STAY AWAY FROM THESE POISONS! Since now is '"flu shot" season, it's as good a time as ever to remind you of these truths; you do want kids and grand kids, don't you!? ...Plus some musings on the medical situation in Israel.

The article mentioned in the video you just saw, below, is in favor of influenza vaccination, and in favor of producing even more vaccines; however the lack of substantiation of the overall effectiveness of the standard influenza vaccine is quite remarkable, even if not quite as extreme as either Dr. Tenpenny or Alex Jones claim. On the other hand the evidence re: Guillain-Barre is well known and corroborated.


I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to vaccines in general, and have used them myself, as well as in my practice. But unfortunately, because of the misuse and abuse of that medical modality, and because of the lack of integrity of some, if not all, of the companies involved, the vaccine manufacturers have lost my trust. If I knew that a company is absolutely honest and works for the public good,  I would be the first one to try its products, provided independent research showed true effectiveness. But for such a situation to occur, the whole system has to be changed. It cannot be that the main financial beneficiaries of the vaccination campaigns are the very companies setting the rules as to who should get the vaccines; neither can it be that all research is done "in-house", either by scientists employed in one form or another by the financial beneficiaries themselves, or paid by NGO's or government bodies while those bodies themselves have an incestuous relationship with the said companies. These are unacceptable conflicts of interest, and nothing good can come out of such a set-up. So I would say: 


 TIME FOR A CHANGE!

Researchers Believe Influenza Vaccines Need Improvement

Larry Hand

October 25, 2011 — Critical gaps exist in the evidence for the effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the United States, researchers report in an article published online October 25 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Individuals who are at risk for medical complications or people who are aged 65 years or older are especially affected by the gaps, the researchers write.

The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 31 studies that used laboratory tests to confirm influenza infections. These studies were selected from 5707 studies identified, published over a period of 40 years. The authors found that trivalent inactivated vaccine, which is used for 90% of influenza vaccinations in the United States, is only effective in preventing infection in 59% of healthy adults. They also found live attenuated influenza vaccine, which is not approved for adults who are aged 50 years or older, to be effective in 83% of children aged 7 years or younger, and in 69% of people younger than 65 years.

"The ongoing health burden caused by seasonal influenza and the potential global effect of a severe pandemic suggests an urgent need for a new generation of more highly effective and cross-protective vaccines that can be manufactured rapidly," write Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and lead author of the study, and colleagues. "In the meantime, we should maintain public support for present vaccines that are the best intervention available for seasonal influenza."

The researchers found no published papers on randomized controlled trials of trivalent inactivated vaccine efficacy in people aged 2 to 17 years or in adults aged 65 years and older. They also found no such trials for live attenuated influenza vaccine efficacy in people aged 8 to 59 years. In addition, they found "substantial variability" by season and age group.

Earlier research has shown vaccines to be from 70% to 90% effective in healthy adults if matched to the circulating strains. "The difference between 69% effectiveness and 90% effectiveness (or greater) will have a major public health effect in any pandemic that causes serious morbidity or increased mortality," the researchers write.

They recommend that industry and government form partnerships to accelerate research and reduce regulatory barriers to bring new vaccines already in development to market.

Lancet Infect Dis. Published online October 25, 2011.

P.S. I am amazed that some people in Israel still refer back to an obscure blog, written in poor English and full of fallacies, (such as my blaming China for the crisis)- obviously its author doesn't have good command of the English language :


http://mddaisyjsternliesaboutfluvaccine.blogspot.com/


That blog was written in 2009 to try to discredit me and my claims about the H1N1 vaccine, and my claims about Rome controlling the show. I have no idea who is behind the blog, and frankly didn't bother to find out, as I had more important things to deal with at the time. I never addressed the lies presented in that blog, which by the way were based on the following TV show in Hebrew on Israel TV:


http://lnk.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleId=677195&sid=182


