Health & Fitness

We’ve known from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic that children were at exceptionally low risk for hospitalization and death from this infection. Despite that, massive efforts are underway to get a needle in the arm of every child.

At present, COVID-19 injections are authorized for emergency use in children as young as 12 in the U.S.,¹ and vaccine makers are moving forward with plans to get authorization for children as young as 6 months.

Fortunately, there are glimmers of hope, here and there. In the U.K., children will not be eligible to receive a COVID shot unless they have underlying conditions that make them more vulnerable to infection or live with a high-risk person. As reported by The Guardian, July 19, 2021:²

“The opinion of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) expands the eligibility for children, after a previous decision that vulnerable 16- and 17-year-olds could get vaccinated … [T]he advisory body said:

‘The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.’”

Vulnerabilities that would make children over the age of 12 eligible for COVID injection include severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities.

If you ask me, this is a rather curious list, seeing how neurodevelopmental problems are unlikely to make you more prone to viral infection. We already know the high-risk factors for COVID-19 are things like obesity and multiple chronic diseases — not neurological problems and intellectual deficiencies.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, this list is uncomfortably similar to that of Hitler’s T4 program. This was an involuntary euthanasia campaign where the incurably sick, physically and mentally handicapped, psychologically ill and elderly were selectively murdered by the medical establishment.

COVID-19 Deaths in Children Extremely Rare

Overall, the risk of COVID-19 to children of all ages is so small as to be inconsequential, learning disabilities and chromosomal irregularities or not. A study³ posted July 7, 2021, which looked at deaths occurring in children in the U.K. during the first 12 months of the pandemic, found 99.995% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 survived.

In all, between March 2020 and February 2021, only 25 children under the age of 18 died directly as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (An additional 61 children had positive test results when they died, but their death was attributed to other causes.) This gives us an absolute mortality rate for children of 2 per 1 million. As noted by the authors:⁴

“SARS-CoV-2 is very rarely fatal in CYP [children and young people], even among those with underlying comorbidities. These findings are important to guide families, clinicians and policy makers about future shielding and vaccination.”

Childhood Vaccination Push Built on Flimsy Evidence

In the United States, a total of 335 children under 18 have died with a COVID-19 diagnosis on their death certificate.⁵ The CDC estimates the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children zero to 17 years old is 20 per 1 million.⁶ This is likely a significant overestimation, however.

In the British study above, they specifically differentiated between those who actually died from COVID-19, meaning there was no other underlying condition that contributed to their death, and those who simply tested positive at the time of death but died from other causes.

This has not been done in the U.S., so we don’t know how many of those 335 children had underlying conditions that contributed or directly caused their death. As noted by Marty Makary in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece dated July 19, 2021:⁷

“Without these data, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] decided in May that the benefits of two-dose vaccination outweigh the risks for all kids 12 to 15.

I’ve written hundreds of peer-reviewed medical studies, and I can think of no journal editor who would accept the claim that 335 deaths resulted from a virus without data to indicate if the virus was incidental or causal, and without an analysis of relevant risk factors such as obesity.”

To remedy this shortcoming, Makary and colleagues at Johns Hopkins teamed up with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze the health insurance data of approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between April and August 2020.

As it turns out, none of the children who died were free of preexisting medical conditions such as cancer. “If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses,” Makary says.⁸

Overall, children appear naturally immune against COVID-19⁹ and are not significant vectors of transmission either.¹⁰ So, there’s really no need to place draconian COVID restrictions on children out of fear for their own safety or anyone else’s.

Death Statistics Were Illegally Inflated From the Start

Makary also points out that we’ve already established that COVID-19 mortality statistics have been vastly overinflated in the U.S.¹¹ In early June 2021, Alameda County in California lowered its reported death toll from COVID-19 by 25%, after state health officials insisted that deaths only be attributed to COVID-19 if SARS-CoV-2 infection was a direct or contributing factor.¹²

As detailed in “CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities,” investigation has revealed the CDC inflated fatalities by as much as 96%. They did this by illegally altering the way deaths are reported. Had the old guidelines remained in place, the COVID-19 death toll as of August 23, 2020, in the U.S. would have been 9,684.

As you may recall, in late August 2020, the CDC admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.¹³ As of August 23, 2021, the CDC reported 161,392 COVID-related fatalities. Multiplied by 6%, you get an actual death toll of 9,684.

It’s hard to believe anyone would be willing to shut down commerce in an entire state over such a number. It’s also hard to believe people would line up to take an unproved and dangerous experimental gene modification injection based on a mortality risk this low.

Unfortunately, we’ve been lied to for so long, many are still effectively brainwashed with the continuous propaganda from mainstream news and public health officials that have long since abandoned their commitment to integrity.

Parents Clamor to Enroll Their Children in COVID Trials

Mainstream media have since the very beginning ignored and hidden data showing COVID-19 isn’t as bad as initially feared. And now they’re ignoring and hiding data showing the COVID shots are worse than suspected. Wired Magazine, for example, blames parents’ apprehension to have their children injected with experimental gene therapy on right-wing politics rather than actual data.¹⁴

Wired also reports that more parents have volunteered their children for clinical COVID-19 trials than trial sites have spaces for which, to me, suggests many are still clueless about the risks of these injections, as well as the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Fauci Blasted for Latest Mask Recommendation

In related news, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently faced backlash after saying children aged 2 and older should continue to wear masks.¹⁵ During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Fauci said:

“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”

It’s tiring, all of these outrageous and health damaging lies — no doubt about that. Another thing there’s no doubt about is that Fauci has changed his mind on the usefulness of masks more times than some of us have actually donned said masks.

