HPV Vaccines are a Betrayal of the Public Trust

By NORMA ERICKSON | SANEVAX | MARCH 27, 2013

Last week, multiple news articles reported 44% of American parents refusing Gardasil or Cervarix for their children. Between 2008 and 2010, the percentage of parents concerned about the safety of these two vaccines nearly quadrupled. As of 2010, only 32% of eligible girls were vaccinated against HPV. What is wrong with this picture?

Excerpts from national news sources, March 18-22, 2013:

• USA Today The percentage of parents who say they won’t have their teen daughters vaccinated against the human papillomavirus increases, even though physicians increasingly recommend the vaccinations. Concerns about safety and side effects for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine have increased among parents: 16% cited these fears as the main reason they did not have their daughters vaccinated in 2010, up from 5% in 2008…
• Medpage Today Parents increasingly say they are worried about the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and don’t intend to vaccinate their teen daughters… But there is no similar pattern for two other vaccines aimed at adolescents…
• CNN Health Concerns of mothers and fathers about the safety of the HPV vaccine grew each year, from 4.5% in 2008 to 16.4% in 2010… The number of parents who said they would not vaccinate their children for HPV increased from 38.9% in 2008 to 43.9% in 2010. The main concern was safety.
• CBS News One of the main reasons parents said they didn’t want their children vaccinated against HPV was because of safety concerns.
• Bloomberg The number of girls who received either injection (Gardasil or Cervarix) rose to about one-third in 2010 from 16 percent in 2008…
• FiercePharma A growing share of U.S. parents say they won’t vaccinate their daughters… And that leaves Merck’s Gardasil and GSK’s Cervarix with a shrinking market.
• The New York Times …suggesting, the need for interventions beyond clinical recommendations like possibly ‘state and federally designed social marketing campaigns.’… Without brushing aside the need to address safety concerns, the increasing rates of HPV vaccine refusal suggest that widespread vaccination will require more than marketing campaigns. Medical professionals need to look for ways to tell a better story to parents and teens about HPV, vaccination and cancer. (emphasis added)

Taxpayer funded social marketing campaigns? Look for ways to ‘tell a better story’ to parents? Who are these people kidding? What happened to investigative journalism? What happened to fact-finding? What happened to fair and balanced journalism?

Has no one considered the possibility that the 43.9% of parents refusing this particular vaccine might have some valid concerns? When will people realize there is a huge difference between ‘increasingly concerned about the safety’ and ‘increasingly aware of the potential risks’? After all, this would not be the first time a prescription medication approved by the FDA as ‘safe and effective’ turned out to be nothing of the sort. Will HPV vaccines be next?

HPV vaccination programs worldwide are based on two assumptions. First, HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancer and save lives. Second, HPV vaccines will pose no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, it would make sense to vaccinate as many pre-adolescent girls as possible to reduce the worldwide burden of cervical cancer. What happens if both of these assumptions are not based on factual evidence?^[1]

Medical Consumers Want to Know:

1. Since HPV vaccines have never been shown to prevent cervical cancer, why are they being promoted as cervical cancer vaccines?¹
2. Since the majority of HPV infections and a great proportion of abnormal lesions associated with cervical cancer development clear spontaneously without medical treatment, how can these factors be used as ‘end-points’ during clinical trials to reliably predict the number of cervical cancer cases that could be prevented by HPV vaccines?¹
3. How can the clinical trials make an accurate estimate of the risk associated with HPV-vaccines if they are methodologically biased to produce false negatives?¹
4. Why are HPV vaccines marketed so aggressively in developed countries, when 85.5% of annual cervical cancer cases and 87.9% of annual cervical cancer deaths occur in developing countries?^[2]
5. How can passive adverse event monitoring systems (voluntary reporting with no penalty for failure to report), such as those used by most vaccine surveillance systems world-wide, allow the medical regulatory agencies to make accurate estimates on the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions?
6. How can accurate estimates of the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions be made if appropriate follow-up and thorough investigations of suspected vaccine reactions are not conducted?

The FDA granted Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, fast track approval in June of 2006, despite the fact that this HPV vaccine failed to meet the FDA criteria for fast track approval.^[3] FDA approval of GSK’s HPV vaccine, Cervarix, followed shortly after in January 2007.

