Autism Explained: Synergistic Poisoning from Aluminum and Glyphosate - Stephanie Seneff | autismone.org:
The number of children diagnosed with autism in America has risen alarmingly over the past fifteen years, in exact step with the rise in the use of glyphosate (Roundup) on corn and soy crops. Coincidence?
I think not.
In parallel, children in the United States have been burdened with an increased aluminum load from the world's most comprehensive vaccination schedule. Glyphosate has a number of known biological effects that align with the known pathologies associated with autism. Glyphosate also likely promotes aluminum uptake into the tissues. Aluminum, a well-documented neurotoxin, is the established cause of dialysis dementia. I propose that aluminum accumulation in the brain, synergistically promoted by glyphosate, is the principal cause of autism in the US.
Showing posts with label Séralini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Séralini. Show all posts
Monday, June 23, 2014
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Iowa Farmer Warns Of GMO Dangers
Written By Charles Mesh
In his first experiment with GM crops back in 1997, it didn’t take Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger long to figure out that his cows were smarter than the Bio Tech scientists.
Initially excited by the potential of this new technology, he decided to see for himself what would happen when he fed his cows both GM and natural corn. Result: all 25 cows walked right past the GM corn to get to the natural corn.
A vigorous, unpretentious man with a determined look and boundless energy, Vlieger recently completed a two-week lecture tour here in Washington state to educate the public about the hazards of GM food. He said he wanted to help Washington voters make an informed choice on I-522, the GMO labeling initiative whose fate will be decided November 5.
“We have a road map on how to win the battle of keeping GMO out of the food supply: educate the consumer,” Vlieger said. “I don't tell people what to think.I just put facts in front of them and let them make up their own minds.” Vlieger took over the family farm after his father's death in 1981.
By 1989 Vlieger had taken up alternative farming, or what he calls biological crop production as well as organic methods. In 1992 he founded Verity Farms, a company offering nutritional advice on crops to farmers transitioning out of chemically intensive agriculture.
In his work, Vlieger draws not only on his own experience, but also on the experience of his fellow farmers. He tells the story of a farmer who wrote to the Farm Bureau of West Central Iowa that his hogs were having reproductive and intestinal problems at an unusually high rate (miscarriages, bloody bowels, ileitis, salmonella).
When the story was circulated in the Bureau’s newsletter, several farmers called the office and reported the same kind of problems. Eventually it was discovered that all the farmers in the area were using the same type of GM corn.
When they switched back to feeding their hogs the natural corn, the problems vanished, Vlieger said. When the situation was brought to the attention of the local Ag school scientists, they did not see a connection between the GM feed and the pigs’ problems. “Anecdotal information,” they said. “Inconclusive.” Here too, it did not take long for Vlieger to realize that the hog farmers were smarter than the scientists.
Not to say that Vlieger is against science per se. Quite the opposite. When he had the good fortune to meet Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue, Huber told him that the Vlieger’s boots-on-the- ground, hands-on experiences and observations were the first step of science, Vlieger said. Huber was happy to work with a farmer who noticed problems and patterns in his practice of agriculture.
Huber said the next step would be to conduct a full-fledged scientific experiment with protocols and controls.
This year, in collaboration with Dr. Judy Carmen of Australia, Vlieger co-authored and published the world’s first peer-reviewed, double-blind, independent long-term study of hogs fed GM grain and non-GM grain for their life span as a meat animal.
This study showed statistically significant findings: first, the uteruses were 25% heavier in sows fed GM grain; second, the boars were 2.6 and the sows 2.2 times more likely to seek to have severe inflammation in the stomach.
The study brought Vlieger international recognition, and continued the work begun by scientists such as Arpad Pusztai (UK 1999), Gilles Seralini (France 2012) and others—all conducting long-term studies on animals showing serious adverse effects—e.g., organ damage, tumors, reproductive problems.
Almost unbelievably, Vlieger said, in our country the FDA did not require even one long-term animal study. The biotech industry’s testing was voluntary and no study longer than 90 days was ever submitted. When you get past 90 days, that's when the problems begin, he said.
This work is not for the faint of heart. Consider the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a well-respected scientist at the prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland with over 300 peer-reviewed published articles.
When he sounded the alarm in regards to the foreign protein in GMO crops, he was brutally and viciously attached by the biotech industry. The industry literally tried to destroy him, Vlieger said.
