GM food sickens/kills rats. Food warfare on US population

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

GM food sickens/kills rats. Food warfare on US population

Postby darkbeforedawn » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:16 pm

Most Offspring Died <br>When Mother Rats <br>Ate GM Soy<br>By Jeffrey M. Smith<br>Author of Seeds of Deception<br>GMWatch.com<br>10-31-5<br> <br>The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry. <br> <br>Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing. <br> <br>Ermakova's first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo below). <br> <br><br> <br>(Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth - the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the "GM soy" group.) <br> <br>But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls. <br> <br>Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote "PRELIMINARY STUDIES" on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food. <br> <br>Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy. <br> <br>GM Soy's Divisive Past <br> <br>The soy she was testing was Monsanto's Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto's "Roundup" brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday. <br> <br>The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA's 1992 policy that states, "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."[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA's own experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto's former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as "just a political document" without scientific basis, and warned that industry would "not do the tests that they would normally do" since the FDA didn't require any.[2] He was correct. <br> <br>There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials - in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on "biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,"[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova's research particularly significant. It's the first of its kind. <br> <br>Past Studies Show Significant Effects <br> <br>Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on the liver, the body's major de-toxifier, showed that rats fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that organ. Rats also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7] <br> <br>An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study's nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced. <br> <br>The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract. <br> <br>The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn.[1<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring. <br> <br>The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother's diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA's own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations throughout the DNA. <br> <br>Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready soy. We don't know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto's detection. <br> <br>Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Spilling the Beans, August 2004.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for. <br> <br>Ermakova's research, however, will likely change that. That's because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable option. <br> <br>American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study <br> <br>I presented Dr. Ermakova's findings, with her permission, at the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy's president, said, "Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk." <br> <br>Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That's unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn't all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins-ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies. <br> <br>Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin-created by the GM corn. <br> <br>These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from a GM crop that has "gone bad" due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16] <br> <br>With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry's growth in the US. It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova's findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry. <br> <br>I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM's request, and fund an immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake. <br> <br>Click here for press release on Russian rat study. <br> <br>Click here for the resolution by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. <br> <br>Click here for downloadable photos of the rats. <br> <br> <br>Jeffrey M. Smith is working with a team of international scientists to catalog all known health risks of GM foods. He is the author of Seeds of Deception , the world's bestselling book on GM food, and the producer of the video, Hidden Dangers in Kids' Meals. <br> <br>_____ <br> <br>Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing column@responsibletechnology.org. Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.responsibletechnology.org. <br> <br>_____ <br> <br>[1]"Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Federal Register vol. 57, no. 104 at 22991, May 29, 1992 <br>[2]Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org <br>[3]Epidemiologist Judy Carman's testimony before New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001. <br>[4]Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002a) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27: 173-180. <br>[5]Manuela Malatesta, et al, Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, Volume 201 Issue 5 Page 409 - November 2002 <br>[6]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 (The data was taken from the journal archives, as it had been omitted from the published study.) <br>[7]Lappe, M.A., Bailey, E.B., Childress, C. and Setchell, K.D.R. (1999) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Journal of Medical Food 1, 241-245. <br>[8]Stephen R. Padgette and others, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126, no. 4, April 1996 <br>[9]For example, Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed-with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003 <br>[1<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 0] --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> Doerfler W; Schubbert R, "Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: the gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry," Journal of molecular genetics and genetics Vol 242: 495-504, 1994 <br>[11]Raffaele Mazza1, et al, "Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues," Transgenic Research, October 2005, Volume 14, Number 5, pp 775 - 784 <br>[12]P. Windels, I. Taverniers, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. DeLoose, "Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert," European Food Research and Technology, vol. 213, 2001, pp. 107-112 <br>[13]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, 2003 <br>[14] Collonier C, Berthier G, Boyer F, Duplan M-N, Fernandez S, Kebdani N, Kobilinsky A, Romanuk M, Bertheau Y. Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity. Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also "Transgenic lines proven unstable" by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003 www.i-sis.org.uk <br>[15] <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php">www.i-sis.org.uk/UTLI.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br>[16] <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=36">www.seedsofdeception.com/...bjectID=36</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br> <br>© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. <br>Permission is granted to reproduce this in whole or in part. <br> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=297">www.seedsofdeception.com/...jectID=297</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: GM food sickens/kills rats. Food warfare on US populatio

