A must watch video from an indigenous perspective. It questions the entire so called ‘science’ of GE. In it, from NZ the late Moana Jackson cites US activist the late John Trudell as saying ‘the New World Order is the Old World lie’. Couldn’t agree more. EWR
Funded by The Ford Foundation and screened on Maori TV, the film takes its title from a prescient folk tale of natural misinformation and explores the murky world of genetic sampling, engineering and ownership and its explicit links to a far from dormant colonialism.
Focusing on the economic, ethical and legal issues around exploitation of blood samples from first-nation islanders in Oceania, the film uses impressionistic image collages, effective scoring, archive footage and creative graphics to trace a centuries-old lineage of abuse and to argue for an alternative, interdependent worldview based on collaboration and ancient wisdom. Ambitious and provocative, the film is a welcome and timely search for values and worth in a desert of corporate sprawl.
It inspires audiences to ask serious questions of the collective illusion we call ‘progress’ sending a powerful message about the need for indigenous peoples to shift the focus of resistance away from reacting to the arguments of the biotech promoters. Instead, they should be reclaiming their own arguments and finding their own ways to restore the health of their communities.
New research published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology reveals that in 2020 alone, some 74 metric tons of microplastics – that is, the plastic particulates released from waste into the environment – fell on the city of Auckland in New Zealand via rainfall.
The first peer-reviewed study of its kind to calculate the total mass of microplastics in a city’s air, the paper found that the pollution equivalent of three million plastic bottles falls on Auckland in an average year – a truly astounding level that is much higher than generally accepted estimates.
Researchers say the global prevalence of airborne microplastics appears to be much higher than previously believed. Most of these particulates are too small to be seen with the naked eye, though scientists were able to identify them using a colored, light-emitting dye.
For analysis, researchers also applied heat treatment, which allowed them to calculate an aggregate mass of the particulates in terms of volume and tonnage. (Related: The average person consumes a credit card’s worth of microplastics every week in tainted food.)
“The smaller the size ranges we looked at, the more microplastics we saw,” said Joel Rindelaub, the study’s lead author and a chemical scientist at The University of Auckland. “This is notable because the smallest sizes are the most toxicologically relevant.”
Chances are you’re inhaling microplastics right now and don’t even know it
The smaller the size of a microplastic particulate, the easier time it has being inhaled and entering cells. If small enough, microplastics can even build up in vital organs such as the liver and cross the blood-brain barrier, accumulating in the brain.
In one square meter in one day in 2020, the average number of airborne plastics floating around Auckland was found to be 4,885. Comparatively for that same year in the same amount of space, London’s count was just 771.
A 2019 study that looked at the cities of Hamburg and Paris found that airborne plastics in that same one-square-meter space were 275 and 110, respectively.
“The discrepancy is largely because of the Auckland study’s inclusion of smaller size ranges, which were not part of previous research,” noted Bloomberg.
Rindelaub says that while more work needs to be done to quantify precisely how much plastic the average person is breathing in, it is clear from what we already know that inhalation of microplastics “is an important route of exposure” that cannot be ignored.
Since the 1950s when plastics first started being mass produced, some 8.3 billion metric tons of it have been generated. Of that, 79 percent has ended up in landfills or been dumped in the wild where it gradually breaks down and turns into microplastics.
“Once they enter the natural environment, they can pollute soil, kill wildlife and find their way into the food chain,” reports indicate.
In Auckland, the most-detected form of plastic was polyethylene, followed by polycarbonate. The former is a common packaging material while the latter is used in electrical and electronic appliances.
Since Auckland is located near the ocean and gets heavy winds from the Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand’s North Island, it is speculated that this could be a reason why more microplastics are being detected there compared to other more inland cities in other parts of the world.
“The production of airborne microplastics from breaking waves could be a key part of the global transport of microplastics,” Rindelaub explained. “And it could help explain how some microplastics get into the atmosphere and are carried to remote places, like here in New Zealand.”
The world’s growing microplastics problem is much more serious than many people realize. To learn more about the dangers and toxicity of exposure, be sure to check out Microplastics.news.
Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR
Story at-a-glance
Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause massive mitochondrial dysfunction, thus raising the risk for, and worsening, chronic and degenerative diseases
A perfect storm of DNA and cellular protein and membrane destruction is created when you aren’t burning fat for fuel (which creates excess superoxide) and then get exposed to EMFs
By creating doubt and controversy, the wireless industry effectively prevents the public from knowing the truth and demanding safer products. Another wireless industry strategy that prevents the problem from becoming public knowledge is the capturing of our federal regulatory agencies
Elon Musk’s Starlink project, which was slated to deploy up to 42,000 satellites into orbit around the earth, will blanket the entire planet with 5G internet frequencies. You won’t be able to escape it
Based on the studies already done on previous generations of wireless, we know it’s harmful, and 5G is only going to make matters worse, as it will dramatically increase our exposures
I was recently interviewed by Siim Land about my new book, “EMF*D,” described by Siim as “the most comprehensive guide … to everything you need to know about EMF.”
In it, I explain what electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are, the different types of EMFs you’re exposed to, the harms associated with exposure, the concerns surrounding 5G and, ultimately, how to protect yourself and limit your exposure.
As I explain in the interview, the thing that catalyzed me to write “EMF*D” was my deep appreciation of the impact of mitochondrial function in health and disease. Once I realized how EMFs impact mitochondrial function — because it’s very clear that EMF causes massive mitochondrial dysfunction — the danger our wireless society poses became very clear to me.
I also read a study1 stressing the importance of mitochondrial numbers for improving senescent cells — cells that are, in a manner of speaking, “senile” and have stopped reproducing properly. Instead, senescent cells produce inflammation, contributing to old age and, ultimately, death.
The fewer mitochondria you have, and the more dysfunctional they are, the faster you’ll age and the more prone you’ll be to chronic degenerative disease. By inducing mitochondrial dysfunction, our wireless world may well be driving us all into an early grave.
Cellphone Industry Hides Truth by Manufacturing Doubt
Considering the research data now available, you’d think everyone would understand and accept the fact that EMF is a serious health danger, yet many are still completely in the dark. With “EMF*D,” I hope to help more people understand this biological threat.
In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency EMFs as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”2 Then, in 2018, the U.S. National Toxicology Program published two lifetime exposure studies conclusively showing cellphone exposure causes cancer.
The NTP’s findings were also duplicated by the Italian Ramazzini Institute just a couple of months later. In the wake of these studies, Fiorella Belpoggi, principal investigator and director of the Ramazzini Institute, urged the IARC to upgrade RF-EMF to “probably carcinogenic” or higher.3
Now, just like smoking cigarettes, EMF exposure takes decades before its effects become evident (and even then, the health problem might not be directly linkable to EMF exposure), and this is a significant part of the problem as it allows the telecom industry to — just like the tobacco industry before it — whitewash concerns, manipulate research and prevent proper safety studies from being done.
There’s no doubt cellphone manufacturers are aware that EMFs from cellphones contribute to health problems, though. The evidence has been published for decades, and new research is constantly being added.
However, by downplaying positive findings and saying that findings of harm are inconclusive — in other words, by creating doubt and controversy — they effectively prevent the public from knowing the truth and demanding safer products.
Wireless Industry Is Even Worse Than the Tobacco Industry
Another wireless industry strategy that prevents the problem from becoming public knowledge is the capturing of our federal regulatory agencies, which the tobacco industry wasn’t even capable of.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all warned people about smoking, yet the tobacco industry continued successfully selling cigarettes for another 20 or 30 years. The wireless industry, on the other hand, has captured the federal regulatory agencies, which prevents those warnings from being issued in the first place.
For example, the chief lobbyist for the wireless industry, Tom Wheeler, was appointed by President Obama to be the head of the Federal Communications Commission, which is a most egregious example of the fox guarding the hen house. Not surprisingly, then, in December 2019 the FCC announced they’re going to fund rural 5G deployment to the tune of $9 billion!4
The telecom industry has engaged in a vast and illegal fraud where, for decades, basic telephone rate payers — wire line customers — have funded the deployment of wireless in general, and now 5G in particular, through their phone bills.
This illegal redirection of funds amounts to about $1 trillion over the past 15 years, and without this money, 5G would not have been possible in the first place. Were the wireless industry forced to pay its fair share of infrastructure costs, 5G simply wouldn’t be economically feasible as a consumer product.
What’s so Great About 5G?
What exactly is 5G and why do some people want it? In short, it’s all about improving speed. Compared to 4G, 5G is 100 times faster. On a side note, you can determine what your bandwidth is by pulling up fast.com on your cellphone’s browser. If you’re on 4G, your bandwidth is probably not going to exceed 10 megabytes per second (mb/s). If you’re on 5G, it’s going to be between 500 and 800 mb/s.
So, the primary benefit of 5G is noticeably faster speed. The vast majority of people simply don’t need this kind of bandwidth, but it has great applications for commercial uses such as self-driving cars.