A similar fate befell Seralini in France. When he reported massive tumors, organ damage, and reproductive problems in his long-term study of lab rats, the biotech industry mounted a furious attack despite the fact that he merely replicated the biotech industry’s own study in every detail but one—Seralini’s was was a lifetime study, not 90 days.
Bizarrely, the industry was in effect attacking its own study.
Nevertheless Vlieger is upbeat that the tide of public opinion is finally starting to shift. People are realizing that when we quit using GM seeds and chemicals and return to re-balancing and revitalizing the soil, the soil improves.
When we take away the GM feed, the animals improve. When we humans remove GM food from our diet, doctors report 100% of their patients improve, he said.
Vlieger likes to end his lectures with a quote from his friend and mentor Dr. Don Huber:
“Will future historians look back and write about our times, not about the pounds of pesticides we did or did not apply, but how willing we were to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive experiment we call genetic engineering, that is based on failed promises and flawed science, just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.”
The last slide in the lecture shows the image of Vlieger’s smiling 6-month-old granddaughter. “I'm doing this work for her,” Vlieger said.
------------------------
Charles Mish taught English, film, and journalism for 37 years at Edmonds Community College. Now retired, he and his wife Clarissa live in a solar home and grow biodynamic fruit and vegetables on Lopez Island.
In his first experiment with GM crops back in 1997, it didn’t take Iowa farmer Howard Vlieger long to figure out that his cows were smarter than the Bio Tech scientists.
Initially excited by the potential of this new technology, he decided to see for himself what would happen when he fed his cows both GM and natural corn. Result: all 25 cows walked right past the GM corn to get to the natural corn.
A vigorous, unpretentious man with a determined look and boundless energy, Vlieger recently completed a two-week lecture tour here in Washington state to educate the public about the hazards of GM food. He said he wanted to help Washington voters make an informed choice on I-522, the GMO labeling initiative whose fate will be decided November 5.
“We have a road map on how to win the battle of keeping GMO out of the food supply: educate the consumer,” Vlieger said. “I don't tell people what to think.I just put facts in front of them and let them make up their own minds.” Vlieger took over the family farm after his father's death in 1981.
By 1989 Vlieger had taken up alternative farming, or what he calls biological crop production as well as organic methods. In 1992 he founded Verity Farms, a company offering nutritional advice on crops to farmers transitioning out of chemically intensive agriculture.
In his work, Vlieger draws not only on his own experience, but also on the experience of his fellow farmers. He tells the story of a farmer who wrote to the Farm Bureau of West Central Iowa that his hogs were having reproductive and intestinal problems at an unusually high rate (miscarriages, bloody bowels, ileitis, salmonella).
When the story was circulated in the Bureau’s newsletter, several farmers called the office and reported the same kind of problems. Eventually it was discovered that all the farmers in the area were using the same type of GM corn.
When they switched back to feeding their hogs the natural corn, the problems vanished, Vlieger said. When the situation was brought to the attention of the local Ag school scientists, they did not see a connection between the GM feed and the pigs’ problems. “Anecdotal information,” they said. “Inconclusive.” Here too, it did not take long for Vlieger to realize that the hog farmers were smarter than the scientists.
Not to say that Vlieger is against science per se. Quite the opposite. When he had the good fortune to meet Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus at Purdue, Huber told him that the Vlieger’s boots-on-the- ground, hands-on experiences and observations were the first step of science, Vlieger said. Huber was happy to work with a farmer who noticed problems and patterns in his practice of agriculture.
Huber said the next step would be to conduct a full-fledged scientific experiment with protocols and controls.
This year, in collaboration with Dr. Judy Carmen of Australia, Vlieger co-authored and published the world’s first peer-reviewed, double-blind, independent long-term study of hogs fed GM grain and non-GM grain for their life span as a meat animal.
This study showed statistically significant findings: first, the uteruses were 25% heavier in sows fed GM grain; second, the boars were 2.6 and the sows 2.2 times more likely to seek to have severe inflammation in the stomach.
The study brought Vlieger international recognition, and continued the work begun by scientists such as Arpad Pusztai (UK 1999), Gilles Seralini (France 2012) and others—all conducting long-term studies on animals showing serious adverse effects—e.g., organ damage, tumors, reproductive problems.