I never addressed the libel claiming that I am an unlicensed doctor, even though I had - and have - full legal rights to do so. Actually I still do have, and did at the time have, a full and legitimate NY State medical license. The fact that I had not renewed my medical license in Israel in 2008 for personal reasons does not negate the fact that I was fully licensed in Israel from 2001 ( or was it 2002?) to 2008, after having  made aliyah from the US, and worked at Kupat Cholim Meuchedet for about 10 months. I left after writing a letter of resignation, no different from the hundreds of letters of resignation written by residents all over Israel; THEY know the truth about the inner workings of the medical system in Israel. Maybe I saw the writing on the wall a few years before they did! But now they are stuck, while I am free. Never was there any action taken against me as a physician in the 25 years I worked as a doctor; I had a private practice for many years in NY State, was loved by my patients, worked for many years in other situations as well prior to that, including two years of emergency room work . My CV is there for the asking for any legitimate person requesting it. Notice the hesitation of the TV anchor when she mentions my licensing status: she knows full well that she is standing on shaky grounds, as shaky as her voice!


This chapter is not over yet, folks. There are attorneys in Israel, all it takes is getting their help. This lie has been posted on the internet for two years now, it's been going on long enough. Maybe it is time for me to take action now. 11/11/11 seems like a perfect date to do so. After all, THEY started on 11/11/09. Time for the tables to be turned!


Just this past week, we have seen the heavy hand of Rome in the financial GLOBAL NEW WORLD ORDER. See this post:


They are not even hiding anymore. Didn't I warn yo...


Well, parallel to the action on the financial scene, - which was brought out into the open by Benedikt's encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, presented to the world July 7, 2009, and renewed just last week, see link above,  - , an action was going on at the WHO. That was initiated by the pandemic declaration in Geneva one month earlier, which set the stage for worldwide H1N1 vaccinations, as well as martial law in all nations members of the UN, that is, all nations except for Taiwan, Kosovo, and THE VATICAN at the time. Facts on the ground have borne this out, as you have repeatedly seen all over the news this past year. From Oakland to Athens - and  to Yesha, Israel -, you have seen those same hooded goons pouncing on the local population who only want freedom and human rights. Where is democracy? Where is freedom? Vanishing in front of our very eyes. Replaced by a totalitarian global regime.


 (How come the goons all look alike, I ask you? Don't you think they all went to the same school?)


 And of course, facts on the ground regarding the H1N1 vaccine fraud have been exposed by none other than the BBC, following the important lawsuit against the French Ministry of Health in 2010, which quickly stopped the H1N1 vaccine propaganda in its tracks, just as the "pandemic" was petering out on its own, even milder than a regular yearly flu season. So here too I was vindicated.


Not to be outdone, the Israeli Ministry of Health, which wasted US $100 million on that useless vaccine, quickly found a way to suppress national outrage over that huge waste by creating an artificial crisis at Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. Remember all the media coverage about Chassidim protesting over the graves? What convenient timing! The public, which has a very short memory, forgot right away about the H1N1 panic, the propaganda, the slanted reports, and of course, the enormous financial drain.


I think that the Ministry of Health in Israel are getting exactly what they deserve these days. Doctors, residents, even nurses, are all rebelling against the conditions in which they have been forced to work. In which country, please tell me,  are doctors FORCED to go to work? Since when is the honorable medical profession treated like an army of servants, or rather, an army of slaves? Don't you think that the 400 million NIS that went down the toilet in the pathetic H1N1 vaccine purchase could have been better used to pay decent and appropriate salaries to doctors, and thereby attract good quality, content staff ? ( Actually, 450 million NIS; just 10% of that was used for actual vaccinations, which themselves were a waste and a danger; the rest was thrown down the tube). Now look at the situation Israel finds itself in: terror victims are arriving to hospitals; but where will the medical staff be? Are you going to force doctors to come take care of the wounded?


 Shame on you, Ministry of Health of Israel: Israel is now getting paid back in full for your deep errors in judgment - or worse.

Easy reminder about the deliberate poisoning of our food supply. Grow your own!

ANOTHER ANTI-FERTILITY AGENT - RIGHT IN THE FOOD SUPPLY! What is the connection between Monsanto and the WHO , that is the question...to be explored. Any information welcome. Is corn in Israel GM?

The Health Hazards of GM Corn

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
January 09 2010 | 14,350 views

Everything You HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods from Jeffrey Smith on Vimeo.

A study demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, according to the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

"For the first time in the world, we've proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized ... Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems," said Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation.

The researchers based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations.

