Friday, October 24, 2014

Monsanto still clashing with Brazilian soy exporters over royalties

Reuters / Ueslei Marcelino
RT | Oct 24, 2014

Brazilian soy exporters are still resisting Monsanto’s push for them to collect royalties from farmers reusing the biotech giant’s patented seeds, some saying such a liability – even for a fee – may not be worth possible “embarrassment” to the industry.
 
Companies exporting soy from Brazil are still reluctant to strike a deal with Monsanto, despite months of negotiations, Reuters reports. Although exporters were reportedly close to a deal earlier this month, it now seems the industry continues to be wary of the possibility that Monsanto could resort to blocking shipments that contain patented crops if a dispute over payment arises.

Unlike in the United States, Brazil has no patent laws prohibiting farmers from reusing seeds year over year, making it much easier for farmers to avoid paying Monsanto anything on a yearly basis.

By striking a deal with Monsanto, the exporter would assume legal and potentially financial liability for collecting royalties from farmers, since groups like Brazil’s Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) believe Monsanto may try and stall shipments until royalties are paid.
 
“The risks of possible future embarrassment to the soy industry from Monsanto... may prevent crushing and trading firms from receiving that (Intacta) soy,” Abiove said in a statement.

Monsanto, in the meantime, said some 500 firms that purchase soybeans from farmers have already agreed to police royalty payments at more than 3,000 points across Brazil, Reuters reports.

Still, talks over Monsanto’s new Intacta RR2 Pro seeds continue. In one case where a local exporter struck a deal with Monsanto in exchange for compensation, the company said it did so “reluctantly.”

With previous Monsanto seeds like RoundupReady, some companies spent 10 years collecting royalties and assuming legal liability for cargo despite not receiving any compensation for the extra work. As Intacta starts to compose a large portion of Brazil’s harvest – it’s currently pegged at somewhere between 15 to 20 percent of the entire crop – exporting companies are trying to avoid once again becoming the “soy police.”
 
“We can serve as monitors in this process, as Monsanto requests ... but we cannot assume legal responsibility for the collection of royalties,” Abiove President Carlo Lovatelli told Reuters back in July.

As a result, the debate persists. Some exporters are reportedly willing to collect Monsanto’s royalties if the company agrees to pay them a fee for their time and additional legal burden. In early October, one local exporter announced that it had reached an agreement with Monsanto, but it did not go into detail regarding its fee and said it was unenthusiastic about accepting legal liability.

Following that development, it was expected that Abiove, which represents other merchants, would also strike a deal with Monsanto. Some 20 days later, though, that has yet to happen.

This isn’t the first time Monsanto has been involved in a legal dispute in Brazil. In 2012, five million farmers sued the company, claiming it was collecting royalties on seeds it unfairly claims as its own. The farmers won a payout of $2 billion, though Monsanto promised to appeal and ultimately reached a settlement with the farmers.

This summer, meanwhile, farmers represented by the Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of the Mato Grosso region claimed Monsanto’s new pest-resistant BT corn seeds failed to live up to their promise, and said the company should reimburse them for the cost of the extra pesticides they had to use. For its part, Monsanto blamed farmers for failing to plant the genetically modified seeds alongside conventional seeds, thereby making it more likely that insects would develop resistance.

EPA Analysis Evidence Notorious Neonics Should be Suspended, Watchdog Groups Say

A field of soybeans.  (Photo:  Tom Erickson/flickr/cc)
Courtesy Common Dreams
Cornucopia | Oct 23, 2014 | Andrea Germanos

Analysis ‘has confirmed what farmers, beekeepers and scientists have been saying all along: neonicotinoids do more harm than good’

A new U.S Environmental Protection Agency analysis of neonicotinoid pesticides on soybean production offers further proof that they should be suspended, environmental watchdog groups say.
This class of pesticides, often referred to as neonics, has been linked to the decline of bees and other environmental harm.

The agency’s analysis, released Thursday, found that there was little to no benefit to using neonicotinoid seed treatments on soybean yields. Such neonic-treated seeds, first registered for use in soybeans in 2004, were applied on an average of 30% of soybean acres between 2008 and 2012, EPA states. The analysis notes that some growers report having difficulties in obtaining non-treated seed.

It also states that “much of the observed use is preventative and may not be currently providing any actual pest management benefits.”

“In our analysis of the economic benefits of this use we concluded that, on a national scale, U.S. soybean farmers see little or no benefit from neonicotinoid seed treatments,”a Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a media statement.

Environmental groups welcomed the analysis, and said it provided more proof that the agency should take the ecological-protective approach and suspend the use of neonics.

