La Leva di Archimede

Is FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries? - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-18T15:08:36Z

June 11, 2013

If enough people raise their voices in protest, we can prevent it. Action Alert!

Remember the controversial diabetes drug Avandia? In 2010 we told you about two FDA drug safety reviewers who warned the agency that Avandia posed serious risks of heart attack and heart failure when compared with other diabetes drugs. Since then, the drug has been removed from the market in most countries and has been under severe restrictions in the US.

Last Thursday, in a combined meeting of separate FDA advisory committees, 20 of 26 panelists voted to recommend removing or modifying Avandia’s highly restrictive label and distribution system. Five voted to keep the restrictions in place, while one panelist voted to remove the product from the market altogether.

There has been only one large, randomized trial for the safety of rosiglitazone, the drug that is marketed as Avandia. That trial—sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the drug’s manufacturer—was called RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes). Serious flaws were found in RECORD’s methodology, its results were questioned, and the trial was widely discredited.

]]> In 2010, FDA required GSK’s RECORD results to be reexamined and re-adjudicated. What was the FDA’s motivation for reviewing Avandia? GSK didn’t request that the drug be reviewed. Could it be, as Steve Nissen suggests in Forbes, because FDA “is seeking to avoid accountability for its role in the Avandia tragedy”? FDA’s official position is that they asked for the re-adjudication because of “the public interest in Avandia, the extensive history of the product, and the continued uncertainty of the risk surrounding this drug.”

Duke University’s Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) was selected for the re-adjudication, and they found that the risk for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke to be virtually the same as the original study concluded. Because these new results reaffirmed GSK’s findings that the drug was no more unsafe than other diabetes products in its class, Thursday’s panelists were sufficiently reassured that the drug was safe enough to lift restrictions.

Unfortunately, other data paint a very different picture:

In 2005 and 2006 GSK secretly conducted an analysis of cardiovascular safety of Avandia, and concluded that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and related events by 30%. Since two-thirds of diabetics eventually die of cardiovascular complications anyway, this 30% hike is terrifying.

In 2006 GSK informed the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the secret analysis, but FDA and CDER agreed to conceal this hazard from patients and practitioners.

During a public hearing, independent FDA statisticians reported an 80% increased risk of heart attack. Avandia is estimated to have caused 83,000 heart attacks in the United States alone.

Adverse effects caused by the drug are currently the subject of over 13,000 lawsuits against GSK. As of July 2010, GSK has agreed to settlements on more than 11,500 of these suits.

Last year, GSK pled guilty of criminal conduct, partially for concealing the hazards of Avandia. The company paid a $3 billion fine—the largest in US history.

In addition, the re-adjudication process itself was biased. GSK prepared the study materials before submitting them to Duke for analysis, rather than allowing the university to review the raw data. (On the widespread problem of publication bias, see our article in this issue.)

On top of that, key members of the 2010 advisory committee that decided to place restrictions on Avandia in the first place were not part of the 2013 meeting. Of the twenty-seven member panel, fourteen of the experts were on the panel last time, and they were the people with a more favorable attitude toward Avandia. This is in contrast to the other experts who did not serve on the panel a second time—like Steven Nissen, who was one of the most outspoken critics on the panel. FDA claims all panelists were invited, it does not appear they made a huge effort to ensure their participation; Nissen says he was not re-invited. With all of the big nay-sayers out of the picture, it’s no surprise the panel voted to lift the restrictions on this dangerous drug.

FDA should focus more on advisory panelists who have true conflicts of interest. A 2007 law placed caps on the number of waivers that could be granted allowing experts with conflicts of interest; a 2012 law removed those safeguards. When there are no restrictions on experts with conflicts of interest serving on FDA advisory panels, more drugs with dangerous side effects could certainly enter the market.

Action Alert! The FDA is not obligated to follow its advisory committee’s recommendation, though they usually do so. Moreover, there is no regulatory deadline by which they have to make a decision. If there is enough public pressure, perhaps this will force the FDA to reject the advisory committee’s decision on Avandia—or at least postpone any action indefinitely. Please send your message to the FDA about the dangers of Avandia!

GMO, Global Alert 2yr Scientific Study Certifies GMO Is Poison & Cancer Causing - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-18T09:57:06Z

The Liberty Beacon™ Staff

June 17, 2013

There are various agendas and proposals worldwide that are either implemented or on the table from Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) to Ted Turners admissions on video the globalists want us dead.

In fact, this was the driving force (the globalists mindset) that sparked the idea of our new film SHADE the Motion Picture that will be available this December.

ABC reported; U.S. deaths surpassed 2.5 million for the first time last year, reflecting the nation’s growing and aging population. The increase of about 45,000 more deaths than in 2010 was not surprising. The annual number of deaths has been generally rising for decades as the population has swelled. “If you have an older population, of course you have more deaths,” said Qian Cai, a University of Virginia demographer who studies population trends. “That doesn’t mean the population is less healthy or less vital.” Before last year, the largest number of deaths was 2.47 million in 2008. The number of deaths can jump up or down from year to year, depending on whether there was a bad flu season or other factors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the report Wednesday. It’s drawn from a review of most death certificates from last year. The report found that the rate of deaths per 100,000 people actually dropped to an all-time low. That was offset by the fact that there are so many Americans — about 314 million.

]]> Other methods of depopulation worldwide include toxins in our water, air, poisons in toothpase, poisons in food, and more.

An excerpt from an Activist Post article reads; Studies Prove GM Foods and Roundup Lethal The recent and long-term French study from the University of Caen found that eating genetically modified corn and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. This study has been deemed “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” The study found: Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death

Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors. Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage. The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips. The study caused Russia to ban imports of U.S. GM corn due to the cancer risk. France and most of Europe have effectively banned feeding GM crops to humans and Monsanto was found guilty of ‘chemical poisoning’ earlier this year. In the Unites States, one in two men and one in three women get cancer.

What role does GM corn and soy play, which are common in most processed foods? Walmart sells GM corn to its customers without labeling it as such. Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, and his colleagues were determined to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. They found that after feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups. Scientific studies have linked Monsanto’s GM corn to organ failure.

Other studies have linked GM foods to cancer. Monsanto’s GM-derived rBGH (which is a genetically-altered growth hormone given to dairy cows to make them more milk) was shown to increase the production of IGF-1 from 70-1000%.

IGF-1 is a very powerful hormone that has been linked to a 2.5-4 times higher incidence of human colon, breast and prostate cancer.

Even Monsanto’s employees refuse to eat GM foods.

As the Health Ranger opined, GM foods appear to be the new Thalidomide, that morning sickness drug from the late 1950s that was quickly recalled for its deadly side effects.

It must also be noted that world famous researchers that expose the dangers of GM foods are routinely threatened, fired, ostracized and their findings denied by questionable “experts” with conflicts of interest. Studies proving GM food health risks are also routinely rejected by bought-and-paid-for government officials.

2yr Scientific Study Certifies GMO Is Poison & Cancer Causing … watch!

See original here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbQq71oMKMs&feature=youtube_gdata

GM Salmon Breed with Trout, Create Superfish: Study - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-17T16:00:58Z

Gaia Health
June 16, 2013
by admin

Genetically modified salmon are more dangerous than anyone had realized. It’s now proven beyond doubt that they can interbreed with not only wild salmon, but also trout. Worse, the result is offspring that grow even faster than their parents and can outcompete them by a huge amount.

Trout, by The Wild Center

by Heidi Stevenson

Genetically modified salmon, which the FDA is on the verge of approving, pose an unprecedented risk. As demonstrated by a new study, not only are these supposedly sterile fish capable of breeding, they can produce offspring with trout. The study’s authors wrote:

Through experimental crosses, we demonstrate transmission of a growth hormone transgene via hybridization between a candidate for commercial aquaculture production, GM Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and closely related wild brown trout (Salmo trutta). Transgenic hybrids were viable and grew more rapidly than transgenic salmon and other non-transgenic crosses in hatchery-like conditions. In stream mesocosms designed to more closely emulate natural conditions, transgenic hybrids appeared to express competitive dominance and suppressed the growth of transgenic and non-transgenic (wild-type) salmon by 82 and 54 per cent, respectively.[1]

]]> Not only are these supposedly sterile frankenfish capable of breeding, but they can breed with trout to produce offspring that grow even faster than the GM salmon and out-compete natural salmon by an immense margin!

AquaBounty, the company that hopes to sell GM salmon, has claimed that these fish are no risk to the environment. They’ve said that the fish are sterile. That’s obviously untrue, and has been known since the early days of their development. Even if most of these frankenfish were sterile, a small percentage would still add up to millions of viable fish.

Their claim that there’s no risk of escaping into the wild becaue they keep them contained in locations far from oceans is also specious. First, there’s the fact that rivers lead to oceans. Second, they hope to sell these fish, or possibly the roe, to others—and there aren’t even any proposed regulations to limit where they can go. Thus, there is virtually nothing standing in the way of the release of GM salmon into the wild, wth the resultant devastation of the ecological system.

The author of the study, Krista B. Oke, tried to soften her results by saying:

I think currently what AquaBounty is proposing to do, it seems that their safeguards will be sufficient. You know, adequately prevent these kinds of risks. Where I think our work is more important would be if those regulations were weakened, which again I don’t know if anyone’s proposing to do right now, and AquaBounty certainly isn’t proposing to do, at the moment.

Perhaps that was necessary to get her study published—but what regulations is she referring to? Claims by AquaBounty do not equate with regulations!

In point of fact, as reported in the journal Nature[4]:

Following FDA approval, AquaBounty hopes to sell its salmon eggs to farmers and expand to markets in Argentina, Canada, Chile and China. To sell AquAdvantage fish in the United States, each farm would require separate FDA approval, but because the food safety of the fish has already been vetted, the approval process would require only an environmental evaluation

AquaBounty is in a precarious financial position. Public outcry against their frankenfish has resulted in approval delays, which are threatening their ability to survive. If their frankenfish gains the FDA’s approval, the company will have no choice but to market the eggs to other countries. The potential US income from the fish is simply not enough to keep the company solvent.

