Showing posts with label Genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genetics. Show all posts

Friday, December 18, 2015

Last week saw the approval of another genetically modified animal— this time a chicken genetically altered to produce a drug in its eggs



 


GM Chicken Approved “For Medicinal Purposes”! Are Humans Next?

 
The floodgates are open for more genetically modified animals—possibly even humans.

Last week saw the approval of another genetically modified animal— this time a chicken genetically altered to produce a drug in its eggs. The drug is designed to replace a faulty enzyme in people with a rare genetic condition that prevents the body from breaking down fatty molecules in cells.

The genetically engineered (GE) chicken is not approved for human consumption, but it is the third so-called “farmaceutical” approved in the US market. Preceding the chicken was a GE goat that produces antithrombin, an anticoagulant, in its milk. Last year the FDA also approved a drug for treating hereditary angioedema that is produced by transgenic (GE) rabbits.



Read More Here

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Research - the weight of evidence indicates that plants and not chemicals are the solution for reversing the global cancer epidemic.


Research: Plants Cure Cancer, Not Chemicals

Plants Are The Cure For Cancer, Not Chemicals

Unbeknownst to most, a Copernican revolution has already taken place in cancer theory. Today, the weight of evidence indicates that plants and not chemicals are the solution for reversing the global cancer epidemic.

Our understanding of what causes cancer has undergone something akin to a Copernican revolution in the past decade. Biological fatalism has been the predominant force in medicine over the past half century, where most conditions including cancer were believed predestined 'in the genes,' and therefore impossible to reverse. Instead of looking for root cause resolution of disease (RCRD), we resigned ourselves to 'finding it early' and in the case of cancer, when doing so (even when it was benign), we waged war against it, quite literally using weapons grade materials (mustard gas- and nuclear materials-derived agents). Now, however, in this post-Genomic era, factors above (epi-) the control of the genes – epigenetic factors – are taking center stage; these include environmental exposures, stress, nutritional factors, and various lifestyle-based variables that are within the ambit of our control and volition, and which are often reversible.

In other words, cancer is now being understood as epigenetic dysfunction, a direct and even adaptive response to the post-industrial, carcinogen-saturated environment, in addition to a diet of faux, mostly chemically-produced 'food,' combining to produce an environment – 'inner terrain--  within the body ideal for cancer promotion.

Indeed, in a new study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology titled, "The use of plant-derived bioactive compounds to target cancer stem cells and modulate tumor microenvironment," the authors note the powerful implications of this new epigenetic view of cancer:
"A fundamental aspect to be taken into account is that epigenetic changes can possibly be reversed by modifying epigenetic factors, such as diet and lifestyle. Nowadays, identification of these factors is crucial to develop epigenetically-based preventions and more effective anti-cancer intervention strategies."
Moreover, they note that natural interventions are once again (after countless millennia of worldwide use), at the cutting edge of medical intervention:
"Virtually, all dietary compounds have the ability to act at the epigenetic level in cancer cells thus influencing the epigenome in a positive or negative way. Particularly, plant derived compounds, such as polyphenols, have the capacity to reverse adverse epigenetic mutations in cancer cells, to inhibit tumorigenesis progression, to prevent the metastatic process or to sensitize cancer cells to chemo and radiotherapy (Vanden Berghe, 2012)."
The new study highlighted the following points, the implications for the future of cancer treatment are truly revolutionary:
  • Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are chemo-radiotherapy resistant, causing tumor relapse.
  • CSCs are known to reside within specific hypoxic and acidic tumor niches.
  • Phytocompounds affect CSC self-renewal, metabolism and microenvironment.
  • Phytocompounds might be exploited for cancer prevention and treatment.



Read More Here

Friday, November 20, 2015

Biotech company Editas Medicine is planning to start human trials to genetically edit genes and reverse blindness


undefined
brian0918&#153
Wikipedia.org
.................................................................................

The Telegraph

First genetically modified humans could exist within two years

Biotech company Editas Medicine is planning to start human trials to genetically edit genes and reverse blindness 


Humans who have had their DNA genetically modified could exist within two years after a private biotech company announced plans to start the first trials into a ground-breaking new technique.
Editas Medicine, which is based in the US, said it plans to become the first lab in the world to ‘genetically edit’ the DNA of patients suffering from a genetic condition – in this case the blinding disorder ‘leber congenital amaurosis’.
The disorder prevents normal function of the retina; the light-sensitive layer of cells at the back of the eye. It appears at birth or in the first months of life and eventually sufferers can go completely blind.
“Hereditary eye disease in an obvious place to start given that there is already precedent in classical gene therapy"
 
Professor Darren Griffin, University of Kent
 
The rare inherited disease is caused by defects in a gene which instructs the creation of a protein that is essential to vision.

But scientists at Editas Medicine in the US believe they can fix the mutated DNA using the ground-breaking gene-editing technology Crispr.

Katrine Bosley, the chief executive of Editas Medicine, told a conference in the US that the company hopes to start trialling the technology on blind patients in 2017.

It would be the first time the technology has been used on humans. Gene editing is currently banned in the US, so the company would need special permission from health regulators.

“It feels fast, but we are going at the pace science allows,” Bosley told the EmTech conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


Read More Here

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

DNA Data From California Newborn Blood Samples Stored, Sold To 3rd Parties


 
File:Phenylketonuria testing.jpg
The blood of a two week-old infant is collected for a Phenylketonuria, or PKU, screening.

U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt Eric T. Sheler    Wikimedia.org


.............................................................................................................


CBS San FranciscoSF Bay Area

 

(KPIX 5) — This might come as a surprise to California natives in their 20s and early 30s: The state owns your DNA.

Every year about four million newborns in the U.S. get a heel prick at birth, to screen for congenital disorders, that if found early enough, can save their life.