Sources:

  Organic Consumers Association December 11, 2009

  Truthout December 2009

  Int J Biol Sci 2009

Dr. Mercola's comments:

Monsanto's own study has come back to bite them.
And rightly so—they clearly concealed the results of this study, massaging the data until they could slide it by as supporting the safety of their product.
It took an independent team of researchers to reexamine data and get the truth out.
Isn't it interesting that every time Monsanto conducts scientific research on its own products, the conclusions are that they are safe? But each time independent scientists study them, all kinds of horrific side effects are uncovered.
Some former Monsanto employees report that anything that interferes with advancing the commercialization of their biotechnology is pushed aside.
One former Monsanto scientist said he knew of several fellow Monsanto researchers involved in feeding studies who have all (secretly) switched to organic milk.
What does that tell you?

If You Plant It, They Will Come

The United States has planted more GM crops than any other country every year since 1996, when GM crops were first made available commercially.
It's bad enough that the United States allows GM crops to be grown at all—and it's even worse that we grow two-thirds of the GM crops worldwide.
By far, corn is the crop taking up the most acreage.
The 2007 U.S. corn crop was one for the record books at 13.1 billion bushels of production, eclipsing the previous high set in 2004 of 11.8 billion bushels, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The 2007 production level was up 24 percent from 2006[i].
Corn has exploded as a result of our dependence upon high fructose corn syrup, as well as its use in ethanol, although corn-based biofuel appears to be on the decline due to its excessive carbon footprint.

United States Rather Slow to "Get It"

The US is painfully slow to wise up about the damaging effects of GM corn.
Germany recently banned the GM corn variety called MON 810, which had been the only remaining GM crop permitted in that country. MON 810 had already been banned in Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.
What do they know that we don't?
We are still reserving tens of millions of acres for genetically modified corn!

The Scientific Studies Couldn't Be Clearer

Biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary's Debrecen University discovered that Monsanto's Mon 810 corn is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as rare. Now Monsanto refuses to give Darvas any more Mon 810 to use in his studies.
They also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety.
So, not only has MON 810 been shown to cause serious damage to animals, but it may also wipe out protected plant and insect species.
A mountain of evidence now exists about the troubling effects of GM corn:

• 
  Rats fed GM corn have kidney, liver, and blood abnormalities whereas rats fed non-GM corn had normal organs and blood.
  
  
• 
  GM corn has led to serious reproductive problems in mice. Mice fed Monsanto's GM corn showed lower fertility and had offspring with lower body weight.
  
  
• 
  An Italian study in 2008[ii] found significant disturbances in the immune function of mice fed GM corn. 
  
  
• 
  Another study showed that mice fed bt corn (bt stands for "bacterial toxin"— engineered to manufacture a natural bacterial toxin) suffered multiple immune system responses, "as if they were eating the pure bt toxin alone."
  
  
• 
  Several US farmers reported sterility and fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn.
  
  
• 
   In Germany, twelve cows that had eaten GM corn mysteriously died.
  
  
• 
  In feeding trials with chickens, twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn as those fed non-GM corn.
  
  

Adding to the potential devastation is the fact that corn is a wind-pollinated plant, which means it can spread from one acre to another. While growers of GM food often say their crops will be contained and unable to contaminate nearby fields, from an environmental perspective, contamination between GM and non-GM crops is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable.
What can stop windstorms, tornadoes or other weather from blowing GM pollen or seeds onto non-GM crops?
Not a whole lot.
The environmental impact of GM crops may be worse than the health impact. Genetic pollution is self-propagating. It is altering our biosphere in ways that could outlast climate change and nuclear waste.
You can't "recall" genes from the environment—just like putting the genie back in the bottle.
Although Monsanto doesn't believe (or admit) this is a possibility, their shortsighted focus on profits is blinding them to the very real threats this technology is posing to the viability of the human race.
Monsanto's influence in the government is legendary. Consequently, policy makers have not heeded the warnings to do long-term safety testing.