Therefore, there can be little question that, if these genetically engineered salmon are approved, they can be expected to escape into the wild. When they do, they’ll interbreed wtih wild trout, creating a hybrid that will outcompete both the native trout and salmon. Ultimately, the result could be an ecological crash.

Wonderful things can be done with science—but it can also be used to produce horrors. Witness Fukushima and the atomic bomb. Witness the utter destruction of Iraq and the killing of civilians with drones. Witness the universal surveillance of virtually everyone by the United States. Witness the destruction of soil and food quality by Agribusiness. Witness the horrors of factory farming. Just because it can be done does not mean it should. AquaBounty’s Frankenfish is one of those things. Our life support, Gaia, simply cannot handle more devastation.

Sources:

1. Hybridization between genetically modified Atlantic salmon and wild brown trout reveals novel ecological interactions; Proceedings of the Royal Society; Krista B. Oke, Peter A. H. Westley, Darek T. R. Moreau, and Ian A. Fleming; doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1047

2. GM salmon can breed with trout and harm ecosystem, warn scientists

3. GM salmon in wild might produce bold hybrids

4. Transgenic salmon nears approval

BREAKING: Glyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In the PARTS PER TRILLION Range - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-17T13:06:34Z

GreenMedInfo
June 13th 2013
By: Sayer Ji, Founder

An alarming new study finds that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, is estrogenic and drives breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range. Does this help explain the massive mammary tumors that the only long term animal feeding study on Roundup and GM corn ever performed recently found?

An alarming new study, accepted for publication in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology last month, indicates that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide due to its widespread use in genetically engineered agriculture, is capable of driving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cell proliferation within the infinitesimal parts per trillion concentration range.[i]

The study, titled, "Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors," compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as "low and environmentally relevant concentrations."

]]> The results were broken down by the researchers as follows:

Glyphosate induces T47D, hormone dependent breast cancer cell growth.

The proliferative effect of glyphosate is mediated via estrogen receptors.

Glyphosate induces ERE [Estrogen Response Element]-transcription activity via estrogen receptors.

Glyphosate modulates the expression of E[strogen] R[eceptor] α and E[estrogen] R[eceptor]β in human breast cancer cells.

These effects indicate that glyphosate is a 'xenoestrogen,' capable of inducing Estrogen Response Elements (EREs) in a manner, slightly weaker but functionally similar to the most potent human estrogen Estradiol (E2).

More concerning is the discovery that infinitesimal glyphosate concentrations in the parts-per-trillion rage (10 to the minus 12) had proliferative (carcinogenic) effects on the studied T47D breast cancer cells line:

"In this study, we found that glyphosate at a log interval concentration ranging from 10-12 to 10-6 M increased the cell proliferation of a hormorne dependent breast cancer T47D cell..."

The researchers also discovered that the naturally occurring phytoestrogen in soybean known as genistein, produced "an additive estrogenic effect" when combined with glyphosate , raising the serious question as to whether GMO soybeans are contributing to the epidemic levels of breast cancer within countries like the US where they are consumed in relatively high quantities.

It should be noted that the concentrations used to determine the interactive effects of glyphosate and phytoestrogen genistein in this study were modeled "as in a real world situation" by using information obtained from studies that assayed the respective levels of genistein and glyphosate in GM soybeans, as well as human plasma and urine concentrations following their consumption and/or exposure. For instance, glyphosate concentrations have been detected within human urine within the 0.1 - 233 parts per billion range on the lowest end, and an estimated systemic dose of 0.004 mg/kg on the high end.

The authors stated:

This finding should raise concern about the existence of more than one xenoestrogen such as phytoestrogen and contaminants in plant derived food which may be beneficial or harmful depending on the hormonal and pathological status of consumers. This study implied that the additive effect of glyphosate and genistein in postmenopausal woman may induce cancer cell growth. In this present in vitro study, we showed an estrogenicity of pure glyphosate. In summary, we found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genistein which implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity." [emphasis added]

This finding is relevant to virtually anyone who consumes genetically modified food today. GM crops, which are designed to survive glyphosate poisoning by being genetically engineered with 'glyphosate-resistance" (i.e. RoundUp Ready), are universally contaminated with glyphosate and its toxic metabolite AMPA . Furthermore, glyphosate pollution and exposure is now omnipresent, with one 2011 study finding glyphosate in 60-100% of all US air and rain samples tested, and another 2012 study finding that glyphosate widely contaminates groundwater , which is the water located beneath the ground surface, that supplies aquifers, wells and springs. It is therefore virtually impossible to hermetically seal yourself off from the growing global environmental threat by only consuming "certified organic" food. The time has come to face the fact that unless there is a systemic change in the way our GM, petrochemically-driven monocultured food production system operates, we will all experience a great deal of harm.

GM Food/Roundup Breast Cancer Link Already Firmly Established

This latest study is not the only compelling evidence that there is a Roundup-Breast Cancer link. In a previous article titled, "Will the GMO-Breast Cancer Link Be Pinkwashed Away?", we addressed the disturbing implications of the first long-term GM and Roundup animal feeding study produced by Gilles-Éric Séralini's research team last November, and which found that after 90 days (the temporal threshold beneath which all previous biotech industry funded GM food safety studies end) the animals began to show disturbing signs of systemic organ damage, failure and cancer. More pointedly, Séralini's team observed that the animals developed massive, estrogen-dependent mammary tumors:

"Suffering inducing euthanasia and deaths corresponded mostly in females to the development of large mammary tumors. These appeared to be clearly related to the various treatments when compared to the control groups. These tumors are generally known to be mostly estrogen-dependent (Harvell et al., 2000). We observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R[roundup] alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered. R[oundup] has been shown to disrupt aromatase which synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005)... [pg. 9]"

Could the results of this latest study help explain the molecular mechanism behind this finding?

[i] Siriporn Thongprakaisang, Apinya Thiantanawat, Nuchanart Rangkadilok, Tawit Suriyo, Jutamaad Satayavivad. Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors . Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Jun 8. Epub 2013 Jun 8. PMID: 23756170

Japan's Health Ministry Withdraws Cervical Cancer Vaccine Recommendation - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-17T10:18:52Z

PreventDisease

June 17, 2013

by DAVE MIHALOVIC

Japan's health ministry issued a nationwide notice that cervical cancer vaccinations should no longer be recommended for girls due to several hundred adverse reactions to the vaccines reported.

A publication in the Annals of Medicine has exposed the fraudulent nature of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines such as Gardasil and Cervarix. Key messages the researchers reported include a lack of evidence for any HPV vaccines in preventing cervical cancer and lack of evaluation of health risks.

One of the problems with vaccinations such as HPV is that they are not preventative, they do compromise safety and physicians will never provide accurate explanations of vaccine risks and benefits because they do not know themselves. Physicians can only rely on the information from vaccine manufacturers and since long-term pharmacokinetic effects which study the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of vaccines and their ingredients are never examined or analyzed, a Physician can never fully inform of patient of any benefits or risks.

]]> “It is necessary to gather information immediately to accurately grasp how often (the side effects) are occurring,” said Mariko Momoi, who chairs the panel at the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry that decided to suspend the recommendation. Momoi is vice president of the International University of Health and Welfare.

Cervical cancer vaccines are a recent addition to the regular vaccination list and were added after a revision to the Preventive Vaccination Law took effect in April. The government’s subsidy program for vaccination against cervical cancer started in 2010.

The two vaccines sold in Japan are Cervarix, made by GlaxoSmithKlein PLC of Britain, and Gardasil, made by Merck Sharp & Dohme, known as Merck & Co. in the United States.

Mika Matsufuji, 46, who represents an association of cervical cancer vaccination victims’ parents, said the health panel’s decision was a “big step forward.” Her daughter, who was vaccinated with Cervarix in 2011, lost the ability to walk and is now in a wheelchair, she said.

The group is calling for the vaccinations to be halted.

Those subject to the vaccination range from six-graders of elementary schools to first-year students of senior high schools.

“We welcome the decision not to recommend the vaccination even though it is a small step,” said Mika Matsufuji, head of a group of parents who say their children have suffered side effects from the vaccination. “Parents can decide whether their children should receive the vaccination or not.”

At present there are no significant data showing that either Gardasil or Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) can prevent any type of cervical cancer since the testing period employed was too short to evaluate long-term benefits of HPV vaccination. The longest follow-up data from phase II trials for Gardasil and Cervarix are 5 and 8.4 years, respectively, while invasive cervical cancer takes up to 20 -40 years to develop from the time of acquisition of HPV infection.

Persistent HPV infections caused by high-risk HPVs will usually not lead to immediate precursor lesions, let alone in the longer term to cervical cancer. The reason for this is that as much as 90% HPV infections resolve spontaneously within 2 years and, of those that do not resolve, only a small proportion may progress to cancer over the subsequent 20 - 40 years. Moreover, research data show that even higher degrees of atypia can either resolve or stabilize over time. Thus, in the absence of long-term follow-up data, it is impossible to know whether HPV vaccines can indeed prevent some cervical cancers or merely postpone them.

- To date, the efficacy of HPV vaccines in preventing cervical cancer has not been demonstrated, while vaccine risks remain to be fully evaluated.

- Current worldwide HPV immunization practices with either of the two HPV vaccines appear to be neither justified by long-term health benefits nor economically viable, nor is there any evidence that HPV vaccination (even if proven effective against cervical cancer) would

reduce the rate of cervical cancer beyond what Pap screening has already achieved.

- Cumulatively, the list of serious adverse reactions related to HPV vaccination worldwide includes deaths, convulsions, paraesthesia, paralysis, Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis, facial palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms, and cervical cancers.

- Because the HPV vaccination programme has global coverage, the long-term health of many women may be at risk against still unknown vaccine benefits.

In the United States, thanks to the wealth of information available on the HPV vaccine fraud, the proportion of insured girls and young women completing the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine among those who initiated the series has dropped significantly -- as much as 63 percent -- since the vaccine was approved in 2006, according to new research from the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston.