In response to Fauci’s declaration that children need to be forced to wear masks to protect adults, New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz tweeted, “I can’t believe it’s July 2021 and this man is still spouting nonsense on our televisions without any serious follow-up questions. What an embarrassment.”¹⁶

Children Are Not at Risk

Getting back to the issue of COVID jabs, all available data suggest COVID-19 is of no significant concern for children. Their risk of being hospitalized or dying from COVID-19 is actually lower than their risk of being hospitalized or dying from the flu.¹⁷

For comparison, more than 2,000 American children and teens died in car crashes in 2019,¹⁸ and accidental drowning claims the lives of nearly 1,000 children each year.¹⁹ Even unintentional drug overdoses claim more lives than COVID-19 in this age group. In 2016, unintentional drug poisoning killed 761 children.²⁰

Why isn’t there a national outrage about these drug-related deaths, seeing how the 2016 statistics show that more than TWICE the number of children most likely have died from overdoses during the pandemic than supposedly died from COVID-19?

There’s also no solid evidence to assume children pose a transmission risk to adults. Besides, 90% of American seniors have now received their COVID shots,²¹ so by the logic of the official narrative, the most vulnerable adults now have the best herd immunity available and are individually protected with the best modern medicine supposedly has to offer.

Importantly, since children’s risk is so minuscule, there’s really no legal framework for an emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children. Still, the Food and Drug Administration and vaccine makers push forward with that exact plan. Hopefully, they’ll be stopped.

July 19, 2021, America’s Frontline Doctors filed a motion to stop the emergency use authorization of COVID injections for children under 18, anyone with natural immunity and anyone who has not been given proper informed consent.^22,23

In their motion, the group points out that the prerequisite health emergency no longer exists, that COVID shots do not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, that adequate treatment alternatives exist, and that the known risks of COVID gene modifying injections outweigh any potential benefit for these groups.

They also include a sworn statement by a CDC whistleblower, a computer programmer, who claims the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) under-reports deaths by a factor of five or more. The whistleblower estimates the number of deaths actually may have been around 45,000 as of July 9, 2021.

Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical

An opinion piece in The BMJ²⁴ by Peter Doshi, Elia Abi-Jaoude and Claudina Michal-Teitelbaum also highlights why we must not force children to take the COVID shot simply because it might help vulnerable adults. They write:²⁵

“While there is wide recognition that children’s risk of severe covid-19 is low, many believe that mass vaccination of children may … also prevent onward transmission, indirectly protecting vulnerable adults and helping end the pandemic. However, there are multiple assumptions that need to be examined when judging calls to vaccinate children against covid-19 …

Even if one assumes protection against severe covid-19, given its very low incidence in children, an extremely high number would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent one severe case. Meanwhile, a large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown.

Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3000 to 1 in 6000 in men ages 16 to 24. Furthermore, the long term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown …

Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical.

Even if we were to assume this protection does exist, the number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 — considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid — would be extraordinarily high.

Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavorably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events. A separate, but crucial question is one of ethics. Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves.”

Doshi was even more blunt in his June 10, 2021, public comment²⁶ to the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. There, he pointed out that the FDA can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.

This means that even if adults were to benefit, the COVID shots cannot be authorized for children unless children will actually benefit from it themselves. Since when, in the history of public health, have children been sacrificed to protect the sick and elderly? Public health authorities have completely reversed the conventional risk/reward analysis.

In the case of COVID-19 injections, children cannot benefit, seeing how they only have a 0.005% risk of death in the first place. Meanwhile, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s biodistribution study^27,28 raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility.

Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s no need to rush the approval of these injections for children.

CDC Is Deliberating Lowering the COVID Injection Death Toll

While the exact number of deaths from these COVID shots remains uncertain — VAERS reports 12,313 deaths²⁹ as of July 13, 2021, and the CDC whistleblower estimates the death toll at 45,000 or higher — we can unequivocally state that the number is record-breaking high. There’s no vaccine in modern medical history that even comes close. The risk is extraordinary, which is precisely why we must protect our children from it.

Speaking of the CDC, I just discovered it slashed the number of deaths reported to VAERS from 12,313 as of July 13, 2021, to 6,079. In what appears to be a deliberate attempt at deception, the CDC “rolled back” its July 19, 2021, adverse events report to statistics from the previous week. I’ll explain. Take note of the specific dates and death totals in each of the following excerpts. The July 13 report reads as follows:³⁰

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

The original July 19 report (saved on Wayback) initially read as follows:³¹

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 12,313 reports of death (0.0036%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Please note, the death toll more than doubled in a single week. That original July 19 report was then changed to this. The date on the report is still July 19:³²

“Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 13, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.”

At a time when accuracy and transparency is of such critical importance for informed consent, it’s beyond shocking to see the CDC engage in this kind of deception. Parents everywhere need to realize that the CDC and other agencies and their officials are deliberately downplaying and hiding the enormity of the danger their children will face if they take this injection.

I implore you. Please spend ample time looking at all the evidence before you allow your child to participate in this heinous experiment. I understand that the inclination to trust our “gold standard” health agencies is great, but trust must be continuously earned. It’s not a one-time done deal.

At this point, having a skeptical eye and double-checking every claim is of paramount importance. Your child’s health and life may depend on you not being gullible.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3f2Y0ED
via IFTTT

Every totalitarian system in history has used the power of visual propaganda to generate a new "reality," one that reifies its official ideology, remaking the world in its own paranoid image. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception. For example, take a look at this panel copied from the landing page of The Guardian — one of the global-capitalist ruling classes' primary propaganda organs — on July 17, 2021 …

This isn't just "biased" or "sensationalist" journalism. It is systematic official propaganda, no different than that disseminated by every other totalitarian system throughout history. Here's the one from the following day …

Forget about the content of the articles for a moment and just take in the cumulative visual effect. Official propaganda isn't just information, misinformation, and disinformation.

It is actually less about getting us to believe things than it is about creating an official reality, and imposing it on society by force. When you're setting out to conjure up a new "reality," images are extremely powerful tools, just as powerful, if not more powerful, than words. Here are a few more that you might recall …

Again, the goal of this type of propaganda is not simply to deceive or terrorize the public. That is part of it, of course, but the more important part is forcing people to look at these images, over and over, hour after hour, day after day, at home, at work, on the streets, on television, on the Internet, everywhere.

This is how we create "reality." We represent our beliefs and values to ourselves, and to each other, with images, words, rituals, and other symbols and social behaviors. Essentially, we conjure our "reality" into being like actors rehearsing and performing a play … the more we all believe it, the more convincing it is.

