Snacks

To break up the day and get more nutrients into your system while on a cleanse, eat a handful of nuts or seeds and wash it down with 12 ounces of your ACV/water mix. Choose only one type of nut or seed. Good choices include:[12]

  • Sunflower seeds
  • Pumpkin seeds
  • Walnuts
  • Brazil nuts
  • Almonds

Natural supplements consisting of herbs and spices like turmericmilk thistledandelion, and cinnamon are a great way to add more nutrients and flavor to meals while maintaining a healthy liver detoxification.[12]

Lunch

Around noon, have the liver cleanse soup or the liver cleanse juice. The soup is ideal for flush day, as the leftovers will be a nourishing lunch for the day after the cleanse.

Dinner

As an afternoon snack or your dinner around 4:00 pm choose either a handful of walnuts, an avocado with lemon and sea salt, or fast through the afternoon with just the ACV/water mix.

The Flush

To prepare for the flushing process on day five, you will be ingesting water, Epsom salt, and olive oil over a period of about two hours.

Around 7:00 pm, mix one tablespoon of Epsom Salt in eight ounces of warm purified water and drink it quickly. You may experience liquid stools within 20­ minutes after ingestion, so it is advisable to be near a bathroom.

Between 8:30 and 9:00 pm, drink ¾ cup of organic cold pressed extra virgin olive oil. A small amount, about two tablespoons, of freshly squeezed orange, grapefruit, or lemon juice may be added to improve taste. It is important to drink all six ounces. There are a few ways to ingest the oil to make it easier to go down:

  • Thicken the oil by refrigerating it for a few hours
  • Using a jar, pour ½ cup of orange or grapefruit juice into the oil and shake until thin
  • Split into two cups with juice in one and oil in the other and drink through a straw alternating between the two

Sleep Preparation

Immediately after drinking the oil, go to bed and lie on your right side with your knees pulled up to your stomach for 30 minutes. After this step, you can stretch out and go to sleep. Cramping can occur, which is a sign the purge of toxins is working. Walking around for ten minutes followed by another attempt at sleep should help. Nausea can be another common side effect due to the release of toxins from the liver. Be sure to vomit if necessary. This nauseous result is a sign that your body may be in need of another cleanse.[12]

The Day After

The day after completing the cleanse, consider doing a natural water enema immediately after waking up to naturally flush the stones that have been released from the liver and gallbladder. If you’re curious as to how many stones you’ve released, buy an inexpensive colander and place it over the toilet to collect these stones. Afterwards, rinse thoroughly in the sink to see how many stones you’ve passed.

Breakfast should consist of fruit, followed by the remaining liver cleanse soup for lunch, and a healthy dinner of salad and a light protein. Make sure to drink distilled or purified water with fresh lemon.[12]

What to Expect During a Cleanse

Liver cleanses are different for many people, but a lack of energy and an emotional response can occur, especially once the cleanse is completed. Some people may also notice a few issues with their skin, along with an overall feeling of sickness during and after the cleanse. These conditions will improve over a short period. A week or so after a cleanse, many people experienced higher energy levels, better digestion, and an overall feeling of wellness. Again, consult your healthcare provider before starting a liver cleanse. [13]

Top Liver Cleanse Benefits

Many people don’t realize the impact an unclean liver can have on their daily performance, energy levels, and even appearance. The accumulation of different toxins is taxing on the liver. These toxins are lumped into two categories: exogenous toxins and endogenous toxins. Exogenous toxins are comprised of anything that originates outside of the body including toxins found in food, water, and air. Endogenous toxins are a normal byproduct of your body resulting from cellular metabolism. Performing a liver cleanse to remove these toxins can affect the overall wellness and health of your entire body.[14]

Improves Your Outward Appearance

An unhealthy outward appearance can show what’s going on inside of your body. Detoxifying your liver may help to boost your immune system and enable much-needed nutrients to reach destinations that help with cell regeneration. Once your inside is refreshed, your outside will reflect that and may reduce the appearance of age by as much as five to ten years.

Promotes Healthy Weight

Weight loss can be one of the results of a liver cleanse. When the liver becomes blocked due to high toxicity levels, it isn’t able to perform two of its key functions—bile production and metabolism. Cleaning this organ encourages healthier functioning making it easier for the liver to break down fats and produce bile, which aids the body in maintaining a healthy weight.

Boosts Overall Vitality

Fatigue, sleep apnea, and sluggishness can be linked to an unhealthy diet and unclean liver. Flushing your body of toxins through a cleanse enables the body to receive the nutrient byproducts produced by the liver. These nutrients will have a marked effect on your energy levels as well as an overall feeling of wellness.

