Tag Archives: Tests

Incredibly, Moderna Experimental mRNA Vaccine Trials being Extended to Children and 6-Month-Old Babies in Texas

Cited by Health Impact News

by Marla Carter
ABC 13 – Houston

“If you want the COVID-19 vaccine and aren’t in line to get it, there are still a number of vaccine trials- some involving kids.

Lakshy Patel is in the eighth grade and going to school virtually hasn’t been easy.

“The WiFi problems, so I really get stressed out. I really want to go back to school,” said Patel, who is also a vaccine trial participant.

Getting the vaccine could help him get back to school in person. It’s one reason Patel is participating in the Moderna trial for adolescents. It’s a two to one ratio of vaccine to placebo.”

There are 100, 12 to 17-year-olds participating in the Moderna adolescent trial through Houston Fights COVID. There are more trials coming, and the groups are now seeking participants as young as six months old.”

READ MORE

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/moderna-experimental-mrna-vaccine-trials-being-extended-to-children-and-6-month-old-babies-in-texas/

Photo: Pixabay.com

Hear Biochemist Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize winner) explain why the PCR test he created cannot diagnose covid

The so called experts know this of course & unfortunately Mr Mullis passed away just prior to the covid plandemic. Hear Spiro Skouras expound with a collection of experts in the field, putting out there not a few facts that the ‘experts’ are ignoring. EWR

Spiro Skouras 141K subscribers

As we approach the one year anniversary of the novel coronavirus outbreak, we find ourselves facing many unanswered questions. We find ourselves worse off in many ways, in comparison to when the outbreak just began, as we receive signals from public health officials and the media to prepare for another lockdown. It appears we are approaching what could to be a perfect storm. The US Presidential Elections, flu season, the arrival of the new experimental COVID vaccine and the prophesied ‘second wave’ of COVID. The big news of the week of course, has been President Trump and the First Lady have both tested positive for COVID. The President has been hospitalized. President Trump’s doctor, said that Trump’s diagnosis was confirmed using the PCR test. Just like virtually every other ‘confirmed case’ we hear reported. But was PCR really developed with the intention of diagnosing infectious diseases? Is PCR capable of diagnosing infectious diseases? How could a test developed almost 40 years ago be used to diagnose a brand new disease found less than one year ago? In this report, we examine this questions in addition to reviewing video clips of multiple doctors weighing in on the subject including the biochemist Kary Mullis who invented PCR and won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for doing so has to say. Why is understanding the test so important? Because it is the driving factor in the fear campaign, that is being driven by the corrupt media and then used by the government to justify the restrictions imposed on our lives. This is a must see report that may change the perception of you, or of someone you may know, regarding the crisis. Links Coronavirus Testing Suspended at Boston Lab Due to Nearly 400 False Positives https://www.activistpost.com/2020/09/… “Dead” Virus Cells Frequently Trigger “False Positives” In Most Common COVID Test, New Study Finds https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitica… Tanzania coronavirus kits raise suspicion after goat and pawpaw test positive https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo… COVID Test Nasal Swab Punctured Woman’s Brain Lining and Caused Brain Fluid to Leak from Her Nose https://www.activistpost.com/2020/10/… Michigan Supreme Court: Governor exceeded powers during coronavirus pandemic https://www.wlns.com/top-stories/mich… Federal judge rules Pennsylvania’s coronavirus orders are unconstitutional https://thehill.com/regulation/court-… Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus? https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-… Kary Mullis, Inventor of the PCR Technique, Dies https://www.the-scientist.com/news-op…

If mask mandates are justified by people “testing positive” for coronavirus, they will NEVER end… because the tests will never stop reporting fake “cases”

(Natural News) We now have proof that the medical fascists intend to never end the mask mandates, lockdowns and forced quarantine camps that they claim are necessary due to covid-19. All those Orwellian measures are being justified by coronavirus “cases” stemming solely from people “testing positive” for the coronavirus. But these tests are largely flawed and produce disturbingly high numbers of false positives. Even when the tests are accurate in terms of a genetic match for the virus, if a person isn’t sick with symptoms, then it’s not a “case” to begin with.