Here are some examples of what Merck the manufacturer does not know about Gardasil and is consequently threatening the health of every person who is injected with this vaccine.

Summing up their evidence, the authors in the Annals of Medicine publication stated that the presentation of partial and non-factual information regarding cervical cancer risks and the usefulness of HPV vaccines, as cited above, is neither scientific nor ethical. None of these practices serve public health interests, nor are they likely to reduce the levels of cervical cancer. Independent evaluation of HPV vaccine safety is urgently needed and should be a priority for government sponsored research programmes. Any future vaccination policies should adhere more rigorously to evidence-based medicine as well as strictly follow ethical guidelines for informed consent.

Sources:

japantimes.co.jp

informahealthcare.com

Infant Formula Manufacturers Refuse To Remove GMO And New Research Now Links Formula To Chronic Disease - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-14T08:46:52Z

PreventDisease
June 14, 2013
by NATASHA LONGO

Nestle and Mead Johnson Nutrition recently dismissed calls to remove genetically-modified organisms (GMO) from their infant formula products in the US and now evidence is coming forth on long-term risks related to infant formulations. Epidemiological research has indicated a relationship between infant formula feeding and increased risk of chronic diseases later in life including obesity, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Researchers stated that the comprehensive metabolic implications of formula vs breast-feeding play a role in long-term health risks.

Nestle and Mead Johnson Nutrition recently dismissed calls to remove genetically-modified organisms (GMO) from their infant formula products in the US -- citing the approved use of GMOs by several national and global regulatory bodies.

According to anti-GMO campaign group, GMO Inside, these companies "likely" use GMO ingredients such as soy, corn and sugar in their popular infant formula products.

]]> In the letter, the campaign group urged Nestle USA's Paul Bulcke, Abbott Laboratories' Miles White, and Mead Johnson Nutrition's R Kasper Jakobsen to "take a proactive stand and announce a phase out of all GMOs in your infant formulas in 2013."

"Similac, Enfamil, and Gerber Good Start -- which combined account for more than 90% of all infant formula sales in the US -- are exposing American and Canadian babies to potentially grave health risks by using genetically modified ingredients," said a statement accompanying the letter.

Parents who feed their newborn and young babies any of Nestle Gerber's product lines are risking their infant's health by exposure to an abundance of toxic genetically modified ingredients that the company claims are "safe."

GMO Inside issued its call to Nestle USA, Mead Johnson Nutrition and Abbott Laboratories just days after Abbott Laboratories shareholders voted not to remove GMOs from the company's Similac infant formula range.

Study Shows Infant Formula Linked To Chronic Disease

The new data, published in the Journal of Proteome Research , suggests that babied fed on formula, rather than breast milk, experience metabolic stress that play a role in long-recognised links between formula-feeding and an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other conditions in adult life.

Led by Dr Carolyn Slupsky from the University of California, Davis, USA, the research team used an infant rhesus monkey model to comprehensively compare the metabolic implications of formula- and breast-feeding practices by measuring urinary and blood metabolites in addition to sampling cytokines and fecal microbial profiles.

"We show that formula-fed infants are larger than their breast-fed counterparts and have a different gut microbiome that includes higher levels of bacteria from the Ruminococcus genus and lower levels of bacteria from the Lactobacillus genus," explained Slupsky and her colleagues - adding that the formula-fed infants also had higher serum insulin coupled with higher amino acid levels, while amino acid degradation products were higher in breast-fed infants.

Previous research has shown that babies fed a dairy-based formula grow up to have higher blood pressure than babies who are breast-fed, British researchers reported.

Babies fed enriched bottle milk are also more likely to be obese by the age of five .

Human milk oligosaccharides, or HMO, produce short-chain fatty acids that feed a beneficial microbial population in the infant gut. Not only that, the bacterial composition adjusts as the baby grows older and its needs change.

Earlier studies have shown that breast milk lowers the incidence of diarrhea, influenza and respiratory infections during infancy, while protecting against the later development of allergies, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses. As scientists have learned more about the role intestinal flora plays in health, they have gained appreciation for how an infant's early diet can affect this beneficial microbial universe.

The report by San Diego bioengineers was based on in vitro tests comparing the digestion of fresh human breast milk and nine different infant formulas. It was online in the journal Pediatric Research .

"Our findings support the contention that infant feeding practice profoundly influences metabolism in developing infants and may be the link between early feeding and the development of metabolic disease later in life," Dr Carolyn Slupsky stated.

Study details

Slupsky and her colleagues used the rhesus monkey model to compare the comprehensive metabolic implications of formula- and breast-feeding practices using NMR spectroscopy to characterize metabolite fingerprints from urine and serum, in combination with anthropometric measurements, fecal microbial profiling, and cytokine measurements.

They found that the infant monkeys fed formula were larger, and had different microbiota make-up to their counterparts fed breast milk.

Indeed, they noted that the formula fed monkeys had higher levels of bacteria from the Ruminococcus genus and lower levels of bacteria from the Lactobacillus genus in their gut.

Additionally, the formula-fed infants were found to have higher serum insulin, coupled with higher amino acid levels - while amino acid degradation products were higher in breast-fed infants.

Slupsky and her team also observed increases in serum and urine galactose and urine galactitol in the second month of life in formula-fed infants - along with higher levels of immune factors including TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma, IL-1-beta, IL-4, and other cytokines and growth factors at week 4.

"These results demonstrate that metabolic and gut microbiome development of formula-fed infants is different from breast-fed infants and that the choice of infant feeding may hold future health consequences," said Slumpsky and her colleagues.

More than 35 percent of formula-fed babies in the United States consume GMO soy formula. Babies on soy formula appear to grow with many problems associated with the gastrointestinal tract. These formulas contain very high concentrations of genistein, from 32 to 45 milligrams, which is higher than the amount found to affect menstrual cycles in women. GMO Soy formulas also contain other soy isoflavones that likely affect genistein's actions in the intestine.

Sources:

dairyreporter.com

Journal of Proteome Research

Pediatric Research

Natasha Longo has a master's degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.

GMO and Monsanto: Glyphosate Weed Killer Found in Human Urine across Europe - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-13T14:36:17Z

Global Research
June 13, 2013
By Friends of the Earth
Region: Europe

People in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of the weed killer glyphosate in their urine, show the results of tests commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe and released today [1].

The findings raise concerns about increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, commonly used by farmers, public authorities and gardeners across Europe. The use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown in Europe [2].

Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. This is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies.

Friends of the Earth Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb said:

“Most people will be worried to discover they may have weed killer in their bodies. We tested people living in cities in 18 countries and found traces in every country. These results suggest we are being exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yet we don’t know where it is coming from, how widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our health.

“Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by public authorities across Europe and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused. Governments need to step-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures to reduce its use. This includes rejecting any genetically modified crops that would increase the use of glyphosate.”

]]> Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on the European Union to urgently investigate how glyphosate is finding its way into people’s bodies; to increase the levels of monitoring in the environment and in food and water; and to introduce immediate restrictions on the use of glyphosate.

Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned laboratory tests on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe and found that on average 44% of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland.

All the volunteers who provided samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests which were carried out between March and May 2013.

Glyphosate is used on many genetically modified crops. 14 new GM crops designed to be cultivated with glyphosate are currently waiting for approval to be grown in Europe. Approval of these crops would inevitably lead to a further increase of glyphosate spraying in the EU.

The biggest producer of glyphosate is Monsanto which sells it under the brand name ‘Roundup’. Two weeks ago the US Department of Agriculture announced that it had found GM wheat developed by Monsanto that has not been approved anywhere in the world growing in a field in Oregon, leading to some countries restricting or testing US wheat imports and farmers in the US starting legal cases against the company.

Notes:

[1] Urine samples were collected from volunteers in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Malta, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the UK. A total of 80/182 samples tested were found to contain glyphosate. Volunteers were all city-dwellers and included vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets. No two samples were tested from the same household. The samples were analysed by Dr Hoppe at Medical Laboratory Bremen in Germany.

The full results of ‘Determination of Glyphosate residues in human urine samples from 18 European countries’ by Medical Laboratory Bremen are available online.

Attorney Refutes Dr. Offit's Vaccine Exemption Criticism - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-12T15:07:42Z

GreenMedInfo
June 10th 2013
By: Alan Phillips, J.D.

Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit, who once said a child can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once, has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions, implying that his opinion is more important than the fundamental moral tenets of a variety of world religions.

Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions. For example, in one speech (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/transcript-offit-speech.pdf), he implies that since the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an predate vaccines, these religions can't be opposed to vaccines. Sadly, Offit appears to suffer from a largely undiagnosed condition common among medical doctors, egoencephalitis (inflammation of the ego part of the brain), which causes its victims to mistakenly believe that their medical degree bestows upon them infinite, authoritative knowledge about everything. Surely one of the 250 vaccines currently in clinical trials or awaiting FDA approval addresses this concern, so there may be hope yet for Dr. Offit.

]]> Meanwhile, Offit has no theology credential and so is not qualified to speak authoritatively about the proper interpretation of religion. More importantly, though, he has no legal credential and is not qualified to speak authoritatively about vaccine religious exemptions at all, as vaccine exemptions are a legal issue, and not a theological one. The proper exercise of a vaccine religious exemption has nothing to do with determining the proper interpretation of any religion. Rather, it matters only that each religious exemption applicant follow the proper legal procedure, and that his or her beliefs meet the legal definition of 'religious'—but even this latter point is irrelevant unless the exemption procedure in question requires that the applicant state his or her religious beliefs that are opposed to vaccines, and additionally that the relevant authorities have authority to scrutinize the beliefs to see if they qualify. Qualifying is not about the proper interpretation of religion; it is about the legal definition of 'religion.'