Almost unbelievably, Vlieger said, in our country the FDA did not require even one long-term animal study. The biotech industry’s testing was voluntary and no study longer than 90 days was ever submitted. When you get past 90 days, that's when the problems begin, he said.
This work is not for the faint of heart. Consider the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a well-respected scientist at the prestigious Rowett Institute in Scotland with over 300 peer-reviewed published articles.
When he sounded the alarm in regards to the foreign protein in GMO crops, he was brutally and viciously attached by the biotech industry. The industry literally tried to destroy him, Vlieger said.
A similar fate befell Seralini in France. When he reported massive tumors, organ damage, and reproductive problems in his long-term study of lab rats, the biotech industry mounted a furious attack despite the fact that he merely replicated the biotech industry’s own study in every detail but one—Seralini’s was was a lifetime study, not 90 days.
Bizarrely, the industry was in effect attacking its own study.
Nevertheless Vlieger is upbeat that the tide of public opinion is finally starting to shift. People are realizing that when we quit using GM seeds and chemicals and return to re-balancing and revitalizing the soil, the soil improves.
When we take away the GM feed, the animals improve. When we humans remove GM food from our diet, doctors report 100% of their patients improve, he said.
Vlieger likes to end his lectures with a quote from his friend and mentor Dr. Don Huber:
“Will future historians look back and write about our times, not about the pounds of pesticides we did or did not apply, but how willing we were to sacrifice our children and future generations for this massive experiment we call genetic engineering, that is based on failed promises and flawed science, just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.”
The last slide in the lecture shows the image of Vlieger’s smiling 6-month-old granddaughter. “I'm doing this work for her,” Vlieger said.
------------------------
Charles Mish taught English, film, and journalism for 37 years at Edmonds Community College. Now retired, he and his wife Clarissa live in a solar home and grow biodynamic fruit and vegetables on Lopez Island.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science
GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science
Sporting a white coat and tagged with impressive credentials, Dr. Ronald Kleinman carries an aura of authority on camera as he says, "There are no cancer risks associated with agriculture produced through biotech. None whatsoever."
The online advertisement featuring the physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School was rolled out on Tuesday by a campaign opposing California’s Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of genetically modified foods -- so-called GMOs.
But on Wednesday, Californians -- along with the rest of the world -- heard a very different message: A two-year study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen in France and published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, found that a widely grown GMO corn variety raised the rate of cancer and increased the risk of kidney and liver problems in rats.
Dr. Kleinman consults for General Mills and presents webinars on children's health for Coca-Cola, both major funders of the fight against Proposition 37 -- along with Monsanto, DuPont and others.
So, what does this leave the public to believe? Where does the science stand on the safety of GMOs?
It's not easy to say. And that's exactly the problem, according to experts. There have been a handful of studies that have hinted at human health concerns, including allergies. And there have been studies, even a recent review of studies evaluating five different genetically modified crops, suggesting there are no concerns. But overall, few studies have looked at the range of potential effects that the introduction of foreign genes may have on a food's safety.
Sporting a white coat and tagged with impressive credentials, Dr. Ronald Kleinman carries an aura of authority on camera as he says, "There are no cancer risks associated with agriculture produced through biotech. None whatsoever."
The online advertisement featuring the physician-in-chief at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School was rolled out on Tuesday by a campaign opposing California’s Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of genetically modified foods -- so-called GMOs.
But on Wednesday, Californians -- along with the rest of the world -- heard a very different message: A two-year study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen in France and published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, found that a widely grown GMO corn variety raised the rate of cancer and increased the risk of kidney and liver problems in rats.
Dr. Kleinman consults for General Mills and presents webinars on children's health for Coca-Cola, both major funders of the fight against Proposition 37 -- along with Monsanto, DuPont and others.
So, what does this leave the public to believe? Where does the science stand on the safety of GMOs?
It's not easy to say. And that's exactly the problem, according to experts. There have been a handful of studies that have hinted at human health concerns, including allergies. And there have been studies, even a recent review of studies evaluating five different genetically modified crops, suggesting there are no concerns. But overall, few studies have looked at the range of potential effects that the introduction of foreign genes may have on a food's safety.
Are GMO foods safe? Opponents are skewing the science to scare people. - Slate Magazine
Are GMO foods safe? Opponents are skewing the science to scare people. - Slate Magazine
I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters.