The problem is, 5G may end up making the earth uninhabitable for many who are already struggling with electrosensitivity, and the countless others for whom 5G may prove to be the thing that tips them over the edge into electrohypersensitivity syndrome.
Elon Musk’s Starlink project, which was slated to deploy up to 42,000 satellites into low earth orbit, will blanket the entire planet with 5G internet. You won’t be able to escape it, no matter how far into the wilderness you go.
5G Is a Prescription for Biological Disaster
Then there are the long-term dangers of 5G, which we still do not have a complete picture of. There has not been a single safety study done on 5G. Studies using 2G, 3G and 4G, however, including the NTP and Ramazzini studies, clearly show there’s cause for concern.
5G is more complex, as it uses a variety of frequencies, which makes it a potentially greater threat. The frequency of 4G is typically around 2 to 5 gigahertz (GHz), while 5G will be around 20 to 30 GHz, initially.
Eventually, it may go as high as 80 GHz, which will cause problems for people trying to remediate exposures because there are currently no inexpensive meters that can measure frequencies that high.
Based on the studies already done on previous generations of wireless, we know it’s harmful, and 5G is only going to make matters worse, as it will dramatically increase our exposures. 5G requires what essentially amounts to a mini cellphone tower outside every fifth or sixth house on every block.
We also have studies showing the impact of millimeter waves, which is what 5G is using, on insects, animals and plants, and those hazards are well-documented. So, it doesn’t just pose a problem for human health, but for the ecosystem as a whole.
Martin Pall, Ph.D., wrote an excellent paper explaining how EMFs affect your voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) — channels in the outer plasma membrane of your cells. Each VGCC has a voltage sensor, a structure that detects electrical changes across the plasma membrane and opens the channel. EMFs work through the voltage sensor to activate the channel and radically increase intracellular calcium levels into dangerous ranges.
Similar channels are found in most biological life, including animals, insects, plants and trees. So, flooding the planet with these frequencies will undoubtedly have serious biological consequences across the ecosystem. As such, it’s an existential threat to humanity.
One biological consequence is arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). Other potential consequences include autism and Alzheimer’s. Heart and neurological problems top the list because your heart and brain have the greatest density of VGCCs. Men’s testes also have a very high density of VGCCs and, indeed, we have evidence showing EMFs increase men’s risk of infertility.
Everything points to these frequencies being a prescription for biological disaster, and between skyrocketing autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility rates, how can a society be sustained? It can’t. It will be extinguished.
We Don’t Need Wireless 5G
In reality, we can still get the bandwidth of 5G without 5G wireless. The alternative would be to deploy fiber optic cable. It’s faster, safer and less expensive.
Unfortunately, the money originally set aside to implement nationwide fiber optics was rerouted and illegally used to build the wireless infrastructure instead. This is why a group called The Irregulators5 are now suing the FCC to put a stop to the illegal subsidy to the wireless industry.
Wireline customers paid for an upgrade to fast and safe fiber optic wiring across the nation, but now we’re getting harmful 5G wireless instead. This lawsuit has the potential to alter the telecommunications industry from the ground up, and may be the “weapon” we need to halt to the 5G rollout in the U.S.
The Importance of EMF Avoidance to Protect Your NAD+ Level
Along with practical remediation strategies, “EMF*D” also covers things you can do to protect yourself on a biochemical level. A perfect storm of DNA and cellular protein and membrane destruction is created when you aren’t burning fat for fuel (which creates excess superoxide) and then get exposed to EMFs.
This causes a radical increase in nitric oxide release that nearly instantaneously combines with superoxide to create enormous levels of peroxynitrate, which triggers a cascade of destructive events to your cellular and mitochondrial DNA, membranes and proteins.
Although all biologic damage is of concern, it is the DNA strand breaks that are most concerning as they will lead to a radical increase in inflammation and virtually all degenerative diseases.
The good news is your body has the ability to repair this damaged DNA with a family of enzymes called poly ADP ribose polymerase or PARP It is a very effective repair system and works wonderfully to repair the damage as long as it has enough fuel in the form of NAD+.
The bad news is many of us are running low on this fuel. When excess peroxynitrate activates PARP to repair the DNA damage, it consumes NAD+, and if you run out, you can’t repair the damage. This appears to be a central cause for most of the diseases we now see in the modern world.
Optimizing your NAD+ levels may be the single most important strategy for improving your mitochondrial health. The first step is to reduce NAD+ consumption by the correct diet (low in processed foods and net carbohydrates and higher in healthy fats), along with EMF avoidance, as recent research shows NAD+ levels dramatically drop when exposed to EMFs.
Time restricted eating is also very helpful, as is exercise, both of which are powerful, inexpensive and safe ways to boost your NAD+ level.
Helpful Strategies to Limit EMF Damage
In “EMF*D” I also cover the Nrf2 pathway and the importance of minerals such as magnesium to limit the biological damage caused by EMFs. As explained in this interview, upregulating your Nrf2 pathway activates genes that have powerful antioxidant effects, thus helping protect against EMF damage, while magnesium — which is a natural calcium channel blocker — helps reduce the effects of EMF on your VGCCs.
On a side note, molecular hydrogen tablets are an excellent source of ionic elemental magnesium. Each tablet provides about 80 milligrams of ionic elemental magnesium.
Addressing EMF Pollution — A 21st Century Health Imperative
There’s no doubt in my mind that EMF exposure is an important lifestyle component that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health, which is why I spent three years writing “EMF*D.”
My aim was to create a comprehensive and informative guide, detailing not only the risks, but also what you can do to mitigate unavoidable exposures. If you know or suspect you might already be developing a sensitivity to EMFs (full-blown hypersensitivity can often strike seemingly overnight), mitigating your exposures will be particularly paramount.
Many sufferers become obsessed with finding solutions, as the effects can be severely crippling. My book can be a valuable resource in your quest for relief.
The EMF Experts website6 also lists EMF groups worldwide, to which you can turn with questions, concerns and support. Should you need help remediating your home, consider hiring a trained building biologist to get it done right.
Brian Hoyer, a leading EMF expert7 and a primary consultant for “EMF*D” also has a company called Shielded Healing that can provide a thorough analysis of the EMF exposure in your home, and help you devise a remediation plan.
Time series analysis of New Zealand data supports a relationship between mRNA vaccination and death that is consistent with a German autopsy study.
On 14th December 2022, Medsafe (NZ Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority) released its 46th report into the safety of Covid vaccines entitled “Adverse events following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines”. The report covered safety signals up to 30th November 2022.
This report contained new advice about the risk of death following mRNA vaccination. Medsafe’s assessment began as follows:
“By chance, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly. Therefore, part of our review process includes comparing natural death rates to observed death rates following vaccination, to determine if there are any specific trends or patterns that might indicate a vaccine safety concern.”
The report comes after months of speculation concerning record levels of excess all cause mortality in New Zealand affecting all ages, currently running at 15% above historical levels.
After dropping the bombshell news, Medsafe goes through an entirely bogus and unscientific process designed to reassure the public that there is nothing to worry about. Medsafe compares the number of deaths reported to CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring) within 21 days of vaccination to the background rate of deaths from natural causes. In doing so, it omits to mention (but does so elsewhere) that CARM reports are voluntary and massively underreported by an estimated factor of 20 times. As a result there is nothing at all reassuring about this safety report.
Are There Other Reasons to Be Concerned? Yes, Many:
1. Medsafe reports, “There have been no deaths reported for the Vaxzevria or Nuvaxovid vaccines.” So why are they happening after the Pfizer vaccine?
2. Autopsies are not routinely performed in New Zealand following deaths proximate to vaccination. A recently published German study Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination reports 16% of deaths within 20 days of mRNA vaccination exhibit definitive causal symptoms of acute myocarditis, a known adverse effect of Pfizer Covid vaccination. So why is there no concerted effort here in NZ to investigate by routinely performing autopsies?
3. The Ministry of Health has consistently refused/omitted to record vaccine status on death certificates or make CARM reporting mandatory. This makes it very difficult to scientifically and reliably investigate any causal relationship between mRNA vaccination and death or serious illness. On the 17th December 2021 the director of the Covid immunisation programme wrote to me on behalf of Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health, saying “An accurate measurement of all adverse events is not required”.
In the light of today’s Medsafe admission, that’s damning. Incredibly Dr. Bloomfield has just been appointed the inaugural chair of a new public policy impact institute at the University of Auckland, proposing to translate and apply research into policies that directly impact communities—but he doesn’t subscribe to accuracy??? Most people do, especially academics.
4. Medsafe argues that temporal correlation between deaths and vaccination does not prove a causal relationship between them. They, along with epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker, suggest that Covid infection or pre-existing health conditions are more likely to be causally connected to deaths following vaccination. There are in fact other relevant analyses which can determine whether there is a relationship between mRNA vaccination and proximate deaths. Among these, powerful techniques of time series analysis can discover whether deaths are consistently occurring during specific intervals of time after vaccination. This would provide strong support for a causal relationship.