Danielle Gatto barely remembers the nurse even mentioning test performed on her two daughters. “I don’t think that any woman is in a state of mind to sit down and start studying up on the literature they send you home with,” she said.

But later she was shocked to find, her daughters’ leftover blood was not thrown away. “The state collects the cards and then uses them in a database,” she said. The information is buried on page 12 of the brochure about the Newborn Screening Program that hospitals give parents of newborns before they go home.

Turns out a non-descript office building in Richmond contains the DNA of every person born in California since 1983. It’s a treasure trove of information about you, from the color of your eyes and hair to your pre-disposition to diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer.



Read More Here

Monday, November 9, 2015

The impending anthropogenic mass extinction could very well make the elite depopulation agenda a moot point according to Rosemary Mason.


Global Research

Poisoned Agriculture: Depopulation and Human Extinction


Agricultural-Engineer-On-Field-Examining-Ripe-Ears-Of-Grain-GMO-Test-Crop


There is a global depopulation agenda. The plan is to remove the ‘undesirables’, ‘the poor’ and others deemed to be ‘unworthy’ and a drain on finite resources. However, according to Rosemary Mason, the plan isn’t going to work because an anthropogenic mass extinction is already underway that will affect all life on the planet and both rich and poor alike. Humans will struggle to survive the phenomenon.


A new paper by Rosemary A Mason in the ‘Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry’, indicates that a ‘sixth extinction’ is under way (the Holocene extinction, sometimes called the Sixth Extinction, is a name describing the ongoing extinction of species during the present Holocene epoch - since around 10,000 BCE). In her paper, ‘The sixth mass extinction and chemicals in the environment: our environmental deficit is now beyond nature’s ability to regenerate’, she argues that loss of biodiversity is the most urgent of the environmental problems, as biodiversity is critical to ecosystem services and human health. And the main culprit is the modern chemical-intensive industrialised system of food and agriculture.

Mason asserts there is a growing threat from the release of hormone-disrupting chemicals that could even be shifting the human sex ratio and reducing sperm counts. An industrial agricultural revolution has created a technology-dependent global food system, but it has also created serious long-run vulnerabilities, especially in its dependence on stable climates, crop monocultures and industrially produced chemical inputs. In effect, farming is a principal source of global toxification and soil degradation.

Without significant pressure from the public demanding action, Mason argues there could little chance of changing course fast enough to forestall disaster. The ‘free’ market is driving the impending disaster and blind faith in corporate-backed technology will not save us. Indeed, such faith in this technology is actually killing us.

Since the late 1990s, US scientists have written in increasingly desperate tones regarding an unprecedented number of fungal and fungal-like diseases, which have recently caused some of the most severe die-offs and extinctions ever witnessed in wild species and which are jeopardizing food security. Only one paper dared to mention pesticides as being a primary cause, however.
Mason cites a good deal of evidence to show how the widespread use on agricultural crops of the systemic neonicotinoid insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate, both of which cause immune suppression, make species vulnerable to emerging infectious pathogens, driving large-scale wildlife extinctions, including essential pollinators.

Providing evidence to show how human disease patterns correlate remarkably well with the rate of glyphosate usage on corn, soy and wheat crops, which has increased due to ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, Mason goes on to present more sources to show how our over-reliance on chemicals in agriculture is causing irreparable harm to all beings on this planet. Most of these chemicals are known to cause illness, and they have likely been causing illnesses for many years. But until recently, the herbicides have never been sprayed directly on food crops and never in this massive quantity.

The depopulation agenda

Mason discusses how agriculture and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) fit into a wider agenda for depopulating the planet. She notes that on the initiative of Gates, in May 2009 some of the richest people in the US met at the home of Nurse, a British Nobel prize-winning biochemist and President (2003–10) of Rockefeller University in Manhattan, to discuss ways of tackling a ‘disastrous’ environmental, social and industrial threat of overpopulation. The meeting was hosted by David Rockefeller Jr. These same individuals have met several times since to develop a strategy in which population growth would be tackled.

The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) was involved in extensive financing of eugenics research  in league with some of the US’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy élite families, such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920s, has embodied what they termed ‘negative eugenics’, the systematic killing off of ‘undesired bloodlines’.

RF funded the earliest research on GMOs, which Mason regards as part of the depopulation agenda. The RF funded the earliest research on GMOs in the 1940s and effectively founded the science of molecular biology.

Mason cites Steven Druker to show the fraud behind GMOs and how governments and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety. Druker has shown that GMOs can have severe health impacts, which have been covered up.

The Royal Society is the preeminent scientific body within the UK that advises the government. It has misrepresented the facts about GMOs and has engaged in various highly dubious and deceptive tactics to promote the technology.

Druker wrote an open letter to RS as it has an obligation to the British public to provide a public response and ‘put the record straight’ on GMOs. Although Sir Paul Nurse’s presidency of Rockefeller University terminated in 2010, after he assumed the Royal Society presidency, Mason notes that Nurse is said to have maintained a laboratory on the Rockefeller campus and has an ongoing relationship with the university.

She asks: is that why Sir Paul was unable (or unwilling) even to discuss GMOs with Steven Druker? Was he sent to London by the Rockefeller Foundation to support the UK Government in their attempt to bring in GM crops? The UK Government and the GM industry have after all been shown to be working together to promote GM crops and foods, undermine consumer choice and ignore environmental harm.

Mason then goes on to discuss the impact of glyphosate residues (herbicide-tolerant GM crops are designed to work with glyphosate), which are found in the organs of animals, human urine and human breast milk as well as in the air and rivers. She documents its widespread use and contamination of soil and water and notes that the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer’s assessment of glyphosate being a 2A carcinogen (probably carcinogenic in humans) is unwelcome news for the agrochemical industry. She also notes that Roundup usage has led to a depletion of biodiversity and that loss of biodiversity is also correlated with neonicotinoids. However, despite the evidence, the blatant disregard concerning the use of these substances by regulatory agencies around the world is apparent.