How Genetic Modification is Actually Executed

The making of a GM seed isn't the highly precise operation you might expect.
According to Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, once a gene is identified that creates a protein that they want, it is shot into the DNA with a "gun."
They don't care where the gene ends up...as long as it attaches somewhere.
This blasting creates all manner of problems. In fact, collateral damage is a given—5 percent of the surrounding genes can be disrupted! The DNA is sometimes truncated, sometimes mutated, creating proteins that are different and predictably unpredictable.
Is it any wonder, then, how genetically modified foods carry with them so many unintended and devastating consequences?
According to Jeffrey Smith, the most common result of GM is surprise side effects. These side effects come in four main categories:

1. 
   Allergenic
   
   
2. 
   Toxic
   
   
3. 
   Carcinogenic
   
   
4. 
   Anti-nutritional
   
   

To bump up the desired GM effects, developers have been inserting what's called a "promoter," which has been derived from a virus. A promoter acts like a switch to turn on the gene it's attached to. And the promoter's action is not confined to the gene it rides in on—it's been known to turn on other genes around it, permanently, at high volume.
It can turn on an allergen, a toxin, a carcinogen—we don't know—it's genetic roulette.
The promoters could switch on dormant viruses, producing super-diseases. One pesticide-tolerant gene called "the liberty link" could turn your body into a pesticide factory for life. The viral gene might transfer to your body a permanent suppression of your viral defenses.
We just don't know.
And the reason we don't know is that the government refuses to demand the rigorous testing of these GM products BEFORE permitting them into your food supply.

A Bad Gut Feeling

GM industry representatives falsely claim that when you eat a genetically modified food, the DNA is destroyed by digestion.
Researchers have now proven this is false.
British researchers demonstrated that GM DNA from crops can find its way into human gut bacteria, creating health risks. The concern is that the antibiotic marker genes inserted with the GM material could cause a person to be resistant to antibiotic medicines.[iii]
The study by Newcastle University in the UK was conducted on 7 human volunteers who, in the past, had their lower intestines removed and now use colostomy bags. After eating a meal containing GM soy, researchers were surprised to find that a relatively large proportion of GM DNA survived the digestive process.
In 3 of the 7 volunteers, they found bacteria had taken up the herbicide-resistant gene from the GM food at a very low level.
And this was after only one GM meal.
Not only that, but researchers also found "Roundup ready" gut bacteria from past GM soybean consumption. This was NOT from the current experiment—it was evidence that similar gene transfer had occurred in the past, from prior consumption of GM "Roundup ready" soy. (Roundup ready is the term used to mean soy that was engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup.)
Michael Antonio, a senior lecturer in molecular genetics at King's College Medical School in London, said this study was significant because the researchers demonstrated that you can get GM plant DNA in your gut bacteria, which was previously considered impossible.
This is the first clear evidence that antibiotic marker genes can jump to the bacteria in your stomach and increase your risk for an antibiotic-resistant infection.

The Mission to Exterminate GM From Our Food Supply

There are two strategies the non-GM movement is working on to rid our food supply of GM products:

1. 
   Labeling all foods for their GM/non-GM status
   
   
2. 
   Educating the public so that it will choose non-GM foods over GM foods.
   
   

The labeling campaign is making progress, thanks to the persistence of Jeffrey Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology, an organization whose goal is to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. If you would like to sign the petition to President Obama in support of mandatory labeling of GM foods, click here.
But don't wait for the labels to protect yourself and your family.
Nearly all GM foods can be avoided by steering clear of four basic food products:

1. 
   Corn
   
   
2. 
   Soy
   
   
3. 
   Cottonseed
   
   
4. 
   Canola
   
   

Additionally, avoid the following produce that is commonly GM by purchasing only organic varieties:

• 
  Zucchini
  
  
• 
  Crookneck squash
  
  
• 
  Hawaiian papaya
  
  
• 
  Sugar derived from sugar beets (new GM crop as of 2009)
  
  

For more specifics, the Institute for Responsible Technology has compiled an excellent Non-GMO Shopping Guide that you can download for free.
According to Jeffrey Smith, when people are educated about GM foods and provided a choice of products to buy, surveys show that at least 90 percent will opt for non-GM. 
Therefore, between labeling products and a massive education campaign, GM foods will become a thing of the past. Once the tipping point is reached, the demand for non-GM products will be so fierce that market forces will smother the GM market once and for all.