Among the world’s nations, New Zealand is in a unique position to undertake this sort of analysis. In 2021 New Zealand had very few Covid infections (almost none) but the majority of the population were vaccinated over a period of eight months. Therefore deaths recorded during much of 2021 in New Zealand cannot be ascribed to any effect of Covid infection.
Preliminary data from 2021 has been analysed to investigate the proposition that mRNA vaccination resulted in deaths. This shows there is a significant (p=0.045) relationship between number of vaccines administered by week and weekly deaths at a lag of one week. In other words, there is a statistically significant increased chance of dying within a few days of vaccination. Download the study here. Despite the preliminary nature of the data in this study, the findings of this study are consistent with the findings of German autopsies. Therefore there should be more rigorous study of stored data to further test these findings
There are other simple methods to analyse death data. For example taking the date of inoculation for each individual as a notional point in time around which all death data can be assessed for entire cohorts of individuals. This would reveal whether death rates before and after inoculation differ.
5. The time series analysis does not preclude the possibility that other deaths at longer time intervals after an inoculation date may be occurring as a result of mRNA vaccination. Unprecedented rates of all cause mortality suggest this is likely to be the case. Unfortunately, the New Zealand Ministry of Health is not releasing data on causes of hospitalisation by category of illness. There is evidence we have previously reported based on US defence personal data and insurance statistics, and on UK ONS data, indicating that incidence of neurological disorders, cancers, cardiac events, and strokes have increased.
Medsafe’s position on vaccine safety has clearly shifted during the two months since it last published a safety report, but has it realised the importance of more reliable causal assessments? Apparently not. The NZ public is being kept in the dark about vaccine safety as it has been for the last two years. Bland assurances of safety continue without foundation in fact.
Can mRNA Vaccination Be a Trigger Event for Death if You Are Already Sick or Elderly?
The wording of the December 14th Medsafe warning is strange and ambiguous: “..some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly”. So are the elderly especially liable to die after vaccination because of vaccination or because they are elderly? We aren’t told.
Aside from the obviously elevated rates of excess all cause deaths, anecdotal reports from rest home staff suggest this is the case. Emergency vehicles and helicopters are answering more frequent calls. Hospitals are overwhelmed and unable to cope. Whistleblowers among nurses are talking about overflowing cardiac wards. A top UK cardiologist has suggested that the evidence of harm is overwhelming and irrefutable. Funeral home workers in New Zealand and overseas have spoken publicly about strange rubbery clots in arteries which have been confirmed by experienced pathologists in the USA. Statistically improbable increases in life insurance claims data have been noted. Sudden unexplained deaths have a high profile in the media. The message is consistent—something unprecedented and very concerning is going on.
Despite having multiple sources of data and methods of analysis available to it. Medsafe has relied for two years on a single obviously flawed method of comparing CARM data to background rates, despite admitting CARM data is underreported. How strange is that? This deficiency is fatal to Medsafe’s claims of safety. It is scientifically unjustifiable and it wouldn’t meet publication criteria.
There is no possible justification for omitting to use more reliable forms of causal investigation. Medsafe has avoided public accountability by refusing to debate the issues publicly, omitting publication of key health data, massaging published data, and unforgivably accusing critics of spreading disinformation. These approaches are worthy of a dictatorship but not a modern democracy.
Note: Due to censorship of Dr Mercola’s articles he archives them to paid sub soon after publishing. I’ve therefore published this in its entirety however you may find the source link will no longer work. EWR
From Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glance
The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on grains and have made headway in genetically engineered (GE) seafood. The next targets include lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes
Biomilq, made from cultured breast tissue, will be marketed as a breast milk substitute
The company Helaina is working on creating glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk.” Those proteins can then be added to a variety of infant formulas, seniors’ nutrition and, eventually, all sorts of foods
The justification for creating synthetic milk substitutes is, of course, preventing and reversing “climate change.” That’s the justification used to sell virtually all fake foods. In reality, however, they will perpetuate and worsen adverse effects on the environment
Lab-created foods are ultraprocessed and therefore qualify as junk food. Fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet
The starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product
The globalist technocrats are intent on monopolizing the entire food supply. They already have a monopoly on genetically engineered (GE) grains and have made headway in GE seafood. The next targets are lab-grown meats and dairy substitutes. There’s even a lab-made breast milk alternative on the way called Biomilq, which is made from cultured breast tissue.1
Another company, Helaina, aims to create glycoproteins “identical to those found in breast milk,”2 which can then be added to a variety of infant formulas. They may also be used in seniors’ nutrition and eventually, all sorts of foods.
Many familiar globalists are invested in these faux dairy ventures. Biomilq investors, for example, include Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Masayoshi Son, Jack Ma, Michael Bloomberg and Marc Benioff.3
The first Biomilq product is expected to be ready for the market within the next three to five years.4 Other animal-free milk products are expected to hit the shelves sometime between 2023 and 2024.5,6 That includes ice cream made with lab-grown diary, which will go into Ben & Jerry’s product line.7
In the Environmental Health Symposium video above, Alan Lewis reviews what goes into the making of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology goes by many names, including “gene edited fermentation” and “precision fermentation products.”
While that sounds fairly innocuous, synthetic biology manufacturers rarely ever discuss what goes into the feed they use to grow the target organism, or what happens to the waste at the end of the fermentation process. That’s understandable, as both raise a number of serious questions.
What Are the Base Ingredients?
As explained by Lewis, the starting ingredients in fermented synthetic biology products are cheap sugars derived from GE corn and soy. All GE crops are grown in environmentally destructive monocultures with taxpayer subsidies, and use loads of herbicides such as glyphosate, pesticides like neonicotinoids and synthetic fertilizers. As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues that end up in the final product.
In addition to a base of sugars, hundreds of other ingredients may be added to the ferment in order to produce the desired end product, such as a certain protein, color, flavor or scent.
Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.
As explained by Lewis, the most-often used microorganism in the fermentation process is E.coli. The E.coli is gene-edited to produce the desired compound through its digestive process. It also needs to be antibiotic-resistant, since it needs to survive the antibiotics used to kill off other undesirable organisms in the vat.
Aside from the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also be spitting out any number of non-target metabolites that have completely unknown environmental consequences and health effects.
How Are Synthetic Biology Ferments Created?
As explained by Lewis, the various “feed” ingredients are placed in a fermentation bioreactor set at 87 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for anywhere from 24 to hundreds of hours to grow the target microorganism. The target organisms in the ferment consume the nutrients they need, and what’s left over after those organisms are extracted is hazardous biowaste.
Importantly, while traditional fermentation processes, such as the making of beer, produces waste products that are edible by animals, compostable and pose no biohazard, the same cannot be said for these GMO synthetic biology ferments. The biowaste must first be deactivated, and then it must be securely disposed of. It cannot go into a landfill.
It’s important to realize that they are creating GMO organisms that have never existed on earth before, and these organisms and their waste are neither edible nor compostable, and there are unknown risks involved with unintentional or intentional release of these organisms into the environment.
They may also result in novel foodborne illnesses. And, since antibiotics are used to prevent the growth of undesirable organisms in the ferment, antibiotic-resistant organisms are automatically integrated into the final product. The types of foodborne illness that might be caused by gene-edited E.coli and its metabolites are anyone’s guess at this point. Nobody knows what such illness might look like.
The Fake Justification for Fake Foods
The justification for creating synthetic biology for food, including milk substitutes, is to prevent and reverse “climate change.” As reported by CNBC in June 2020:8
“Biomilq co-founder and CEO Michelle Egger … and her co-founder, CSO Leila Strickland, hope that the breast milk produced by Biomilq from culturing mammary epithelial cells will help reduce the carbon footprint from the global infant formula market …
‘Right now, by the estimations we have been able to make, at least 10% of the dairy market globally ends up in infant formula,’ Eggers said. ‘That means per-infant-fed formula in the U.S., 5,700 metric tons of CO2 are produced, and 4,300 gallons of freshwater are consumed each year to feed a child. Parents want to do what’s best for their kids but shouldn’t have to decide between feeding their children and protecting the planet.'”
While the push for synthetic biology is built on the idea that it will somehow save the environment from the ravages of factory farming, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and monocultures, it’s incredibly misleading, because it doesn’t address the fact that there are environmentally beneficial ways to farm, and we really should switch to those instead of transitioning into factory laboratories where everything that comes out of it is a biohazard.
In February 2021, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit group behind the alternative protein industry, released a techno-economic analysis of cultivated meat, which was prepared by consulting firm CE Delft.9 In it, they developed a model to reduce the current costs of cultured meat production down to a point that would make it economically feasible in full-scale plants by 2030, a model they said is “feasible.”
In attempting to create cultured meat on the scale that would be necessary to feed the world, logistical problems are numerous and, possibly, insurmountable. There are waste products — catabolites — to deal with, as even cultured cells excrete waste that is toxic.