To provide some insight into the impact on health of the chemical-intensive model of agriculture, Mason shows that in the US increases in Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, breast cancer, oesophageal cancer, congenital anomalies and a growing burden of disability, particularly from mental disorders are all acknowledged.

She claims that plans are under way to depopulate the planet’s seven million plus people to a more manageable level of between 500–2000 million by a combination of means, including the poisoning and contamination of the planet’s food and water supplies via chemical-intensive industrialised agriculture. Mason also notes that health-damaging GMOs are being made available to the masses (under the guise of ‘feeding the poor’), while elites are more prone to eat organic food.
We may be gone before planned depopulation takes hold

Although Mason cites evidence to show that a section of the US elite has a depopulation agenda, given the amount of poisons being pumped into the environment and into humans, the thrust of her argument is that we could all be extinct before this comes to fruition – both rich and poor alike.
In concluding, she states that the global pesticides industry has been allowed to dominate the regulatory agencies and have created chemicals of mass destruction that can no longer be controlled. She has some faith in systems biology coming to the fore and being able to understand the complexity of the whole organism as a system, rather than just studying its parts in a reductionist manner. But Mason believes that ultimately the public must place pressure on governments and hold agribusiness to account.

However, that in itself may not be enough.

It is correct to highlight the poisonous impacts of the Rockefeller-sponsored petrochemical ‘green revolution’. It has uprooted indigenous/traditional agriculture and local economies and has recast them in a model that suits global agribusiness. It is poisoning life and the environment, threatening food security across the globe and is unsustainable. The ‘green revolution’ was ultimately a tool of US foreign policy that has been used in conjunction with various institutions like the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation. GMOs represent more of the same.

In this respect, Mason follows the line of argument in William F Engdahl’s book ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation’, which locates the GM issue and the ‘green revolution’ firmly within the context of empire. Engdahl also sees the Rockefeller-Gates hand behind the great GMO project to a sinister eugenicist strategy of depopulation.

Mason’s concerns about depopulation therefore should not be dismissed, particularly given the record of the likes of the Gates and Rockefeller clans, the various covert sterility programmes that have been instituted by the US over the decades and the way agriculture has and continues to be used as a geopolitical tool to further the agendas of rich interests in the US.

To understand the processes that have led to modern farming and the role of entities like Monsanto, we must appreciate the geopolitics of food and agriculture, which benefits an increasingly integrated global cartel of finance, oil, military and agribusiness concerns. This cartel seeks to gain from war, debt bondage and the control of resources, regardless of any notions relating to food security, good health and nutrition, biodiversity, food democracy, etc.
Food and trade policy analyst Devinder Sharma notes the impacts in India:
“India is on fast track to bring agriculture under corporate control… Amending the existing laws on land acquisition, water resources, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and food processing, the government is in overdrive to usher in contract farming and encourage organized retail. This is exactly as per the advice of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as well as the international financial institutes.”
In Punjab, India, pesticides have turned the state into a ‘cancer epicentre‘. Moreover, Indian soils are being depleted as a result of the application of ‘green revolution’ ideology and chemical inputs. India is losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is become deficient in nutrients and fertility.

And now, there is an attempt to push GM food crops into India in a secretive, non-transparent manner that smacks of regulatory delinquency underpinned by corrupt practices, which suggests officials are working hand in glove with US agribusiness.

As smallholders the world over are being driven from their land and the GMO/chemical-industrial farming model takes over, the problems continue to mount.

The environment, the quality of our food and our health are being sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit and a type of looting based on something we can loosely regard as ‘capitalism’. The solution involves a shift to organic farming and investment in and reaffirmation of indigenous models of agriculture. But ultimately it entails what Daniel Maingi of Growth Partners for Africa says what we must do: “… take capitalism and business out of farming.”

It must also entail, according to Maingi, investing in  “… indigenous knowledge and agroecology, education and infrastructure and stand(ing) in solidarity with the food sovereignty movement.”
In other words, both farmers and consumers must organise to challenge governments, corrupt regulatory bodies and big agribusiness at every available opportunity. If we don’t do this, what Mason outlines may come to pass.


Thursday, November 5, 2015

SCIENCE WARNING: Genetically modified soybeans cause stunted growth of animal offspring


NaturalNews's profile photo
NaturalNews












soy

(NaturalNews) Pregnant goats fed a diet of genetically modified (GM) soybeans produced small, slow-growing offspring compared with goats fed a diet of non-GM soybeans, according to a study conducted by Italian researchers and published in the journal Small Ruminant Research.

The soybeans used in the study were "Roundup Ready," engineered for resistance to Monsanto's global bestselling herbicide Roundup (glyphosate). This is the GM soybean variety most widely grown around the world.

Further analysis revealed that the milk produced by the goats fed GM soy was less nutritious and contained lower levels of a key growth-promoting class of antibodies.

Milk from GMO-fed goats is deficient

Sixty days before kidding, the researchers assigned pregnant Cilentana goats to be fed a diet containing either Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans at one of two different concentrations or the same concentrations of non-GM soybeans. After birth, the kids were fed only their mothers' milk for 60 more days. The growth of the kids was assessed at 30 and 60 days after birth.

The researchers found that kids of mothers fed GM soy were an average of 20 percent shorter and weighed 20 percent less than kids from the control groups.

Analysis of the mothers' colostrum (the type of milk produced for the first period following birth) revealed surprising findings. The milk from the mothers fed GM soy was significantly lower in quality, with lower levels of both fat and protein. For example, the milk from the control goats was 18 percent protein, while the milk from the GMO-fed goats was only 6 percent protein. These differences disappeared after several weeks. Perhaps even more significantly, the antibody composition was significantly different between the two groups. Milk from mothers fed GM soy had significantly lower levels of IgG antibodies, which promote growth and development of the immune system.

