Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began. The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study. The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.
Some of the most powerful technologies ever invented — which can change human life at the DNA level — are moving forward with very little societal discussion or sufficient regulatory oversight. MIT Technology Review is now reporting an attempt in the U.S. to use CRISPR to genetically modify a human embryo.
Aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been the cornerstone of preventative cardiology for decades. Statins are widely used as the go-to solution for the prevention of heart disease owing to their ability to slash LDL-C levels, a ‘surrogate marker’ of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Indeed, statins are one of the most widely prescribed class of drugs in the world. But this phenomenon begs two questions: is the enthusiasm for aggressive lowering of LDL-C justified; and is pharmacotherapy superior to lifestyle intervention? In summary, for many patients at high risk of CVD, one of the safest and most effective ways to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke is to consume a high fat and low glycaemic load Mediterranean diet and engage in regular exercise. At the very least, exercise interventions are often similar to drug interventions in terms of their mortality benefits in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, and do not come with side effects.
Psychiatrists Committing Rape: Human Rights Group Seeks Criminal Justice for Victims of Psychiatrists
Until the passage of state laws in the United States making it a criminal offense for psychiatrists and psychologists to have sexual relationships with or even rape their patients, mental health professionals could operate with impunity—above the law. With studies showing that six to ten percent of psychiatrists, for example, acknowledge sexual involvement with their patients, that’s a potential 4,700 offenders in the U.S. alone. There are now 26 U.S. states that have criminalized various aspects of psychiatrist, psychologist and psychotherapist sexual contact with patients. Of a sample of 120 mental health practitioners convicted for sexual crimes in the U.S., including possession of child pornography and assault of patients, more than two-thirds of the offenders were in states that have enacted such statutes. Shockingly, some of the sexual assaults in the sample were against children as young as nine years old and one was even against a 4 year old. Still, that’s not surprising given a national study of therapist-client sex involving minors that revealed therapists had abused girls as young as three and boys as young as seven.
Earlier this year (March 2017) we reported how the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture issued "cease and desist" orders to a few small-scale Amish egg farmers in Wisconsin who have been shipping soy-free cage-free eggs to customers across the U.S. for over 7 years. The main complaint from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture was that they were shipping the eggs to the consumers unrefrigerated. It was discovered that the complaint did not originate from any customers, but from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). CDFA had previously seized shipments of these farm eggs back in 2012, and were apparently upset that they were coming into California unrefrigerated. The farmers and representatives from Tropical Traditions/Healthy Traditions worked with the Wisconsin regulators, who responded appropriately and allowed the farmers to continue shipping their eggs. They met with the farmers, and the farmers agreed to make some minor adjustments to comply with Wisconsin State regulations. However, California CDFA was not through. Even though there is no record of any customer complaint about the Wisconsin eggs, they used a Dog Team to sniff out a consumer box of eggs at a FedEx facility and destroy them. Does CDFA have the right to search and destroy private property in a FedEx facility? Will they also begin searching automobiles and other vehicles entering the state of California for food that does not meet their regulatory standards? Is this a good use of taxpayer funds?
In the global debate over neonicotinoid pesticides, the company that makes most of them has relied on one primary argument to defend its product: The evidence that these chemicals, commonly called "neonics," are harmful to bees has been gathered in artificial conditions, force-feeding bees in the laboratory, rather than in the real world of farm fields. That company, Bayer, states on its website that "no adverse effects to bee colonies were ever observed in field studies at field-realistic exposure conditions." Bayer will have a harder time making that argument after today. This week, the prestigious journal Science reveals results from the biggest field study ever conducted of bees and neonics.
This latest article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains how world governments go to great lengths to hide vaccine-related deaths. The fact that vaccines do cause deaths sometimes is not even a fact in dispute. In addition to the deaths reported in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Department of Justice supplies a quarterly report to the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines on cases settled for vaccine injuries and deaths. The American public is largely unaware that there is a "vaccine court" known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). This program was started as a result of a law passed in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity from being sued due to injuries and deaths resulting from vaccines. If you or a family member is injured or dies from vaccines, you must sue the federal government in this special vaccine court. Many cases are litigated for years before a settlement is reached, and a November 2014 GAO report criticized the government for not making the public more aware that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists, and that there are funds available for vaccine injuries and deaths. Therefore, the settlements represented by vaccine injuries and deaths included in the DOJ reports probably represent a small fraction of the actual vaccine injuries and deaths occurring in America today. Also, as we have previously reported, the CDC lists 130 official ways for an infant to die, but vaccine deaths are not even an option. If the death does not fall into one of these 130 causes, it usually gets listed as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). SIDS has skyrocketed since the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program started.