Oxygen and nutrients must also be adequately distributed to all the cells, something that’s difficult in a large reactor. Stirring the cells faster or adding more oxygen may help, but this can cause fatal stress to the cells.10
The environmental “benefits” are also on shaky ground when you factor in soy production as well as the use of conventional energy sources. When this is factored in, GFI’s life-cycle analysis found that cultured meat may actually be worse for the environment than conventionally produced chicken and pork.11,12
Repeat of a Failed System
Yet, the push for the creation of synthetic biology continues. In the foreword to Navdanya International’s report “False Solutions That Endanger Our Health and Damage the Planet,” Vandana Shiva details how lab-grown foods are catastrophic for human health and the environment, as they are repeating the mistakes already made with industrial agriculture:13
“In response to the crises in our food system, we are witnessing the rise of technological solutions that aim to replace animal products and other food staples with lab-grown alternatives. Artificial food advocates are reiterating the old and failed rhetoric that industrial agriculture is essential to feed the world.
Real, nutrient-rich food is gradually disappearing, while the dominant industrial agricultural model is causing an increase in chronic diseases and exacerbating climate change.
The notion that high-tech, ‘farm free’ lab food is a viable solution to the food crisis is simply a continuation of the same mechanistic mindset which has brought us to where we are today — the idea that we are separate from and outside of nature.
Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to ‘stuff’ that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process, both the planet’s health and our health have been nearly destroyed.”
Lab-Made Foods Are Junk Foods
It’s important to realize that all lab-created “foods” are ultraprocessed, and will likely impart the same kind of ill health effects as other ultraprocessed foods. In 2018, Friends of the Earth (FOE), a grassroots environmental group, released a report that posed critical questions about the trend toward synthetic biology. In it, they stressed the highly-processed nature of these products:14
“Various ‘processing aids’ are employed to make some of these products, including organisms (like genetically engineered bacteria, yeast and algae) that produce proteins, and chemicals to extract proteins.
For example, chemicals like hexane are used to extract components of a food, like proteins (from peas, soy, corn etc.) or compounds (from genetically engineered bacteria) to make xanthan gum … disclosure of these ingredients is not required.
Other processing aids (e.g. bacteria, yeast, algae), including those that are genetically engineered to produce proteins, are also not currently required to be disclosed on package labeling. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the inputs and impact of their use.”
Basically, what the globalist cabal is attempting to do is to eliminate conventional farming methods like raising cattle for beef and dairy products, and replace them with synthetic, patented reproductions. In short, they’re taking whole foods and turning them into ultraprocessed junk foods, all while trying to convince you the junk food is healthier for you.
Synthetic Biology Is Part of a Control Scheme
Aside from the potential health hazards, lab-grown foods rely on monocultured crops that destroy the soil, resulting in carbon release. So, right there, the climate change justification falls apart. Since synthetic biology relies on GMO monoculture, it creates the very things they claim to counteract: environmental degradation that results in climate change.
As noted by Lewis, synthetic biology, which is the latest addition to the patented, genetically modified organism (GMO) food system, also results in a “massive shift in ownership and concentration of wealth … and control over our food supply.”
In short, synthetic biology creates reliance on industry that can then be used to manipulate and control the population in any number of ways. In the long term, people will eventually lose the know-how of producing their own food using traditional methods, and this may well be part of the plan.
The globalist cabal intends to create a one world government, and what better control tool than having everyone completely dependent on the state for all of its food?
Protect Your Health by Avoiding Frankenfoods
The drive for plant-based alternatives to real animal food, be it meat or dairy, isn’t due to health, or even to support vegan or vegetarian diets. Those truly interested in eating a plant-based diet can do so by eating real plants, after all, and in so doing can enjoy the many health benefits that eating plant foods provides. No, it’s about creating a system of control through food. It’s also a way to control people’s health.
It’s already known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,15 but manufactured fake meat and dairy may also pose additional unknown risks.16 The benefactor of ill health, of course, is Big Pharma.
The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet. Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death.
The fact is, fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultraprocessed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet. So, if you want to really protect your health and the environment, skip pseudofoods that require patents and stick to those found in nature instead.
From gmwatch.org Dr Ray Seidler explains why caution is needed
Recently the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the commercial production and sale of a new purple coloured genetically modified (GM) tomato, known as the “purple tomato”. The US Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for food safety, has yet to approve it.[1] Here, once again, we have an unnecessary food product, genetically engineered for patent protection – a financially motivated concept – and without human safety testing.
Anthocyanins are a group of water-soluble phenolic pigments that give the tomato its purple colour. It is not a dominant group of compounds in red tomatoes. The purple tomato is genetically engineered to cause over-expression of this particular group of polyphenolic anthocyanin pigments.
There are already numerous (heritage) varieties of natural purple tomatoes, so why would we need another one that is genetically engineered? The heritage varieties have anthocyanins mostly concentrated in their skin, whereas the GM variety has them all the way through the fruit – hence the unusually high levels.
The producers of the purple tomato are quoted as saying, “The tomatoes may… mark a turning point for genetically modified foods nationwide. The engineered trait is meant to entice the shopper, not the farmer.” The inventors, Professors Cathie Martin and Jonathan Jones, have formed a private spinout company, Norfolk Plant Sciences, to sell the GM tomato seeds.
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), “has determined that Norfolk Plant Sciences’ “modified tomato is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk relative to its [non-GM] comparator”. Increased risk of being a plant pest is the wrong issue to evaluate risk assessments of GM foods and doesn’t come close to representing the whole spectrum of risks from cultivated GM crops, but that is what the USDA regulation requires. If they are not a plant pest, the USDA thinks they must be OK for environmental release and can be grown commercially.
When consumed in moderation, anti-inflammatory compounds like anthocyanins can have health benefits. But too much of a good thing may not be good. It has been demonstrated that over-consumption of anthocyanins (e.g. when taken as pill supplements) may cause kidney, liver, and thyroid hormone health effects. Anthocyanins are part of a group of compounds called polyphenols, which may also limit or interfere with iron absorption.
The average American consumes around 12.5 milligrams of these antioxidants per day. The anthocyanin content from the GM tomato averages about 500mg/100gm of fresh fruit, some 40 times more than the daily average consumption. One hundred grams of tomato is less than half a cup. Other naturally purple coloured fruits (sweet cherries, blackberries, strawberries, red raspberries, black grapes) contain anthocyanins in the range of 3-143mg/100gm, up to 160-fold less than the GM purple tomato.
A mini-review from Harvard University and University of Melbourne scientists asserts the need for increased regulation and guidelines for polyphenol consumption and supplementation in order to ensure that consumers remain safe and informed about polyphenols (like anthocyanins). When taken in pill form it may be easily possible to exceed safe levels, potentially causing serious ailments. For example, one commercial pill formulation prepared from sour cherries recommends two pills, with a resulting daily dose of 40mg of anthocyanins. This 40mg per day might be a concern to the Harvard scientists, but it represents only 8% of the 500mg level found in 0.4 cups of the fresh GM tomato.
The US Food and Drug Administration allows health claims for antioxidant nutrients with an established Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) – for example, vitamins A and C. But polyphenols are not a vitamin and nor do they have an RDI. Polyphenols are often sold as nutritional supplements (pills), which are minimally regulated in the US, meaning a greater number of functional claims can be made. There are currently no regulatory recommendations for the quantity of consumption of polyphenols in foods.
The potential for the consumption of deleterious levels of polyphenols is especially of concern with supplements (pills) and may happen through over-indulgence in certain foods. Some manufacturers recommend pill intakes over 100-fold higher than those currently associated with a Western diet. In some cases, supplementation trials of antioxidants have been associated with adverse effects, including increased mortality or stroke. The current lack of “nutritional supplement” regulations in the US may contribute to overhyped claims, potentially resulting in over consumption of pills or overconsumption of a fad food like the new GM purple tomato at potentially harmful levels.
In the US, stickers are placed on many foods, especially fresh vegetables and fruits, indicating how they were produced. If it is labelled with 5 digits beginning with an 8, it ain’t great: It’s genetically engineered and likely contains pesticides. If it is labelled with 4 digits beginning with a 3 or 4, close the door and walk away (it’s conventionally grown and probably contains pesticides). If it is labelled with 5 digits beginning with a 9, it should be fine (it’s organic).[2] A non-GMO label means it’s been tested and found not to contain genetically engineered genes.
Lastly, we should not forget that Jackson County, Oregon, where I live, is one of eight GMO-free counties in the United States. Despite a challenge to the original 2014 ordinance that prohibits the planting of GM seeds and passed by County voters by a margin of 2:1, subsequent legal challenges failed and the ordinance stands. This means no GM purple tomato seeds can be legally planted in Jackson County, Oregon. However, we should also not forget that the purple tomato can be sold in local stores. Limited distribution in the US is expected in 2023.
I advise shoppers to treat GM purple tomatoes with caution.