As to what does or doesn't qualify for a religious exemption , that's up to the courts, not a self-appointed, self-aggrandizing medical doctor on a profit-seeking mission. Federal courts have interpreted the First Amendment's "free exercise" [of religion] clause as protecting any belief that is "religious in nature" and "sincerely held" (as the law defines those phrases). A complete explanation of what the law considers to be 'religious in nature' is beyond the scope of an article, but in general, anyone who is not an atheist can potentially qualify for a vaccine religious exemption—the legal definition of 'religion' is literally that broad. The First Amendment doesn't care whether or not you belong to an organized religion, or which one you belong to if you do.[2] In fact, you could be the only person on the planet with your particular religious beliefs--whether you're a member of an organized religion or not--and if your beliefs are religious in nature and sincerely held, your beliefs are protected by law, you can qualify for a vaccine religious exemption. Now, there are some legal pitfalls to avoid in this exemption situations where you must state your religious beliefs opposed to immunizations. Unfortunately, most people's common sense approach to writing a statement of beliefs, in my experience, is not consistent with the law with regard to what specific beliefs do or don't qualify for an exemption. So, if you have to state your beliefs, consider consulting a knowledgeable attorney to avoid the legal pitfalls.

Moving on, Dr. Offit goes on to assert that the Mississippi and West Virginia State Supreme Courts have said that vaccine religious exemptions violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Dr. Offit, only the Mississippi State Supreme Court said that, over 33 years ago, and that ruling stands as an historical anomaly. No other state or federal court has ever concurred with that ruling. With all due respect to the Mississippi State Supreme Court, that Court's anomalous ruling stands much more as a Constitutional embarrassment than as a defining moment in vaccine religious exemption history or policy.

More recently, Dr. Offit criticized vaccine religious exemptions by citing rare instances in which parents' religious beliefs led to children's deaths due to the parents' withholding of medical care (http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-10/news/39144680_1_child-abuse-neglect-first-century-gospel).[3] Such deaths are tragic ones that might have been avoided if proper treatment had been provided. But such instances have nothing to do with vaccine religious exemptions. Parents do not have a legal right to allow their child to die for lack of proper medical treatment because of their religious objections to medical treatment, but they do have a Constitutional right to exercise a vaccine religious exemption.

Furthermore, the exercise of a vaccine religious exemption poses no significant health risk, unlike failing to seek proper treatment for a child's serious illness or injury, legally or medically (for law and medicine are necessarily interrelated where children's health and safety are concerned):

Medically: Some exempt kids develop natural immunity, which can happen without even getting sick, according to the CDC. Meanwhile, 5-15% of vaccinations don't work --also according to the CDC. The truth is, there are far more non-immune vaccinated kids than non-immune exempt kids, and the CDC admits that most outbreaks occur in vaccinated children.

Legally: There is a legal presumption that the exercise of a vaccine religious exemption does not pose a significant risk to anyone. If it would, state legislatures, who are presumed to have considered the possible consequences of enacting exemption laws, would not have enacted the exemption laws in the first place.

So, medically and legally, religious exemptions pose no problem. Should they ever pose a potential health risk, states have mechanisms in place to deal keep the risk from actually manifesting. For example, exempt kids can be excluded from school during local outbreaks, and health authorities may quarantine unvaccinated persons during a declared emergency. Of course, these laws don't actually make scientific sense, they're political policies put in place to placate the irrational fears of those who don't understand basic mainstream medical principles. If the issue was a genuine, serious concern about infectious disease immunity, we would have to test all persons, vaccinated and unvaccinated, to identify the non-immune people. Vaccination status is not a reliable indicator of immune status; and there are both non-immune vaccinated people and immune non-vaccinated people. It's clear, then, that mainstream vaccination policy is not about protecting the populous from infectious diseases, but rather, a policy put in place to support another agenda that is held in place by fiction-based fears.

Finally, Dr. Offit regularly makes sweeping assumptions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as though it were irrefutably established that vaccines are safe and effective. There are literally volumes of information refuting those assumptions, but as brief starting points only, consider:

1) Vaccines are made by an industry that routinely engages in criminal behavior. Glaxo and Pfiser got billion dollar criminal fines in 2012 and 2009 respectively; criminal and civil fines in the $100's of millions are common. Just so we're clear, you don't get a criminal fine unless you knowingly engage in criminal behavior;

2) Vaccines injure and kill. The federal government pays out about $100 million annually to vaccine victims and their families, and the CDC, FDA and AAPS have all estimated that 90-99% of vaccine adverse events are never even reported. The truth is, we have no idea what the actual scope of vaccine injury and death really is, so it's not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis; and

3) The door for advancing a pro-vaccine agenda is wide open:

a) The federal government subsidizes vaccine research and development ($billions each year),

b) The federal government passed laws making vaccine manufacturers virtually immune from lawsuits for the death and disability their products cause,

c) State and federal governments buy vaccines,

d) State and federal governments mandate vaccines, and

e) State and federal governments compensate vaccine victims--or at least those who are lucky enough to get through a compensation system successfully.

Vaccines in the U.S. represent a government-industry alliance ('racket' is the more accurate term) the likes of which are unknown in any other place or time in recorded history.

Dr. Offit is clearly not interested in real science and law; he serves another master. But, he still influences many mainstream doctors. So, we need to act. First, continue to educate yourself on this fast-paced issue, and share your findings with any others able and willing to hear. Second, join the NVIC's Advocacy Portal to become legislatively active (www.nvicdvocacy.org). Or, start your own legislative activism campaign to oppose bills seeking to further the pro-vaccine agenda, and to support bills that seek to expand vaccine freedom of choice. I'm here to help, too. Here's a list of my past vaccine legislative projects: http://vaccinerights.com/legislativeprojects.html

Finally, you can ask questions on one of my weekly live radio shows on BlogTalkRadio.com, or simply listen, to learn more:

1. The Know Your Rights Hour, with co-hosts Dr. Mayer Eisenstein and Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips, Monday nights, 9 pm ET/8 CT/7 MT/6 PT, at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/knowyourrightshour

The Know Your Rights Hour is rebroadcast on Natural News Radio on Wednesdays at 1:00 pm ET/12 noon CT/11 am MT/10 am PT.

2. Vaccines and Your Rights in the U.S. (VYRUS), with co-hosts HWC Founder Debby Bruck and Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips, Thursdays at 1:00 pm ET/12 noon CT/11 am MT/10 am PT, at freedomizerradio.com

-----

[1] A complete answer to the question, "How does the law define 'religious in nature'?" is complex, and thus well beyond the scope of an article. I cover this in detail in client consultations.

[2] Some laws still require membership in an organized religion, but those laws are unconstitutional and thus arguably unenforceable. At least 5 state and federal courts have ruled that such laws are unconstitutional. One can usually exercise an exemption in these states even if they are not members of an organized religion with tenets opposed to immunizations, though it may require the help of an attorney.

[3] Thanks to Vaccine Liberation Army for bringing this to my attention: http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/cdc-strategy-to-end-religious-exemption/

5 major crop pests develop resistance to genetically engineered seeds - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-11T13:00:43Z

Food Freedom News

by geobear7 • 10Jun2013

By AFP

More pest species are becoming resistant to the most popular type of genetically-modified, insect-repellent crops, but not in areas where farmers follow expert advice, a study said on Monday.

The paper delves into a key aspect of so-called Bt corn and cotton — plants that carry a gene to make them exude a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to insects.

Publishing in the journal Nature Biotechnology, US and French researchers analysed the findings of 77 studies from eight countries on five continents that reported on data from field monitors.

Of 13 major pest species examined, five were resistant by 2011, compared with only one in 2005, they found. The benchmark was resistance among more than 50 percent of insects in a location.

Of the five species, three were cotton pests and two were corn pests.

Three of the five cases of resistance were in the United States, which accounts for roughly half of Bt crop plantings, while the others were in South Africa and India.

]]> The authors said they picked up a case of early resistance, with less than 50 percent of insects, in yet another US cotton pest.

And there were “early warning” signs (one percent resistance or less) from four other cotton or corn pests in China, the United States and the Philippines.

The scientists found big differences in the speed at which Bt resistance developed.

In one case, it took just two years for the first signs to emerge; in others, the Bt crops remained as effective in 2011 as they were 15 years earlier.

What made the difference was whether farmers set aside sufficient “refuges” of land for non-BT crops, said the study’s authors.

The idea behind such refuges comes from evolutionary biology.

The genes that confer resistance are recessive, meaning that insects can survive on Bt plants only if they have two copies of a resistance gene — one from each parent.

Planting refuges near Bt crops reduces the chances of two resistant insects mating and conferring the double gene to their offspring.

“Computer models showed that refuges should be good for delaying resistance,” study co-author Yves Carriere, an entomologist at the University of Arizona at Tucson, said in a press release.

Practical evidence of this is shown in the case of a cotton-munching pest called the pink bollworm, said his colleague, Bruce Tabashnik.

Bt crops in the southwestern United States, where growers work closely with scientists to devise a refuge strategy, do not have a resistance problem.

In India, though, local pink bollworms became resistance within six years, simply because farmers did not follow the guidelines or get this support.

The researchers cautioned that resistance to Bt crops was simply a matter of time, as all pests eventually adapt to the threat they face. But refuges were the key to braking it.

“Either take more stringent measures to delay resistance such as requiring larger refuges or this pest will probably evolve resistance quickly,” said Tabashnik.

Farming groups have been furiously debating the value of refuges, and in recent years the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relaxed its refuge-planting requirements.

More than a billion acres (420 million hectares) of land have been planted with Bt crops since the mid-1990s.

In 2011 alone, 66 million hectares (164 million acres) of land was planted with Bt crops.

That year Bt corn accounted for 67 percent of corn planted in the United States and Bt cotton for between 79-95 percent of cotton planted in the US, Australia, China, and India.

Transgenic crops are opposed in Europe and other parts of the world where green activists say they are a potential threat to human health and the environment.

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-10T13:52:05Z

GreenMedInfo
June 9th 2013
By: Nathan Daley, MD, MPH

OMG, GMOs!