---

[i] "2007 corn crop a record breaker, USDA reports" (January 11, 2008) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2008/01_11_2008.asp 
[ii] Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. "Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice" J Agric Food Chem (16 Nov 2008) Summary at http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2470
[iii] "Would you like frankenfries with that?" (July 17, 2002) Greenpeace International http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-genes-found-in-human-gut

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT SWINE FLU VACCINES, BUT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AUTHOR'S TIES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF24kPbTNdQ

What we need to do, HERE IN ISRAEL, is IMMEDIATELY START A MOVEMENT OF REFUSAL OF THE VACCINATIONS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND YES, THE RIGHT TO STAY AT HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC.

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE, WHICH I WILL ENUMERATE IN MY FORTHCOMING PAPER.

BUT THE GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT SHOULD BE STARTED IMMEDIATELY, NOW! GET TO WORK! BEFORE BIBI SPENDS 450 MILLION NIS TO BUY A DANGEROUS AND USELESS VACCINE TO FORCE ON THE WHOLE POPULATION, for which he has received ORDERS FROM THE WHO. And knowing BIBI, he ALWAYS COMPLIES.... unless we won't let him!



How Dr. Laibow promotes herself:


Rima E. Laibow, MD is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation. She is a graduate of Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1970) who believes passionately in the right every American to choose a personal health path that is free of government or corporate interference.

She has practiced drug-free, natural medicine for 35 years by seeking the underlying cause of every illness and ailment. During this time, she has enjoyed remarkable success with a wide assortment of cataclysmic problems and health promotion efforts.

Like other healers who trust the innate ability to heal, she believes in using nutrients and other natural options to find, define and treat the problems which underlie degenerative, chronic diseases. The key is supporting the immune and other crucial body systems. Dr. Laibow has seen results from these techniques so often in her patients and in her personal life, that she believes the medicine of the future is the medicine of cooperation with nature.

Dr. Laibow is the President of the NeuroTherapy Certification Board which she helped establish in order to strengthen and develop the field of NeuroBioFeedback and bring it into wide-spread use as a powerful, non-toxic tool for modern medicine.

Because of Dr. Laibow’s awareness of the wide variety of powerful natural, non-toxic options available to treat the underlying causes of disease, she is focused on maintaining these choices for all Americans. Based on her understanding of the impact of poor nutrition and chemical/pesticide toxicity on the declining health of America, Dr. Laibow is determined to help Americans maintain their right to choose health promotion rather than illness care in their efforts to protect themselves from disease and toxic harm.


.... And how OTHERS see her:


http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Codex/Codex/66-Codex.html


...Dr. Laibow does not reveal that the many Codex committees are all controlled by the multinational agricultural and pharmaceutical companies, so that it is precisely what she is telling people to do – trying to change the Codex regulations – is fruitless. She does not reveal that the Codex regulations themselves, without multinational agreements such as FTAA and CAFTA in place, are just pieces of paper that lack any power.

These are masterful uses of Semantic Differential. Many orators and politicians have mastered this kind of psychological use of words without learning it from Army Intelligence, but one can only wonder where a naturopathic doctor such as Dr. Laibow might have learned to write in this fashion. Perhaps it was from working with her husband, General Albert Stubblebine, former head of the US Army Intelligence & Security Command (INSCOM) 1981-84. Anyone in that position would be steeped in knowledge about psychological warfare techniques and especially about the use of Semantic Differential.

While Dr. Laibow’s activism against the extreme excesses of the pharmaceutical industry appear to be genuine, one can only wonder why she is so intent on marginalizing those who want people to make the connection between Codex and the efforts by these same multinational corporations to enforce the Codex regulations and to place jurisdiction for that enforcement outside of Congress through multinational agreements such as WTO, CAFTA, and FTAA.

Jonathan Campbell
November 4, 2005

References:

Dr. Laibow’s messages and Dr. Laibow’s messages

So my advice:

CAVEAT EMPTOR. Her ideas are correct, the vaccine is a horrible, invasive contraption we should stay a million miles away from.
But I would NOT join her group myself, rather CREATING A NEW GROUP, BASED IN ISRAEL, AND MADE UP OF VERY GENUINE AND RELIABLE PEOPLE WITH NO STAIN OF TIES TO THE PTB ATTACHED TO THEIR NAMES, to fight this monstruous plan being imposed on the world.