I explain why merely carrying a virus without symptoms of sickness is not a “case” in this important medical science article, which is, of course, banned by Facebook, Google and Twitter.

These positive “cases” are now being used to push global pandemic hysteria, falsely claiming the pandemic is out of control and using that fear to justify endless mask mandates, lockdowns and — soon — vaccine mandates.

LINK:https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-08-23-if-mask-mandates-based-testing-positive-never-end.html

Photo: Pixabay.com

Australian Govt’s OWN WEBSITE admits Covid tests are totally unreliable

Imagine going to a doctor suspecting you may have a serious illness and being told that there are 2 tests available. With the first test, a swab, they do not know, should you record a positive result, whether or not you have the disease. With the second test, a blood test, they know for certain that the test is of no value in detecting the disease.

Would a patient find that situation satisfactory? Obviously not.

Yet that is exactly what the Australian government is admitting is the situation with its coronavirus testing. It is on the Therapeutics Goods Administration web site for “health professionals”:

The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is still being determined.”

And:

There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.”

READ MORE

LINK: https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/05/australian-govts-own-website-admits-covid-tests-are-totally-unreliable/

Image by fernando zhiminaicela from Pixabay

How to inflate covid stats – change the definitions

FOG CITY MIDGE 21.5K subscribers LOOK AT THIS! 👀 Are Coronavirus / COVID-19 cases spiking more because they have CHANGED the way that they are CALCULATED? It sure seems that way. Where is the mainstream media? 😮 Download the document discussed in the video here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8jy9hyl6iqj… Join The Conversation! Follow Me On Instagram @fogcitymidge http://www.instagram.com/fogcitymidge Follow Me On Twitter @fogcitymidge http://www.twitter.com/fogcitymidge Like My Facebook Page /fogcitymidge http://www.facebook.com/fogcitymidge Are Coronavirus Case Numbers Being Manipulated? https://youtu.be/_7xzjd583uo#covid19#coronavirus#trump

“Your papers, please…” Immunity certificates: a load of nonsense and a covert op

by Jon Rappoport

April 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

—Once again, in this article, I step into the world of official gibberish about the epidemic and the virus and tests and so on. I point out the internal contradictions in the government position. And then I step back and look at what they’re really up to, in the way of a covert operation.

Let’s start with the official word on so-called immunity certificates.

POLITICIO, 4/10: “Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks.”

“The proposal is contingent upon the widespread deployment of antibody tests which the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration are in the process of validating in the U.S., Fauci said.”

“Although coronavirus testing thus far has been able to determine if an individual has an active infection, antibody tests report whether an asymptomatic person was previously infected but has since recovered [and is immune], potentially allowing them to return to their jobs.”

Now let’s take that POLITICO article apart.

Immunity certificates would be issued to people who test POSITIVE on an antibody test. Meaning: antibodies in a person’s body are a sign that he has gained immunity from the coronavirus.

But wait. How about this?

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past [and are now immune]…?’”

What??

In other words, when you penetrate an inch below the surface, you find there are even official/mainstream doubts, grave doubts about the meaning of a positive antibody test. It could mean IMMUNE or it could mean INFECTED.

This would be like saying, “The photo either proves there was a sixteen-car wreck on Highway 5 or it was smooth sailing and there was no accident at all.”

Actually, since 1984, a positive antibody test has generally been taken to mean the person is infected, has the disease in question.

So why the sudden turnaround now? Why are Fauci and other government officials claiming that a positive antibody test signals immunity?

Answer: Because, with the widespread use of this simple and quick antibody test (much quicker and easier to perform than the current PCR test), a reason is invented for issuing immunity certificates. And this is what the goal is. Introduce the population to immunity certificates. As a tune-up for the underlying operation, which is:

Immunity certificates for people who eventually receive vaccinations against COVID-19 (and, finally, all vaccines).

Just take the COVID-19 vaccine and you’ll be immune and you can carry with you a certificate, wherever you go—and you WILL be allowed to go here and there and live a normal life. With your paper or digital or tattoo immunity certificate.

Whether the certificate plan will be enacted this time around (COVID-19), or in the next fake pandemic, remains to be seen. But the IDEA is now firmly planted in the public mind. You can win a “gold star” on the blackboard from the teacher—your certificate to a better life. Just obey and follow orders. TAKE THE VACCINE.

Carrot and stick. Be free, or be limited.

If, indeed, we see a COVID-19 vaccine introduced, another variation on this operation would be: “Under Emergency regulations, everyone must take the shot.” But when you do, you’ll get your very valuable certificate of immunity. You’ll win a prize. Isn’t that wonderful?

No. It isn’t.

It’s Corona Bologna.

It’s all about CONTROL.

And in this article, I haven’t discussed questions about what would actually be IN the COVID-19 vaccine. I took up that subject in a recent piece about DNA vaccines. The new DNA technology, if introduced, would PERMANENTLY alter the genetic makeup of the vaccine-recipient.

And meanwhile…don’t you just love the idea of the government first locking you up, and then “freeing” you with an official seal of approval?

“The gate is open for you, sir. You have your papers. But you, sir, you must go back. No papers.”

COVID: two vital experiments that have never been done …& why

Why not? Because they would expose this vicious farce, the criminals perpetuating it, and end the lockdowns.

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The first experiment would confirm or deny the accuracy of the PCR diagnostic test. The experiment would reveal whether this widespread test for COVID-19 can actually predict illness in the real world, in humans, not in the lab.

This experiment has never been done. It should have been done before the PCR was ever permitted to make claims about THE QUANTIY OF VIRUS that is replicating in a patient’s body.

Quantity is vital, because, in order to even begin talking about whether a virus can cause disease, millions and millions of virus must be actively replicating in a patient’s body.

Here is the experiment. Assemble a group of 500 volunteers, some sick, some healthy. Take tissue samples from them, and give the samples to PCR technicians. The technicians will never see or know who the 500 volunteers are.

The techs run these samples through the PCR. For each sample, they report which virus they found, and how much of it they found.

“In patients 34, 57, 83, 165, and 433, we found a great deal of the following disease-causing viruses.”

Now we un-blind those specific patients. By the test results, they should all be sick. Are they? Aren’t they? Then we would know. We would know how accurate and relevant the test is in the real world.

Of course, this is not the end of the experiment. The same samples should have been given to a whole other set of PCR techs to run. Did they come up with the same results the first set of PR techs did?

Several new groups of 500 patients each should be enlisted, and still more sets of lab techs should repeat the experiment, ending up with confirmation or rejection of the initial findings. This is the way the scientific method is supposed to work.

In the absence of this experiment, the quantitative PCR must be looked at as a rogue hypothesis that should never have been foisted on the public. It should never be used as the basis for determining case numbers of any disease.

In the “COVID-19 crisis,” all case numbers derived from the PCR should be thrown out.

The second vital experiment concerns the discovery of a new virus—in this case, COVID-19.

First of all, there is no lab procedure that can climb inside the human body in real time and record the active replication of millions of virus. The closest you can come involves the use of electron microscopy.

Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using correct steps of centrifuging these samples, specimens of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron microscope.

In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many identical particles of a virus they’ve never seen before; and do the researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to photo?

If so, and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying out this procedure on the patients’ tissue samples achieves the same result…then, this is as close as you can come to saying you’ve discovered a new disease-causing virus.

Other researchers with other patients should attempt to replicate the above findings.

This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not even close. Therefore, researchers can’t make a true claim to have discovered a new disease-causing virus.

In the absence of the two vital experiments I’ve described in this article, all you’re left with, concerning a single “COVID-19” pandemic and a single new cause, are: anecdote, rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, bad science, and lies.

Plus the horrendous damage from all the consequences of lockdowns based on those lies.

TURN ON THE ECONOMY.

SOURCE:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/10/covid-two-vital-experiments-that-have-never-been-done/

 

Image by Konstantin Kolosov from Pixabay

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part Two)

See Part One at the link first

Genetically Engineered Corn

The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But “resisting pests” is just a euphemism for
contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency—which regulates plant produced pesticides—tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in any case.

These arguments, however, are just that—unsupported assumptions. Research tells a different story.