GMWatch editor’s notes
1. In the FDA’s mind, it does “approve” foods for sale. However, with GM foods, the FDA doesn’t approve these foods as safe in its own estimation. It only undertakes a voluntary (voluntary to the company applicant) review of a GM food and sends a “no questions” letter to the company applying to sell the GM food if it has no further questions. In the letter, it reminds the company that it is the company’s responsibility, not that of the FDA, to only to put safe foods on the market.
2. According to US-based Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, the numbers system is “a voluntary system created by a produce marketing association to help with inventory control, in case any company wants to label products as GMOs. It hasn’t ever been used, to my knowledge. In an interview with the association, they said it was never designed for consumer identification.” CBAN also notes on their website: “There is no code for GMOs. The code number ‘8’ is NO LONGER USED FOR GMOS: The International Federation for Produce Standards set aside a number (8) for identifying GM foods but it was not being used and was changed in 2015 to identify conventionally produce (not organic) food. The code number ‘9’ denotes organic produce: This code distinguish between organic and conventionally produced fresh fruits and vegetables. Organic food is produced without the use of any genetically modified organisms. Organic produce is identified with a number that begins with ‘9’: for example, 4011 identifies a conventionally grown papaya and 94011 identifies an organically grown papaya. But organic food is already identified with the national Canada Organic standard logo.”
Dr Ray Seidler has taught and conducted research at five major US universities. He spent half his career as a professor of microbiology at Oregon State University and another 16 years as a senior research scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While at the EPA he headed the US’s first genetically engineered organism risk assessment program. He has published over 150 peer reviewed articles on various aspects of environmental microbiology. He is currently retired.
Little NZ baby Will Savage is in need of a heart operation. His parents wishing to ‘err on the side of caution’ desire non covid-vaxxed blood for him and even have donors lined up to supply. Starship Hospital medics are saying jabbed blood or no op for him.
Te Whatu Ora Health NZ have applied for guardianship of Will.
You can read/watch more on this at the links here.
Note: it’s difficult to know whether or not you are eating GM products in NZ because there’s no requirement to label them. Soy is largely GM. Personally I avoid soy unless it’s organic, similarly corn I avoid. GM corn crops were slipped into NZ under Helen Clarke’s watch back in 2000 or thereabouts. Read Seeds of Distrust by Nicky Hager. Also Hard to Swallow by Jeffrey Smith. I made a few inquiries a few years back to the producers of poultry and pork and neither could guarantee non-GM as their feed was unlabeled. EWR
In a new revelation reported by GMWatch it has been found that a rat feeding study published in 2008 found that GM soy harms the pancreas, confirming earlier findings in mice.
In 2002 and 2003 the Italian scientist Manuela Malatesta published two groundbreaking studies showing damage to the pancreas of mice fed GM soybeans for long-term periods of up to eight months. The GM-fed mice also suffered damaged liver and testes function.
Malatesta paid dearly for her efforts, as she was forced out of her job at the university where she’d worked for ten years and was unable to obtain funding to follow up her experiments.
Malatesta’s studies are well known to those who have followed the troubled history of animal feeding studies with GM foods. But what is less well known is that the pancreatic studies were followed up a few years later in the 2008 study by Mexican researchers – who confirmed her findings.
GM soy is one of the most widely grown GM crops in the world and accounts for over 90% of US-grown soy. It is engineered to survive being sprayed with toxic glyphosate weedkiller. It is not known whether the adverse effects associated with the GM soy diet in either study was caused by the GM crop or the weedkiller, or both.
Pancreas damage
The Mexican study was of a shorter duration – up to 30 days instead to Malatesta’s eight months – and was in rats. The study was led by Ana M. Calderón de la Barca of the Mexican government’s food research agency CIAD.
Calderón de la Barca’s team found that GM soy protein isolate harmed the pancreas, as evidenced by the damaged structure and function of pancreatic cells called acinar cells – specialised structures that synthesise, store, and secrete digestive enzymes. The control group of rats eating non-GM soy protein isolate showed no such effects.
Some of the changes in the GM soy protein-fed rats reflected the symptoms of pancreatitis – inflammation of the pancreas, a disease that, in humans, affects digestion and can cause nausea, vomiting and severe pain.
Analysis at a molecular level supported the histological findings of pancreatitis caused by the GM soy. A known marker for pancreatitis is pancreatitis-associated protein (PAP). An increase in PAP messenger RNA (mRNA) and consequent increase in PAP protein indicates acute pancreatitis, a form of the disease in which the pancreas becomes inflamed over a short period of time.
“Recovery” not reassuring
The GM-fed rats started showing harmful changes to the pancreatic acinar cells as soon as five days after starting the GM soy diet. However, they recovered after 30 days, while still on the GM soy diet, as the changes in pancreatic cells returned to normal. The researchers interpreted this phenomenon as “a mild pancreatic injury with an adaptive response”.
GMWatch does not find this recovery reassuring, as we don’t believe it makes sense to injure the body’s organs, even temporarily, just by eating food. The researchers agree – they pointed out in their conclusion that there’s no way of knowing what would happen if the rats – or the humans that they are supposed to represent in such studies – continued eating GM soy over the long term. They might similarly recover, or they might not.
Importance of microscopic examination of organs
Animal growth and protein efficiency (amount of weight the animal puts on for each unit of protein eaten) for both non-GM and GM soybean diets did not show differences. This is a similar finding to those of previous studies, including Monsanto’s own study, conducted to support commercialisation of GM soy.
The Monsanto “safety assurance” study concluded that the nutritional value of GM soy was equal to that of non-GM soy, though interestingly it also found damage to pancreatic cells in the rats fed unprocessed GM soy (inflammation and death of acinar cells), which, however, the authors dismissed as unrelated to the GM diet.
The Mexican study, as well as Malatesta’s and others, show the importance of looking at GM-fed animals’ organs on the microscopic (histopathological) level, as this is where otherwise invisible harm can show up.
Safeguards may be removed from new experimental GM foods
It’s useful to remind ourselves of these studies as governments and GMO industry lobbyists move to remove safeguards from a new experimental generation of GM foods and crops amid claims that they are safe. Assurances that new GM gene-edited foods, crops and animals, unlike the first generation GM crops tested by the Mexican team, don’t contain foreign genes or DNA are lies. Gene-edited GMOs can unintendedly incorporate fragments of foreign DNA in their genome, which can persist in the final product, or they can be contaminated by foreign DNA present in materials used in tissue culture. In addition, gene editing can be used to deliberately insert foreign DNA.
However, the risks of new GM gene-edited foods and crops are not confined to the insertion of foreign DNA, but can result from the most apparently small and simple gene “edit”, the gene disruption type known as SDN-1, as a scientific review shows.
As far as we know, no one has carried out an animal feeding study with new gene-edited foods, crops, and animal products such as meat and dairy. So their safety profile remains unknown.
Note: it’s what corporations do …. with impunity. Watch The Corporation movie. EWR
From eclinik.net
Why is Big Pharma investigating their own covid vaccines for myocarditis side effects if the vaccines were already supposedly tested and proven safe and effective?
Both Pfizer and Moderna have announced that they will be undertaking studies to determine the longer term risks of Myocarditis (an inflammatory condition of the heart which can lead to death) for people who have been injected with the mRNA based covid vaccines. The decision comes after the release of multiple medical studies which show a correlation and causation between the vaccines and an exponential increase in heart problems, specifically among men 40 years old and younger. Only a year ago the link between covid vaccinations and myocarditis was widely denied.
Studies also show that myocarditis risk increases with the number of boosters a person has taken.
New findings add to other observations linking glyphosate and Roundup to cancer. Report: Claire Robinson
Glyphosate and Roundup lead to changes in gene regulatory microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs) linked with cancer, newly published data show. The analysis, of a type known as small RNA profiling, was conducted in liver tissue from rats exposed to glyphosate and Roundup MON 52276, an EU-approved formulation, over 90 days.
In the new results, Roundup MON 52276 was found to reduce the levels of miR-22 and miR-17, whereas glyphosate decreased the level of miR-30 and increased the amount of miR-10. These changes in miRNAs are important because they are known to alter the expression of crucial cell growth regulator genes, which can lead to the development of cancer.
A gene function that is central to multiple cellular processes, p53, is a particular target of these miRNAs. The miRNA changes can lead to alterations in p53 gene expression, as has been found in multiple types of cancer in humans.
The link between the changes in miRNAs and p53 gene expression is consistent with the findings within the same study showing gene expression changes in Roundup- and glyphosate-exposed rats. The gene expression changes strongly imply a p53 pathway DNA damage response. DNA damage is a major risk factor for cancer development.
Furthermore, increases in miR-10 have been found in other studies to be associated with leukemia, a blood cancer. The increase in mir-10 caused by glyphosate exposure in the experimental animals may provide one mechanism by which users of Roundup have succumbed to another blood cancer, known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These results could strengthen the legal cases of the cancer sufferers in the US who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they believe that exposure to Roundup caused their disease. Three such cases have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Study lead Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London said, “The new data showing changes in miRNA patterns add yet more evidence to the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and Roundup. What is more, our results show that it is not just Roundup, which is a mixture of glyphosate with various additives, that has carcinogenic potential, but also glyphosate alone.”