This is also why mandatory masks have been essential to the roll-out of the New Normal ideology. Forcing the masses to wear medical-looking masks in public was a propaganda masterstroke.

Simply put, if you can force people to dress up like they're going to work in the infectious disease ward of a hospital every day for 17 months … presto! You've got yourself a new "reality" … a new, pathologized-totalitarian "reality," a paranoid-psychotic, cult-like "reality" in which formerly semi-rational people have been reduced to nonsense-babbling lackeys who are afraid to go outside without permission from "the authorities," and are injecting their children with experimental "vaccines."

The sheer power of the visual image of those masks, and being forced to repeat the ritual behavior of putting them on, has been nearly irresistible. Yes, I know that you have been resisting. So have I. But we are the minority. Denying the power of what we are up against might make you feel better, but it will get us nowhere, or, in any event, nowhere good.

The fact is, the vast majority of the public — except for people in Sweden, Florida, and assorted other officially non-existent places — have been robotically performing this theatrical ritual, and harassing those who refuse to do so, and thus collectively simulating an "apocalyptic plague."

The New Normals — i.e., those still wearing masks outdoors, shrieking over meaningless "cases," bullying everyone to get "vaccinated," and collaborating with the segregation of the "Unvaccinated" — are not behaving the way they're behaving because they are stupid.

They are behaving that way because they're living in a new "reality" that has been created for them over the course of the last 17 months by a massive official propaganda campaign, the most extensive and effective in the history of propaganda.

In other words, to put it bluntly, we are in a propaganda war, and we're losing. We can't match the propaganda power of the corporate media and New Normal governments, but that doesn't mean we can't fight back. We can, and must, at every opportunity. Recently, readers have been asking me how to do that. So, OK, here are a few simple suggestions.

The vast majority of obedient New Normals are not fanatical totalitarians. They're scared, and weak, so they are following orders, adjusting their minds to the new official "reality."

Most of them do not perceive themselves as adherents of a totalitarian system or as segregationists, although that is what they are. They perceive themselves as "responsible" people following sensible "health directives" to "protect" themselves and others from the virus, and its ever-multiplying mutant "variants." They perceive the "Unvaccinated" as a minority of dangerous, irrational "conspiracy theorist" extremists, who want to kill them and their families.

When we tell them that we simply want our constitutional rights back, and to not be forced into being "vaccinated," and censored and persecuted for expressing our views, they do not believe us. They think we're lying. They perceive us as threats, as aggressors, as monsters, as strangers among them, who need to be dealt with … which is exactly how the authorities want them to perceive us.

We need to try to change this perception, not by complying or being "polite" to them. On the contrary, we need to become more confrontational. No, not violent. Confrontational. There is actually a difference, though the "woke" will deny it.

To begin with, we need to call things what they are. The "vaccination pass" system is a segregation system. It is segregationism. Call it what it is. Those cooperating with it are segregationists. They're not "helping" or "protecting" anybody from anything. They are segregationists, pure and simple. Refer to them as "segregationists." Don't let them hide behind their terminology. Confront them with the fact of what they are.

Same goes for the rest of CovidSpeak. COVID "cases," "deaths," and "vaccines" get scare quotes. Healthy people are not medical cases. If COVID didn't kill someone, they are not a COVID death, period. "Vaccines" that do not behave like vaccines, and that are killing and crippling tens of thousands of people, and that have not been adequately tested for safety, and that are being indiscriminately forced on everyone, do not get to be called vaccines.

OK, here comes the big idea, which will only work if enough people do it. You probably won't like it, but what the hell, here goes …

This is the red inverted triangle the Nazis used in the concentration camps to designate their political opponents and members of the anti-Nazi resistance. Make one. Make it out of fabric, paper, or whatever material you have at hand. Put a big, black "U" in the center of it to signify "Unvaccinated." Wear it in public, conspicuously.

When people ask you what it means and why you are wearing it in public, tell them. Encourage them to do the same, assuming they're not New Normal segregationists, in which case … well, that will be a different conversation, but go ahead and tell them too.

That's it. That's the whole big idea. That, and whatever else you are already doing. The triangle is not meant to replace that. It's just one simple way for people to express their opposition to the totalitarian, pseudo-medical segregation system that is currently being implemented … despite all that other stuff you've been doing, and that I have been doing, for 17 months.

All right, I can already feel your disappointment. You thought I was going to propose a frontal assault on Klaus Schwab's secret castle, or a guerilla naval attack on Bill Gates' yacht. Cathartic as either of those endeavors might be, they would be (a) futile, and (b) suicidal. Frustrating as it has been for all of us, this is still a battle for hearts and minds. Essentially, it is a War on Reality (or between two "realities" if you prefer). It is being fought in people's heads, not in the streets.

So, let me try to sell you on this red triangle thing. The point of a visual protest like this is to force the New Normals to confront a different representation of what they, and we, are. A representation that accurately reflects reality.

No, of course we are not in concentration camps — so, please, spare me the irate literalist emails — but we are being segregated, scapegoated, censored, humiliated, and otherwise abused, not for any legitimate public health reasons, but because of our political dissent, because we refuse to mindlessly follow orders and conform to their new official ideology.

The New Normals need to be forced to perceive their beliefs and actions in that context, even if only for a few fleeting moments at the mall, or in the grocery store, or wherever.

Think of it this way … as I explained above, they are basically performing a theatrical event, conjuring up a "pandemic reality" with words, actions, and pseudo-medical stage props. What we need to become is that asshole in the audience who destroys the suspension of disbelief and reminds everyone that they're sitting in a theater, and not in 15th Century Denmark, by loudly taking a call on his phone right in the middle of Hamlet's soliloquy.

Seriously, we need to become that asshole as conspicuously as possible, as often as possible, to disrupt the show the New Normals are performing … and to remind them what they are actually doing, and who they are actually doing it to.

Look at the white people in the tweet above tormenting that girl who is just trying to go to school like any other student. The New Normals do not want to perceive themselves that way, as a pack of fanatical, hate-drunk segregationists, but that is what they are, because it is what they are doing … but it is not what most of them are by nature.