According to The New York Times, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended adding HPV vaccines to the immunization schedule in the U.S. despite the fact that 64% of the advisory committee members had potential conflicts of interest which were either never disclosed or left unresolved at the time they voted. 3% of the members actually voted on matters they had been barred from considering by ethics officers. News like this certainly does little to enhance the level of public trust.

Is it possible for the FDA to objectively monitor the safety and efficacy of HPV vaccines? One has to wonder since Congress tightened the rules on outside consulting after similarly undisclosed conflicts of interest were discovered within advisory committees at the FDA.

As if this is not enough, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, via the National Institutes of Health, Office of Technology Transfer receives royalties on each HPV vaccine sold worldwide. This happens because technologies used in the production of HPV vaccines were developed at NIH and subsequently patented by them. For three of the last five years, HPV vaccines based on recombinant papillomavirus capsid proteins have ranked #1 based on royalties from product sales.^[4]

Marketing Gardasil to the public under these circumstances is a typical case of unconstrained government self-dealing. The major patent holder (National Cancer Institute/NCI), the regulator (FDA) and the vaccination policy maker (CDC) are all divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These self-dealings typically benefit some administrators, not the government or tax payers.  For example, Dr. Julie Gerberding, as the Director of the CDC, approved the use of Gardasil for cervical cancer prevention as a public health policy is now the president of Merck’s Vaccine division promoting the sales of Gardasil.

How much revenue is generated for the NIH from international sales of HPV vaccines? In November 2010, Dr. Eric Suba submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Office of Government Information Services to discover the amount. It seems the financial details of the partnership between the NIH, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are exempt from disclosure. (Read the response he received here.) Apparently, transparency in government does not apply to the top 20 revenue producing patent(s) developed at taxpayer expense. Why is the public not allowed to share in celebrating the success of products they financed?

Three Strikes for Gardasil?

1. September 2011: Recombinant HPV DNA L1 protein fragments, possibly attached to the aluminum adjuvant, were discovered in 100% of Gardasil samples tested. There was no subsequent investigation. The FDA simply declared the ‘expected’ presence of residual DNA is not a safety factor. No documentation was provided. The fact that HPV vaccines were approved by governments worldwide based on manufacturers’ assertions that the vaccines contained ‘no viral DNA’ was completely ignored.^{[5], [6]} The possibility of recombinant HPV DNA fragments being attached to aluminum adjuvant particles was also ignored.
2. August 2012: One of the antigens used in Gardasil was discovered in central nervous system samples from two girls who died after being vaccinated with Gardasil. No cause of death was identified upon autopsy in either case.^[7] HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments of vaccine origin apparently attached to aluminum adjuvant particles were also discovered in post mortem blood and spleen samples of a girl who died 6 months after Gardasil injections.^{[8], [9]}
3. February 2013: It was discovered that the naked HPV 16 L1 gene fragments bound to aluminum particles by ligand exchange in Gardasil have acquired a non-B conformation. This conformational change may have stabilized the HPV 16 gene fragments in Gardasil preventing their normal enzymatic degradation in vaccine recipients.^{[10], [11]} Non-B DNA conformations and their relationship to diseases has been studied since the 1960’s. Based on current scientific knowledge, the human genetic consequences of these non-B DNA structures are approximately 20 neurological diseases, approximately 50 genomic disorders and several psychiatric diseases.^{[12], [13]} The impact of injected foreign non-B DNA on human health is totally unknown.

Why have none of these discoveries sparked a single investigation in any country? Why is no one concerned when genetically modified viral DNA fragments are found in vaccines that are reported to have no viral DNA? Why is no one worried about those viral DNA fragments being attached to aluminum (a known toxin) possibly creating a new chemical compound of unknown toxicity? Why are no red flags raised when those viral DNA fragments attached to aluminum acquire a non-B conformation – something known to be associated with multiple debilitating diseases? Anyone with an ounce of common sense should demand to know why those charged with approval, recommendation and safety monitoring of these vaccines appear to be utterly unconcerned about the future health implications of any one of these discoveries, much less all three of them.

What kind of ‘expert’ advice is being given to YOUR government health officials?

Israel’s Advisory Committee on Infectious Diseases and Inoculations held a teleconference on 30 January 2013, to discuss the proposed introduction of HPV vaccines into the country’s school inoculation program among other issues. The official transcript of that meeting, dated 11 February 2013, provides some interesting insights for medical consumers who question HPV vaccine safety.