Bt spray is dangerous to humans

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.
[1],
[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,
[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.
[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,
[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.
[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.
[7]

In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”
[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that “individuals with . . . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying.”
[9] A spray manufacturer warns, “Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals.”
[10] So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.

As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses—as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.
[11],
[12] The EPA’s own expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”
[13]
The toxin in GM plants is more dangerous than natural sprays

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.”
[14] First of all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight,
[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it can be “washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,”
[16] or rinsed by consumers. A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.

The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a “safety catch” is removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes
without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is
always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.
[17]
Bt-toxin fails safety studies but is used nonetheless

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.
[18]They suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties aren’t
predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts, should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.

For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto’s Yield Guard and Syngenta’s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that “the similarity . . . might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation.”
[19] No additional evaluation took place.
[20]

Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.
[21] It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.
[22] Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA had called for “surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals” to “confirm the allergenicity of
Bt products.”
[23] Again, no such monitoring has taken place.

Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions

A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding. Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory must take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are
only triggered with the Bt varieties.
[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt. Only “exacerbations of asthma” were in one list and not the other (see table).

Upper respiratory Eyes Skin Overall
Bt Spray Sneezing,
runny nose,
exacerbations of asthma
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling Fever,
some in hospital
Bt cotton Sneezing,
runny nose
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, eruptions,
red, swelling
Fever,
some in hospital

(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt. But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)

The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, “How long does the Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?” It there any risk using cotton diapers, tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with healing it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be cause for amputation.

Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil—used in many processed foods in the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin, although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this series—focused on toxicity—presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with animals consuming Bt cotton plants.

Bt corn pollen may cause allergies

Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to
Bt-toxin; this supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.
[25] Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. If this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce
Bt-toxin within our intestines.

Studies show immune responses to GM crops

Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn (Mon 863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.
[26]

Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas had
passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pesticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the protein was not harmful to mice. But that “same” protein, when produced by the kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans. Somehow, the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely analyzed in GM crops on the market.

Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused immune damage to rats.
[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like the peas, if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the potatoes would have been approved.

Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.

[28]

In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series, we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption of GM crops.

[1] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).

[2] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide
Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”
Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848-852.

[3] M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, “Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray” (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).

[4] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

[5] J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, “Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide,”
J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)”,
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)

[6]M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide
Bacilus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”
Amer. J. Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848-852.

[7] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

[8] Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).

[9]
Health effects of B.t.: Report of surveillance in
Oregon
, 1985-87. Precautions to minimize your exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Departmentof Human Resources, Health Division, April 18, 1991).

[10]
Material Safety Data Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury, CT: Novo Nordisk, February, 1991).

[11]Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,”
Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897-1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from
Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,”
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147-155.

[12] Vazquez et al, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,”
Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).

[13] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[14] Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their quote was: G. Stotzky, “Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from
Bacillus thuringiensis,” found in Deborah K. Letourneau and Beth E. Burrows,
Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002), 187-222.

[15] C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, “UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores of
Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of peroxidase on inactivation,”
Environmental Entomology 7 (1978): 270-272.

[16] BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides,
Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada,
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm
[17] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea,”
Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441-7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing
Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),”
Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no.2-3 (2004): 175-183.

[18] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,” Jan. 22-25, 2001;
http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[19] Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,”
Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45-62.

[20] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—
Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[21] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—
Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[22] “Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001.

[23] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
24 Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),”
Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005.

25 N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF’s Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, “Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants,”
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64-68).

26 John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
http://cera-gmc.org/docs/decdocs/05-184-001.pdf, see also Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,”
Le Monde, 14 December 2004; and Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up,” Spilling the Beans, June 2005, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm

27 A. Pusztai, et al, “Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects,” in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) (Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347-372, also additional communication with Arpad Pusztai.

28 October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

SOURCE:

https://responsibletechnology.org/genetically-engineered-foods-may-cause-rising-food-allergies-part-two/

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part One)

“The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems,chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin.”
May 7, 2007

despair-1235582_1280

From responsibletechnology.org

Genetically Engineered Soybeans

The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America’s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.

Food safety tests are inadequate to protect public health

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That’s because people aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. “The only definitive test for allergies,” according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, “is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.”[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.