Yes, some people are congenitally sociopathic, but no one is inherently totalitarian. We are not born fascists or segregationists. We have to be programmed to be that way. That's what the propaganda is for, not to mention all the other authoritarian conditioning we are subjected to from the time we are children.

Or that's the gamble, or the leap of faith, behind the inverted red triangle thing. It is a basic non-violent civil-disobedience tactic, which works on people who still have a conscience and haven't gone full totalitarian yet.

Granted, it might not work this time — we are already at the stage where they are going to imprison restaurant owners for serving the "Unvaccinated" — but it might, and what have we got to lose?

About the Author

C.J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2TEMCXU
via IFTTT

Charlotte Caslick opens up about her physical and mental wellbeing ahead of the Rugby 7’s Olympic games.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3BOTC5Q

Body+Soul meets the cast of ladies gracing our screens for The Bachelor 2021.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3rDLGQi

Emergency department visit rates because of an opioid overdose increased by 28.5 percent across the U.S. in 2020, compared to 2018 and 2019, recent research finds.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zLXAKO

With the Olympics underway, higher testosterone has often been linked to sporting success, and other kinds of success too. But beyond sport, new research has found little evidence that testosterone meaningfully influences life chances for men or women. In fact, the study suggests that despite the social myths surrounding testosterone, it could be much less important than previously thought.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UQLKAl

Researchers have developed a computational tool that identifies cancer driver mutations for each tumor type.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ia4Aej

Researchers surveyed 1,175 surgeons and surgical trainees from across the U.S. to study their or their partner's pregnancy experiences. They found that 48 percent of surveyed female surgeons experienced major pregnancy complications, with those who operated 12-or-more hours per week during the last trimester of pregnancy at a higher risk compared to those who did not.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2V2KMRj

Using advanced imaging technology, scientists have provided an unprecedented understanding of the BRCA1-BARD1 protein complex, which is often mutated in patients with breast or ovarian cancer. Their paper identifies aspects of how BRCA1-BARD1 functions, supporting future translational research, cancer prevention efforts and drug development.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/37dvXOd

MicroCT of infected human lung tissue, along with histology and immunohistochemistry, was used to construct images of TB granulomas, airways and vasculature.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3j2D1TH

Brain imaging and mathematical modeling reveal previously unreported mechanistic features of symptoms associated with major depressive disorder.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3l7rDs4

In a major advancement in the field of gene therapy for rare and devastating diseases, researchers have developed a "dimmer switch" system that can control levels of proteins expressed from gene therapy vectors. The system is based on alternative RNA splicing using an orally available small molecule and works effectively in tissues throughout the body, including the brain.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UQBMyT

In an attempt to find out why the long-term outcomes are poorer for patients with lobular breast cancer -- which affects some 40,000 women a year -- researchers began looking at the role of the protein MDC1 in tumor cells.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2V2xWCy

Researchers have shown that postpartum depression can inhibit a mother's ability to instill healthy tooth brushing habits in children. The study demonstrates the need to foster greater mental support and management for mothers and incorporate these factors when assessing children's oral health.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3l6jwvP

Women often struggle with managing their weight and other health risk factors, such as high cholesterol, once they transition through menopause. A new study suggests that dancing may effectively lower cholesterol levels, improve fitness and body composition and in the process, improve self-esteem.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2WviSxU

By Dr. Mercola

In its latest move against small farmers who dare to operate outside the umbrella of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and Monsanto-dominated crops, the U.S. government has seized $70,000 from a small dairy farmer in Maryland. The feds did this under the "Bank Secrecy Act," which requires that paperwork be filled out for any cash deposit in excess of $10,000.

The farmers, Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, made deposits totaling more than $295,000 from May 2011 to February 2012, but each transaction was less than $10,000.

Now they are being accused of "structuring," a violation of federal currency reporting requirements, as the feds are accusing them of deliberately depositing money in increments of less than $10,000 in an attempt to evade Currency Transaction Reporting requirements.

Government Seizes $70,000 On What Grounds?

The dairy farmer's "crime" stems from his weekly sales at local farmers' markets. The sales averaged about the same amount each week and, dutifully, the Sowers deposited them. They'd reportedly never even heard of the Bank Secrecy Act or "structuring," but that was of no interest to the feds—the consistency of the amount the Sowers deposited, always less than $10,000, raised red flags to the feds, who claimed that this was indicative of a crime.

The government promptly seized about $70,000 from the bank account, then issued a warrant for the seizures. As reported by Food Freedom News:¹

"The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers' money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy. Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting. When a similar action was taken against Taylor's Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor's money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family's income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.… Former Maryland assistant U.S. attorney Steven Levin told the paper [City Paper], "The emphasis is on basically seizing money, whether it is legally or illegally earned. It can lead to financial ruin for business owners, and there's a potential for abuse here by the government.""

The raid on the Sowers was conducted by an agency created in 2009 to go after money-laundering criminals. The agency started out with a bang by seizing $1.2 billion from a real money launderer, but it appears that what it's interested in now is making criminals out of small business persons, including small farmers.

Why Are Family Farms Under Attack?

If they're not seizing bank accounts, it seems the government will find other ways to attack small farmers. A family farm in rural Michigan—and possibly others—may be shut down by a new state law that designates certain breeds of hogs as a threat to neighboring hog breeders and croplands.

Basically, the fight is over the definition of feral hogs vs. domestic hogs. The dictionary definition of "feral" refers to an animal running wild. But Michigan authorities have taken it a step further and extended the definition to include enclosed private hunting preserves and small farms that house what authorities call an "invasive species" of hogs.

There is no genetic test to determine whether the species on these farms are truly invasive, so authorities are basing their cases against these farmers solely on visual observations. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) uses this vague description to describe the prohibited hogs, and makes it clear that this does not apply to the domestic hogs raised on CAFOs:²

"Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production."