"This was a carefully conducted study," said Judy Carman of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Australia, who was not involved in the research.

"The differences in the composition of the colostrum between the mothers fed the GE soy and the non-GE soy were particularly striking. The colostrum from the GE-fed mothers contained only 2/3 of the fat, 1/3 of the protein and close to half of the IgG of the mothers fed the non-GM soy."

The researchers also detected transgenic (modified) DNA in the colostrum of 10 of the 16 GMO-fed goats, and in none of the colostrum of the control goats. This confirms prior findings that transgenic DNA from the diet can pass into the milk of ruminant mammals.

Another reason to avoid GM crops and Roundup

Because there was no significant difference in size between kids from the two groups at birth, the researchers believe that the differences observed in the mothers' milk likely account for the growth differences in the kids. There might also have been other changes in nutrient content of the milk that the researchers did not test for.

Significantly, prior studies have shown that IgG antibodies also play a role in nutrient absorption by promoting newborn gut development.

"It is already known that Roundup Ready soybeans have various defects including a Manganese deficiency," said Allison Wilson of The Bioscience Resource Project, who was not involved in the study. "Yet regulators and GMO developers have continuously dismissed credible reports of GMO crops causing apparent harm to animals, from many different research groups."

Roundup Ready crops are also known to be coated with higher average levels of glyphosate residue than non-GM crops. Glyphosate, in turn, has been linked to various toxic effects, including on the reproductive system and on growth and development, in addition to causing cancer.

Sources for this article include:

IndependentScienceNews.org

NaturalNews.com


About NaturalNews

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan corporation. It is not recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit in the United States, but it operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books other than reimbursement for items purchased in order to conduct product reviews.

The vast majority of our content is freely given away at no charge. We offer thousands of articles and dozens of downloadable reports and guides (like the Honest Food Guide) that are designed to educate and empower individuals, families and communities so that they may experience improved health, awareness and life fulfillment.
Learn More About Natural News Here

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Is BRCA ("Breast Cancer Gene") A Death Sentence?


What we think we know about the BRCA (Breast Cancer Susceptibility Associated) genes causing cancer is patently false, according to a new meta-analysis on the extant literature on the subject of these gene variations on breast cancer survival prognosis.  

A groundbreaking new meta-analysis published in PLoS titled,"Worse Breast Cancer Prognosis of BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: What's the Evidence? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis", calls into question the value of using BRCA1/2 gene status to determine breast cancer survival prognosis, as is common practice today. This implications of this research may have wide-ranging effects as the present climate, following Angelina Jolie's high profile decision to have prophylactic breast, ovary and fallopian tube removed due to her perceived "genetic inheritance," is to equate BRCA status with bona fide and mathematically calculable disease risk certainty. 




Jolie's decision to subject herself to multiple prophylactic organ removal was based on the premise that her BRCA mutations would result in an 87 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and up to 54 percent chance of ovarian cancer, as prognosticated by her doctors. The notion that BRCA genes have full or near full penetrance (the ability of a mutation to cause clinically identifiable disease) has profound implications for the health of millions of women who rely on these predictions to make life and death medical decisions.
Because of a wide range of conflicting conclusions on the subject of BRCA's role in determining cancer risk and prognosis, researchers in the new study attempted a systematic and quantitative synthesis of evidence using the following method:
"Eligible publications were observational studies assessing the survival of breast cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation compared to non-carriers or the general breast cancer population. We performed meta-analyses and best-evidence syntheses for survival outcomes taking into account study quality assessed by selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding."
They summarized their findings:
"Our review shows that, in contrast to currently held beliefs of many oncologists and despite 66 published studies, it is not yet possible to draw evidence-based conclusions about the association between BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriership and breast cancer prognosis. We only found sufficient evidence for a 10% worse unadjusted recurrence-free survival for BRCA1 mutation carriers. For all the other outcomes the evidence was judged to be indecisive."
In their concluding remarks, the researchers state, "In contrast to currently held beliefs of some oncologists, current evidence does not support worse breast cancer survival of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the adjuvant setting; differences if any are likely to be small. More well-designed studies are awaited."



Read More Here

Friday, May 2, 2014

The levels of radiation that we are constantly exposed to have risen dramatically over the last half century. Here's how to protect yourself.

Prevent Disease


April 30, 2014 by DR. SUZANNE BARTOLINI
The levels of radiation that we are constantly exposed to have risen dramatically over the last half century. Ambient fallout from nuclear catastrophes is impacting our environment, and ultimately our health, as we all come in contact with radioactive materials. Here's how to protect yourself.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, and the most recent 2011 Japan Tsunami calamity at Fukushima nuclear power plant have each had devastating consequences for the environment, damaging the ecosystem and the quality of our air, water, and soil.
The greatest health consequences of a nuclear accident or explosion are linked to radioactive materials (radio-nuclides) that can travel through air and water for thousands of miles, contaminating the world with radioactive particles. Once the human body is exposed to nuclear fallout, radioactive isotopes can remain in the body for many years, causing unpredictable chemical reactions. Absorption of radiation, especially over prolonged periods of time, can result in free radical damage, mutational damage to DNA, and cellular dysfunction, inducing several diseases. Symptoms of radiation toxicity can include fatigue, migraines, infertility, allergic reactions, hypertension, disorders of the central nervous system, anxiety, memory loss, rheumatic pains, flu-like symptoms, low red and white blood cell counts, etc.
Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation

 There are two types of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing. Both types cause DNA damage and form harmful free radicals. Ionizing radiation is produced from nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, nuclear waste, and diagnostic equipment like x-rays and CT scans. Ionizing radiation is considered the most harmful. The most common diseases linked to ionizing radiation include thyroid disease, leukemia and various cancers, anemia, bone and blood disorders, endocrine (hormonal) disruption, reproductive abnormalities and birth defects, kidney and liver damage, and overall severely damaged immune systems.Non-ionizing radiation is a type of electromagnetic radiation produced by electronic devices such as televisions, cell phones and towers, wireless devices, computers, high voltage electrical lines, radios, microwaves, etc. Non-ionizing radiation disrupts molecules as it passes through the body, and there is an increasing body of research demonstrating that exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) can alter the behaviour of cells and hormones. For example, EMFs can cause the body to reduce production of the hormone melatonin, affecting immune processes and causing increased defects, sterility, and fetus mortality rates in laboratory animals. In 1987, scientists discovered a significant link between increased incidence of childhood cancer and close proximity to high tension power lines and commonly used electronic devices. 

Radiation-induced Thyroid Disease

A variety of dangerous radioactive materials are known to be released during nuclear power plant accidents. Among the most worrisome are cesium-137 and iodine-131, which emit Gamma rays and have affinities for parts of the human body. Cesium-137 mimics potassium inside the body and accumulates mainly in the liver, kidneys, and the reproductive system. Iodine-131 is rapidly absorbed by the thyroid gland and increases the risk of thyroid growths and cancer.

And radioactive emissions are not limited only to nuclear accidents. According to Professor Ernest Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, an expert on radiation physics: “By design, nuclear power reactors must regularly release steam to lower the intense heat produced. Invisible radioactive particles are emitted into the atmosphere along with the steam and are carried on air currents, eventually falling to the ground with rain and snow... Many cancer hot spots are related to nuclear fallout carried by wind currents from distant locations, which later come down with rain or snow over a particular area, raising the cancer risk among a local population that received the precipitated radioactive fallout.”

The thyroid gland is the first to uptake radioactive iodine, and even when small amounts are inhaled or ingested they will concentrate in the thyroid gland. Most North Americans are iodine deficient which makes them more vulnerable to radioactive iodine. If there is an iodine deficiency in the diet, radioactive iodine-131 will be absorbed and accumulate in the thyroid gland because the thyroid does not distinguish between radioactive and non-radioactive iodine. Having adequate iodine in the body therefore prevents radioactive iodine from attaching to the thyroid gland.

Potassium iodide pills can be taken to prevent the uptake of radioactive iodine in the event of a nuclear accident. Supplementing with potassium Iodine (KI) in either pill form or saturated liquid form (super saturated potassium iodide or SSKI), is the best way to quickly load iodine into the thyroid. Potassium iodine (KI) can be administered in prophylactic doses within 24 hours of exposure in radiation emergencies, and for a short period of time after exposure. In 1986 after the Chernobyl accident, people who were administered potassium iodide experienced less childhood thyroid cancers compared to those who were not. The World Health Organization also recommends potassium iodide supplementation to prevent the thyroid’s uptake of radioactive iodine.

Consuming natural sources of iodine helps offset the side effects of radiation exposure. The best natural source of iodine comes from seaweeds (also referred to as sea vegetables), however there is renewed controversy surrounding seaweed that may be harvested from polluted ocean waters. Kelp is perhaps the most well-known seaweed; others include wakame, kombu, dulse, nori, hijiki, and arame.
In North American studies, seaweed was found to neutralize radioactive isotopes in the human body. Researchers discovered that certain radioactive materials can bind to the algin in brown seaweeds to create “sodium alginate” which has a unique quality in that it can bind heavy metals and radioactive elements, preventing their absorption by the body. In one Canadian study, sodium alginate from kelp reduced radioactive strontium absorption in the intestines by 50 percent to 80 percent.

Other Nutritional and Antioxidant Treatments for Combating Radiation

A large number of nutrients and foods are suggested as being helpful in preventing or limiting, or even counteracting, the effects of nuclear radiation. Below are some that are especially noted for their beneficial effects:
MISO -- this fermented food made from soybeans has long been used in Japan for both protection from radiation, detoxification, and for stimulating the immune system. Miso is also well-documented to benefit circulation and remove blood clots. Miso soup was used as the primary antidote for the effects of radiation poisoning after the Hiroshima bombing. A 1990 Hiroshima University study concluded that people who regularly consume miso soup may be up to five times more resistant to radiation poisoning than people who do not.

SPIRULINA -- is a blue-green algae that is extremely rich in nutrients. It contains beta carotene, vitamin B-12, iron, chlorophyll, GLA fatty acids, and much more. Spirulina has been studied extensively in Russia and China, where research has shown it chelates radiation from the body, as well as provides general protection from radiation toxicity. One study in particular demonstrated how children on a protocol of spirulina after Chernobyl had improved immunity and T-cell counts. Chlorella algae is often listed along with spirulina as an equivalent radiation chelator. However, although chlorella is well-regarded as an excellent heavy metal detoxifier and is also known to reduce chemotherapy side-effects, it has not been demonstrated in research to counter the effects of nuclear radiation.

R-LIPOIC ACID -- is a unique, vitamin-like antioxidant that protects the body from free radical damage. Research performed in Russia found that lipoic acid is one of the most effective anti-radiation nutrients available. Research continues to demonstrate that it has many benefits as a super antioxidant and metal chelator, working to repair liver damage, combat radiation sickness, treat diabetes, and protect against free radical damage.

Glutathione (GSH) and N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) -- Glutathione is an internally produced antioxidant that enhances the ability of immune system cells and protects against radiation damage. Studies have also shown that GSH can reduce side effects of chemotherapy, xrays, and alcohol. In addition, it is well-known as a detoxifier of heavy metals, and is extremely useful in the treatment of blood and liver disorders. Supplementing with N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), a glutathione precursor, stimulates glutathione synthesis. NAC itself is a powerful antioxidant that is effective in detoxifying the liver. Sulphur-containing foods such as cabbage, broccoli, and kale also help the body to produce GSH.

SELENIUM -- is a cofactor of glutathione production and activates the antioxidant enzyme glutathione peroxidase, which is believed to protect the body from cancer in large part by increasing white blood cell counts. The largest study performed with selenium demonstrated that people supplementing with selenium developed less prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers. While there are no human studies to support the theory that selenium directly protects against radiation, research performed on rats has demonstrated that selenium decreased death rates in rats who were directly exposed to radiation.

GREEN AND BLACK TEAS -- Studies have shown that both green and black teas provide some degree of protection against radiation. Tea catechins seem to absorb and eliminate radioactive isotopes. The polyphenol epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) derived from green tea has been shown in animal studies to protect from whole-body radiation. Regular black tea exhibited the same anti-radiation effects in several Japanese studies.

BENTONITE CLAY -- Has also been recommended for detoxing after radiation exposure, but this is not confirmed by research. Bentonite clay is well-documented in traditional medicine to bind heavy metal toxins and effectively flush them from the body.

Botanical Medicines as Potential Radiation Protectors

Ongoing research on several plants and herbs is demonstrating their potential radioprotective abilities. The natural chemicals, referred to as polyphenols, that are present in various botanicals have been shown to counteract the oxidative stress that is induced by ionizing radiation. They tend to do this either by scavenging radiation-induced free radicals and/or by elevating antioxidant levels in the body.
Many of the botanicals currently being researched have medicinal properties and have been safely used in traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic systems of medicine. These include various plants such as: Podophyllum hexandrum, tinospora cordifolia, phyllanthus amarus, piper longum (pippali) fruit, arctium lappa (burdock root), and zingiber officinale (ginger). The most notable research, however, has been performed on panax ginseng and gingko biloba.

PANAX GINSENG -- Studies have successfully demonstrated that treatment with panax ginseng extract aided recovery of cells involved in blood clotting (thrombocytes) and red blood cell counts in blood after radiation exposure. Clinical trials reported that people who took panax ginseng extract for thirty days following exposure to radiation showed a faster recovery rate from injuries to their bone marrow, organs, skin, and blood cells. In animal studies, ginseng extract prevents bone marrow injury and accelerates the recovery of both red and white blood cell counts.

GINGKO BILOBA -- Solid research has been performed on extracts of ginkgo biloba, which contain antioxidant compounds that protect cells from free radical damage. Specifically, the results suggest that the gingko biloba extracts prevent cells from undergoing apoptosis (programmed cell death). A study was performed on healthy white blood cells that were then exposed to gamma radiation. Half of the sample was treated with the ginkgo biloba extract and these cells showed protection from the radiation while the untreated cells underwent apoptosis. The study concluded that the extracts of the leaves of the gingko biloba tree may protect human cells from radiation damage.

PECTIN -- Ongoing studies are researching pectin as a natural chelating agent. Pectin is a structural polysaccharide (fiber) found in cell walls of plants and fruits. Some studies have demonstrated it to be beneficial for binding and removing radioactive residues from the body. Pectin-rich foods include apples, guavas, plums, gooseberries, and citrus fruits.

Caveat, re: Iodine -- While Dr. Joseph Mercola recognizes that optimal amounts of dietary iodine are important to nourish the thyroid, he warns about the risk of getting too much iodine: “Taking too much iodine may lead to subclinical hypothyroidism, which occurs when your thyroid produces too little thyroid hormone. It’s an ironic association, since hypothyroidism is often linked to iodine deficiency, But research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition revealed that study participants taking relatively higher doses of supplemental iodine -- 400 micrograms a day and more -- paradoxically began developing subclinical hypothyroidism.”

Dr. Mercola also points to a major culprit in the epidemic of iodine deficiency in North Americans today:bromine exposure. “When you ingest or absorb bromine (found in baked goods, plastics, soft drinks, medications, pesticides and more), it displaces iodine, and this iodine deficiency leads to an increased risk for cancer of the breast, thyroid gland, ovary and prostate -- cancers that we see at alarmingly high rates today.”

Food IS Medicine

Buckwheat is an important food to include, according to researchers. Buckwheat is high in the bioflavonoid rutin, and research supports its protective effects against radiation, and stimulating new bone marrow production. Also important to include in the diet are dried beans, especially lentils, which have been shown to reverse DNA damage caused by radiation. Incorporating medicinal mushrooms such as reishi and chaga mushrooms into the diet can also protect from radiation-induced, cancers according to research.

Much of the damage caused by radiation can be attributed to a high level of acidity and the inflammation that results in several diseases. Consuming alkalizing foods can have a multitude of benefits, and is protective against radiation-induced illnesses. Alkalinizing foods include whole grains, fruits, leafy green vegetables, essential fatty acids, lean proteins, etc, whereas acidifying foods are processed foods, refined carbohydrates, and sugar.

Sources:
psr.org
vitalitymagazine.com
mercola.com

townsendletter.com

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 13, 2014

GMO's - The FDA doesn't require a single study, and the complex biology of GM crops may produce far more side-effects than drugs. Are you inflamed over GMO foods?

Are you inflamed over GMO foods?

Several years ago the general public was completely unaware of GMOs and GE foods (genetically modified organisms or genetic engineering), but today the topic is becoming rather well known, thanks to growing education and alternative media coverage. The general public is becoming better informed about the potential harms and health issues associated with biotechnology and bioengineered foods, but the smoke and mirrors the mega-corporations use to obfuscate deeper understanding of the dangers inherent in such 'mad science' increases in tandem with growing awareness.

Ok, so a lot of people know they are eating GMO's and what they are, but the real question is: are GMOs actually safe, as proponents and supporters of biotechnology claim, or are they not? Should we be worried about the long-term health and environmental effects of genetically altered foods? In the following article I hope to present clear evidence and data for stating very definitively: YES! We should be very concerned!

As an organic farmer, agriculture consultant and researcher, I became interested in the GMO issue over seven years ago, particularly their effects on the soil and the contamination or mutation of various plant species. 'Connecting the dots', so to speak, it dawned on me how serious this issue is, not just in terms of the environmental effects of GMOs, but also the consequences of eating GMO foods for human health.

A very disturbing picture began to emerge.

As I realized that this 'genetic engineering' is essentially a mad science, I joined a local group called 'Seeds of Truth'. We began meeting weekly to discuss how to get the word out about the growing takeover of Hawaii's agricultural lands by several biotechnology corporations.

In November 2010, I had an opportunity to do a podcast with the SOTT team: GMO Frankenfoods and What You Can Do to Improve Your Health. The transcript for the podcast can be read here.

What exactly is Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering?
For those who are new to this topic, it's important to explain some background knowledge when using the term 'Biotechnology'. According to Wikipedia:
Biotechnology (sometimes shortened to "biotech") is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products, and it is usually seen in agriculture, food production and medicine production. Modern use of similar terms includes genetic engineering as well as cell and tissue culture technologies. The concept encompasses a wide range of procedures (and history) for modifying living organisms according to human purposes - going back to domestication of animals, cultivation of plants, and "improvements" to these through breeding programs that employ artificial selection and hybridization. By comparison to biotechnology, bioengineering is generally thought of as a related field with its emphasis more on higher systems approaches (not necessarily altering or using biological materials directly) for interfacing with and utilizing living things. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity defines biotechnology as:[1]

"Any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use."

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism.
For the purpose of this article I will use the term 'genetic engineering' and 'genetically modified organisms' (GMO's) in place of 'biotechnology'. I hope to clearly explain that 'genetic engineering' is not in humanity's best interest, regardless of claims by avid supporters. The agriculture industry, or Big Ag, began introducing 'genetically engineered foods' to the public in the early 1990s. Today, 80% of U.S. grocery store foods contain GMOs.The following articles carried on SOTT.net provide important background information regarding the 'mad science' behind GMO technology:

Explained: What Are GMOs?
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Since this involves the transfer of genes, GMOs are also known as "transgenic" organisms.

The genetic engineering technology was developed in the 1970s. In the early 1990s, the tomato was one of the first to fall victim to this technology. The anti-freeze genes from an Arctic fish were forced into tomato DNA, allowing the plants to survive frost. Fortunately, this type of tomato was not introduced into the marketplace. Actually, it never left the lab.

In 1976, a major biotechnology company manufactured a herbicide called Roundup. When the farmers sprayed this herbicide on their crops, not only would it kill the weeds, but it would also kill the crops. This biotech company developed genetically modified crops after finding bacteria in a chemical waste dump near its factory that were not dying in the presence of the herbicide. The bacterial gene that produced the protein that allowed it to survive in the presence of herbicide was inserted into soy, corn, cotton and canola.

In 1996, this company (Monsanto) introduced genetically modified soybeans, and slowly introduced genetically engineered corn, cotton and canola. When these crops are sprayed with this Roundup, all plants except the resistant crop are killed.

In 1992, the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) as long as their producers say they are. Therefore, the FDA doesn't require any safety evaluations or labeling of GMOs. A company can even introduce a genetically modified (GM) food to the market without telling the agency. The official FDA policy stated, "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." But behind closed doors an internal FDA report stated: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

Internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects including allergies, toxins, nutritional effects and new diseases as potential dangers. The FDA doesn't require a single study, and the complex biology of GM crops may produce far more side-effects than drugs. GM foods are fed to the entire population, and they are not labeled or monitored, so symptoms are difficult or impossible to track.
Dr. Tim O'Shea, author of the website 'The Doctor Within', provides more background information explaining what exactly GMOs are:

Genetically Modified Foods: 80% of What's In Your Grocery Cart:
Since the 1990s world agriculture and food production has undergone the most radical transformation in history. With very little public awareness, in just a few short years genetically modified foods have come to dominate both global agriculture and supermarket shelf space.

The first GMO experiment was crossing the DNA of a flounder with that of a tomato. This was done in order to make the tomato able to withstand colder temperatures. Oh yes, did we mention? - in the biotech industry, pieces of DNA can be transferred theoretically from any plant to any animal, vice versa, or any combination thereof.

Segments of DNA from one species are randomly spliced into the DNA of the other species hundreds and hundreds of times until the desired effect appears. How this cross-species DNA insertion is accomplished is a little less than scientific. The two most common methods of DNA modification are
  • the gene cannon
  • using bacteria and viruses as carriers for the DNA fragment
Scientists refer to the Position Effect when talking about not being able to predict where the inserted fragments will end up in the genetic sequence. Limitless possibilities result - recombining genetic sequences that can turn on or turn off vital processes that have taken thousands of years to refine.

In the gene cannon method tiny little golden bullets are shot into the cells of the target organism with a .22 calibre pistol. Not kidding. Hundreds of times. In this way the DNA of the host organism can be available for splicing in new fragments from the donor species. Of course this method is imprecise and unpredictable and anything but scientific. Only a tiny percentage of the blasted foreign DNA ends up inside the host DNA, of course. But if you do it enough times, you might eventually get a desired recombination. This was the how the flounder and tomato genes were combined.

The more popular method however is to use bacteria and viruses as carriers of donor DNA fragments which may then invade the host's DNA and splice in the new pieces. We have long known that viruses have this ability to invade the host's DNA and to actually splice themselves into the DNA strands. Both these methods of genetic modification result in the random scrambling of the host's DNA, which has virtually unlimited unpredictable consequences.
Are you inflamed because of GMOs?

By 'inflamed', I'm not just referring to the state of anger and frustration people feel upon learning the sneaky, deceptive tactics Biotechnology corporations use to put these unsafe ingredients in our food. I am talking about inflammation in the body as a result of eating genetically engineered food loaded with 'genetically mutated bacteria and viruses'.

Extensive study has been conducted regarding inflammatory responses to disease in the body. Doctors like Mark Hyman and Gabor Mate have written about the connections between inflammation in the body and the onset of disease:

Is Your Body Burning Up with Hidden Inflammation?
Inflammation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Everyone who has had a sore throat, rash, hives, or a sprained ankle knows about inflammation. These are normal and appropriate responses of the immune - your body's defense system - to infection and trauma.

This kind of inflammation is good. We need it to survive - to help us determine friend from foe.

The trouble occurs when that defense system runs out of control, like a rebel army bent on destroying its own country.

Many of us are familiar with an overactive immune response and too much inflammation. It results in common conditions like allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune disease, and asthma. This is bad inflammation, and if it is left unchecked it can become downright ugly.

What few people understand is that hidden inflammation run amok is at the root of all chronic illness we experience - conditions like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, dementia, depression, cancer, and even autism.

How to Locate the Causes of Hidden Inflammation

So if inflammation and immune imbalances are at the root of most of modern disease, how do we find the causes and get the body back in balance?

First, we need to identify the triggers and causes of inflammation. Then we need to help reset the body's natural immune balance by providing the right conditions for it to thrive.

As a doctor, my job is to find those inflammatory factors unique to each person and to see how various lifestyle, environmental, or infectious factors spin the immune system out of control, leading to a host of chronic illnesses.

Thankfully, the list of things that cause inflammation is relatively short:
  • Poor diet - mostly sugar, refined flours, processed foods, and inflammatory fats such as trans fats - Lack of exercise
  • Stress
  • Hidden or chronic infections with viruses, bacteria, yeasts, or parasites
  • Hidden allergens from food or the environment
  • Toxins such as mercury and pesticides
  • Mold toxins and allergens
Dr. Gabor Mate also describes inflammation in the body in his book, When the Body Says No: Understanding the Stress-Disease Connection:
Inflammation is an ingenious process invoked by the body to isolate and destroy hostile or noxious particles ( think GMO's). It does so by tissue swelling and the influx of a host of immune cells and anti bodies. To facilitate it's defensive function, the lining or mucose, of the bowel is in a perpetually controlled or orchestrated state of inflammation. This is a normal state in healthy people. The powerfully destructive forces of the immune apparatus must be routinely regulated, kept in balance, so that it can carry out policing duties without harming the delicate body tissues, it is in charge of defending. Some substances (again think GMO's) promote inflammation others inhibit it. If the balance is upset disease can result.
Additional information about the connection between inflammation and disease is available at the Greenmedinfo.com website:

The Truth About Disease - What it is and What Causes it
Modern medicine describes hundreds of individual "diseases." Each "disease" is generally named for a group of symptoms and the area of the body affected. Many are suffixed by -itis, meaning inflammation of... like tonsill-itis or arthr-itis. And interestingly, recent studies are finding inflammation involved in virtually all of them. Does this terminology serve to pigeonhole distinct "diseases" and distract us from seeing the big picture of inflammation as the disease? Have we been looking at secondary pathologies and opportunistic microbes, and treating them at symptom-level... instead of addressing a common root cause? Is there some imaginary partition that separates human health from chemistry, physics and cell biology?

Whether inflammation is acute like appendicitis or chronic like atherosclerosis and obesity, an immune response is taking place. In-flam-mation literally means "on fire" and is classically marked by the Latin: rubor, tumor, calor and dolor - or redness, swelling, heat and pain - so we know from those words that oxidation is at work.

Oxidation is simply fire or rust or whenever one molecule seizes an electron from another molecule. The needy oxidant grabs or shares the electrons of an electron rich anti-oxidant. When the electrons are stolen from chemical bonds, those molecules (like DNA) come apart or are deformed (like fats) and said to be oxidized, burnt.

Inflammation does not just happen; a bacterium or toxin or some other irritant triggers an immune response. The ammunition used by the body for immune firefights is singlet oxygen, an all-purpose defensive weapon. With an unpaired electron, an oxygen radical is a powerful oxidant.

It can deconstruct and destroy pathogens, poisons, cell debris and other unwanted substances, molecule by molecule, by snatching the electrons that hold them together. Immune cells initiate the conflagration, armed with mini-flamethrowers that generate oxidative bursts of singlet oxygen to burn the area clean.
Now that we have covered both the history of GMO technology and the inflammatory response in the body, we can begin to look at the deeper issues associated with 'genetic engineering' and the introduction of mutated foreign pathogens into our bodies, such as bacteria and viruses.

© naturalfamilymedicine.com
Is it possible that GMOs trigger and cause inflammation in the body?

With the introduction of 'genetic engineering' and its widespread use in the production of food for both humans and animals, we can begin connecting the dots. The issue here is that this 'genetic mad science' is producing disease and illness in the population based on the foods that are being touted as safe and healthy. Basically the population is being used as guinea pigs to test the long term effects of eating a diet composed of genetically modified organisms. Naysayers and pro GMO advocates say that 'genetically altered foods' are safe, GRAS (Generally regarded as Safe) or substantially equivalent to non GMO food, but where is the data to back up such a claim? Biotechnology corporations like Monsanto claim that there is no need for value testing the safety of GMO foods. What do scientists working in the field say?
"As a scientist, actively working in the field [of GMO] I find that it is very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs." - Arpad Pusztai, PhD

Read More Here
Enhanced by Zemanta