The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”[4]

Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. “The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system.”[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would “keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians”[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.

Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy

The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.

The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don’t know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins’ amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted.

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That’s when genes spontaneously transfer from one species’ DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

Genetic engineering damaged soy DNA, creating new (or more) allergens

Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes—like Legos—cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.

Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.

The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test—an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.

Increased herbicides on GM crops may cause reactions

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

GM soy might impede digestion, leading to allergies

If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted.

Soy linked to peanut allergies

There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.

Eating GM foods is gambling with our health

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.”[11]

Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family’s risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, Hawaiian papaya and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash. This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.

Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.

Safe eating.

This article is limited to the discussion of allergic reactions from GM soybeans. The evidence that GM corn is triggering allergies is far more extensive and will be covered in part 2 of this series.

[1] See for example, Charles Sheehan, “Scientists see spike in kids’ food allergies,” Chicago Tribune, 9 June 2006, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/

[2] See for example, Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the “draft statement of policy 12/12/91,” January 8, 1992. Johnson wrote: “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.”

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

[4] Ibid.

[5] Traavik and Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research”

[6] “Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?” CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

[7] J. Ordlee, et al, “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,” The New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996.

[8] Stephen R. Padgette et al, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.

[9] Charles Benbrook, “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years”; BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

[10] See for example, Scott H. Sicherer et al., “Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: A 5-year follow-up study,” Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, March 2003, vol. 112, n 6, 1203-1207); and Ricki Helm et al., “Hypoallergenic Foods—Soybeans and Peanuts,” Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, October 1, 2002.

[11] John Boyles, MD, personal communication, 2007.
SOURCE

 

https://responsibletechnology.org/genetically-engineered-foods-may-cause-rising-food-allergies-part-one/

Aspartame Has Been Renamed And Is Now Being Marketed As A “Natural” Sweetener: Amino Sweet

The highly controversial Aspartame has been regarded by some as one of the most dangerous ingredients used in our food supply – while “official” sources continue to maintain its safety and continue not to mention the “negative” studies.

Aspartame has in fact been linked to seizures and a host of other major health issues including fatal cardiovascular events in women. Recent studies (we’ve found them!) have shown that not only does artificial sweetener intake have an association with diabetes [1], it also increases the risk for heartkidney, and brain damage[2]

But these are not the only negative studies: In 1967, Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducted aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures. [3]

A toxin by any other name… the dangers of Aspartame have been known for quite some time now. It is an artificial sweetener with a spectacularly bad track record but is still found in many of the foods we consume daily including “diet” beverages, chewing gum, breakfast cereals, and even preserves.

READ MORE

http://www.herbs-info.com/blog/warning-aspartame-has-been-renamed-and-is-now-being-marketed-as-a-natural-sweetener-amino-sweet/

ASPARTAME ARTICLES FROM DR MERCOLA:

https://aspartame.mercola.com

See how a successful field test curing Malaria continues to be covered up

Published on Jul 1, 2013

LEAKED VIDEO Undeniably Proves Red Cross Performed a Successful Field Test Using MMS on Malaria Expanded Description (Recommended): http://mmswiki.org/index.php?title=Re… Transcript: http://mmswiki.org/index.php?title=Re… This video finally proves that the Red Cross did a field test showing malaria was cured using MMS (sodium chlorite+activating acid producing chlorine dioxide) with a 100% success rate in 154 cases within 24-48 hours. This formerly hidden video was kept from the public for over 5 months until recently discovered. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS VIDEO CAN NOT BE OVERSTATED! WHY? The Red Cross staff administering the malaria treatment was thrilled by the success of the test.

malaria mms2
Red Cross workers, taken before the test took place (Photo: video screen shot)

However, the International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent Societies (IFRC – the parent organization) was not thrilled at all. When Leo Koehof released his version of a video documenting the same field test, the IFRC came out with a statement saying, “IFRC strongly dissociates from the claim of a ‘miracle’ solution to defeat malaria” (http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media…). In addition, weeks and months after the completion of the test, Klaas Proesmans, the narrator of the video, did everything he could to keep the results secret. Note: Proesmans is the Founder and CEO of the “Water Reference Center” which is affiliated with the Red Cross. Since the late 90s, Jim Humble has been telling the world that MMS safely cures malaria in his books, websites, videos, etc. Many doctors have acknowledged the truth of this claim, but few are willing to say so publically for fear of losing their medical licenses. Since Humble started proclaiming his malaria cure, there has been an active mis-information campaign running to destroy his reputation and claims. This field test vindicates Humble’s claims. VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: This version of the video includes an introduction by Jim Humble, and followed with comments by Leo Koehof, the person who trained the Red Cross staff on the proper treatment protocol and is seen numerous times in the video. Koehof also produced his own video that he released before this one came to light (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lzPpZ…). 5:25 — Klaas Proesmans talks about how he came across several interesting technologies in the field of water, health and energy, including sodium chlorite. 6:07 — Klaas Proesmans: “It has been said and written that the use of sodium chlorite cleans the body within one hour to four hours of the malaria parasite. That was too good to be true not to go further and do an investigation…” 7:19 — The waving flag of the “Uganda Red Cross Society” clearly shown at the field test site. 9:55 — Leo Koehof speaking at the clinic to Proesmans and staff that he just received test results back from the local jail where prisoners were treated for malaria and cured within 24 hours. 10:43 — Klaas Proesmans: “In total we identified 154 malaria positive patients, together with the local health {authorities} or the doctors. All of them were treated. All of them were, between 24 hours and 48 hours, malaria negative… without any side effects!” 11:07 — Hannington Segirinya, Former Uganda Red Cross Youth Council President: “I’m so much impressed by this water. It’s so unbelievable. From, a layman’s view, you may think it’s impossible. But, I… It’s very possible. I’ve seen people healed. Looks like there are results from yesterday and seeing the results of today after taking the water. It’s super impressive.” 12:35 — Vincent Okonera, URCS (Uganda Red Cross) Senior Branch Manager, Iganga: “I’m excited because of the instant results that are happening among all the people that we have so far tested. It is incredible… unbelievable to see that some were tested of malaria positive yesterday… turns up to be negative today, and feels quite extremely better and more happier and healthier. So, to me this is a very good partnership… and I feel that… if there is opportunity to increase this to this communities, it will be so much of great impact and beneficial to us… to the health of these good people. ” 13:30 — Klaas Proesmans closing statement: “We closed the operation to report back to the Secretary General here in Uganda Red Cross Society. And, to report back to the Water Resource Center about the results of this field test. Now, all in all… a 100% cured people… less than 5 days… all within 24 hours to 48 hours! That asks for further investigation.” MORE INFO: Facebook support group: https://www.facebook.com/RedCrossWorl… To insure that this information cannot be censored, please download and distribute the original videos located at: http://www.jimhumble.org/downloads If you have additional info, please send it to RCVideoFeedback@JimHumble.org.

Flu vaccine tested for heavy metals reveals 25,000 times higher mercury level than EPA limit for water

From NaturalNews

“Mercury tests conducted on vaccines at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab have revealed a shockingly high level of toxic mercury in an influenza vaccine (flu shot) made by GlaxoSmithKline (lot #9H2GX). Tests conducted via ICP-MS document mercury in the Flulaval vaccine at a shocking 51 parts per million, or over 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury in drinking water set by the EPA.(1)

The tests were conducted via ICP-MS using a 4-point mercury calibration curve for accuracy. Even then, the extremely high level of mercury found in this flu shot was higher than anything we’ve ever tested, including tuna and ocean fish which are known for high mercury contamination. In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we’ve ever tested in contaminated fish. And yet vaccines are injected directly into the body, making them many times more toxic than anything ingested orally…”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045418_flu_shots_influenza_vaccines_mercury.html#ixzz3tDTIfxKv

Comment:

Note well, the product insert states it’s never been subjected to scientific clinical trials! So YOU the public are the guinea pigs. We have to be asking ourselves, what is wrong with this picture? And if the creators of these vaccines are so interested in our health and well being, why do their wares contain dangerous levels of mercury? Please do the research and figure this out. Vaccines are not what we are accustomed to believe. A good starting point is Dr Tenpenny’s research.

EnvirowatchRangitikei