Other descriptions supplied by the MDNR include such a wide variety of characteristics that virtually any pig other than the familiar pink domestic breed raised on CAFOs could potentially be deemed "feral":

• Erect or folded/floppy ear structure
• Straight or curly tail
• Solid black, wild/grizzled, solid red/brown, black and white spotted, or black and red/brown spotted coat colorations
• "Other characteristics" not currently known to the MDNR

Interestingly, the Big Pork industry has been planning this anti-feral pig campaign for years, and even bragged about it in a 2010 newsletter.³ It was the same newsletter where they declared a win against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Ohio, where HSUS was seeking legislation to end the practice of sow gestation stalls (cages so small the sow can't turn around or move).

What this means for residents of Michigan is that soon they will be unable to purchase sustainably and humanely grown meat from the Mangalitsa "wooly" hogs raised on Baker's Green Acres farm. This particular breed is being raised by only a handful of small farms across the country; whereas more than 2 million pigs are slaughtered each week in the United States, only about 50 of them are Mangalitsas (which have been called the "it" pig by the New York Times, as several high-end restaurants and specialty markets have featured the rich, naturally raised meat⁴).

But, of course, this issue is about much more than pasture-raised pork from a heritage breed ... it's about your ability, your right, to purchase and consume pure, unadulterated food – a right that continues to be threated for those living in the United States.

FDA Also Threatens Your Right to Food Choice …

Another glaring example of government going out of its way to prohibit your access to pure, unprocessed food is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) war against raw milk. When the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban, stating that banning raw milk in interstate commerce is unconstitutional, the FDA rebutted with the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements:

• "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
• "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
• "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
• FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
• "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."

Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they've had it all along. If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.

What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable. No one, and certainly not any government agency, should be able to restrict your access to pure, unadulterated food, but the dairy industry and other industrial farmers that depend on CAFOs employ powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government to remove the small farmers from the market entirely. The truth is, if enough people start demanding naturally, sustainably and humanely raised meat, dairy and produce, the giant farming monopolies that currently dominate the market would not be able to compete.

Their businesses depend on pesticides, CAFOs, genetically modified seeds, growth hormones and the like … so when they see all-natural creameries like the one operated by Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, or natural farms like Bakers Green Acres gaining loyal and growing customer bases, they get nervous – and they get the government involved in any way they can.

Please Support Your Local Small Farms

The healthiest food choices are nearly always those that come from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.

This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.

If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:

1. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets
3. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
4. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
5. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
6. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.

Finally, for more information on the ongoing attacks against small family farms in the United States consider watching Farmageddon: The Unseen War on American Family Farms, a documentary by Kristin Canty. But I warn you … the injustices it contains may just make your blood boil.

from Articles : GMO, Finances https://ift.tt/3995XoI
via IFTTT

Although cats have lived alongside humans for millennia, it remains a dogs' world. This bias has historically bled into science as well. It's time for cats to get their day, argues veterinary medicine experts. Cats, they say, have the potential to be a valuable model organism for geneticists, as the feline genome is ordered similarly to humans.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zO3P0m

A team has demonstrated that fermenting drinks fortified with pea and rice proteins yields the same quality of protein as casein, an animal protein found in milk.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3f8Mjfs

Swimming a few laps likely won't turn your child into the next Katie Ledecky or Michael Phelps, but it just might help them become the next J.K. Rowling or Stephen King. A recent study suggests aerobic exercise, such as swimming, can boost kids' vocabulary growth.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Wwj0NF

A new study has found plastic accumulation in foods may be underestimated. There is also concern these microplastics will carry potentially harmful bacteria such as E. coli, which are commonly found in coastal waters, up the food chain.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zFk0wY

New research has uncovered an essential mechanism coordinating the processes of cell division and adhesion within humans. This discovery has profound potential for advancing understanding of cell adhesion signalling in cancerous tumor progression and metastasis.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3BM2TM9

The cost-effectiveness of drug synthesis depends on a number of factors, including the amount of waste produced. A team of researchers have now discovered a catalyst that achieves exceptionally high-precision addition of hydrogen to carbon-carbon bonds, improving targeted synthesis by avoiding convoluted multi-step processes, and reducing wasteful by-products. The authors herald the reaction as especially useful in the production of complex natural substances such as pheromones.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3BNaw4O

A research team has directly reprogrammed whale somatic cells to neuronal cells, and conducted a neurotoxicity test using these cells. Exposure to a metabolite (4?OH-CB72) of polychlorinated biphenyls, ubiquitous environmental pollutants, caused apoptosis in the reprogrammed neurons. Transcriptome analysis of 4?OH-CB72-treated whale neurons showed altered expressions of genes associated with oxidative phosphorylation, chromatin degradation, axonal transport, and neurodegenerative diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3j3oFCy

Women have several choices for long-lasting, reversible contraceptives, but most options for men are either single-use, such as condoms, or difficult to reverse, like vasectomies. Now, in a step toward a safe, long-lasting and reversible male contraceptive, researchers have developed magnetic, biodegradable nanomaterials that reduced the likelihood of mice fathering pups for at least 30 days.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3yayWmp

By Dr. Mercola

Over the years, I've written a number of articles outing industry front groups¹ such as the Genetic Literacy Project, the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH),² Science 2.0, GMO Answers, Independent Women's Forum, Science Codex, Center for Consumer Freedom and the Center for Inquiry.

Once you start to investigate these front groups, you'll find the same names appearing again and again, cowriting articles, interviewing each other and referring to each other's work in a closed loop.

I've also written about academics and journalists who, while presenting themselves as independent experts, are actually shills for industry. This is a fairly close-knit group of individuals, so the worst actors are not hard to identify based on their associations.

Well-established actors include Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy,³ Henry Miller, Steven Salzberg,⁴ Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine,^5,6 Kevin Folta, Keith Kloor⁷ and Mark Lynas.

Learn to Recognize Astroturfing When You See It

In the TED Talk above, award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson discusses strategies used by industry to manipulate public opinion and steer online discussion.

A strategy that has become phenomenally popular with the advent of social media is astroturfing, which is when a special interests group creates a fake grassroots campaign for or against a particular agenda. You might think it's a group of moms devoted to children's health that is touting the benefits of GMOs or vaccines, for example, when in fact the campaign is run by industry.