Ron Dagan, MD, is Professor of Pediatrics and Infectious Diseases at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and Director of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Unit at the Soroka University Medical Center, also in Beer-Sheva. An active researcher and international lecturer, Dr. Dagan’s work focuses on new conjugate vaccines. His expert advice to Israel’s Advisory Committee regarding potential HPV vaccine implementation is as follows (translation provided-emphasis added):

We are dealing with injections, some of which given in 3 [separate] doses, which are delivered to teenage girls. Many side effects are to be expected. During the week following the vaccine delivery of the injections many serious events which are not related/linked to the vaccination are expected: fainting, deaths and convulsions/fits. This needs to be taken into account. Even if it is not rational, if these events happen in class they may damage the general perception/status of the vaccinations. This is happening all over the world all the time. We have already dealt with a similar issue in relation to the delivery of MMT with TD and Polio and we have accepted the nurse’s proposal to split these between grades 1 and 2. The nurses are suitable to make recommendations to the committee in relation to this issue. In relation to the side effects, we need to be prepared in advance and not simply react after the fact. I propose we consult with the English representatives as to how they’ve gone about this. We must prepare for the delivery of the new vaccine. The nurses need to know they are going about this in the way they are most comfortable with (/have the most control over/familiarity with).

If this is an example of the expert advice vaccination programs are based on, it’s no wonder medical consumers are questioning HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need. Many side effects are to be expected? Fainting, deaths, convulsions and fits occurring during the week following vaccination – yet not related to the vaccine? Preparing in advance for side effects? Consulting with other countries to see how they handled the problem? Are countries around the world being offered similar expert advice?

So, what will it take to solve the HPV vaccine uptake problem?

Parental concerns about HPV vaccine safety are not going to go away in response to social media campaigns. Teaching medical professionals to ‘tell a better story’ is not going to make parents change their mind about Gardasil, Cervarix, or any future HPV vaccine. Platitudes and unsubstantiated reassurances are no longer sufficient.

The time has come for government health authorities to make HPV vaccine manufacturers prove their claims or pull their products from the market. Medical consumers want scientifically proven facts – Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective – nothing less is acceptable.

References:

---

[1] HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism, Tomljenovic et al 2013

[2] WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Cancers in World. Summary Report 2010.

[3] Too fast or not too fast: the FDA’s approval of Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil. Tomljenovic/Shaw 2012

[4] Top 20 Commercially Successful Inventions, NIH

[5] SaneVax to FDA: Recombinant HPV DNA found in multiple samples of Gardasil

[6] Detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1 gene DNA possibly bound to particulate aluminum adjuvant in the HPV vaccine Gardasil® Lee 2012

[7] Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination: Causal or Coincidental? Tomljenovic/Shaw 2012

[8] Detection of human papillomavirus L1 gene DNA fragments in postmortem blood and spleen after Gardasil^® vaccination—A case report Lee 2012

[9] Death after Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination: Causal or Coincidental? Tomljenovic/Shaw 2012

[10] Topological conformational changes of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA bound to an insoluble aluminum salt—A study by low temperature PCR, Lee 2013

[11] Gardasil: New Study Brings More Safety Questions to Light, Erickson 2013

[12] Non-B DNA conformations, mutagenesis, and disease, Wells 2007

[13] Non-B DNA Conformations, Genomic Rearrangements, and Human Disease, Bacolla/Wells 2013

Advertisement

Beware, there may be bacterial feces in processed milk

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 26, 2013

In this case, it is not human excrement, human tissue or horse DNA, but artificial sweeteners.

Back in 2009, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition requesting that the Food and Drug Administration of the United States changed the way in which processed milk ingredients are identified, so that they could include “safe” and “suitable” additives.

As many remember, the FDA, among other government organizations waged war against raw milk and those who consume, sell or gift people with raw milk. The FDA and armed police raided dozens of milk farms, stopped and detained cars or trucks that carried milk within states and to consumers in other states. After confiscation, the armed men proceeded to throw out all milk and other milk-derived products such as cheese and yogurt.

While the FDA criminally persecuted producers and consumers of raw milk and other natural products, the dairy industry requested the amendment of the way ingredients appear on milk labels to reflect details different from the real names and descriptions or to not appear at all. On its website, the Federal Register explains that “the petition requests that FDA amend § 131.110(c)(2) to allow the use of “any safe and suitable” sweetener in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk.” A lot of attention must be given to the words “suitable” and “optional characterizing flavoring ingredients”, which are the ones the dairy lobby intends to have unregulated.