Then I started paying attention to how anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods. You might be surprised at how successful they've been and who has helped them pull it off.
I’ve found that fears are stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs.
The latest audacious example of scientific distortion came last week, in the form of a controversial (but peer reviewed!) study that generated worldwide headlines. A French research team purportedly found that GMO corn fed to rats caused them to develop giant tumors and die prematurely.
Within 24 hours, the study's credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors—serious, blatantly obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer reviewers. Many critics pointed out that the researchers chose a strain of rodents extremely prone to tumors. Other key aspects of the study, such as its sample size and statistical analysis, have also been highly criticized. One University of Florida scientist suggests the study was "designed to frighten" the public.*
That's no stretch of the imagination, considering the history of the lead author, Gilles-Eric Seralini, who, as NPR reports, "has been campaigning against GM crops since 1997," and whose research methods have been "questioned before," according to the New York Times.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Scientist that Discovered GMO Health Hazards Immediately Fired, Team Dismantled | Consciousness TV
Scientist that Discovered GMO Health Hazards Immediately Fired, Team Dismantled | Consciousness TV
Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public hearing.
Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.
Sources for this article include:
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
What to Make of the Scary GMO Study? | Food Safety News
What to Make of the Scary GMO Study? | Food Safety News
I am a strong supporter of labeling GMO foods. Consumers have the right to know.
That’s enough of a reason to support California’s Prop. 37. There is no need to muddy the waters with difficult-to-interpret science.
My e-mail inbox was flooded with messages yesterday about the new long-term rat study reporting that both GMO corn and Roundup (glyphosate herbicide) increase mammary tumors in mice.
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, concludes:
I am a strong supporter of labeling GMO foods. Consumers have the right to know.
That’s enough of a reason to support California’s Prop. 37. There is no need to muddy the waters with difficult-to-interpret science.
My e-mail inbox was flooded with messages yesterday about the new long-term rat study reporting that both GMO corn and Roundup (glyphosate herbicide) increase mammary tumors in mice.
The study, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, concludes:
The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural glyphosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances… the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Who’s afraid of GMOs? National Post (Propaganda)
Who’s afraid of GMOs? | Full Comment | National Post
So why are so many still fearful of this technology? One simple answer is junk science, and its carefully crafted use as a weapon of mass fear.
Jeremy Rifkin was the first junk dealer to make big money by scaring people about the potential dangers of genetic engineering. Rifkin is no scientist, but an economist and prolific story spinner...
Greenpeace and other special interest groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the U.K.’s Soil Association, have deployed their considerable media-manipulating machinery to spread more scare stories...
Recently, French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini and his team published a peer-reviewed paper that claimed harm to test animals after they were fed GM corn for two years. Séralini boasted that his paper was the first long-term GM feeding trial. But Séralini, and later his disciples, failed to note the many other peer-reviewed, long-term GM feeding studies, including one in the journal in which his claims appeared, that concluded the opposite about the effect of GM food on animals: that such food was as safe, or safer, than regular non-GM food and feed.
So why are so many still fearful of this technology? One simple answer is junk science, and its carefully crafted use as a weapon of mass fear.
Jeremy Rifkin was the first junk dealer to make big money by scaring people about the potential dangers of genetic engineering. Rifkin is no scientist, but an economist and prolific story spinner...
Greenpeace and other special interest groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the U.K.’s Soil Association, have deployed their considerable media-manipulating machinery to spread more scare stories...
Recently, French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini and his team published a peer-reviewed paper that claimed harm to test animals after they were fed GM corn for two years. Séralini boasted that his paper was the first long-term GM feeding trial. But Séralini, and later his disciples, failed to note the many other peer-reviewed, long-term GM feeding studies, including one in the journal in which his claims appeared, that concluded the opposite about the effect of GM food on animals: that such food was as safe, or safer, than regular non-GM food and feed.
GMO Seralini Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study - GMO Seralini
GMO Seralini Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study - GMO Seralini
1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.
http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralinis-study-was-so-badly-designed-that-no-conclusions-can-be-drawn-from-it/
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-is-the-study-important/
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval. http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency to cancer increases with age. http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/
http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralinis-study-was-so-badly-designed-that-no-conclusions-can-be-drawn-from-it/
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-is-the-study-important/
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval. http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency to cancer increases with age. http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)