Increasingly over the past year or so you may have seen a number of articles simultaneously criticizing both the "anti-vaxxers" and "anti-GMO movement," making contemptuous and sometimes wildly insulting comments about people who question the safety of either of these industries and their wares.

While GMOs and vaccines may seem like strange bedfellows, the cross-linking of these two industries in propaganda material is neither accidental nor haphazard.

Industry Messaging Example

In a May 18, 2017 Forbes article,⁸ Senapathy (one well-known mouthpiece for the GMO industry) took aim at the "anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements," saying they're "inextricably linked and cause preventable suffering."

"The thoroughly answered question of whether vaccines cause autism isn't really a question outside of conspiracy-theorist circles," Senapathy writes.

"The body of evidence shows that vaccination has … vastly reduced suffering and death … and that vaccines don't cause autism, cancer, dementia or long term health problems, and that any minute risk is vastly outweighed by benefits to individuals and society.

Yet with the backing of prominent leaders like Robert DeNiro and Robert Kennedy Jr., anti-vaccine groups fuel common narratives that keep herd immunity down, directly leading to suffering and death.

Now with Donald Trump embracing vaccine skeptics, the anti-vaccine movement has earned a hallowed place on the shelf next to other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought.

The question of the safety of genetically engineered crops (GMOs) has been answered just as thoroughly, and the anti-GMO movement deserves its own place on the same shelf, not just for being wrong but for its role in unconscionable suffering …

She goes on to point out how similar the communication tactics are between vaccine and GMO detractors. Ironically, her article reveals just as much if not more about the biotech and vaccine industries' messaging tactics. You can go through her article and check off numerous boxes for how to spot a piece of industry propaganda.

That includes the claim that the science is settled (which automatically precludes the need for further discussion), citing a fellow industry shill (in this case Kloor), using strong, derogatory language when describing those who disagree with industry talking points, making ample references to "conspiracy theories" and "other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought."

Seven Classic Propaganda Techniques

Whenever you hear or read that someone is a "quack," and that "the science has been settled," or that something is "science-based," it's probably a smear campaign created by an astroturf group, industry front group or paid shill. In fact, the seven techniques of propaganda have been clearly delineated and are used without exception by most industries. As noted by writer Morgan Crouch in his article, "What Are the Seven Techniques of Propaganda?" these include:⁹

1. Name calling — Derogatory terms or discriminatory words used to arouse suspicion and prejudice
2. Glittering generalities — Slogans, catchphrases and highly generalized statements that sound good but mean little and prove nothing (such as "the science is settled")
3. Transfer — The linking of a company/industry idea with a revered symbol
4. Testimonial — Testimony by a respected authority, similar to celebrity endorsement
5. Plain folks — Corporate material presented by someone who appears to be "just like you" — someone who shares your concerns and ideals
6. Bandwagon — Creating the illusion that there's a consensus, which capitalizes on people's inherent desire to be on the "right" side
7. Card stacking — Using only those facts that support the company's/industry's ideas, with the aim of making you assume these facts are conclusive. As noted by Crouch, "By 'stacking cards against the truth,' propagandists can control the beliefs of their audience"

Pesticide and Vaccine Partnerships Revealed

While Senapathy tries to show how those who question the safety of either GMOs or vaccines are all alike — that is, tinfoil hat-wearing lunatics who follow flat earth theories in their spare time — what she ultimately achieves is a perfect example of industry PR.

This systematic messaging strategy has been carefully developed, and is known to have a penetrating psychological effect. Both the vaccine and biotechnology industries use the same terminology and the same psychological assault strategies to make you feel like you're in the wrong — or worse.

In her article, Senapathy basically accuses all vaccine and GMO safety advocates of being killers, merely for asking questions and not settling for non-answers, and doing what they think is right for their own health and that of their children.

Another article¹⁰ that connects the vaccine and chemical technology industries was recently published by The Feed.

In it, Ashleigh Morse, Ph.D., whose training centers on psychology and the influence of environmental cues on decision-making, and who says she works as a consultant to "a range of clients" in the field of science communication and public health,¹¹ argues that juries are incapable of assessing the validity of scientific evidence presented in court, or the validity of the scientific methods used.

Specifically, Morse — whose professional credits include a single published research paper listed on her LinkedIN bio on the role of opioid processes in reward and decision-making — is referring to the recent jury verdict against Monsanto, but she goes on to link that to vaccine science. "When juries decide on the science, we get autism linked to vaccines and the Monsanto verdict," she writes.

When In Doubt, Blame the Russians

Then there's the curious claim that the Russians are to blame for Americans' lack of faith in vaccine safety.¹² According to a recent paper¹³ published in the American Journal of Public Health, Russian trolls and Soviet-directed Twitter bots promoted anti-vaccine information on social media to "amplify the vaccine debate" and create dissent in the U.S.

According to the authors, "Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination," and "Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate." Those two sentences are interesting and revealing indeed.

In a nutshell, they're saying that by providing anti-vaccine content, these bots made it seem as though there was actually something to discuss when, in the opinion of the authors, no discussion about vaccine safety should occur at all.

Apparently, it is their view that the vaccine debate is "illegitimate," since there's "public consensus" on vaccines (refer back to the bandwagon strategy, No. 6 in the propaganda list above).

In other words, everyone knows vaccines are safe; the science is settled, so there's no valid reason to question it. Summing up the alleged Russian bots' efforts to sway public opinion against vaccination, the authors referred to it as "weaponized health communication."

The Russians Did It Again

Coincidentally, the vaccine paper above was submitted for publication shortly after news stories began circulating claiming the Russians were behind anti-GMO rhetoric.¹⁴ Minnesota Farm Living writes:¹⁵

"Researchers from Iowa State University (Shawn Dorius and Carolyn Lawrence-Dill) wanted to better understand the controversy around genetically engineered food.¹⁶ The issue is with the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, consumers still question their safety. Dorius and Lawrence-Dill wanted to find out why.