You might ask, "why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?" After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right? Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that works to protect our health. At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread. At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved. This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT. A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease. This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I'm not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).

The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application. Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects. GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don't experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice. Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.

]]> In this article, I'll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done. Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been "Proven" Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology. It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health. Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods. A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release. This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto. Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient. In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study. I'll list just a few of them here:

1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done. However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.

2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model. Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems. Remember, rat studies "proved" that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use... but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed "proved" that it caused birth defects! Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.

3. The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats. Yet, captive rats live about 24 months. No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed. This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20. Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.

4. No reproductive or developmental studies were done. Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated. Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.

5. Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders! Clearly genders are different. For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer. In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders. This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2]. It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.

6. Adverse outcomes which are consider "normal" in old rats were omitted in this young rat population. For instance, the researchers did not consider "chronic progressive nephropathy", a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.

Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen. Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented. As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3]. They summarize:

"Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn."

This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes. Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review. I'll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems. In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells. The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body. Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin. The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion. The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis. The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis ) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome. The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.

Several studies have shown that the organisms (mostly bacteria) of the microbiome can take up genes from GMO foods[4],[5]. "Conjugation", or gene transfer, is a common trick used by bacteria to evolve and adapt. This is one mechanism by which antibiotic resistance perpetuates. The consequences of GMO gene transfer to intestinal bacteria involve the expression of the gene and/or insertional mutagenesis. The frequency with which these consequences will occur is not known, but they will occur to some degree at least.

Intestinal bacteria which begin to express the GMO gene will then be producing the same active proteins which define the GMO. For example, intestinal bacteria could start producing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) pesticidal toxin that has been inserted into potatoes, corn, and soybeans. The exact effect of this toxin on humans, if any, is not well established but it has been found in a study of Canadian women, including pregnant women and their fetuses[6].

Insertional mutagenesis refers to the gene inserting itself into another coding gene and, thus, causing a gene mutation by disrupting the code. This may produce more severe results as it is a well known mechanism by which viruses may cause cancer, cell death, or cellular dysfunction.

These same mechanisms, gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis, can affect human cells just the same. While intestinal cells are likely to be the most affected, GMO genes which pass into the blood intact may affect just about any cell and tissue in the body. It is quite possible that GMO foods are regularly resulting in the genetic modification of the humans consuming them! There are many unknowns here and I suspect that there remains a lot to be discovered, but we should not let the absence of evidence be mistaken for the evidence of absent harm. We should, instead, demand more information and more research!

Effects of GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion:

Another route of possible harms from GMO foods comes from the exposure to and ingestion of GMO associated pesticides. The most successful GMO crops have been the "Roundup Ready" or glyphosate resistant varieties of corn, soybean, and cotton. The same genes have been inserted into alfalfa, wheat, and canola (rapeseed) but these have not yet been widely introduced. The result of glyphosate resistance is that glyphosate can then be applied without discrimination to area or dose. In the past, the use of a pesticide like glyphosate to control weeds had to be balanced with the cost of losing crop due to inadvertently heavy crop exposure. Glyphosate spraying has dramatically increased with the introduction of glyphosate resistant crops. This logically increases the risk for excessive occupational exposure, the magnitude of environmental contamination with glyphosate, and the direct and indirect exposures to the general public and consumers of GMO foods (including livestock). Presumably, the glyphosate residue on (and inside... it can't be washed out) glyphosate resistant food products is higher than that on non-resistant varieties, but data supporting this is scarce. I've failed to find any study which quantifies and contrasts the amount of pesticide residue between GMO and non-GMO foods. More research is needed, but again we can't assume that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is simply unknown if there are any differences, but assuming so is a very logical assumption.

Glyphosate appears to produce a plethora of problems . Let's begin with the microbiome again. Studies have shown that glyphosate may contribute to the contamination of chicken and beef with pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria like E. coli. The reason is that glyphosate produces a dysbiosis within livestock consisting of the overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria. It turns out that many of the most dangerous bacterial pathogens are resistant to glyphosate (perhaps due to the gene transfer discussed above), yet some of the most healthy bacteria are quite sensitive to it. The result is a decline in healthy bacteria and proliferation of pathogenic bacteria. Glyphosate in chicken feed resulted in the proliferation of salmonella and clostridium species (both of which cause food poisoning and infection in humans) and a decline in enterococcus, bifidobacterium, and lactobacillus (species thought to be the foundation of a healthy microbiome)[7]. Enterococcus and lactobacillus are especially important in preventing the overgrowth of Clostridum botulinum and researchers have suggested, as a result, that glyphosate induced dysbiosis is causing an increase in botulism in cows[8]. The same phenomena has been shown to occur within the human microbiome as well, and it is reasonable to propose that the increasing prevalence of Clostridium difficile dysbiosis, a potentially fatal disorder that is also plagued by increasing antibiotic resistance, may be one of its many consequences.

Beyond the microbiome the situation may be even worse. It is well known that glyphosate and its metabolites are genotoxic (causing DNA damage), and cytotoxic (causing cell death or dysfunction) to human cells. [9],[10] Exactly how these toxic attributes manifest as disease is more complex, but the following studies point to several possibilities.

Numerous studies have implicated the pesticides paraquat, rotenone, lindane, and dieldrin in the development of Parkinson's disease due to their ability to kill dopaminergic neurons, and it appears that glyphosate may have similar capabilities[11]. Several case reports of Parkinson's disease onset after chronic and acute glyphosate exposure have indeed suggested that glyphosate may contribute to the development of the disease, but more research is needed here[12],[13]. When studied in cultures of nerve cells, however, glyphosate did cause cell death through self-destruction (apoptosis) and self-consumption (autophagy)[14]. Therefore, the biological mechanism behind neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease is definitely induced by glyphosate, lending additional credibility to the association. A recent review article not only associated glyphosate with Parkinson's disease but also "gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease".[15]

Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between chronic glyphosate exposure and certain cancers. One study, done in Sweden, found that those diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were 3.04 times more likely to report a history of glyphosate exposure compared to those without cancer, suggesting that glyphosate may increase the risk of this disease[16]. Another study, using populations in Iowa and North Carolina, suggested a possible association between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma[17].

Glyphosate also appears to be a potent endocrine disruptor with pronounced effects on testosterone production in males. Studies on male rats demonstrate the glyphosate inhibits testosterone related enzymes and decreases the levels of testosterone in a dose-dependent manner[18]. Compared to control rats, those exposed to the highest dose of glyphosate produced only ½ of the testosterone. Another rat study utilized doses of glyphosate which have been found in samples of human urine (1 ppm) and demonstrated that this dose reduces testosterone production by 35%[19]! The same study showed that higher doses cause testicular cell death. A study on human reproductive cell lines demonstrated that endocrine disrupting effects start at a dose of 0.5 ppm. Genotoxic effects started at a dose of 5 ppm and cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm[20]. The glyphosate residual that is allowed by federal regulations is 400 ppm in animal feed, 200 ppm in spearmint and peppermint tops, 85 ppm in sunflower and safflower seeds, 30 ppm in barely and cereal grains like rice, 30 ppm in molasses, 20 ppm in soybean, and 5 ppm in corn, legumes and quinoa, just to name a few[21]. Assuming that the average person has 5 liters of blood, one could experience blood levels of glyphosate at 0.5 ppm from eating 125 grams (or roughly 4.4 ounces) of soybeans or 29 grams (1 ounce) of sunflower seeds (note that small bags of sunflower seeds are often 5 ounces or more).

In addition to glyphosate toxicity, we should be concerned about possible toxicity from other GMO associated pesticides like Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) toxin. The effects of ingesting this GMO crop produced pesticide have hardly been studied. I found only one study, an in vitro study on human cells, and the results indicate the Bt toxins Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac do trigger cell death at moderate concentrations[22]. Additionally, these pesticides appear to interact with glyphosate (which often accompanies them on food) with unpredictable consequences.

The issue of interaction effects in toxicology is a very serious one that is poorly studied or not studied at all. Of 80,000 chemicals in production, very few have been studied in combination, let alone the extremely common combinations that are found in the environment and in various products. For instance, glyphosate is rarely used alone, yet studies still evaluate its toxicity alone. Glyphosate products contain adjuvants or surfactants that enhance its herbicidal activity. One study did, in fact, look at the effects of glyphosate and its adjuvants (like POE-15) on human cell lines. The results showed that the combination was much more toxic than glyphosate alone[23]!

It needs to be mentioned that the levels of glyphosate exposure from food and the complexity and doses of pesticide combinations (and their interactions) are likely to increase as a result of progressing glyphosate resistance. Just like antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria, the target plants (i.e. weeds) for glyphosate are rapidly evolving a resistance to the pesticide as a result of its intensive use[24]. In order for glyphosate to work on these plants, higher and higher doses are needed, or additional pesticides must be applied simultaneously. Currently there are 24 weed species listed with resistance to glycine pesticides, the pesticide class of glyphosate[25].

To be fair, internal studies done by Monsanto (the owner and producer of glyphosate) in the early 1980's show glyphosate to be relatively non-toxic. These are the studies submitted to regulatory agencies for approval and then used to set regulatory limits on public exposure and environmental contamination. For example, the EPA uses this 30 year old data for its Integrated Risk Assessment System (IRIS). These reviews often take 10-20 years to complete due to inadequate EPA funding, making them outdated the moment they are published! Again, no one is out there protecting our health. You can browse the EPA glyphosate review here if interested: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0057.htm

Environmental and ecosystem effects of agricultural GMOs:

In addition to the possible harm of GMOs and GMO associated pesticides on the microbiome, cells, and physiology of humans and other mammals, there is concern about environmental effects (which always end up affecting the health of the environment's inhabitants as well). These environmental effects involve the same or similar mechanisms as those above. For example, GMO genes can transfer to environmental (soil and aquatic) microorganisms as well as native plants (like grasses) and possibly other food crops (like organic corn and soy, the fields of which may become contaminated with GMO seeds)[26].