Along with deregulating the standards for sweeteners in milk, the petition also asks for the amendment of standards for another 17 dairy  products. According to the Registry, the petition would include “additional dairy standards” for acidified milk (§ 131.111), cultured milk (§ 131.112), sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120), non-fat dry milk (§ 131.125), non-fat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127), evaporated milk (§ 131.130), dry cream (§ 131.149), heavy cream (§ 131.150), light cream (§ 131.155), light whipping cream (§ 131.157), sour cream (§ 131.160), acidified sour cream (§ 131.162), eggnog (§ 131.170), half-and-half (§ 131.180), yogurt (§ 131.200), low-fat yogurt (§ 131.203), and non-fat yogurt (§ 131.206).

Although at the beginning of its request the dairy lobby talks about “safe” ingredients, the truth that after reading the fine print, it becomes clear that there will be more than a few substances they want to include that would not fall under the “safe” label. In the text posted by the Registry, the organization explains that the dairy lobby is asking for amendments on the optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk which enable them to use “non-nutritive sweeteners” such as aspartame.

As most readers are aware, Aspartame is nothing less than bacterial excrement which is included into artificial sweeteners. The substance was accepted as a food additive after former U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld lobbied on behalf of the chemical industry to get the ingredient approved for human consumption.

As it has been widely explained, Aspartame is responsible for serious damage to the brain. The substance is proven to cause brain lesions by leaving traces of Methanol in the blood. Aspartame manufacturers usually lure consumers with their low calorie products which they sweeten with an ingredient which is some 200 times sweeter than regular sugar. How does Aspartame achieve this level of bitter sweetness? It is made of 3 different substances: aspartic acid, phenylalanine and a methyl ester bond or Methanol. As explained before, the Methanol manages to travel through the body via the blood stream.

The Methanol has the capacity to break the blood-brain barrier and once it turns into formaldehyde, it causes brain damage in humans and animals. Fortunately for animals, they do have the ability to get rid of the formaldehyde before it accumulates, but humans lack that ability. Another government entity, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has determined that Methanol destroys a tissue called myelin tissue, which normally protects the nerves while they emit and receive electric signals.

What does the excessive intake of Methanol do to the humans body? In layman’s terms, it destroy neurons in various regions of the brain, causing the death of most neural cells, which are killed before the consumer feels any symptoms or detects signs of  illness.

Why is Aspartame still being used in food and drinks? Why is the FDA even considering a request from the dairy lobby to allow them to put this neuro-chemical in the food? Because as in many other examples of how big corporations control government agencies, the IDFA and NMPF argue that the amendments to the standards will promote healthful eating practices while reducing childhood obesity “by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products.”

Both lobbying organizations say that lower-calorie flavored milk would benefit school children because they are more likely to drink flavored milk than unflavored milk at school. Right now, food products such as milk and milk-derived products can contain only nutritious sweetening agents. Non-nutritious or unsafe elements can also be added as long as they are properly included in the product’s description. What the processed milk lobby intends to do is, among other things, remove the requirement to include those dangerous substances on the food product, so that people don’t become aware of the toxic chemicals they are ingesting.

Just yesterday, The Real Agenda published an extensive report on how the World Health Organization admits that humans, animals and the environment are being exposed to thousands of chemical poisons used to manufacture food products. Most of those products contain substances such as Aspartame, which are responsible for the highest incidence in endocrine disease. Among the diseases created by chemicals in the food are Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, obesity, diabetes, and affections of the neurological system.

As pointed out in our report, the case of Aspartame is similar to that of DDT, Genetically Modified Organisms, nicotine, PCBs, fluoride and other industrially produced chemicals which are now part of almost everything people consume. At first, they were deemed as safe for everyone and everything, only to be identified as heavily toxic decades later.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Las vacunas con virus de insectos modificados genéticamente están aquí!