“Neonicotinoid pesticides are one of the leading drivers of global bee declines,” stated Friends of the Earth food futures campaigner Tiffany Finck-Haynes. “By confirming that they offer no benefit to U.S. soybean production, the Environmental Protection Agency has no course of action except to suspend all agricultural uses—including seed treatments—to protect pollinators and the planet.”

Emily Marquez, PhD, staff scientist for Pesticide Action Network, adds that the analysis “has confirmed what farmers, beekeepers and scientists have been saying all along: neonicotinoids do more harm than good.”

“EPA’s findings are further evidence that the Agency should follow Europe’s lead by restricting and suspending the use of neonicotinoids,” whose use poses “serious threats to bees and other pollinators that support the food system,” Marquez stated.

The analysis, howerver, was no ringing endorsement of organic agriculture, as it compared neonic-treated seeds with other chemical-dependent methods, including the use of foliar spraying of neonics on soybean plants.

Larissa Walker, pollinator campaign director at Center for Food Safety, told Common Dreams that it’s a shame that the analysis goes back to foliar sprays, and that the agency appears to be looking not at systemic contamination from neonics but at best management of them.

“That’s not enough,” she said, adding that her organization has long said that neonics should not be used at all in agricultural or ornamental applications, as their harm to pollinators and ecosystems is “beyond overwhelming.”

In June, for example, an international team of scientists published an analysis based on 800 peer-reviewed reports that found that neonics pose a threat to global biodiversity, while a study by the U.S. Geological Survey published in July found widespread contamination in Midwest waterways from neonics.

As that global analysis and Walker point out, neonics’ “mode of action is systemic. They’re going to build up in soil and water.” Whether it’s through seed coating, foliar sprays or soil drenching, it’s the same chemicals, she said.

“It’s still persistent, still poses environmental problems, harm to pollinators, ecosystems, and potentally human health.”

We know that there are better approaches, like using agro-ecological methods that don’t rely on systemic pesticides, Walker said.

“The bottom line is we’ve been asking the EPA to suspend all use of neonics,” Walker said. The new analysis is a small step, but there’s much more to do, she said.

Source:  Common Dreams

We’re Beating Monsanto! Yes to GMO Labeling Prop is Winning 49 to 44 in Oregon


Natural Society | Oct 23, 2014 | Christina Sarich

The full scheduled voting on a state-wide ballot for Measure 92 in Oregon to label GMO foods won’t come in until November 4th, but voting has begun, and we’re winning!

The measure would ensure that the labeling of genetically modified foods was mandatory, and that Big Food corporations along with Big Chemical like Monsanto and Dow wouldn’t be able to label foods ‘if they felt like it’ as the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association has suggested we consumers allow.

Since when can you trust Monsanto and Coca-Cola to tell the truth about anything they create? Mandatory labeling is the only way for complete transparency of our food supply to transpire, and we deserve to know what is in our food! Voluntary GMO labeling is essentially what we have now, and doesn’t really work to let consumers fully know the truth regarding food ingredients.

Measure 92, the full text of which can be found here, is all about keeping the right to know with consumers, and not further selling out to biotech bullies and seed monopolies. It goes against giving corporations the same rights as people, while they poison the planet and take absolutely no accountability for those actions.

Monsanto has just dropped another $2.5 million (in addition to what they’ve already spent) to defeat GMO labeling in Oregon – bringing the total to $4.5 million in just one state. They also dropped another cool million in Colorado – bringing the total to about $5 million in that state – all to keep voters from checking that YES LABEL GMOs box at the voting booths or on their ballots. What exactly are these companies trying to hide from U.S. consumers?


You can support this measure further by staying in touch with Oregon Right to Know on Facebook and watching this short video and passing it along. If you live in Oregon, I would post the opening page everywhere you can think of – how about your local Starbucks or GMO-selling grocery store!? We haven’t stood down to Monsanto’s bullying yet, and we can’t start now.

Let’s bring these toxic-making criminals to their knees. Vote Yes on 92 Oregon. We’re behind you 100%.

Vaccines and Pesticides May Create The Perfect Storm To Initiate Autistic Spectrum Disorder

© Prevent Disease
Prevent Disease | Oct 23, 2014 | Dave Mihalovic

With the CDC's recent admitted omissions of data correlating vaccines to autism, more information continues to emerge on other factors which are "highly likely" to contribute to the incidence of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). A growing body of literature is also reporting strong associations between the disorder and pesticide exposures during pregnancy.

