There are SO many lies, deceptions, hoaxes, disinformation outlets and generally false versions of reality that most of us have given up – so much effort is required on a daily basis to keep the worst and most degenerative environmental hazadous materials at a safe distance that we almost are ovrwhelmed. perhaps that is part of the agenda – part of the dumbing down of intelligence , our inate curiosity and instinctive intelligence so that we surrender the fight and allow these toxic substances to be marketed as safe and actually good for us. I personally havnt given up. I love to think for myself and formulate responses that keep me free, fully aware, awake and alive.
To achieve this state that should be natural and always in place, we need to be vigilant and constantly monitoring the story we are being told. Be conscious of the potential to obfuscate the truth and spin the narrative to give us a very distorted version of the actual situation and its inheritant and potential dangers. I live to, in an increasingly exausted fashion, to expose the blatent falsehoods and help those that I love to see the truth and then make informed choices based on real information.
Thus I present these two articles that delve into the Roundup/Monsanto story and hope that readers will research deeper and start to make the relevent and needed changes. This will allow each person to live on a daily basis without inbibing/eating any product containing Glyphosate (the main engredient of Roundup herbicide.)
Anna Hunt, Staff Writer
Mainstream media is completely silent on this story, so it is up to you to share the findings of this important research with everyone you know.
New testing conducted by an FDA-registered food safety lab found alarming levels of the chemical glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer) in several very common foods. This independent research reveals that many popular foods have over 1000 times the glyphosate levels that have been established to be harmful.
“With the widespread increase in glyphosate use over the past 20 years and the fact that independent science has confirmed low level exposure to Roundup causes liver and kidney damage at only 0.05 ppb glyphosate equivalent, as reflected by changes in function of over 4000 genes, the American public should be concerned about glyphosate residues on their food.
Additional research points to harmful impacts at levels between 10 ppb and 700 ppb. Considering these shocking new scientific test results, regulators must take the below findings into account during any reauthorization of glyphosate.” ~ Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate
Below are two images that show food testing results published by Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project, which commissioned the research.
Full laboratory reports for this food testing can be found here. A searchable database of results can be found here.
It is no surprise that Monsanto does not want the public to know about these food safety test results. They pay-off mainstream media outlets and regulatory agencies, keeping the media silent when independent research such as this is published, so they can continue making billions from selling glyphosate.
This new research is only supplement to numerous other independent studies that basically show that Monsanto is poisoning us with glyphosate and the government is doing nothing to stop it. Read: Dramatic Increase in Kidney Disease in the US and Abroad Linked To Roundup (Glyphosate) ‘Weedkiller’; and Glyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In the Parts Per Trillion Range.
It is up to each person who sees this story to share it and help others realize that Monsanto is poisoning our food.
Read more articles by Anna Hunt.
About the Author
Anna Hunt is co-owner of OffgridOutpost.com, an online store offering GMO-free healthy storable food and emergency kits. She is also the staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Anna is a certified Hatha yoga instructor and founder of Atenas Yoga Center. She enjoys raising her children and being a voice for optimal human health and wellness. Visit her essential oils store here.
And here -Todays offering from Jon Rappaport- a very well respected journalist. The Government agencies tasked with protecting our health are in the pockets of the vested interests – the companies/corporation that they are tasked to oversee. Thus Roundup – very dangerous anti-depressents and vaccines, to name a few have been allowed to become part of the environment. Time to wake up and stop this chemical onslaught by whatever means possible.
So here he is!
Jon RappoportSome of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.
Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.
This the rock. This is the science.
This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.
Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.
Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.
But what if higher authorities contradicted all these studies? What if they scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could…and came to a shocking and opposite conclusion?
This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact…when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.
Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world—a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” -Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009
You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”
Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.
“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”
Here’s another quote from the same article:
“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”
“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive-that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk-the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”
Here is another Angell statement:
“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs-largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”
If you have the patience to read and re-read these statements, you’ll see they are marking out a scandal of scandals—the entirety of medical literature is a pipeline for deep fraud.
Citing with confidence a study on a drug, for example, would carry no more weight than an article about a celebrity in a gossip rag.
But medical reporters must pretend their sources are correct. It’s their job. If they reject published studies, they have nothing left—except to expose the giant scandal I’m outlining in this article. Biting the hand that feeds them would put them out of work. They’d end up writing about picnics for some local paper—if they were lucky.
However, that’s not my problem or yours. It’s theirs. They chose their profession.
There is a vast amount of work to do and its up to us! – ed