Additionally, GMO associated pesticides or toxins may negatively impact helpful insects (like predator or carnivorous arthropods) as well as target insects, selecting for the emergence or immigration of new, more resistant, pests[27]. Similarly, intensive use of glyphosate may kill plants which support critical pollinators. For instance, glyphosate use has reached levels which are now killing milkweed, thus jeopordizing the monarch butterfly habitat and leading to a decline in their numbers.

Additionally, glyphosate and Bt toxin accumulate in the soil due to serial applications, leading to escalations in soil contamination, and glyphosate has been shown to contaminate most agricultural watersheds[28],[29].

The environmental effects of GMOs and GMO associated pesticides have barely been studied and the consequent effects on biodiversity and groundwater (drinking water) are uncertain.

Don't Throw the Bathwater Out With The Bathwater

To be fair, I need to mention the supposed intentions behind GMO agriculture promoted by the industry. Clearly, there is a profit motive as there exists a powerful synergistic feedback cycle in the consumption of proprietary pesticides and proprietary pesticide resistant seeds. However, GMO advocates sincerely, I believe, also hope that the technology can do good in the world.

For instance, "Golden Rice" is genetically modified rice which possesses the genes to produce beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is the precursor to vitamin A in humans, and in regions of Africa and Asia, vitamin A deficiency is extremely common (causing a number of severe problems such as blindness). Therefore, this rice could effectively reverse the epidemic of vitamin A deficiency. Such medical and public health applications of GMO technology do appear to be much more reasonable than the pesticide resistant varieties (which are largely admired because they make agriculture more simple). However, the potential health implications of medical or public health oriented GMO technology are largely the same as all other GMO technology with regard to gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis.

Even more relevant, however, is that the vitamin A deficiency in much of the world can be remedied in several other ways, many of which will have additional health benefits than just supplying beta-carotene. The vitamin A deficiency in much of the world is a result of a subsidized grain (largely rice) diet, which is a product of World Bank, World Trade Organization, and UN economic incentives and agreements aimed at increasing the economic output of developing nations. If the people of these nations were growing food for themselves and not for export, they would likely grow more diverse plant foods. Beta-carotene is widely abundant in the plant kingdom. Basically any plant food with a yellow, red, orange, and dark green color is likely to contain significant amounts of beta-carotene. Essentially, rice is not the solution to the vitamin A deficiency, it is the cause of it. This is a larger problem and a more difficult one to reverse, for sure, but we need to recognize the difference between real solutions which address the root problem and superficial solutions which simply compensate for one consequence of the problem. Failure to do so will accelerate our decline down the slippery slope of unintended consequences.

For additional research on GMOs on the GreenMedInfo.com database: Health Guide: GMO Research

[1]. de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests. Int J Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 5;6(6):590-8.

[2]. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier, Joël Spiroux de Vendomois . New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

[3]. de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.

[4]. Carl-Alfred Alpert, Denis D G Mater, Marie-Claude Muller, Marie-France Ouriet, Yvonne Duval-Iflah, Gérard Corthier. Worst-case scenarios for horizontal gene transfer from Lactococcus lactis carrying heterologous genes to Enterococcus faecalis in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice.Environ Biosafety Res. 2003 Jul-Sep;2(3):173-80.

[5]. M Gruzza, M Fons, M F Ouriet, Y Duval-Iflah, R Ducluzeau. Study of gene transfer in vitro and in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice from Lactococcus lactis strains to various strains belonging to human intestinal flora. Microb Releases. 1994 Jul;2(4):183-9.

[6]. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Feb 18.

[7]. Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Aldin AA, Hafez HM, Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota invitro. Curr Microbiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):350-8. doi: 10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2. Epub 2012 Dec 9.

[8]. Krüger M, Shehata AA, Schrödl W, Rodloff A. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe. 2013 Feb 6. pii: S1075-9964(13)00018-8. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.01.005. [Epub ahead of print]

[9]. F Mañas, L Peralta, J Raviolo, H García Ovando, A Weyers, L Ugnia, M Gonzalez Cid, I Larripa, N Gorla. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate, assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 Mar ;72(3):834-7. Epub 2008 Nov 14.

[10]. Benachour N, Séralini GE. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105. doi: 10.1021/tx800218n.

[11]. Taetzsch T, Block ML. Pesticides, Microglial NOX2, and Parkinson's Disease. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2013 Feb;27(2):137-49. doi: 10.1002/jbt.21464. Epub 2013 Jan 24.

[12]. Wang G, Fan XN, Tan YY, Cheng Q, Chen SD. Parkinsonism after chronic occupational exposure to glyphosate. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2011 Jul;17(6):486-7. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.003. Epub 2011 Mar 2.

[13]. Barbosa ER, Leiros da Costa MD, Bacheschi LA, Scaff M, Leite CC. Parkinsonism after glycine-derivate exposure. Mov Disord. 2001 May;16(3):565-8.

[14]. Gui YX, Fan XN, Wang HM, Wang G, Chen SD. Glyphosate induced cell death through apoptotic and autophagic mechanisms. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012 May-Jun;34(3):344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2012.03.005. Epub 2012 Apr 4.

[15] Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy. 2013; 15(4):1416-1463.

[16]. Lennart Hardell, Mikael Eriksson, Marie Nordstrom. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies.Leuk Lymphoma. 2002 May;43(5):1043-9

[17]. Anneclaire J De Roos, Aaron Blair, Jennifer A Rusiecki, Jane A Hoppin, Megan Svec, Mustafa Dosemeci, Dale P Sandler, Michael C Alavanja. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jan ;113(1):49-54.

[18]. R M Romano, M A Romano, M M Bernardi, P V Furtado, C A Oliveira. Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology. Arch Toxicol. 2010 Apr;84(4):309-17. Epub 2009 Dec 12.

[19]. Clair E, Mesnage R, Travert C, Séralini GÉ. A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Mar;26(2):269-79. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.12.009. Epub 2011 Dec 19.

[20]. Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. 2009 Aug 21;262(3):184-91. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2009.06.006. Epub 2009 Jun 17.

[21] U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Accessed 3-15-13 at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=4f4321356131eb0fa7347ec95e9f11df&ty=HTML&h=L&r=SECTION&n=40y25.0.1.1.28.3.19.131

[22]. R Mesnage, E Clair, S Gress, C Then, A Székács, G-E Séralini. Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide. J Appl Toxicol. 2012 Feb 15. Epub 2012 Feb 15.

[23]. R Mesnage, B Bernay, G-E Séralini. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology. 2012 Sep 21. Epub 2012 Sep 21.

[24]. Green JM, Owen MD. Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Jun 8;59(11):5819-29. doi: 10.1021/jf101286h. Epub 2010 Jun 29.

[25]. Heap I. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds; available at http://www.weedscience.com, 2010, accessed April 15, 2010.

[26]. María L Zapiola, Carol A Mallory-Smith. Crossing the divide: gene flow produces intergeneric hybrid in feral transgenic creeping bentgrass population. Mol Ecol. 2012 May 24. Epub 2012 May 24.

[27]. Astrid T Groot, Marcel Dicke . Insect-resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. Plant J. 2002 Aug;31(4):387-406.

[28]. Richard H Coupe, Stephen J Kalkhoff, Paul D Capel, Caroline Gregoire. Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins. Pest Manag Sci. 2012 Jan ;68(1):16-30. Epub 2011 Jun 16.

[29]. Dani Degenhardt, David Humphries, Allan J Cessna, Paul Messing, Pascal H Badiou, Renata Raina, Annemieke Farenhorst, Dan J Pennock. Dissipation of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water and sediment of two Canadian prairie wetlands. J Environ Sci Health B. 2012 ;47(7):631-9.

The Vatican Launches Investigation into Psychiatric Drugging of Children - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-10T10:37:09Z

CCHR

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

June 7, 2013

While the White House has just announced its support of sweeping mental health programs that will lead to more children being targeted for mental health “treatment,” the Vatican is spearheading an investigational conference into the harmful effects of psychiatric drugs on children.

Upcoming Vatican Conference, “The Child as a Person and as a Patient: Therapeutic Approaches Compared”

The conference brings together professionals to discuss the harmful consequences of overusing prescription drugs for treating mental and emotional disorders in children, as well as how a similar trend is hurting pregnant mothers. According to the Catholic News agency, the conference hopes to prove that “psychosocial options” are better than “psychotropic care.” Experts taking part in the conference also hope to show that the risks heavily outweigh the benefits of the drugs.

]]> Six years in the making, the conference will focus on two main drug groups, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, known as SSRIs or antidepressants, and antipsychotics. Psychiatric mind-altering drugs have increased dramatically with the increased diagnosing of such alleged mental disorders as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, Bipolar Disorder and a litany of alleged depressive disorders.

There is no argument when it comes to prescription psychiatric drug numbers. They’re ugly, and certainly justify the Vatican’s attempts to expose the dangers associated with over-diagnosing and over-medicating.

Child Drugging Statistics in the U.S.

Event organizer Dr. Barry Duncan, a clinical psychologist and director of the Heart and Soul of Change Project, earlier laid out the problems regarding child drugging when he explained in a 2010 meeting of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry that “the U.S. leads the world in the number of psychiatric prescriptions to young people and that the trend to resort to antipsychotics before or in lieu of social and behavioral therapy is on the rise in Europe.”

While the upcoming conference will address the issue on an international level, Duncan is intimately aware of the toll psychiatric drugs are taking on children in the U.S. receiving social benefits. “It is the poor children in the U.S.,” says Duncan, “particularly those in foster care or on Medicaid, are four times more likely to be prescribed antipsychotic drugs and six times more likely to be treated with a number of different psychotropic medications.”

The data regarding the drugging of children in the U.S. is alarming when one considers that about 1 in 70 preschoolers are taking antipsychotics, and 11 percent of the U.S. population over the age of twelve is taking antidepressants.

More distressing is that despite the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) warnings that the psychiatric drugs can cause suicide and suicidal ideation, 1 in 25 teens, aged 12 to 17, are being prescribed antidepressants, resulting in antidepressant use increasing at a rate of nearly 400 percent between 1988-1994 and 2005-2008.