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:33 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676972204.html?oneclick=true">www.smh.com.au/articles/2...click=true</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>snip<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Scientists investigating a spate of illnesses among people living close to fields of genetically modified maize in the Philippines believe the crop may have been the cause of fevers, respiratory illnesses and skin reactions.<br><br>If preliminary results are confirmed, it would be one of the first recorded cases of serious health problems associated with GM crops and could damage the reputation of the biotech agriculture industry, which is rapidly expanding in developing countries.<br><br>The scientists' findings were immediately challenged by Monsanto, the world's leading GM company, and by the Philippine Government.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: GM food sickens/kills rats. Food warfare on US populatio

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:08 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266717.shtml">portland.indymedia.org/en...6717.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>snip<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>GE Corn Associated with Major Reproductive Problems in Pigs & Cows<br><br>Bt corn has been associated with up to an 80% reduction in piglet birth rate on mid-western farms. The calving rate decreased by 20 to 30% when it was fed to the cows on one farm. On another farm the spontaneous abortion rate in the cows was very high when they were fed Bt and Round Up Ready GE corn.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: GM food sickens/kills rats. Food warfare on US populatio

Postby marykmusic » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:57 pm

Watch this flash movie: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.krafty.org/flash/" target="top">Genetically Krafted</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> --MaryK <p></p><i></i>
marykmusic
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Central Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: GM food sickens/kills rats. Food warfare on US populatio

Postby * » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:52 pm

<br><br> Thanks, MaryK. Always a good idea to send this eye-opening video along with the appalling links. Many of our friends/families can only 'grok' the video version of their reality ( as opposed to Hegel's 'thing in itself').<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
*
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

another article on GM threat to public..this time GMchickens

Postby darkbeforedawn » Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:06 pm

Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?<br><br><br>by F. William Engdahl<br> <br>October 30, 2005 <br>GlobalResearch.ca <br><br><br> Email this article to a friend<br> Print this article <br><br><br>No sooner are indictments being handed down to Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States for lies and coverup of information used deliberately to suppress the fact the Bush Administration had no ‘smoking gun’ to prove Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear arsenal, but a new scandal is surfacing every bit as outrageous and ultimately, likely also criminal.<br><br>Against all scientific prudence and normal public health procedure, the world population is being whipped up into a fear frenzy by irresponsible public health officials from the US Administration to WHO to the United States Centers for Disease Control. They all warn about the imminent danger that a malicious viral strain might spread from infected birds, primarily in Vietnam and other Asian centers, to contaminate the entire human species in pandemic proportions. Often the flu pandemic of 1918 which is said to have killed 18 million worldwide, is cited as an example of what ‘might’ lie in store for us. <br><br>On November 1, appropriately enough the day after Halloween, President Bush is scheduled to visit the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda Maryland to announce his Administration’s strategy of how it will prepare for the next flu epidemic, whether from Bird Flu or some other strain. The plan has been a year in the making. On October 28 the Senate passed an $8 billion emergency funding bill to address the growing Avian Flu panic. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a moment of candor during the debate on the Senate bill told the press, ‘If it isn’t the current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our nation’s future, another virus will.’ In the meantime taxpayer billions will have gone to a handful of pharmaceutical giants positioned to profit. None stands to reap more lucre than the Swiss-US pharmaceutical giant Roche Holdings of Basle. <br><br>The only medicine we are told which reduce the symptoms of general or seasonal influenza and ‘possibly’ might reduce symptoms also of Avian Flu, is a drug called Tamiflu. Today the giant Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Roche, holds the sole license to manufacture Tamiflu. Due to the media panic, the order books at Roche today are filled to overflowing. Roche recently refused a request from the US Congress to lift its exclusive patent rights to allow other drug manug´facturers to produce Tamiflu with the improbable excuse that it was in effect, too complex for others to rapidly produce.<br><br>However, the real point of interest is the company in California who developed Tamiflu and gave the marketing rights to its patented discovery to Roche. <br><br>‘Rummy Flu’<br><br>Tamiflu was developed and patented in 1996 by a California biotech firm, Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead is a NASDAQ (GILD) listed stock company which prefers to maintain a low profile in the current rush to Tamiflu. That might be because of who is tied to Gilead. In 1997, before he became US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld was named Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, where he remained until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since 1988 according to a January 3 1997 company press release. <br><br>An as-yet-unconfirmed report is that Rumsfeld while Secretary of Defense also purchased an additional stock in his former company, Gilead Sciences Inc., worth $18 million, making him one of its largest if not the largest stock owners today. <br><br>The Secretary of Defense, the man who allegedly supported the use of contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to promote. It would be useful to know whether the Pentagon’s successor to Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans developed the strategy of biowarfare behind the current Avian Flu panic. Perhaps some enterprising Congressional committee might look into the entire subject of plausible conflicts of interest regarding Secretary Rumsfeld.<br><br>Rumsfeld stands to make a fortune on royalties as a panicked world population scrambles to buy a drug worthless in curing effects of alleged Avian Flu. The model suggests the parallel to the brazen corruption of Halliburton Corporation whose former CEO is Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney’s company has so far gotten billions worth of US construction contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. Coincidence that Cheney’s closest political friend is Defense Secretary and Avian Flu beneficiary Don Rumsfeld? It is another example of what someone has called the principle of modern US corrupt special interest politics: ‘Concentrate the benefits; diffuse the costs’ President Bush has ordered the US Government to buy $2 billion worth of Gilead Science’s Tamilflu.<br><br>GMO Chickens come home to roost <br><br>But Tamiflu conflicts are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg of the Avian Flu story. There is high-level biological research underway in Britain and presumably also the United States to develop a genetic engineering method to make chickens and other birds ‘resistant’ to Avian Flu viruses. <br><br>British scientists are reportedly genetically engineering chickens to produce birds resistant to the lethal strains of the H5N1 virus devastating poultry in the Far East. Laurence Tiley, Professor of Microular Virology at Cambridge University and Helen Sang of the Roslin Institute in Scotland are involved in developing ‘transgenic chickens’ which would have small pieces of genetic material inserted into chicken eggs to allegedly make the chickens H5N1 resistant. <br><br>Tiley told the Times of London on October 29, ‘Once we have regulatory approval, we believe it will only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace the entire world (chicken) population.’ The real question in this dubious undertaking is which GMO giants are underwriting the research and development of GMO chickens and who will control their products. It is increasingly clear that the entire saga of Avian Flu is one whose dimensions are only slowly coming to light. What we can see so far is not at all pretty.<br><br>Global Research Contributing Editor William Engdahl is author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press and the soon-to-be released book, ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Geopolitics of Gene-ocide’. He can be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net. <br> <br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br>Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.<br><br>To become a Member of Global Research<br><br>The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com <br><br>www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.<br><br>To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum<br><br>For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com<br><br>© Copyright F. William Engdahl, GlobalResearch.ca, 2005 <br><br>The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context ... cleId=1169 <br> <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

My take on GMO...

Postby banned » Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:51 pm

...is somewhat different, I feel anyone stupid enough to eat it deserves to die <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> . FOCUS here people, 'taint nacherl.<br><br>RE: bird flu, it would sure be a relief to find out the NWO plan isn't to kill millions of us, just fleece us to benefit Big Pharma.<br><br>EAT A LOT OF GARLIC. I suspect even some nasty designer bug from those clever guys at USAMRIID/Ft. Detrick wouldn't be able to survive chewing a head of raw cloves a day. <p></p><i></i>
banned
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest