Be Healthy, Say NO to GMOs – genetically modified food

Árpád Pusztai, Ph.D., a Hungarian born scientist, has spent many years working for the Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in Aberdeen, Scotland, researching the nutritive values of plant lectins and genetically modified (GM) foods.

Dr. Pusztai lost his job with RRI for expressing his opinions on the safety of genetically modified foods in a TV interview in 1998. Read more about this honest man.

Over his years of extensive research, Pusztai finds that many GM crops have already been approved to be released on the market that may increase the toxicity of allergens in the crop, or contain unpredictable toxins themselves Such carcinogenic and/or mutagenic toxins may be created in GM crops. Many crops have not been properly tested to determine if they are safe for human or animal consumption .

Click here for more

According to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, genetically modified (GM) crops and food are being grown and consumed by the public, even though:

•  there is little scientific study about their health risks
•  safety test technology is inadequate to assess potential harm
•  they can carry unpredictable toxins
•  they may increase the risk of allergenic reactions

Click here to read: Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?

Say NO to GMOs – genetically modified food

Jeffrey Smith is one of the world’s leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices. He wrote this book: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating.

Read this book and you will learn that eating such “experimental food” is to gamble with your health and life.
They – the Vested Interests and government agencies said the GMOs are safe for human consumption. Know that this is a big lie based on pseudo-science arguments and  bad research.

In this book the author tells you that:

•  When a top scientist tried to alert the public about his alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.
•  Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted.
•  Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities or fired.
•  Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and 7 out of 40 died within 2 weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.

The report by a panel of experts of the Royal Society of Canada said this:

•  It is scientifically unjustifiable to presume that GM foods are safe.
•  There is a need for safety testing, looking for short- and long-term human toxicity, allergenicity and other health effects.
•  The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or fool hardy behavior (Quoting the editors of the UK’s Nature Biotechnology).

On this issue, in the US, the attitude is — the Government by the Industry, for the Industry. Those with authority turned a blind eye to the whole issue of human safety placing more emphasis on money making by the Vested Interests.

Henry Miller who was in charge of biotechnology at the US-FDA from 1979 to 1994, was quoted to have said: “the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”

The US government would not require any safety tests or any special labels identifying the foods as genetically engineered.

Geneticist David Suzuki was quoted to have said: “Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done.”

Is Going to Hospital More Dangerous Than Going to War?

Safety is, however, a matter of perspective. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. If you are against herbs, you would say that herbs are not scientific, not proven and not approve by the FDA (US-Food & Drug Administration). Therefore herbs are dangerous.

Dr. Ni (in Secrets of Self Healing) said that in the US, less than 50 people died due to herbal medicine. At the same time, more than 100 people died due to allergy as a result of eating peanuts and shell fish, etc. Compare these figures to 140,000 deaths each year in American because of people taking pharmaceutical drugs and medical errors. It is also a well known fact that 2.2 million people are injured each year due adverse drug reactions.

Cause
Deaths / year in USA
Herbal medicine
Less than 50
Allergy to peanuts, shellfish, etc.
More than 100
Pharmaceutical drugs & medical error
140,000
Adverse drug reactions – injury to  2.2 million Americans each year

It seems to me that eating peanuts is more dangerous that taking herbal medicine. And it also appears that going to the hospitals in the US is even more dangerous that going to war in Afghanistan.

Scientific Drugs Can Harm

In the foreword of this book: The Best of Alternative Medicine, Dr. Andrew Weil, Director, Program in Integrative Medicine and Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Arizona School of Medicine wrote:

  • Science and technology revolutionized medicine at the end of the 19th century and throughout the first half of the 20th century.
  • It turned its back on nature and on all the simple, inexpensive ways of influencing health and disease.
  • In the 1960s came the realization that technology creates as many problems as it solves.
  • People all over the world are increasingly concerned about the harm inflicted by … pharmaceutical drugs that are now so common.

Pfizer Gives Details on Payments to Doctors

In the last six months of 2009, Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker paid about $20 million to 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals for consulting and speaking on its behalf.
In the same period, Pfizer also paid $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centers and other research groups for clinical trials.

Comments by Dana Ullman in The Huffington Post:
The combined efforts of the drug companies and the medical profession — the “medical-industrial complex —  ” have been wonderfully effective in convincing consumers worldwide that modern medicine is the most scientific discipline that has ever existed.
Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs … Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

Drug companies defend their large profits by asserting that they spend tremendous amounts of money on research and development, but they tend to hide the fact that they spend approximately three times more money on marketing and administration.


We Fought Cancer… And Cancer Won

 

After billions spent on research and decades of hit-or-miss treatments, it’s time to rethink the war on cancer.

Four decades into the war on cancer, conquest is not on the horizon.

“With cancer sometimes death is not optional.” Yet it was supposed to be. In 1971 President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer (though he never used that phrase) in his State of the Union speech, and signed the National Cancer Act to make the “conquest of cancer a national crusade.” It was a bold goal … But the scientists and physicians whom Nixon sent into battle have come up short. Rather than being cured, cancer is poised to surpass cardiovascular disease and become America’s leading killer.

The NCI Web site says, “the biology of the more than 100 types of cancers has proven far more complex than imagined at that time.”

Oncologists resort to a gallows-humor explanation: “One tumor,” says Otis Brawley of the ACS (American Cancer Society), “is smarter than 100 brilliant cancer scientists.”


How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?

  1. Doctors today commonly assert that they practice “scientific medicine,” and patients think that the medical treatments they receive are “scientifically proven.” However, this ideal is a dream, not reality, and a clever and profitable marketing ruse, not fact.
  2. Doctors like to point to the “impressive” efficacy of their treatments in real serious diseases, like cancer, and doctors (and drug companies) are emphatic about asserting that anyone or any company that says (or even suggests) that they have a treatment that might help people with cancer are “quacks.” However, do they maintain this same standard when evaluating their own treatments?
  3. “Quackery” is commonly defined as the use of unproven treatments by individuals or companies who claim fantastic results and who charge large sums of money.
  4. Although modern physicians may point their collective finger at various “alternative” or “natural” treatment modalities as examples of quackery, it is conventional medical treatments today that are out-of-this-world expensive, and despite real questionable efficacy of their treatments, doctors give patients the guise of “science.”

Click here too read more: Dana Ullman, April  2010. The Huffington Post.