Helps Curb Liver Stones

The kidneys and gallbladder aren’t the only organs to produce stones; your liver can achieve this as well. These stones are similar to gallstones with the exception of location, and form due to excessive levels of cholesterol. When too much cholesterol is present in the body, excess amounts may crystallize into lumps resembling tiny pebbles. These stones, stored in the liver, can considerably affect liver function. Performing a cleanse may help flush these unwanted stones out of your system, supporting a more productive liver.

Supports the Immune System

The liver’s role as part of your immune system can be compromised as a result of residual toxins. Cleaning these toxins from your liver will give your immune system a boost by affecting your liver’s ability to address infection and identify toxins in the blood.

How Often to Do a Cleanse

The number of times you choose to perform a liver cleanse is up to you. Experts recommend a full cleanse two or three times a year. However, some people perform this process several times with five to 10-day intervals to feel a more profound result. It is best to consult a trusted healthcare professional before beginning any cleanse.

Your Story

Have you ever done a liver cleanse? Are you thinking about trying one? We’d love to hear your story. Please tell us about your experience in the comments section below, or join the conversation on Facebook.

References:

  1. Liver: Anatomy and Functions.” John Hopkins Medicine. hopkinsmedicine.org. n.d. Web. 2 Nov. 2017.
  2. Rui, L. “Energy Metabolism In the Liver.” Compr Physiol. Jan 2014;4(1), 177-97. Web 2 Nov. 2017.
  3. How Does the Liver Work?” PubMed Health. Rev. 22 Aug. 2016. Web. 3 Nov. 2017.
  4. Alberts, B., et al. “Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition. Innate Immunity.” New York: Garland Science; 2002. Web. 3 Nov. 2017.
  5. Gao, B. “Basic Liver Immunology.” Cell Mol Immunol. May 2016; 3(3), 265–266. Web. 3 Nov. 2017.
  6. Freitas-Lopes, M., et al. “Differential Location and Distribution of Hepatic Immune Cells.” Cells. 2017 Dec 7;6(4). pii: E48.Web. 6 Nov. 2017.
  7. Collins, J.T., et al. “Anatomy, Abdomen, Small Intestine.” pubMed.gov. StatPearls Publishing; 19 Oct. 2017. Web. 6. Nov. 2017.
  8. What Processes Does the Liver Undergo to Remove Toxins?” Cornell College. cornellcollege.edu. n.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2017.
  9. Liver disease.” Mayo Clinic. mayoclinic.org. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.
  10. Willett, W.C. “The Mediterranean diet: science and practice.” Public Health Nutr. Feb. 2006;9(1A), 105-10. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.
  11. Chang C., et al. “Investigating the association between diet and risk of head and neck cancer in Taiwan.” Oncotarget. 24 Oct. 2017;8(58), 98865-98875. Accessed 9 Nov. 2017.
  12. Agnoli C., et al. “Position paper on vegetarian diets from the working group of the Italian Society of Human Nutrition.” Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2017 Dec;27(12):1037-1052. Accessed 9 Nov. 2017.
  13. Ehrlich S. “Gallbladder disease.” 11 Apr. 2016. University of Maryland Medical Center. umm.edu. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.
  14. MacIntosh A., et al. “The effects of a short program of detoxification in disease-free individuals.” Altern Ther Health Med. Jul. 2000;6(4), 70-6. Accessed 7 Nov. 2017.

Recommended articles by Dr. Edward Group:

SOURCE with thanks and more links at

https://wakeup-world.com/2018/01/02/liver-cleansing-detox-simple-step-by-step-guide/?utm_campaign=Wake+Up+World+e-Newsletter&utm_content=Latest+Headlines+inc.+Liver+Cleansing%3A+A+Simple+Step-by-Step+Guide&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getresponse

 

Dr. Edward F. Group III (DC, ND, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM) founded Global Healing Center in 1998 and is currently the Chief Executive Officer. Heading up the research and development team, Dr. Group assumes a hands-on approach in producing new and advanced degenerative disease products and information.

Dr. Group has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the internet.

From Doreen

Our bodies face assault daily from pollution so please share to inform others. Thank you.

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

Posted in Awakening humans, Call to action, EMF/EMR, Empower harmlessness and truth, Energy, frequency, vibration, GMO food and clothes, Public Notice, Wireless Wi-Fi | Tagged , , | Leave a comment