The Vatican’s concern about the over-drugging of children is supported by the data that reveals 9 out of 10 children in the U.S. who see a child psychiatrist leave with a prescription for a mind-altering psychiatric drug. In fact, according to IMS Health, antidepressants were the third most commonly prescribed drug in the nation.

The data for antipsychotic drugs is even more frightening. For example, in the U.S., one study found that between 2001 and 2010, there was a 250 percent increase in the use of antipsychotic drugs in adults and the number had doubled in children.

Between 1994 and 2003, the diagnosis of the alleged child bipolar disorder increased 4,000 percent—largely due to Dr. Joseph Biederman, a psychiatrist who also was funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

International statistics on psychiatric drugging

Duncan is all too aware of the harmful effects of psychiatric drugs and is equally aware that the damage is not limited to the U.S.

According to Duncan “prescriptions for psychiatric drugs have increased by 274 percent globally in over 50 countries since 2003.” Duncan’s hope is that with the “pharmaceutical industries spending millions and millions of dollars on misinformation, we want to counteract that with this conference.”

The pharmaceutical companies realize the enormous revenues generated by psychiatric drugs and know that advertising is essential to reaping those benefits. It is, then, no coincidence that the U.S. is one of only two countries in the world that allows pharmaceutical advertising and also has the largest number of psychiatric drug users.

According to Kantar Media, the combined spending on print and digital media advertising for new antipsychotic drugs increased to $2.4 billion in 2010, up from $1.3 billion in 2007. Drug makers also spent nearly $300 million in 2009 on advertising for just two of the newer antidepressants, Cymbalta and Pristiq. Literally a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the expected revenues.

What the Vatican Hopes to Accomplish

If any organization has the financial resources to fight the pharmaceutical giants, one could argue that the Vatican is the logical candidate. But it is an uphill battle when one considers that the psychiatric drug market is a multi tens of billions of dollars a year business. But the financial resources poured into promoting the drugs is not the only issue up for discussion.

“The clinical trial evidence on psychiatric drugs,” says Duncan “is often skewed by conflicts of interest, particularly when trials are funded by the drug industry or when studies are conducted by people who are paid consultants of the company under review.”

Duncan is looking for an all-inclusive education program, calling on “religious orders, Catholic schools, hospitals, medical associations, media and parishes to become informed and help children and families discover alternatives to psychiatric medications, as well as help them have real input when discussing the risks and benefits of such medications.”

Understandably, there are an enormous number of hurdles to overcome, but Duncan believes the Church “may be the only power on earth that can counter the forces of corporate greed that have no moral or ethical conscience.”

With the substantial power of the Vatican behind the new push to take a serious in-depth look into the destructive nature of pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs, it is a promising starting point that should be applauded, and one that, at a minimum, has far-reaching implications for, at least, one billion of the Church’s faithful.

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award winning, former investigative reporter for the Washington Times, Insight Magazine, penning dozens of articles exposing the fraud of psychiatric diagnosis and the dangers of the psychiatric drugs – including her ground-breaking 1999 cover story, Guns & Doses, exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence. She is also the author of the highly acclaimed book, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill. Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer to four Members of Congress. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

The Best Stories on the Government’s Growing Surveillance - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-07T09:21:04Z

ProPublica
June 6, 2013
by Christie Thompson

(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

On Wednesday, the Guardian published documents revealing the government has been collecting months’ worth of telephone “metadata” on millions of Verizon customers. The Washington Post and the Guardian followed with news that both the National Security Agency and the FBI have been pulling Americans’ data from major web companies like Facebook and Google.

Since 9/11, the government has been collecting enormous amounts of information on citizens. But most of the data grabbing is done in secret. What do we know about what the government knows? Here’s our reading guide to the government growing surveillance.

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts , New York Times, December 2005

In 2005, the New York Times broke the story of warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush. The National Security Agency previously listened in on calls in which both parties were abroad, but monitoring expanded under Bush to include U.S. calls and emails made to overseas contacts. Officials said it was an attempt to track “dirty numbers” that were linked to al Qaida.

]]> NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls , USA Today, May 2006

Yesterday’s Guardian report isn’t the first we’ve heard of the government collecting Americans’ phone records. In 2006, USA Today revealed that the Bush administration was collecting call records of Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth customers without going through the courts.

Top Secret America , Washington Post, July 2010

As the U.S. counterterrorism system grew to encompass thousands of government agencies and private contractors, it became “an enterprise so massive that nobody in government has a full understanding of it.” The Washington Post reported the NSA was collecting 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other communications every day, “overwhelming the system's ability to analyze and use it.”

The Secret Sharer: Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state?, New Yorker, May 2011

Obama promised to increase transparency, but he’s pursued more leak investigations than any other U.S. president. Former NSA executive Thomas Drake faced charges under the Espionage Act for leaking documents on the agency’s growing surveillance of private citizens (he eventually pled guilty to a much lesser charge.) Drake’s case is a window into the NSA as domestic spying took off.

The Surveillance Catalog, The Wall Street Journal, February 2012

Plenty of governments are spending to spy on their citizens. Documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal reveal what’s in governments’ toolbox. Some software enables governments to translate and analyze voices from massive wiretaps to discern what’s being discussed, or to steal data from “hundreds of thousands” of targets.

The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say ), Wired, March 2012

The “Utah Data Center” may sound like just another office park, but the National Security Agency’s $2-billion project will soon be home to the biggest database of U.S. citizens’ personal information, from private emails to bookstore receipts. When it opens In September 2013, it will also be where codebreakers work to crack into heavily encrypted data.

U.S. Terrorism Agency to Tap a Vast Database of Citizens , The Wall Street Journal, December 2012

The National Counterterrorism Center was once only allowed to store data on citizens if they were terror suspects or related to an ongoing investigation. Not anymore. The Wall Street Journal details the “sea change” in policy under Obama, that lets the center collect and examine information on any U.S. citizen — whether or not they’re suspected of a crime.

Monsanto's 'Genetic Pollution' Threatens US Wheat Industry - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-06T15:20:35Z

Common Dreams

May 31, 2013

"Our trading partners do not want genetically modified wheat"

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

A wheat field in Oregon. (Photo: Elias Gayles/cc/flickr)

The U.S. wheat industry is reaping the swift global repercussions of the genetic pollution caused by Monsanto's rogue glyphosate-resistant wheat on an Oregon farm.

"This will have an impact worldwide, because our trading partners do not want genetically modified wheat," Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, told Bloomberg.

Katsuhiro Saka, a counselor at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, added, "In most countries the unapproved genetically modified wheat would be a target of concern."

Already, as the New York Times reports,

Japan and South Korea suspended some imports of American wheat, and the European Union urged its 27 nations to increase testing, after the United States government disclosed this week that a strain of genetically engineered wheat that was never approved for sale was found growing in an Oregon field.

]]> Seed giant Monsanto tested its genetically engineered (aka genetically modified) glyphosate-resistant wheat variety between 1998 and 2005 in 16 states.

But fear of such international backlash is what prompted Monsanto to abandon its GE wheat project, as Emma Hedman explains in Friends of the Earth's blog:

In 2004 Monsanto, the world’s biggest genetically engineered seed company, pulled their GE wheat from the USDA’s approval process because of growing pressure from some of the most important international importers of United States wheat, including Japan, the UK, Malaysia, and Canada. These international consumers were weary of having genetically engineered foods as part of their food supply, and because Monsanto realized they would have no market for their wheat (since the US exports over 50% of its wheat), it abandoned the project. This is of course after they had already implemented field tests of the wheat in 16 states. The last field test of this GE wheat in Oregon was supposed to have been in 2001, and yet here it is.

The finding of the rogue wheat has prompted sharp criticism from food safety and environmental advocates.

“This was not from a recent trial, which means it’s been sitting there in the environment,” the Washington Post reports Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit group, as saying. “It’s highly doubtful that it’s just on one farm. If it’s out there, it’s out there.”

In a similar statement, Mike Flowers, a cereal specialist at Oregon State University, told Reuters , "We can't really say if it is or isn't in other fields. We don't know."

"Our farmers and food supply are severely jeopardized by such contamination episodes, yet the biotech industry responsible faces no accountability," Bill Freese, science policy analyst for Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. "Moreover, the industry operates with little transparency, leaving both the public and regulators in the dark,” he said.

The only way to avoid more such episodes, write Greenpeace's Janet Cotter and Eric Darier, is to drop genetically engineered crops entirely:

The Monsanto GE wheat contamination shows again that governments and industry measures to prevent contamination are failing. The only permanent solution is to immediately ban the field testing of GE crops.

More fundamentally, the world urgently needs to switch to ecological farming and get out of the chemical/GE industrial agriculture treadmill and the environmental risks it represents.

Gingko Biloba: A 'Living Fossil' With Life-Extending Properties - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-06T13:06:57Z

GreenMedInfo

June 2nd 2013

By: Sayer Ji, Founder

Photo credit: Ginkgo tree with therapod dinosaurs and several extinct birds from various periods within the Mesozoic era. (John Agnew)

Those interested in learning how to enhance their longevity may want to look to Gingko Biloba, whose very existence today as a "living fossil" speaks volumes to its ability to survive conditions that would otherwise kill or dramatically shorten the lifespan of most other species.

There is a thread of biological immortality woven into all things that are living. Anything that breathes or pulsates with life today contains within its germline genetic information that originated from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), and from which all living things -- plants, bacteria, fungi and animal included -- descended. While somatic cells within multicellular organisms perish, their germline stem cells are capable of infinite self-replication, which in the case of gingko biloba, has been going on for at least a quarter of a billion years.

]]> Ginkgo biloba is the world's oldest living plant, and is known as a "living fossil" because it has no close living relatives, and appears to be the same as a plant species dating back 270 million years (Permian) in the fossil record. It is also one of a rare few (6%) dioecious flowering plants, meaning it has distinct male and female organisms.