Anti-vaccine advocates have sharply criticized the medical community for the rise in vaccination scheduling and frequency as a primary cause of autism. Although vaccines are certainly a contributor to ASD, they are not the smoking gun in terms of causation. If they were, then a much higher percentage of children receiving vaccines would exhibit symptoms of the disorder.

The disorder likely has a number of causes involving synergistic toxicity between vaccines, the environment and some degree of genetic susceptibility.

Case Control Study


The study included 486 children diagnosed with an ASD, 168 diagnosed with delayed development, and 316 controls from the ongoing Childhood Autism Risks from Genes and Environment (CHARGE) study, which was launched in 2003. The researchers assessed timing and extent of pesticide applications within 1.75 km of each mother’s residence from 3 months before conception through the time of delivery. These data came from California’s Pesticide Use Report, which since 1990 has documented pesticide applications to farmland, golf courses, cemeteries, and other sites down to the square mile

The study examined the association between prenatal proximity to fields where organophosphate, pyrethroid, or carbamate pesticides were applied and later diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders including ASDs and developmental delays. The authors found the strongest associations between ASDs and application of nonspecified organophosphates during the third trimester as well as one specific organophosphate, chlorpyrifos, during the second trimester. They also report statistically significant associations between ASDs and pyrethroid application both preconception and during the third trimester, as well as an association between carbamate application and developmental delay, although this estimate was based on a small number of cases.

The new research supports associations reported in previous work, says Kirsten Brandt, a senior lecturer at the School of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development at University of Newcastle, United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study. First author Janie Shelton, a graduate student in the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of California, Davis, says the most important finding was the association between chlorpyrifos and ASDs. The compound is banned for residential use but is one of the most commonly used agricultural chemicals, she says, noting that pesticides can drift beyond buffer zones around the point of application and into homes and workplaces.

It is known that some birth malformations are caused by de novo genetic events, such as large copy number variants that have been found to increase the risk for ASD by approximately 400%. Single-gene deletions, are known to cause CHARGE syndrome associated with genital abnormalities and putatively associated with ASD. However, these genetic events may have currently poorly identified environmental triggers, and 70 to 80% of male congenital malformations of the reproductive system have no clear genetic causes. Instead, they appear to be driven by specific environmental insults that were not serious enough to lead to more serious adverse events during pregnancy, such as spontaneous abortion.

"Essentially what happens is during pregnancy...there are certain sensitive periods where the fetus is very vulnerable to a range of small molecules -- from things like plasticisers, prescription drugs, environmental pesticides and other things. Some of these small molecules essentially alter normal development. Autism appears to be strongly correlated with rate of congenital malformations of the genitals in males across the country, this gives an indicator of environmental load and the effect is surprisingly strong. The strongest predictors for autism were associated with the environment; congenital malformations on the reproductive system in males." stated Andrey Rzhetsky, Professor of Genetic Medicine and Human Genetics at the University of Chicago.

Glyphosate is an herbicide produced and marketed by Monsanto Corporation, the agrochemical and biotechnology giant. Monsanto claims that glyphosate is safe and has successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the residue limits of this toxic chemical.

Independent scientists disagree with Monsanto: several recently published peer-reviewed studies point to serious health impacts from exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Roundup herbicide may also be the most important factor in development of autism and other chronic disease. Glyphosate does induce disease and is a "textbook example of exogenous semiotic entropy." Glyphosate inhibits detoxification of xenobiotics and interferes with cytochrome P450 enzymes, which enhances the damaging effects of other chemical residues and toxins, and very slowly damages cellular systems in the body through inflammation. Residues of glyphosate are found in sugar, corn, soy, and wheat, some of the main components of the Western diet.

One such study, published in the journal Ecotoxicology, found that glyphosate is toxic to water fleas (Daphnia magna) at minuscule levels that are well within the levels expected to be found in the environment.

According to regulators, glyphosate is thought to be practically nontoxic to aquatic invertebrates. The water flea is a widely accepted model for environmental toxicity, so this study throws serious doubt on glyphosate’s classification as environmentally safe.

Despite any limitations in the study, Philippe Grandjean, an adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health adds, "The researchers must be praised for having been able to link data on pesticide usage to geocoded residences during pregnancy." Joseph Braun, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at Brown University, describes the work as "the cutting edge of research into environmental determinants of autism." Braun also was not involved in the study. The study provides new directions for exploration. "Until about five years ago, virtually all research on autism assumed that the disease was entirely genetic in origin, and that environmental exposures did not play a role," says Robert Wright, director of the Division of Environmental Health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. "Rising rates of autism and failure to find genetic causes despite a multitude of very large genetic studies has led to a major shift in focus in the field. These chemicals are a solid lead that needs to be followed."