Previously reported findings
The new data confirm and build on previously reported findings that were published as a pre-print in April 2021, which GMWatch reported on. The study with the additional findings has now passed peer review and is published in the prestigious journal, Toxicological Sciences.
The pre-print version of the study had reported that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, including DNA damage – and these effects occur at doses assumed by regulators to have no adverse effects. The data suggest that the DNA damage was caused by oxidative stress, a destructive imbalance in the body that can cause a long list of diseases. Oxidative stress is the likely cause of the damage seen to the liver, leading to an inflammatory (immune type) response, which in turn can cause DNA damage.
Crucially, the study found that the isolated active ingredient of Roundup – glyphosate – damaged DNA. This finding, according to the EU’s pesticide law, should result in a ban on glyphosate and all its formulations.
All these findings are carried over into the peer-reviewed version of the study.
How the study was done
The study builds on the findings of a previous one by the same authors. In the previous study, the researchers had compared the effects in rats of MON 52276 with those of its “active ingredient”, glyphosate, tested alone. The findings showed that glyphosate and Roundup herbicide, given at doses that regulators say are safe, resulted in the animals suffering gut microbiome disturbances and oxidative stress, with indications that the liver was affected and possibly damaged.
In the current followup study, the researchers analysed the liver tissue from the same rats to see if damage had indeed occurred.
The researchers carried out some of the standard tests that regulators require the pesticide industry to conduct to gain market authorisation for their products – namely blood biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue).
They also carried out in-depth tests (molecular profiling) that are not demanded by regulators or typically carried out by the industry. One type of test looked for adverse effects at a profound molecular level of biological functioning through analysis of gene expression (transcriptomics) and epigenetics (DNA methylation) in the liver and kidneys. Another type of test, using specialised genetically engineered cell lines, was intended to highlight changes in function linked with cancer formation.
In addition, the researchers carried out tests that can detect direct damage to DNA.
Roundup causes fatty liver disease – confirmed
The standard tests, histopathology and blood biochemistry analysis, found adverse effects from the Roundup treatment, namely a dose-dependent and statistically significant increase in fatty liver disease and liver cell death.
The finding of fatty liver disease from exposure to the MON 52276 formulation of Roundup confirmed the same researchers’ previous observation that an ultra-low dose of another Roundup formulation, Roundup Grand Travaux Plus, administered to the same strain of Sprague-Dawley rats over a 2-year period, caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
An increase in liver and kidney lesions was also detected in animals treated with glyphosate, although this did not reach statistical significance. However, the authors commented that an experiment of longer duration using more animals may have resulted in statistical significance.
Non-standard tests most revealing
Worryingly for public health, it was the non-standard molecular profiling tests that are not required by pesticide regulators that were most revealing.
First, Roundup was found to alter the expression of 96 genes in the liver specifically linked to DNA damage and oxidative stress, as well as disruption of circadian rhythms or “body clocks”. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. Crucially, a core set of genes whose expression was altered by Roundup was similarly changed in the glyphosate-treated animals. This strongly suggests that the key changes in gene function reflective of oxidative stress and DNA damage was due to glyphosate and not the additional substances (adjuvants) present in the Roundup formulation.
Second, direct DNA damage to the liver was found to increase with glyphosate exposure.
These findings potentially constitute a bombshell that could end the authorisation of glyphosate in the EU. That’s because the EU pesticide regulation (1107/2009) has what’s known as hazard-based cut-off criteria. This means that if a pesticide active ingredient is shown to cause a certain type of harm to health at whatever dose, it must be banned. One of the named types of harm is damage to DNA. The discovery that glyphosate alone damages DNA in a living animal should, if regulators follow the law, result in a ban on the chemical.
Third, both glyphosate and Roundup were found to cause epigenetic changes known as DNA methylation. Epigenetics describes layers of molecular structures associated with DNA that control the underlying function of genes. The defining feature of epigenetic changes is that they can alter how genes work but do not involve changes to the actual DNA sequence. These types of changes were found at over 5,000 genomic sites for glyphosate and over 4,000 for Roundup. This is a concern because such alterations are typically found at high frequency in cancer tissues.
All findings lead to same conclusion
The researchers performed further laboratory tests in mouse cell lines, which are designed to highlight effects that can lead to cancer formation. Glyphosate and three Roundup formulations were assessed in these tester cell lines. It was found that two formulations of Roundup herbicide, but not glyphosate, activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses, both clear markers of carcinogenicity.
Commenting on the totality of the data, Dr Antoniou said, “No matter what molecular measurements we undertook, they all led to the same conclusion: that is, both glyphosate and Roundup are potential carcinogens.”
Other studies, including the industry ones submitted to support regulatory approval of glyphosate, have also found that glyphosate causes cancer in experimental animals. Based on studies in animals and humans, as well as mechanistic data, in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
Other implications of the new study
1. Ending animal testing is not yet feasible
Interestingly, in the new study, glyphosate was shown to damage DNA in living animals but not in the cell culture system. This shows that in vitro lab tests using isolated cells cannot fully substitute for evaluations in a living animal because certain effects will be missed. This is because animals (including humans) are whole organisms whose complexity cannot be replicated in a flask, petri dish, or test tube. While many people (GMWatch included) would like to see an end to animal testing, as long as pesticides and other chemicals are allowed to be released into the environment, such a move would put public health at risk.
2. Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate
In summary, in general Roundup was found to be more toxic than glyphosate, confirming and building on previous observations. However, taken together, the results from the various assays conducted show that both glyphosate and Roundup herbicides activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, causing gene expression changes reflecting oxidative stress and DNA damage. Also, glyphosate alone was clearly able to induce DNA damage.
These findings directly challenge the global regulatory practice of only assessing the isolated declared active ingredient (glyphosate) and not the complete commercial formulations (Roundup) as sold and used.
The study further highlights the power of in-depth molecular profiling “omics” methods to detect changes that are missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements conducted in standardised industry tests on pesticide active ingredients. The study paves the way for future investigations by identifying gene expression changes and altered DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
3. Results could allow survey of human population for glyphosate herbicide exposure
Commenting on the implications of the results for human exposure monitoring, study lead Dr Michael Antoniou said, “The biomarkers we identified (such as the miRNA and gene expression changes) can be tested for in people, but we don’t know if this particular pattern of biomarkers is unique to glyphosate-based herbicide exposure. Thus the biomarkers would need to be correlated with a history of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and measurements of glyphosate in urine.
“If high levels of glyphosate were found in the urine, and this correlated with the biomarkers identified in the new study and the person’s history of glyphosate herbicide exposure, this would indicate that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides might be responsible for any health effects that are both indicated by our findings and found in the person. These findings should be tested first by investigations of herbicide applicators, as their exposure can be high and details of the particular herbicides used are often recorded, which would enable clearer results to be obtained.”
4. “Safe” and “no effect” doses were shown to be harmful
In the 90-day rat feeding study, different groups of animals were fed three different doses of glyphosate and the glyphosate-equivalent dose of Roundup MON 52276. The lowest dose was the concentration that regulators assume to be safe to ingest on a daily basis over a lifetime (the EU acceptable daily intake or ADI: 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The middle dose was the dose that EU regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect (the “no observable adverse effect” level or NOAEL) in industry-sponsored rat feeding studies (50 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The highest dose was 175 mg, the dose that US regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect.
Adverse effects were found from Roundup exposure at all dose levels in a dose-dependent fashion. These findings show that the glyphosate ADI for the EU – and that of the USA, which is even higher – is not safe to ingest. Likewise, it shows that the EU and US regulators were only able to conclude that glyphosate had “no observable adverse effect” at the levels mentioned above because the tests that they require industry to carry out are insufficiently sensitive.
Study supports plaintiffs in Roundup-cancer litigation
Summarising the implications of the study for the Roundup-cancer litigation in the US, Dr Antoniou said, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian animal model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells.
“These findings show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity – transcriptome/epigenome/miRNA changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage – in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the argument that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by the plaintiffs in many of the court cases – non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
Fluoridation of water is promoted as a health measure when the science indicates multiple toxicities. I spoke with one of the unsung New Zealand heroes, Kane Titchener who has volunteered his time to combat the authorities’ attempts to poison our water supplies.
Here is what he said about:
The relationship of fluoridation to vaccination
The effects of fluoride on the brain and IQ
Why your typical doctor or dentist doesn’t know much about fluoride
In 1923 three of America’s largest corporations formed a company to add tetraethyl lead to petrol. They omitted to mention it included lead and simply called their additive ‘ethyl’.
Almost immediately, production workers began to exhibit the discoordination and confusion that mark those severely poisoned by lead. Bill Bryson records that almost immediately, the Ethyl Corporation embarked on a global policy of calm but unyielding denial that would serve it well for decades.