Darwinist biologist Jerry Coyne endorses euthanasia for severely handicapped infants. Here are Coyne’s arguments, with my replies. "The question of whether one should be able to euthanize newborns who have horrible conditions or deformities, or are doomed to a life that cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness, has sparked heated debate. Philosopher Peter Singer has argued that euthanasia is the merciful action in such cases, and I agree with him. If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born? I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral." I agree with Coyne that there is no moral difference between aborting a handicapped fetus and killing a handicapped baby. I believe that both are profoundly immoral. Coyne condones such killing. "After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties)." Many people aren’t “aware of death” — normal infants and toddlers, people with severe traumatic brain damage, people with Alzheimer’s disease. Heck, people who are sleeping aren’t aware of death at the moment. How does this that justify killing them? A severely handicapped newborn wouldn’t be aware of rape either. Just how is it that “unawareness” of an evil act justifies the act? If anything, unawareness makes the victim more vulnerable, and ought to spur those of us who are aware to offer innocents greater protection, not less protection.
Patricia Tornberg and Steffen Rivenburg, Sr., thought they were going to court this morning, July 17, 2017, to try to bring Baby Steffen's big sister Annalise home to be with family members and out of foster care. Instead, the judge had them arrested and thrown into jail. Family members and supporters alike are shocked at the turn of events, and see this as another way for the court and DCS to grasp at any way to justify their actions and deflect attention away from their role in Baby Steffen's death. Last month (June 2017) Baby Steffen was taken off of life support against the wishes of his family, and before the family could find a second doctor's opinion regarding his condition. Baby Steffen was removed from his parents while still healthy, and yet the parents had no say over his medical care or removal from life support. Tennessee DCS also removed Baby Steffen's sister, Annalise, from the parents. Advocate Serra Frank told Health Impact News: "This judge is scrambling to get rid of this mess, and he's just making it worse." The hearing was supposed to be about hearing motions for Annalise to be placed with family members. Grandmother Lisa Rivenburg and two aunts, each willing and able to care for Annalise, were present at the hearing, but the motions were never heard. Judge Wayne Shelton reportedly stated that he did not intend to hear their motions. Instead, the focus turned to a motion filed on July 1 without the family's knowledge by Margaret Parker, attorney for DCS, to compel the parents to submit to drug testing.
If you had a child born to you that had a medical condition that only one out of every 100 million children have, and of which only 100 children worldwide have been diagnosed with this condition, should the medical system and the government have the right to take your child away from you so that they could research this condition for the "greater good?" If this sounds like something that might have only happened in tyrannical states like the former Nazi Germany, you are wrong. Not only does this happen in the United States today, it is actually legal. See our previous report: "Medical Kidnapping in the U.S. – Kidnapping Children for Drug Trials" The latest story we bring to you involves a mother from Florida and her daughter who was born and diagnosed with Trisomy 9, an extremely rare chromosomal abnormality. The mother, Jasmin Mack, moved with her daughter Nhyariah to Georgia to be closer to family members. Nhyariah was doing well for several years prior to that time while living with her mother in Florida. When Nhyariah was 3 1/2 years old, Jasmin Mack says that a genetic counselor from the University of Florida hospital in Gainsville offered her money to enter her daughter into medical research studies, but she refused. After moving to Georgia, the first doctor they saw recognized how rare Nhyariah's condition was and allegedly commented: "Oh! I have some friends next door that would LOVE to see you!" This was Henrietta Egleston Hospital for Children in Atlanta, which is the pediatric teaching hospital affiliate for the Emory University School of Medicine, located on the campus of Emory University. Even though Nhyariah was not sick, they immediately admitted her to the hospital, and used the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) to take over custody of Nhyariah. Jasmin was kicked out of the hospital. Today, Nhyariah's condition has deteriorated greatly while in state care due to undergoing several surgeries, and her mother Jasmin just wants to take her back to Florida, as she fears that the medical professionals in Georgia will soon kill her daughter. "I feel like if she can get out of this hospital, she can have a chance. She's a rare child. She's made it this 10 years."