What they found was surprising. The ISU researchers looked at not only how U.S. publications portrayed GMOs but also looked at the American versions of RT and Sputknik, two Russian publications. They counted how many times the term 'GMO' was used in different publications …

They went a step further and analyzed the tone of each article. What they found is the Russian publications were overwhelming anti-GMO. The articles talked negatively about environmental risks, nutrition concerns, and health risks of GMOs."

Here, the author links to the "Are GMOs Safe?" page on the Genetic Literacy Project's website as evidence to support GMO safety. But, the Genetic Literacy Project is a well-known front group for the GMO industry and hardly a reliable source of impartial information.

As for why the Russians would want to spread anti-GMO rhetoric in the U.S., the study authors note Russia has an interest in creating division among the American people to weaken the country as a whole, and to promote their own agricultural exports, as Russia banned GMOs in 2016 and is trying to increase its exports of organic food.

Claim of Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety Is Patently False

In the Minnesota Farm Living article cited above, you can see the telltale industry rhetoric in the sentence, "the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, [yet] consumers still question their safety." The reality is there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

That is in fact the title of a scientific statement¹⁷ published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, January 24, 2015. The statement, aptly titled "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety," was signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians and scholars.

What's more, the paper states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated," and that such a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue."

In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still does not possess any evidence demonstrating safety because they do not do scientific reviews. And even if they did, hundreds of scientists say there's no evidence demonstrating that genetically engineered foods are safe, and a number of independent studies have raised serious health concerns.

To learn more about how GMOs were introduced into the food supply without safety testing, see my two-part interview with attorney Steven Druker, author of "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth." (Part 1, Part 2.)

GMO-Vaccine Convergence

The reason for the joining of PR forces between the vaccine and biotech industries becomes clearer when you take into account the fact that GMOs are moving into the vaccine industry. The 2016 article,¹⁸ "GMOs Lead the Fight Against Zika, Ebola and the Next Unknown Pandemic," published in The Conversation, asserts that GMOs play a "vital role" in medicine, adding:

"Most modern biomedical advances, especially the vaccines used to eradicate disease and protect against pandemics … rely on the same molecular biology tools that are used to create genetically modified organisms.

To protect the public, scientists have embraced GMO technology to quickly study new health threats, manufacture enough protective vaccines, and monitor and even predict new outbreaks."

Additionally, scientists are also exploring the possibility of vaccinating plants against pests as an alternative to using pesticides.¹⁹ In other words, it's really quite crucial for these two bedfellows, strange as their joining may seem at first, to get people to embrace both genetic engineering and vaccines.

That's why we're now seeing more and more articles deriding both vaccine and GMO safety advocates in the same piece, whether it necessarily makes sense to do so or not.

Both of these industries are using the exact same messaging strategies — because so far they have worked — to achieve the same aim: Shame those who dare question the safety of either, and make them feel like ignorant outcasts and social misfits, thereby shutting down the conversation.

Preempting Your Rights

In my five-part "Ghost in the Machine" series, I discuss the many ways in which big industries manipulate science, and how they've captured our regulatory agencies and manipulate our political system. Here's a listing of the series, in case you missed any of them:

"Introduction to Ghost in the Machine — A New Article Series That Exposes How Puppet Masters Control the Planet for Their Benefit"

"Ghost in the Machine, Part 1 — Drug Safety and Media Shaped by Big Pharma"

"Ghost in the Machine, Part 2 — Success Breeds Greed That Gets in the Way of Ethics, Common Sense and Caution"

"Ghost in the Machine, Part 3 — Pride and the Politics of Vaccines"

"Ghost in the Machine, Part 4 — The War on Supplements, Essential Oils and Homeopathy"

"Ghost in the Machine, Part 5 — Lies, Denial, Deceit and Manipulative 'Research'"

A feature common to both the vaccine industry and the biotech industry is the use of legislation to preempt your rights and force you to use their products whether you want to or not, and without regard for the health consequences.

In recent years, I've written extensively about the vaccine industry's attempts to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions across the U.S. In some cases, they've succeeded. In others, they've lost, but efforts to strip every American of their right to informed consent and medical freedom is ongoing.

The chemical technology industry is following the same agenda. One of the latest infringements on your rights is a provision in the Farm Bill that would block local governments from regulating pesticide use. The U.S. House committee approved the draft back in April. As noted by Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides:²⁰

"This is really a backdoor attempt to interfere with state governments and local governments. I think the trend is for local governments to engage on this issue. This would undermine that."

Monsanto Ghostwriting Shill Attempts to Tie USRTK to Russian Troll Efforts

A common corporate tactic is to use "third-party experts" to bring the industry's message to the public under the cloak of independent opinion or expertise (No. 4, "Testimonial"). The idea is that academic types are far more credible than industry employees when it comes to defending the industry's position.

A well-known spokesperson for the GMO industry is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California. A "No on 37" advertisement had to be pulled off the air because Miller was fraudulently identified as being part of the Stanford University faculty.

Last year, Miller was outed yet again — this time as a ghostwriter for Monsanto. Forbes fired Miller when it became clear he had submitted ghostwritten material. On a relevant side note, Senapathy has cowritten articles with Miller, which is why some of her Forbes articles ended up being deleted as well,²¹ and the foreword for her book "Fear Babe" was written by Folta, a University of Florida professor who hid his financial ties to Monsanto.

The Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) discovery against Monsanto was led by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). Proving he's still working on Monsanto's behalf, Miller penned a two-part article^22,23 for Investor's Business Daily this past summer, in which he tries — quite unsuccessfully — to tie USRTK to the alleged Russian GMO disinformation campaign.

The fact that they're still turning to Miller is probably a sign of just how desperate Monsanto (now Bayer) has become. Other discovery documents obtained by USRTK included email correspondence revealing Monsanto has been quite desperate for a number of years already.

In an email dated February 26, 2015, Daniel Goldstein, senior science lead of medical sciences and outreach for Monsanto, tells Monsanto's food safety scientific affairs lead, John Vicini, Ph.D.:²⁴

In this email, Goldstein admits two pearls: First, the list of supporters willing to do their dirty work is short — which is why we keep seeing the same names pop up in pro-GMO propaganda pieces — and ACSH is a most valuable front group for the biotech industry.

Another Undercover Ambassador for GMO Industry Wants You to Think the Russians Are Responsible for 'Anti-Vaccine Myths'

So, who else wants you to think that "the Russians did it"? Mark Lynas, a long-term shill for the GMO industry, just published: "Opinion: Russian Campaign to Spread Anti-Vaccine Myths Part of a Wider War on Science and Truth"²⁵ on the Alliance for Science website.

As the other examples cited above, Lynas — normally a pro-GMO advocate — is now cross-linking GMOs and vaccines, closely mimicking the core message of Senapathy's article, which is that "Many anti-GMO groups and anti-vaxxers are closely linked."

Again, what we're seeing is a crossover or merging of the GMO and vaccine industries in terms of messaging and propaganda angles. Rather than fighting public doubt separately, the shills for these industries are now putting out a single joint message that anyone who doubts the science presented by either of them is an anti-science nut job.

The take-home message here is that these tactics are nothing but a PR ploy. Yes, they're trying to make you feel like an outsider, an outcast. They're trying to make you feel ashamed of your "ignorance," or worse, as if you've fallen for false propaganda propagated by evil Russians in an effort to divide and conquer.

But all you really need to do is look for the hallmarks of astroturfing, and you'll quickly see through their ruse. You are not wrong for questioning flawed and biased science. You are not ignorant for questioning whether vaccines and GMOs might be unsafe when there's a clear lack of evidence to support safety claims.

You are not a danger to the public for looking at the evidence and making your own decisions about whether or not you want your family to receive a particular vaccine or eat a certain food. Your inquiries and thought processes are only dangerous to the industries in question which, by the way, are willing to go to just about any lengths to hide the dangers of their products in order to maintain their profits. Stand your ground. It's solid.

from Articles : GMO, Vaccines https://ift.tt/2MInBlh
via IFTTT

By Dr. Mercola

Goats are being genetically engineered to become "pharm animals" that carry vaccines in their milk.

Current experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are geared toward producing an "edible" malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process.

While claiming that bioengineered animals could be "life-savers" for people in third-world countries, the researchers ignore the glaring issue that such biotechnology often produces unknown, and unintended, health consequences that prove tragic for individuals and the environment.

Vaccines in Your Milk?

Transmogrifying farm animals into "pharm" animals to act as living and breathing pharmaceutical factories is not new.

In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first drug produced by livestock that had been bioengineered to express a human gene.

In that case, the protein was extracted from the milk of genetically engineered (GE) goats.

In the latest instance, researchers introduced DNA coding for the malaria parasite into the goat genome linked to milk production.

The DNA is supposed to "switch on" only in the mammary gland when the goat produces milk.

As we've seen in the past with genetically modified plants, genetically engineered vaccine-producing animals might enter the food supply unexpectedly -- exposing unintended recipients to the vaccine. Or the animals might escape and breed with others, passing these bioengineered genes on with unpredictable consequences. Even the technology itself is risky at best, because when animals are exposed to foreign DNA, literally anything can happen.

Take, for instance, milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH. rBGH milk differs from natural milk nutritionally, pharmacologically, immunologically, and hormonally, and along with causing health problems in the cows, it is linked to cancer in humans. What does ingesting the DNA from the malaria parasite in your milk cause? No one knows.

Vaccine Makers See Dollar Signs When They See Third-World Countries

Malaria is caused by a parasite of the species Plasmodium, which is spread from person to person by infected mosquitoes. Every year, it results in about 1 million deaths, the majority of which are in third-world countries. We are certainly in need of a solution, and while it sounds good in theory that a child could be protected from malaria just by drinking a glass of milk, remember that vaccines often weaken and confuse children's immune systems, which ultimately increases their susceptibility to the very infectious diseases vaccines are designed to prevent.

The most vulnerable of the world's children are those in the poorest countries where death and disease is often a result of malnutrition, and where children are often battling some sort of infection 200 days out of the year. Vaccines can be devastating to these already immunosuppressed children, as well as to adults.

However, emerging vaccine markets like third-world countries will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers' radar for quite some time.

Giving Immune-Compromised Children Vaccines May Create Illness, Not Cure It

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that's where most of the world's deaths from major infectious diseases occur. The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.

Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.

That plan was called Advance Market Commitments (AMCs). Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.

Unfortunately, legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don't need – or want – certain vaccines. Malaria is one of the top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs, so the GM vaccine-producing goat milk might already be on their radar.

The ability to resist diseases like malaria requires a strong immune system, and for that, you require good nutrition, clean drinking water, and sanitation. If we want to help people in other countries to lower their malaria rates, it would be wise to focus on these basics first. In order to eradicate infectious disease from a nation, you have to first address compromised immune systems. If you hit immune suppressed children with a potent, adjuvant-loaded vaccine, you're far more likely to create new disease, not eradicate it.

It's similar to the corporations seeking to plant genetically modified golden rice in the developing world to purportedly alleviate vitamin A deficiency. What people in the developing world need to receive ample dietary vitamin A are the basics like access to a diverse range of nutritious foods -- including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming -- the opposite of what will occur if golden rice is planted on a large scale. So in the end it appears the golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor -- and may actually make vitamin A deficiency worse.

Fertility Problems, DNA Damage Among the Serious Health Problems Linked to GM Foods

The vaccine-producing GM goats are a double-edged sword because while no one knows for sure what consuming GM vaccine-containing milk will do to humans, there's very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health.

In one review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) -- an analysis of 19 animal studies -- it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide. In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!

So, exposing children in third world countries to these potential risks needs to be carefully considered before a malaria vaccine is distributed in GM milk especially when there are other innovative ways of fighting malaria available. In addition, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:

• Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
• Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
• Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the US because while GM seeds are banned in several European countries, in the U.S., certain states are actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan's Senate Bill 777¹, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."

While legislation like this sounds like crazy nonsense to most people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the US government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry

Many don't fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the US.

Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California's labeling requirements for carcinogens²:

"Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California."

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

"A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email."

Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

• Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals
• Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!
• Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

from Articles : GMO, Vaccines https://ift.tt/1AT6CUn
via IFTTT