In 2020 the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations introduced biotech experimental injections derived from risky gene therapy research, they called them ‘vaccines’ because vaccines are universally recognised as safe and effective. Their products were neither. Even early recipients had high rates of injury, death, and pregnancy complications. Simultaneously, the manufacturing corporations obfuscated and hid this data and launched a global campaign of public relations and political lobbying on a scale never before seen in the field of public health.
If you think this is a conspiracy theory, think again. Time you looked at our Ministry of Health statistics with an open mind.
The latest MoH data on Covid deaths shows that 53% of the New Zealand population are boosted but account for 71% of Covid deaths, whereas 16% are unvaccinated and account for just 12% of deaths.
Still births per 1,000 in 2021 are up 10% compared to pre-pandemic rates and our birth rate per 1,000 population is down 10%.
Our hospitals and emergency services are still overwhelmed and no one knows quite why. Overseas rates of cancer, cardiac events, and respiratory conditions are up where data is published, but the New Zealand figures are not being made available. Why?
All cause mortality has reached record levels in 2022, at one point 26% above historical levels. The number of excess all-cause deaths greatly exceeds the number attributed to Covid.
“I wouldn’t be running out to get myself boosted. I don’t think it would be particularly useful. I don’t see any evidence to suggest it is going to benefit me.”
And yet MPs are sitting and considering a Bill to allow coroners to avoid recording a cause of death, while MoH is gearing up to regularise mRNA vaccination. In other words, parliament feels that less investigation is called for, not more. Why?
You are possibly also unaware that the origins of the Covid virus are increasingly well understood. A published scientific study has uncovered multiple microbiological signatures of synthetic genetic splicing in the Covid viral DNA, while even heavily pro-vaccine publications like Propublica have located a smoking gun in Chinese documents. Covid-19 came from a lab accident in Wuhan.
I needn’t remind you that the lab leak origin of Covid was labelled a conspiracy theory last year by Te Punaha Matatini. Nor that government with cross party support has poured millions into saturation advertising and MSM coverage telling the public that mRNA technology is safe and effective. It isn’t.
Little has been said recently about the Ardern doctrine that the government should be ‘our one source of truth’. The folly and naivete of this pronouncement from the lectern is now obvious. Science is a process that cannot be rushed to conclusions, it can only be based on evidence. We should not have insisted that the whole population be coerced to participate in experimental biotech interventions.
The purchase agreement we signed with Pfizer included the rider that the government acknowledges that the long term outcome of mRNA vaccination is unknown. The implications of this never filtered down into our pandemic policy. The government chose to endorse safety without evidence. The long term health outcomes of mRNA vaccination and pandemic policy remain unknown.
Repeated representations to government to include vaccination status on death certificates have been ignored. Without this, meaningful research into the effect of pandemic policies is impossible. The implication of a cover up is hard to avoid.
The absence of meaningful public debate, the suppression of a free press, the cancellation of dissenting expert opinion, and the politicisation of science are all hallmarks of a repressive state overreaching itself. It does no credit to New Zealand and endangers the future of our civil society. Time to wake up.
We all have friends and family who still believe their Government is benevolent, who think their response to the pandemic has been marvellous, and the mRNA jab is safe and effective. But, of course, the opposite is the reality: Our Government has declared war on its people. They are working for insane foreigner technocrats, who intend to turn us into a totalitarian state, the vaccine is neither safe nor effective, and they are doing everything they can to hide the extent and gravity of their crimes.
Despite the obvious, in-your-face lying about these crimes, for most people, including myself, comprehending the reality and gravity of the situation is far from easy. But unfortunately, continuing to believe monumental lies is the easier path to follow for many people. They may argue that they are too busy, that they already have too much on their plates to deal with. We are told by the Government and their advisers, like the Pink Lady, who is our expert about everything, that they know better than you or anyone else about what is going on, and to such as extent that they’ll fire and publicly ridicule anyone who questions their truths.
One response is to ask them to do just one thing for you and set aside a little time to plug in their headphones and listen to two podcast-style presentations. After that, you can then have a civil discussion about the issues and agree or disagree but continue to be good friends no matter the outcome.
There are many possible presentations to recommend for the busy person, but here are two which should do the job:
(Unlike other broadcasters like Michael Laws and Sean Plunket, Leighton Smith is renowned for meticulously researching his podcast topics and not talking over his guests.)
Leighton Smith Podcast: Statistician and author Guy Hatchard discusses the distortion of public information, and the age of social engineeringLeighton Smith Podcast: Statistician and author Guy Hatchard discuss the distortion of public information and the age of social engineering
I’ll add here that Guy Hatchard and I go back a long time: We were part of a small group of health professionals who have, on two occasions, prevented the passing of the Natural Health Products Bill, which essentially hijacks natural health products, including ones like also vera, vitamin C and zinc to further the aims of Big Pharma and Medical-Industrial Complex. It just happens that the Minister of Health is about to railroad this legislation through the House this year without adequate consultation. If this legislation passes, practitioners like men may become a thing of the past.
”Dr Nikki Turner, you are murdering people! … Now debate me.” – Dr James Thorp MD: This interview, hosted by a couple of Kiwi broadcasters, Kelvyn Alp and Hannah Spierer, now streaming from a USA-based platform, is a beauty. In this interview, an international medical heavyweight calls out New Zealand’s lightweight medical expert for a head-to-head debate.
As an aside, Alp and Spierers’ broadcasting platform was shut down in New Zealand a few months ago, hence the USA presence now. They are currently on bail defending themselves from prosecution by the NZ Government for holding or sharing objectionable information and face what could be years behind bars. if they lose!
This post from garymoller.com is from 2019 … interesting what has transpired since then. Fourteen councils orderedby those ‘protecting’ us to fluoridate their town supplies. Better to allow those who want it to purchase it. EWR
Please take a few minutes to watch this video that appeared on TVNZ last night.
(Author disclosure: I have damaged teeth – dental fluorosis – due to excess fluoride during childhood. I guess that means I’m biased).
This is a robust study that has been published in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. It can not be dismissed as lightly as TVNZ’s experts have done. There are at least 50 earlier studies that support the findings of this latest study. The Bashash Study is one of these. Please read it then continue to read what I’m writing here.
To quote Martin L Pall, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Medical Sciences at Washington State University, “Putting tens of millions of 5G antennas, without a single biological test of safety, has to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world”. Professor Pall is wrong, however: it is not a stupid idea but a heinous crime if one understands the motive behind this deployment. 5G is a compartmentalized weapons deployment masquerading as a benign technological advance for enhanced communications and faster downloads.
I have acted as a witness and provided statements in several court cases, exposing the lack of any credible evidence that the 5G light-emitting diode (LED) network and planned neural connection to the 5G grid are safe.
This includes nano metamaterial technologies that are contaminating vaccinations, that are not legal or lawful, and that breach a number of international and domestic laws.
Judge Nolan at Newcastle Crown Court stated that “The 5G risk must be debated” and that “This is a democracy and the public have a right to know”.
The evidence I presented to the court defeated the attempt by the local authorities and actors in the British establishment to silence me from providing the published scientific evidence on the risks posed to the public and environment from the 5G urban radar network and its ultimate purpose.
The failed court action taken by the local authority created a publicity storm that helped to highlight the actual risks from the 5G deployment across the world, as well as the total lack of care taken by regulators allowing this 5G deployment.
My involvement with several research and development projects spans my entire working career and includes some of a sensitive nature due to Official Secrets Act 1911 restrictions and therefore I am not at liberty to disclose these in a public domain; suffice to say this work has led to an understanding of Department of Defense (DOD) contracts, the compartmentalization of weapon product design projects, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), whose existence has until recently been obscured and sometimes denied. I.1.
The use of directional microwave radiation weapons by unknown actors on US embassies in Cuba, China and Russia, known as Havana Syndrome, is still not fully recognized by the authorities. Havana Syndrome bears all the hallmarks of microwave radiation emissions, which have left victims suffering significant and irreparable neurological damage, among other injuries. The US government has been unable to keep these weapons secret and recently passed a bill to compensate embassy staff victims. I.2
The US intelligence agencies, in their communications with the Russian government, confirm that they already knew of the existence and capability of microwave radiation weapons and their appeal to their assumed Russian adversaries was for the cessation of the use of these weapons against their embassies. I.3
Is radiation from your cell phone or cell towers harmful for your health? Or the environment? The scientific debate is on-going. Are scientific conclusions tied to the interests of those who fund the studies? How do governments make sure the radiation stays within healthy limits? What happens to insects when 5G is fully rolled out? These questions and many more are explored in this film, Something is in the air. Please consider subscribing. Subtitles can be turned on from the YouTube player.
EWR note: Josh del Sol several years back now (link below) exposed similar to that exposed in this video. The independent research in to safety in particular produces alerts for health risks, the industry funded research predictably find little if any risks. Follow the money folks.
This is because children have thinner skulls, smaller heads, and a higher water content in their brain and tissues.
Vulnerability to the long-term effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is compounded in children and fetuses because they experience rapid brain and immune system development at this age.