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA  | FEBRERO 8, 2013

Una nueva vacuna para la influenza ha llegado al mercado, y es la primera que contiene proteínas genéticamente modificadas (GM) derivadas de células de insectos. Según los informes, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicinas de EE.UU. (FDA) aprobó recientemente la vacuna, conocida como Flublok, que contiene tecnología del ADN recombinante y un virus de insecto conocido como baculovirus, que según las corporaciones farmacéuticas, pretende ayudar a facilitar la producción más rápida de las vacunas. (Primera alarma de advertencia)

De acuerdo con la documentación contenida en el paquete de la vacuna Flublok, esta es trivalente. Esto significa que contiene proteínas transgénicas a partir de tres cepas de la gripe. El fabricante de la vacuna, Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), explica que Flublok se produce mediante la extracción de células del gusano cogollero, un tipo de oruga, que son alteradas genéticamente para producir grandes cantidades de hemaglutinina, una proteína del virus de la gripe que permite al virus de la gripe para entrar en el cuerpo rápidamente. (Segunda alarma de advertencia)

Así que en lugar de tener que producir vacunas contra la forma “tradicional” a partir de cultivos de huevo, los fabricantes de vacunas tienen ahora la capacidad de producir rápidamente grandes cantidades de proteína del virus de la gripe que utilizan organismos genéticamente modificados, que ayudará a la indústria de las vacunas a aumentar sus beneficios económicos. Pero también es seguro que conllevará a todo tipo de efectos secundarios graves, incluyendo la mortal enfermedad del sistema nervioso, Síndrome de Guillain-Barré (GSB), que aparece en la escena como un posible efecto secundario.

“Si el síndrome de Guillain-Barré (GBS) se ha producido en las seis semanas siguientes a la recepción de una vacuna contra la influenza, la decisión de dar Flublock debe basarse en una consideración cuidadosa de los beneficios y riesgos potenciales”, explica una parte de la literatura de la vacuna titulada “Advertencias y precauciones “. Otros efectos secundarios posibles incluyen reacciones alérgicas, infecciones respiratorias, dolores de cabeza, fatiga, inmunocompetencia alterada, rinorrea y mialgia. (Tercera alarma de advertencia)

De acuerdo a los datos clínicos aportados por PSC en la documentación de Flublok, dos participantes en el estudio murieron durante los ensayos de la vacuna. Sin embargo, la empresa sigue insistiendo en que Flublok es segura y eficaz, y que es un 45 por ciento eficaz contra todas las cepas de la gripe en circulación, en lugar de sólo una o dos cepas.

FDA aprueba vacuna contra la gripe que también contiene células de riñón de perro

En noviembre pasado, la FDA también aprobó una nueva vacuna contra la gripe conocida como Flucelvax que hace uso de células de riñón de perro. Un producto del gigante farmacéutico Novartis, Flucelvax también acaba con las culturas de huevo, y de manera similar se puede producir mucho más rápidamente que las vacunas contra la gripe tradicional, lo que significa que las compañías de vacunas pueden tener las vacunas listas si el gobierno federal declara una pandemia.

Al igual que Flublok, la producción de Flucelvax fue posible debido a una inversión $ 1 mil millones, financiado por los contribuyentes a través de una subvención concedida por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) de EE.UU. a la industria de las vacunas en el 2006, la cual intentaría desarrollar nuevos métodos de fabricación de vacunas. El objetivo final era ser capaces de fabricar rápidamente cientos de millones de vacunas para una rápida distribución.

Mientras tanto, se dice que hay dos vacunas contra la gripe que han sido genéticamente modificadas que están actualmente en desarrollo. Una de ellas, que está siendo producida por Novavax, utilizará “trozos de material genético en las células cultivadas de oruga”, que son partículas similares al virus “que imita a un virus de la gripe”, según Reuters.

Este artículo es original de NaturalNews.com. Léalo en Inglés aquí.

Genetically Modified Vaccines with reprogrammed insect virus are here!

NATURALNEWS | FEBRUARY 8, 2013

A new vaccine for influenza has hit the market, and it is the first ever to contain genetically-modified (GM) proteins derived from insect cells. According to reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the vaccine, known as Flublok, which contains recombinant DNA technology and an insect virus known as baculovirus that is purported to help facilitate the more rapid production of vaccines.

According to Flublok’s package insert, the vaccine is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different flu strains. The vaccine’s manufacturer, Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), explains that Flublok is produced by extracting cells from the fall armyworm, a type of caterpillar, and genetically altering them to produce large amounts of hemagglutinin, a flu virus protein that enables the flu virus itself to enter the body quickly.

So rather than have to produce vaccines the “traditional” way using egg cultures, vaccine manufacturers will now have the ability to rapidly produce large batches of flu virus protein using GMOs, which is sure to increase profits for the vaccine industry. But it is also sure to lead to all sorts of serious side effects, including the deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GSB), which is listed on the shot as a potential side effect.

“If Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) has occurred within six weeks of receipt of a prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Flublock should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks,” explains a section of the vaccine’s literature entitled “Warnings and Precautions.” Other potential side effects include allergic reactions, respiratory infections, headaches, fatigue, altered immunocompetence, rhinorrhea, and myalgia.

According to clinical data provided by PSC in Flublok’s package insert, two study participants actually died during trials of the vaccine. But the company still insists Flublok is safe and effective, and that it is about 45 percent effective against all strains of influenza in circulation, rather than just one or two strains.

FDA also approves flu vaccine containing dog kidney cells

Back in November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine known as Flucelvax that is actually made using dog kidney cells. A product of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, Flucelvax also does away with the egg cultures, and can similarly be produced much more rapidly than traditional flu vaccines, which means vaccine companies can have it ready and waiting should the federal government declare a pandemic.

Like Flublok, Flucelvax was made possible because of a $1 billion, taxpayer-funded grant given by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the vaccine industry back in 2006 to develop new manufacturing methods for vaccines. The ultimate goal is to be able to quickly manufacture hundreds of millions of vaccines for rapid distribution.

Meanwhile, there are reportedly two other GMO flu vaccines currently under development. One of them, which is being produced by Novavax, will utilize “bits of genetic material grown in caterpillar cells called ‘virus-like particles’ that mimic a flu virus,” according to Reuters.

Genetically Modified Organisms: Not Even in Moderation

By DAISY LUTHER | ORGANIC PREPPER | FEBRUARY 7, 2013

If I told you that there was a poison, let’s say, strychnine, for example, that you could ingest in teeny tiny minuscule doses and live to tell the tale, would you do it?

Strychnine poisoning is one of the most painful ways to die.

Ten to twenty minutes after exposure, the body’s muscles begin to spasm, starting with the head and neck in the form of trismus and risus sardonicus. The spasms then spread to every muscle in the body, with nearly continuous convulsions, and get worse at the slightest stimulus. The convulsions progress, increasing in intensity and frequency until the backbone arches continually. Convulsions lead to lactic acidosis, hyperthermia and rhabdomyolysis. These are followed by postictal depression. Death comes from asphyxiation caused by paralysis of the neural pathways that control breathing, or by exhaustion from the convulsions. The subject dies within 2–3 hours after exposure.  (Source)

Despite the agonizing death that could await, people used to deliberately consume small doses of strychnine as an athletic performance enhancer and as a stimulant.  The use of strychnine increased at the turn of the 20th century, then fell out of favor as the risk of use was too high.

With what we know these days about the use of strychnine, would you dip a little into your coffee and say, “Oh, it’s okay in moderation”?  Would you sprinkle a little on a granola bar to give to your child before a soccer game? Would you feed a little to your family because it was a special occasion?

So, with the things we are learning about GMO foods, why do we think the consumption of these is okay in moderation?  Every week or so, some new hazard springs up in the alternative news.  The hazards are carefully and quietly swept under the rug by the mainstream media at the behest of their “johns” – the Big Food advertisers who pay the salaries of the media mouthpieces.

There are many valid, peer-reviewed studies that tell us consuming genetically modified foods is a death sentence.  Proponents of GMOs like to attempt to pick apart the science.  They like to accuse those of us who are concerned about GMOs of being foolish, uneducated and superstitious.  From their lofty perches in academia, they condescend to the rest of us, claiming that GMOs are no different than the natural evolution of plant life, and that we, the ignorant masses, are too irrationally afraid of things that are new and wonderful to deserve labeling of these chemistry projects.  They invoke guilt upon those of us who practice organic gardening and support organic farms, alleging that these “unsustainable practices” will leave the Third World to die of starvation as the non-modified crops we insist upon succumb to failure.

Here are some facts about the GMOs that are poisoning our global food supply.

Effects of GM Corn on Mammalian Health

A notorious French study on rats fed a lifetime of GMO corn proved that the rats had a 50-70% chance of developing horrific, grotesque tumors from the diet.  Naysayers attempted to refute the science behind the study and a war developed in the scientific community.    Natural News summarized some findings of the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

Flavr Savr Tomato Caused Gastric Lesions and Death

One of the first GMO monstrosities prematurely approved by the FDA was the Flavr Savr tomato, by the company Calgene (now a part of Monsanto).  Scientists added a bit of recombinant fish DNA to slow the spoiling process.  BEFORE the tomato was approved by the FDA, the tomatoes were fed to rats for only 28 days before gastric bleeding and death occurred.  7 of the 40 rats developed bleeding stomachs and 7 more died and the FDA STILL APPROVED the tomatoes for public consumption.

The only reason they were taken off the market is because the flavor and texture were poor.  Had they been tasty, they’d still be on supermarket shelves.

GM cotton crops in India caused livestock death and severe allergic reactions in humans.

India began commercial planting of  Bt Cotton back in 2002.   Since that time, farm and factory workers began complaining of health concerns.

“All the evidence gathered during the investigation shows that Bt has been causing skin, upper respiratory tract and eye allergy among persons exposed to cotton… The allergy is not restricted to farm labourers involved in picking cotton but has affected labourers involved in loading and unloading Bt from villages to market, those involved in its weighing, labourers working in ginning factories, people who carried out other operations in the field of Bt cotton, or farmers who stored cotton in their homes etc.” (Source)

The issue was not limited to humans.  Sheep that grazed on the crop began to die mysteriously.  25% of the livestock died within a week of being allowed in the fields from what post-mortem analysis called “toxic reaction.”

A secret virus has been discovered in genetically modified food.

The most recent horror to come to light was released in a report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

According to an explanation on the Natural Society website:

“…Researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations.”

How does this potentially effect the consumer?  The report continues to discuss the characteristics of Gene VI.  The gene:

• Helps to assemble virus particles
• Inhibits the natural defense of the cellular system
• Produces proteins that are potentially problematic
• Makes plants susceptible to bacterial pathogens

Monsanto cafeterias serve organic food.

The most telling thing is that in the not-so-hallowed halls of Monsanto, genetically modified food is not served.

Those who create these science projects and label them food do not consume their own creations.

Since 2000, there have been reports that cafeterias at Monsanto plants have chosen not to serve GMOs.  A notice in one cafeteria in the UK said:

“as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.”

Both the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller University Foundation have been found praising organic food, while simultaneously promoting Monsanto’s toxic seeds to Third World countries.

Many countries have banned GMOs, or at the very least require labeling for the consumer.

The following countries have either banned the cultivation and sale of GMOs or require a warning label:

• All countries in the European Union
• Australia  
• Chile
• China 
• France
• India
• Japan
• Kenya
• New Zealand
• Peru
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Thailand

Why are the United States and Canada not found on this list?  At the very least, why won’t these two industry leaders require labeling of GMOs?

Food safety “authorities” have no interest in safety at all.

The FDA is notoriously in bed with Monsanto.  They have insisted on no long term studies.  They regularly authorize the sale and distribution of toxins in the food supply.  The public cannot have any confidence in an agency whose board of directors enter through a revolving door with the world’s number one producer of toxic GMOs.

Over 85% of corn grown in North America is GMO.  Over 80% of soy grown in North America is GMO. Over 90% of canola grown in North America is GMO.

In one form or another, these GMO items can be found in nearly every non-organic item on your grocery store shelves.  Many fast food chains spent millions of dollars in the campaign against the labeling of GMOs when it was on the ballot in California last November, which would indicate that they too benefit from GMOs.

The question is, are these toxins safe in “moderation”?  Can you feed your children HFCS made from genetically modified corn in small amounts?

Long term toxicity has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  GMOs can accelerate aging, cause organ failure, cause tumors, affect unborn babies, affect fertility and weaken the immune system.  If we choose to consume these things “moderately”, how can we know what that threshold of moderation actually is, when those in charge of food safety refuse to study it, perhaps because they fear what they will discover?

I’ve always believed that foods, even “junk foods” are okay in moderation, as long as most of your diet is clean and healthy.  In the light of ever-appearing revelations about the deadly effects of genetically modified foods, I’ve revised my personal stance. I don’t believe that GMOs are acceptable in moderation and strive to avoid them for my family whenever possible, a task which is becoming increasingly difficult as a quick scan of an ingredients lable will confirm.

The End Of The World As We Know It may not be the result of a horrific natural disaster or act of terrorism from overseas.  It may be as simple as pollen floating from one field to contaminate the next one, until we are starving to death or dying of cancer amidst a bounty of succulent-looking, fresh-from-the-farm poison.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.