Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us:

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most
dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers
into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to
function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still
have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.
Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform
our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the
rest of our lives.


Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
By Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called
on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the
public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide
educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They
called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and
labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies
indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including
infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and
changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude,
“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse
health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific
criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods
and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”



More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean,
a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says,
“I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified
foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy
allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is
so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”



Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are
probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask
the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes
one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he
concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major
contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.



Pregnant women and babies at great risk



Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns
that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins
and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without
adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]



The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy
was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three
weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural
soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems
getting pregnant.[4]



When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed
color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered
young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant
changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study
had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]



Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state
of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had
complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and
prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers
reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn
varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water.
Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]



In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies,
infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.



Food designed to produce toxin



GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide
in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their
stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called
Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of
safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for
natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and
cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more
concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has
properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the
plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray
is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific
Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some
had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout
India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the
Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this
year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]



GMOs provoke immune reactions



AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune
dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated
with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.



According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the
immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the
studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune
system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian
government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic
properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a
known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM,
but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy
allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies
and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.



Animals dying in large numbers



In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds
let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed
severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well
as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence
“strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . .
most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the
Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30
days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.



In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for
eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on
Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all
died within 3 days.[22]



Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses,
water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]



In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7
of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40
died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of
poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French
toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]



Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us



The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most
dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers
into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to
function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still
have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.
Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform
our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the
rest of our lives.



When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around
the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of
gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM
foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.



Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied



Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all
these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released
from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods
were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies,
poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional
problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term
tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote
biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor,
Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That
policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’
concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is
up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods
are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.



Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases



AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a
serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been
published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the
“potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that
experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by
asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food
are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology
companies?”[28]



Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply
haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds,
“Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say
is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]



Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never
know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very
long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute
symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to
trace the cause.



This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s.
The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change
in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an
epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and
caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It
was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called
L-tryptophan.



If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity,
diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems,
or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never
know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems,
susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is
therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale
introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or
more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]



To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members,
the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather
case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health
effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM
foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect
of GM foods on human health.”



Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to
avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn
derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar
beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO
Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology
and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well
as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.



If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food
industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM
ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for
the US food supply.






International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M.
Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible
Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His
first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the
subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates
how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of
them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence
to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse,
since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.







[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007

David wrote:

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary
studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels,
June 12, 2007

None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,� Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,�
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007

None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,� Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,�
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then
they see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't science.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007

None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials. Don't
ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

There's a load more references but I cut the copy and paste short. fair
use terms. Look it up yourself if you doubt the science. Or are you so
useless you have to be spoon fed everything?

On Wed, 20 May 2009 22:01:38 +0100, Martin wrote:

Delta wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease
of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

shit... are rats that clever now you need to do double blind research on
them....?

No, it's to stop bias in the researcher. It's the same with homeopathy
studies, when the researchers 'know' what the results should be, then they
see the results they expect. If they are blinded then the so-called
science is shown up for what it is, a total scam.

What kind of scientist 'publishes' findings through the press and the EU
parliament? If the science can't stand up to peer review it isn't science.

Horizontal gene transfer proven fact. Look it up yourself.

David wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:55 +0100, Martin wrote:

David wrote:

[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html


[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace
Canada, October 25, 2002.


[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.


[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,”
Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament,
Brussels, June 12, 2007
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials. Don't
ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?

There's a load more references but I cut the copy and paste short. fair
use terms. Look it up yourself if you doubt the science. Or are you so
useless you have to be spoon fed everything?

Nope, you're the one making the claims, you're the one who should
substantiate them.

Grow up. If you had proper cites, you would have posted them. You didn't
even post a cite where you got this copy-n-paste from. Sorry, you're
totally discredited with this one.

On May 20, 9:41*pm, Martin wrote:

None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?- Hide quoted text -

Now for the rest of us can you please confirm whether "double blinded"
research is when the scientist put TWO blindfolds on the rat or when
the scientist is given a poke in BOTH eyes?

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:17:44 +0100, David wrote:


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

That would be the "academy" that on its web site says "Visit the
websites of other organizations focused on Complementary, Alternative,
Integrative, Holistic & Funcational Medicine"

You have to question though the scientific credentials of those who
support "funcational" medicine and who refer people to homeopaths.

moghouse wrote:
On May 20, 9:41 pm, Martin wrote:
None of which actually describe peer reviewed double blinded trials.
Don't ANY of the scientists you quoted actually do any science?- Hide quoted text -

Now for the rest of us can you please confirm whether "double blinded"
research is when the scientist put TWO blindfolds on the rat or when
the scientist is given a poke in BOTH eyes?

Why not ask Benveniste? He's totally discredited because he *didn't*
blind his trials and was shown up on international television as a
scientific fraud.

So you need a "doctor" or a "scientist" in an insane civilisation to
tell you what you are allowed to believe, do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE /
THE COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES:

Animal Experimentation: the Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_174g5kg85dn

Vivisection - Its Crucial Role in the Scheme of Things
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_83w8mzhvgj

The Vaccination Fraud (Rattigan / Mendelsohn)
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_126hgz9s8fb

Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:17:44 +0100, David wrote:


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

That would be the "academy" that on its web site says "Visit the
websites of other organizations focused on Complementary, Alternative,
Integrative, Holistic & Funcational Medicine"

Yep, that's the one.

You have to question though the scientific credentials of those who
support "funcational" medicine and who refer people to homeopaths.

Majik water will cure anything. *BELIEVE* I say, believe and you too can
spend a fortune on distilled water.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:17:44 +0100, David wrote:


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)

That would be the "academy" that on its web site says "Visit the
websites of other organizations focused on Complementary, Alternative,
Integrative, Holistic & Funcational Medicine"

Yep, that's the one.

You have to question though the scientific credentials of those who
support "funcational" medicine and who refer people to homeopaths.

Majik water will cure anything. *BELIEVE* I say, believe and you too can
spend a fortune on distilled water.

Which is why I refuse to buy wines (or anything else) from "Biodynamic"
producers. I don't want to encourage their barmy beliefs!
Graham

"The Cancer Business" [Rattigan] / reformatted:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_178fz8mgvgw

David wrote:



Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us:

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most
dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers
into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to
function.[26]

It's hard to tell what's relevant since your reference list only goes to
[4]; but here is the abstract from ref [26] of the Jeffry M Smith paper
"Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food"

Ref
http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/06-272-005.pdf

NB the final sentence of the abstract
"we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding
experiment."


"The inclusion of genetically modified (GM) plants in the human diet has
raised concerns about the possible transfer of transgenes from GM plants
to intestinal microflora and enterocytes. The persistence in the human
gut of DNA from dietary GM plants is unknown. Here we study the survival
of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human
ileostomists (i.e., individuals in which the terminal ileum is resected
and digesta are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag).
The amount of transgene that survived passage through the small bowel
varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma
of one individual. The transgene did not survive passage through the
intact gastrointestinal tract of human subjects fed GM soya. Three of
seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from
GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in
these experiments. As this low level of epsps in the intestinal
microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM
soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding
experiment."

At this point,I should probably admit that I am personally a GM sceptic
- but I am even more an anti 'bad science' adherent. Bring on some good
science and I'll join your campaign.