Research on Children’s Vulnerability to Cell Phone Radio-frequency Radiation
Children have smaller heads than adults. Cell phones and wireless radiation can go deeper into their brains because children have a shorter distance from their skull to their brain center. Government regulations were based on a 220-pound man’s head, not a child’s head. Our skulls actually slow down wireless as it moves into our brain. The thicker the skull, the more roadblocks to the wireless radiation moving forward. Since children have much thinner skulls than adults, they have less protection. Research shows that children can absorb up to ten times the radiation in the bone marrow of their skulls than adults.
“Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.”- American Academy of Pediatrics
Devra Davis, PhD, MPH In this TEDx presentation, Devra Davis explains the research on cell phone radiation and low sperm count, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.
Dr. Devra Davis is founder and President of Environmental Health Trust. Davis was Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Davis was Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services and appointed to the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board by President Clinton. She served on the Board of Scientific Counselors of the U.S. National Toxicology Program and various advisory committees to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She was part of the team of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with the Honorable Al Gore as she was lead author on research assessing climate mitigation policies.
(NaturalHealth365) In today’s latest installment of “You’ve Got to Be Kidding Me” (alternate title: “Gaslighting 101”), new reports indicate that doctors are witnessing an alarming increase in sudden adult death syndrome (SADS).
While there’s no firmly established link (yet) between SADS and COVID-19 or SADS and COVID shots, the correlation between the pandemic and this frightening uptick in sudden unexplained fatalities among young adults seems too concerning to ignore or write off as coincidence or confirmation bias, at least not without due investigation from public health officials.
Doctors seeing young, seemingly healthy adults drop dead due to sudden unexplained deaths – “unexplained” or simply explanations not allowed?
SADS is generally described as death due to a sudden and unexpected cardiac arrest among young people. A 2013 review article published in Frontiers in Physiology defines it as “sudden death under the age of 40 in the absence of structural heart disease.” A SADS “diagnosis” may be made if a young adult dies “without a known cause after an autopsy and toxicology screen,” adds HealthDesk.org. Family history, genetics, and underlying health conditions like obesity and diabetes have been historically linked to this tragic condition.
However, official data from the United Kingdom suggests that when it comes to this rise in SADS, the mRNA COVID shots might also play a role.
We already know that these shots can harm a person’s heart – thanks to the global vax agenda, “myocarditis” and “heart inflammation” have become household terms. But, after comprehensively analyzing official UK data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), The Daily Exposé has yet again provided some eye-opening insights into a health crisis that seems to be hidden in plain sight (or at least banished from mainstream media).
(NaturalHealth365) Earlier in the pandemic and vax rollout, public health officials acknowledged a potentially deadly vax-caused condition featuring thrombosis (blood clots blocking veins or arteries) plus low platelets (which help form blood clots). While the risk of this serious adverse event – called Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) – is currently considered “extremely rare,” readers are reminded that adverse events post-jab are severely underreported. According to the U.S. government’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “less than one percent [of vax-related adverse events are] reported to the Food and Drug Administration.” So, VITT could very well be more common than officials even realize.
The early jab-rollout era also saw the spread of information about a potentially severe post-mRNA jab heart health problem known as myocarditis. Now, new research confirms that both doses of either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s mRNA injection can put you at risk.
A court in France has found in favour of a farmer who claimed that a 4G antenna was damaging his cows’ health, and has ordered for the antenna to be switched off for two months.
The administrative court in Clermont-Ferrand (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes) ordered the switch-off after Frédéric Salgues, a farmer in Haute-Loire, said he suspected that it was damaging his herd’s health.
The court said that “it is appropriate to order the temporary cessation of the operation of this antenna for a period of two months, taking into account its general impact, with monitoring, by the judicial expert, of the behaviour of the herd, and of the dairy cows in particular, during this period”.
Operator Orange now has three months to act in accordance with the ruling, including stopping the antenna’s operation while ensuring phone coverage, including emergency calls, for Orange users in the area affected.
After the decision, Mr Salgues told the AFP that he hoped his cows would be able to “recover as soon as possible” and called the case ruling “a major relief and a victory”.
Mr Salgues said that since the antenna’s installation in July 2021 – 200 metres away from his farm in Mazeyrat-d’Allier (Haute-Loire) – around 40 of his normally-200-strong herd had died, and milk production had decreased by 15-20% within days of the antenna being switched on.
He said: “There are no medical elements that could [otherwise] explain this brutal drop in milk production.”
Philippe Molhérat, the mayor of Mazeyrat-d’Allier, who had previously authorised the antenna’s installation, testified in favour of the farmer.
He said that he feared “a catastrophe on a human level” and that his “concerns” were growing for the 1,500 inhabitants of his village.
Yet, lawyers for the mobile operators affected by the ruling, which as well as Orange also included Free and Bouygues Telecom, said that there was “no scientific evidence” that there is a link between animal health and electromagnetic fields surrounding mobile phone antennas.
It comes as the rollout of 5G, which promises even faster internet speeds than 4G, has prompted controversy in France. Many antennas have been vandalised, and even been blamed (in a now-debunked theory) for the spread of Covid-19.
Yet, French health and safety agency l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire (Anses) has repeatedly said that current scientific studies suggest that 5G antennas “do not present any notable risks to health because they use frequencies very close to previous generations of connectivity”.
Note: listen to the interviews with the VX injured, no matter how close to the jab the adverse event, victims say the white coats are regularly denying any connection. Listen to the ACC advocate who has spoken out. To word from the Health Forum NZ. The common thread repeated verbatim is … ‘no connection’ or coincidental. Consider signing the petition. Link below. EWR
That the house of representatives in New Zealand formally recognise those harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines.
As of 28 February, 2022 there have been 58,399 reports of adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine in New Zealand. These injuries are recorded on the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring site (CARM/MEDSAFE)
We demand that any adverse reactions reported to CARM are investigated as legitimate vaccine injuries and treated as such until it is conclusively proven otherwise.
Please note that all donations are going to Change.org to boost this petition and not our cause. We are in the middle of setting up a charity which we will update you on this petition once we have everything sorted.
Could this have anything—or everything—to do with the ongoing plague of “sudden deaths” now ravaging humanity worldwide?
Mark Crispin Miller
It’s (seemingly) a lucky thing for Pfizer—and all of its accomplices, including Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci (remember him?), nearly every state and national leader, and almost every journalist, both corporate and “alternative”—that Putin picked this moment to invade Ukraine.
A judge forced the FDA to release Pfizer’s clinical data and it’s worse than you can possibly imagine
The FDA was forced by a judge to release clinical data on the COVID vaccines back in January and so 55,000 pages of documents were just released. The FDA had originally wanted to hide the data for 75 years and release it in 2096 because, of course, the FDA is basically engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The COVID vaccines should never have been approved. This was obvious from the very beginning when animal trials were skipped in the Trump Administration’s ill-fated “Operation War Speed.” And now it’s undeniably true. We have the clinical data, and it’s horrific.
Hiding out in one appendix is the clinical data for Pfizer’s vaccine — which lists 1,291 adverse side effects in alphabetical order. Let’s give you just the bad things that can happen to people who took the Pfizer vaccine that start with the letter “a” to enjoy:
“The MinHealth OIA response just received about Remdesivir. I asked why they chose a treatment of choice that has a concerning risk profile and how they are monitoring this. It turns out they can’t explain.” … Sue Grey (NZ Lawyer)
Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising…
Fluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland — the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ — many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.
What does the 4 billion a year, blockbuster Alzheimer’s drug donepezil (trade name Aricept) have in common with insecticides, chemical weapons and venom? Quite a lot more than consumers taking them have been lead to believe.
How Poisoning Has Become The New Standard of Care
What does the 4 billion dollar a year blockbuster Alzheimer’s drug donepezil (trade name Aricept) have in common with insecticides, chemical weapons and venom? Quite a lot more than consumers taking them have been lead to believe.
As a member of the chemical class known as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors donepezil interferes with the cholinesterase enzyme, preventing the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from breaking down, resulting in an increase in both its levels and duration of action.
While this can result in a temporary increase in memory, there is currently no definitive proof that use of donepezil or other similar agents slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover, 21% of patients on this medication discontinue within 12 months due to serious adverse side effects.
“The truth is: few human studies had been performed on this synthetic chemical since its approval in the 1960s“
(NaturalHealth365) Over the past 70 years, the consumption of highly processed foods has skyrocketed in the United States – and rates of chronic inflammatory disease, such as type 2 diabetes, have soared along with it. (According to the CDC, 34. 2 million Americans, or one in every ten people, now have type 2 diabetes). Researchers say this is no coincidence and that a common food additive, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), may play a role.
A brand-new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Gastroenterology sheds new light on the impact of CMC on human health. The research shows that the chemical – an emulsifier used to prolong shelf life and improve and thicken texture – can disrupt the all-important gut microbiome or community of bacteria living in the intestinal tract. Let’s take a closer look at the study and its implications.
Flipped Media
Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch 
You must be logged in to post a comment.