Not only has this exceptionally hardy species survived three mass extinction events over the past quarter of a billion years, but it was found to be the only surviving plant species near the epicenter of the August 6th, 1945 Hiroshima atomic bomb blast. In September 1945, the area around the blast center was examined and six Gingko biloba trees were found standing. They budded shortly after the blast without major deformations and are still alive to this day. To learn more about the Hiroshima Ginkgo trees visit The Ginkgo Pages.

Interestingly, the same plant that survived exposure to a wide range of radioisotopes released by nuclear blast, including radioiodine-131, is capable of conferring radioprotective properties to humans exposed to at least one of the same elements. Graves' disease patients receiving radioiodine-131 therapy, which is known to cause chromosomal damage, have been found to benefit from receiving a gingko biloba supplement before treatment by experiencing reduced damage to their DNA. You can view the study published in 2007 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism here .

Ginkgo not only has a reputation for longevity, with some plants living to over 1,000 years, but it appears willing to confer longevity to those who use consume it extracts of it.

Indeed, a solid body of preclinical and clinical research indicates that it is useful in age-associated cognitive decline, e.g. Alzheimer's disease , dementia, as well as age-associated visual disturbances such as glaucoma. There is also indication that it may slow the aging process within the mitochondria of cells by reducing oxidative stress and enhancing mitochondrial respiration,[i] and this mitochondrial anti-aging effect is not limited to neurons, but extends to other cell lineages such as blood platelets,[ii] and fibroblasts,[iii] liver cells,[iv]endothelial cells,[v] heart cells[vi] and likely many others yet to be investigated.

One of the most encouraging studies on gingko biloba, which we explored in a previous article, Declaring Chemical Warfare Against Alzheimer's , showed that it was more effective than the blockbuster alzheimer's drug donepezil for treating symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.

What is even more remarkable is that this plant has been shown capable of articulating over 30 different beneficial physiological actions that may be of therapeutic value in over 100 health conditions. Those conditions in the "A" group are listed below:

Aging

Aging: Brain

Allergic Airway Diseases

Allergic Conjunctivitis

Aluminum Toxicity

Alzheimer's Disease

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Anosmia

Arterial Thickening

Arteriosclerosis

Aspiring-Induced Toxicity

Asthma

Attention Deficit Disorder

Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity

Autism

Autism Spectrum Disorder

To view the list of all 100+ potential medical applications, from A-Z, visit our Ginkgo Biloba research page. Or, to acquire our entire downloadable document, including over 100 hyperlinks to the National Library of Medicine's original citation location, go here: Downloadable Document - Ginkgo Biloba . [Remember, as a member you can download it with your tokens for free ]

A word of caution for those who wish to use ginkgo biloba. Its seeds contains physiologically significant levels of a naturally occurring neurotoxin known as ginkgotoxin (4'-O-methylpyridoxine), which as an antivitamin is structurally related to vitamin B6 (pyroxidine) and can cause neurological problems in those who are susceptible, may be deficient in B6, and/or who consume high amounts. The leaves are generally considered harmless, but it never hurts to be careful, especially if there is a history of seizures.

Also, many herbs are subject to "cold pasteurization " with gamma radiation, indicating that they could contain formaldehyde and formic acid, as well as unique radiolytic byproducts which may be toxic. Ask the manufacturer if they have tested their raw material for such exposure, or opt for a certified organic brand if accessible.

Finally, remember that accelerated aging and cognitive decline is not caused by a lack of herbs like gingko biloba, and therefore it is always best to first embark on significant lifestyle and dietary changes, including gentle detoxification strategies, than to fall prey to the allure of "magic bullets," even natural ones.

Resources

[i] Anne Eckert. Mitochondrial effects of Ginkgo biloba extract. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012 Aug ;24 Suppl 1:S18-20. PMID: 22784423

[ii] Chun Shi, Songhua Xiao, Jun Liu, Kaihua Guo, Fengming Wu, David T Yew, Jie Xu. Ginkgo biloba extract EGb761 protects against aging-associated mitochondrial dysfunction in platelets and hippocampi of SAMP8 mice . Platelets. 2010;21(5):373-9. PMID: 20459350

[iii] Xiao-ping Song, Zhi-wu Chen, An-ning Fang, Pei-fei Fang. [Experimental study on effect of total flavone of Ginkgo biloba on delaying cell senescence ]. Zhong Yao Cai. 2009 Jan;32(1):100-2. PMID: 19445133

[iv] Shang-Zhen Huang, Yan-Jun Luo, Li Wang, Ke-Yin Cai. Effect of ginkgo biloba extract on livers in aged rats . World J Gastroenterol. 2005 Jan 7 ;11(1):132-5. PMID: 15609412

[v] Xie Xu Dong, Zhu Jun Hui, Wang Xing Xiang, Zhang Fu Rong, Sun Jian, Chen Jun Zhu. Ginkgo biloba extract reduces endothelial progenitor-cell senescence through augmentation of telomerase activity . J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2007 Feb;49(2):111-5. PMID: 17312453

[vi] G Fitzl, K Welt, L Schaffranietz. Myocardium-protective effects of Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb 761) in old rats against acute isobaric hypoxia. An electron microscopic morphometric study. I. Protection of cardiomyocytes . Exp Toxicol Pathol. 1996 Jan ;48(1):33-9. PMID: 8919269

Ban GMOs Worldwide or become Genetically Engineered - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

2013-06-05T13:05:05Z

Farm Wars

Barbara H. Peterson

Normally I don’t put too much stock in petitions, but one has got my attention. It is the petition put out by Colleen Mellor and Nomi C. to ban GMOs worldwide. Here is what they say at the site:

Ban Genetically Modified Organisms Worldwide

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) are endangering the health, environment, and economic welfare of the entire world. GMO’s are not proven safe and are not sustainable, despite biotechnology industry claims. Independent research shows major health problems associated with GMO consumption and related chemical farming in the form of chronic illnesses, reproductive failure, food allergies, autism, birth defects and cancer. We do not support the continued production of GMO’s anywhere in the world and the long term safety of GMO’s has not been confirmed through rigorous, independent, scientific studies. We value our health and environment and want to preserve the availability of safe food in the future. We want every nation to join those who have already banned GE and work together towards the eventual worldwide ban of Genetically Modified Organisms.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Ban_Genetically_Modified_Organisms_Worldwide/?cDUEFcb

]]> I couldn’t agree more. With the March Against Monsanto garnering over 2 million marchers worldwide, awareness is spreading like wildfire. We’ve got the momentum going, and more marches are planned.

The March Against Monsanto’s Facebook site states:

We are NOT waiting a year!!! Start planning people…October 12th we take to the streets again. In honor of World Food Day on 10/16/13 (it happens to be a Wednesday) and the fact that October is National GMO Awareness month, we will get on our marching boots for an even bigger event seen this past weekend. We hope most of our organizers will be willing to go again and we welcome new ones as well. Please message the page to get signed up in your city! Thanks everyone!! (There is also the July 4th event being put on by momsacrossamerica.com)

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

Why is banning GMOs so important?

Monsanto is not content to merely take over the world’s food supply. In fact, according to Dr. Michelle Kmiec, Monsanto is on a mission to pharmaceutically enhance GMO foods using new RNA technology, which can effectively silence genes.

Exposed: Monsanto’s Mission To Pharmaceutically “Enhance” GMO Foods

Announced on August 28, 2012 Monsanto and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. formed a “Strategic Alliance”. Why strategic? Together they intend to “… advance biological technologies in the field of agriculture…”

“The new alliance brings Alnylam’s broad RNAi-based intellectual property (IP) and proprietary technologies to Monsanto’s new BioDirect™ technology, which aims to deliver innovative biological solutions for farmers.”

So they are going to bring solutions for farmers? Well, that’s what they want you to believe…

Let’s take a look at what “RNAi-based intellectual property” actually is. Better known as RNAi therapeutics - here is the explanation in the words of Alnylam:

“RNAi (RNA interference) is a revolution in biology, representing a breakthrough in understanding how genes are turned on and off in cells, and a completely new approach to drug discovery and development.

RNAi is a natural process of gene silencing that occurs in organisms ranging from plants to mammals. By harnessing the natural biological process of RNAi occurring in our cells, the creation of a major new class of medicines, known as RNAi therapeutics, is on the horizon.”

Now based on everything so far, an obvious pattern emerges leading to an undeniable outcome:

Synthetic Food + Pharmaceuticals + Genetically Modified Foods & Organisms + RNAi Therapeutics = Pharmaceutically Enhanced Food

http://wakeup-world.com/2013/04/21/exposed-monsantos-mission-to-pharmaceutically-enhance-gmo-foods/

How would you someday like to wake up to find that the dinner you ate the night before made you sterile, or dosed you with a medicine for a relatively unknown, rare disease, or caused a life-threatening reaction because of a drug that made its way across a field and into your organic corn? How would you like to find out that you have just been dosed with a drug because you merely handled an innocent looking plant?

The new technology can silence or activate targeted genes in plants, and the genetically engineered RNA used in the process can conceivably horizontally transfer to people who eat the plants, or even handle them.

http://farmwars.info/?p=10331

Don’t think Monsanto would do this? The people of Anniston Alabama didn’t think they were targeted to be killed with PCBs either. Just look at the history of this company:

Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Awful Products Made By Monsanto

When you take a moment to reflect on the history of product development at Monsanto, what do you find? Here are twelve products that Monsanto has brought to market. See if you can spot the pattern…

Read the dirty dozen here:

http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/04/15/monsantos-dirty-dozen-the-12-most-awful-products-made-by-monsanto/

No coexistence is possible

Coexistence with an invasive species that is set to take over life on earth through genetic engineering is not possible. Not by a long shot. So, if we do not want to live as a genetically engineered species on a genetically engineered planet, taking whatever garbage is in store for us without knowledge or consent, then we need to BAN GMOs. ALL OF THEM!

Recently I was told: “You just want to change the world.” My reply to that is: The world is changing whether we like it or not. How it changes is up to us.