DS

IT IS HITTING US FROM EVERY SIDE! CRIMINALITY HAS NO LIMITS; WE NEED TO BE VIGILANT ABOUT EVERYTHING THESE DAYS; THE PTB ARE DETERMINED TO SEND US TO THE NEXT WORLD- AND OUR JOB IS TO STAY HERE AND FIGHT THEM! FOOD.

Monsanto lobbyists to be placed in charge of food safety

By Jeffrey Smith

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

And of course, surprise, surprise, the following article appears, ostensibly based on research in the UK. But notice how GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD IS ABSENT FROM THE DEBATE - why is that??  Is this another smokescreen kind of study, to encourage people to use mainstream nutrition?

And a big question is; does organically grown food contain genetically engineered material, or not? After all, the SEED contains the genetic material, and I don't see why one wouldn't be able to grow genetically engineered seeds organically as well!

http://www.natural-law-party.org.uk/UKmanifesto/geneticengineering0.ht

What is the position now?

Genetically modified foods available, or about to appear, in UK shops include tomatoes, yeast, maize, and soya (which is used in many processed foods, such as bread, pasta, confectionery, ice cream, pies, biscuits, margarine, meat products and vegetarian meat substitutes). Products derived from genetically modified organisms are also used to produce cheeses and rape-seed oil. But this is just the beginning. In a few years it may be almost impossible to find natural food.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8206608

'Organic' May Not Mean Healthier

British Study Finds no Better Nutrient Value Than in Conventionally Produced Foods

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

July 30, 2009

Food that beckons from the organic aisles of grocery stores may not be any better for you than what lines the rest of supermarket shelves.

According to a British review of studies done over the past 50 years, organic and conventionally produced foods have about the same nutrient content, suggesting that neither is better in terms of health benefits.

"We did not find any important differences in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foods," said study author Alan Dangour, a registered public health nutritionist with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Nonetheless, the researchers noted, organic foods continue to grow in popularity. In the United Kingdom, the market share for organic foods increased 22 percent from 2005 to 2007, they said.

Likewise, the market for organic foods in the United States has grown at about a 20 percent rate each year since 1990, reaching $13.8 billion in consumer sales in 2005, according to the Organic Trade Association. That represents 2.5 percent of total food sales in the country, the trade group noted.

"As a registered dietitian, it is good to see that a systematic review of the literature supports what has long been believed -- that the nutritional content of traditionally grown foods and organic foods are comparable," said Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis and past president of the American Dietetic Association. "This report provides confirmation for consumers that if they choose conventionally grown foods or organic foods they will be meeting their nutritional needs."

The review zeroed in on 162 studies that dealt with the nutrient content of foods. Only 55 were of what the researchers considered to be "satisfactory quality" -- a strong indicator that, overall, the science on the subject is not up to snuff.

They found no noted differences between conventional and organic crops with regard to vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc and copper content. Organic crops did have higher levels of phosphorus, and conventionally produced crops had higher levels of nitrogen.

No differences in nutrient content were indicated in the livestock studies, according to the review.

The Oregon-based Organic Center, which promotes organic food, conducted a similar review of the literature, said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Center. That study yielded results similar to those in the British study, but it also found higher levels of healthy antioxidants and polyphenols in organic foods.

"Given that some of the most significant differences favoring organic foods were for key antioxidant nutrients that most Americans do not get enough of on most days, we concluded that the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, in particular, offered significant health benefits, roughly equivalent to an additional serving of a moderately nutrient dense fruit or vegetable on an average day," Benbrook said.

And there's another aspect to the organic vs. conventional food debate, said Sheah Rarback, director of nutrition at the Mailman Center for Child Development at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

"You have to also look at what you're not getting" with organic foods, she said. "Maybe it's not a big difference nutritionally, but conventional products may have more pesticides."

And that's a particularly important issue for children, she said.

"We know that young children are getting the nutrition, whatever choice they make, but we also have to look at the pesticide issue," Rarback said. "A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that children eating conventionally grown fruit had pesticide residue in their urine, which decreased after just five days on an organic diet."

The production of organic food is subject to a variety of regulations, including those that govern the use of pesticides and other chemicals in fruits and vegetables and the use of medicines in animals, the authors of the review noted in their study, which will be published in the September issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Rarback indicated that the ability to get solid research on organic versus conventionally produced products is hampered by variations in the production process.

"There are so many variables," she said. "Where is something grown? Where is it shipped from? How long was it on the truck? There are going to be variables in terms of nutrition just from production methods."

More information

There's more on food and the nutrients in food at the United States Department of Agriculture.

SOURCES: Alan Dangour, registered public health nutritionist, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Connie Diekman, M.Ed, R.D., L.D., director, university nutrition, Washington University, St. Louis, and past president, American Dietetic Association; Sheah Rarback, R.D., director, nutrition, Mailman Center for Child Development, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami; Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., chief scientist, The Organic Center, Enterprise, Oregon; September 2009 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

... and my question is also: why is this study labeled a BRITISH study, when in fact, most of the sources are American?

Update:

Read the article below. So THAT's how they managed to get this law passed. Now recent food illness outbreaks make a lot of sense, in retrospective; they were NEEDED in order for this law to be accepted by the general public, who has NO IDEA WHO is guarding the chicken coop.

Pass it around.


House passes far-reaching food safety bill

By MARY CLARE JALONICK (AP) – 27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The House has passed a far-reaching food safety bill requiring more government inspections and imposing new penalties on those who violate the law, reacting strongly to an outbreak of salmonella in peanuts that killed at least nine people.

The legislation would require greater oversight of food manufacturers and give the Food and Drug Administration new authority to order recalls. It also would require the FDA to develop a system for better tracing food-borne illnesses. Food companies would be required to create detailed food safety plans.

President Barack Obama praised the bill soon after it was passed, calling it "a major step forward in modernizing our food safety system."

Farm-state members had argued that the bill would be too invasive on farms and had pushed colleagues to vote against it as it was considered under a special procedure that requires a two-thirds vote. It was rejected Wednesday by a few votes.

Democrats scrambled to put the legislation back on the House floor Thursday under a rule that required a simple majority to pass. The vote was 283-142.

Supporters said the legislation would help the FDA change its focus from a reactive to a more preventive approach in keeping the nation's food safe.

"Americans are dying because the Food and Drug Administration doesn't have the authority to protect them," said Michigan Rep. John Dingell, the bill's sponsor and a long-serving Democrat who has been pushing for tougher standards for more than a decade.

A similar bill sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., has not yet seen action in the Senate.

The legislation gained new momentum in the wake of one of the largest product recalls in U.S. history, stemming from salmonella in peanuts that killed nine people, sickened hundreds of others and was linked to shoddy practices at a peanut company in Georgia. Other recent outbreaks include contaminated spinach in 2006 and salmonella in peppers last year. The government estimates that 76 million people each year are sickened by food-borne illness, hundreds of thousands are hospitalized and around 5,000 die.

Those outbreaks have exposed a lack of resources and authority at the FDA as the embattled agency has struggled to contain and trace them. In the peanut outbreak, FDA inspectors quickly focused on the small Georgia processing plant but had to invoke bioterror laws to get lab reports that ultimately showed the company shipped tainted peanuts. Meanwhile, the agency had no authority to order a food recall.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro has said the bill is a solid first step but said she believes Congress needs to go even further and reorganize FDA to help it better focus on its "food" mission. She has introduced legislation that would divide the FDA in two, separating the agency's drug oversight and food safety duties.

The FDA regulates most foods, though as many as 15 federal agencies have a hand in food safety. The Agriculture Department inspects meats, poultry and some eggs.

The bill, which has support from the food industry as well as a wide range of consumer groups, would give the agency the authority to order recalls if a company fails to act on its own, and would increase the frequency of inspections to high-risk food processing facilities. It would charge food processors an annual $500 fee to help defray the cost of increased enforcement.

Sponsors tweaked the legislation in recent days to appease the farm-state members who objected to it. Last-minute changes included modifying the way a trace-back system would work, clarifying that some hard-to-trace products, such as grains, would not be tracked to individual farms. It also lessened paperwork for some farms and clarified that some smaller operations would not have to register with the FDA or pay fees.

Those changes appeased most farm-state Democrats, but many Republicans still voted against it, saying it would be invasive to farmers and not do enough to improve food safety. Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas, the top Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, led the charge against the legislation.

"The bill still goes too far in the direction of trying to produce food from a bureaucrat's chair in Washington D.C.," Lucas said.