Sources:
niehs.nih.gov
ploscompbiol.org
cdpr.ca.gov

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Ebola Vaccine Commercial – Satire

Farm Wars | Oct 18, 2014

Cleverest 1.41 minutes I have ever seen – encapsulates the entire hoax.

5 Reasons to Never Let Your Kids Eat McDonald’s

© care2.com
Care2 | Oct 20, 2014 Flashback | Beth Buczynski

Editor’s note: This post is a Care2 Favorite. It was originally published on November 17, 2013. Enjoy.

Hold on to your hats, parents: A court-appointed psychiatrist recently called a Manhattan father an ‘unfit parent’ because he denied his son’s request to eat at McDonald’s. Yes, you’re reading that right.

The man is in the midst of a custody battle with his estranged wife, and the issue came up during a visit. The father and son planned to eat at their usual restaurant during their weekly Tuesday night visitation. Instead, the kid threw a temper tantrum and demanded McDonald’s. The dad stood firm, saying choose another restaurant or go without dinner (an age-old parenting tactic). The kid chose nothing. End of story, right? Wrong.

Of course, the kid told his mom. Mom told the court-appointed psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller. Schiller immediately filed a report saying the father was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and should be denied his weekend visitation rights. The mom, smugly I imagine, immediately took the kid to McDonald’s.
There are many things that infuriate me about this tale, but let’s focus on the big one: This Dad, in his desire to avoid rewarding bad behavior, was doing his son an enormous favor–one that few parents take the time to make, which is why we have a childhood obesity epidemic on our hands.

I, for one, applaud this guy’s actions and am glad to hear that NY Attorney David Schorr slapped the court-appointed shrink with a defamation lawsuit. In my opinion, it’s parents who encourage their kids to eat McDonald’s that are the unfit ones. Harsh? Maybe you won’t think so after reading this list:

5 Reasons to Never Let Your Kids Eat McDonalds

© care2.com
1. Its a lie.

McDonald’s, really fast-food in general, isn’t real food. The “nugget” isn’t a part of the chicken’s anatomy, real ribs have bones (I’m looking at you McRib), and, most importantly, real food rots. Check out this McDonald’s hamburger from 1999. Yes, it’s been sitting on a shelf for 14 years. There’s not a spot of mold or a single maggot. If nature’s natural composters don’t recognize it as food, neither should you. If you feed your kids McDonald’s, you forever alter their concept of what real food looks, feels and tastes like.

©StrangeCosmos.com
2. Its heinously unhealthy.

There are few things that derail your health like fast-food. The average McDonald’s meal contains so much sodium, unhealthy fat, sugar and empty carbs, it’s staggering. It is the exact opposite of what any doctor or nutritionist (even the good ol’ USDA MyPlate) would consider a healthy diet. A 2004 study published in “The Lancet” found that eating fast food more than twice per week is linked to rapid weight gain, increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and sometimes fatal cardiovascular health problems. In fact, the processed fat in McDonald’s food (and other fast food) promotes endothelial dysfunction, which is linked to erectile dysfunction down the road. Is all of that really worth a couple of minutes without whining?

© care2.com
3. The company refuses to acknowledge what its food does to kids.

Sure, sure, every day we hear that McDonald’s offers a plethora of healthy choices, blah, blah, blah. It doesn’t matter. Offer as many weird, wilted salads as you want, but almost no one buys them, and certainly not kids. If McDonald’s is so healthy for kids, why doesn’t the company prove it? Instead, McDonald’s has consistently refused to assess the impact it has on children’s weight and health.

© care2.com

4. It hurts families.

Are you looking forward to the holidays? Planning family meals and special Christmas morning surprises? You’re lucky. For the millions of parents who have no other option but to take jobs in the fast food industry (because, you know, if they go on public assistance while looking for better work they’re called mooches), these luxuries don’t exist. In recent years, McDonald’s has urged its franchises to stay open on Christmas day. To add insult to injury, workers at company-owned restaurants didn’t receive overtime for working the holiday last year. This is on top of the frighteningly low pay, zero benefits and general exploitation.

© care2.com
5. Because your kids are their future.

We haven’t even begun to discuss the impact McDonald’s and other fast food chains have on the environment and agriculture (i.e. factory farming). If those issues matter to you, the last thing you should do is introduce your kids to this food. It’s no secret that one of the oldest items on the McDonald’s menu is the “Happy Meal,” a kid-sized sack of fake food accompanied by a plastic, Made in China toy. McDonald’s has and always will target children with its advertising. Why? Because kids, especially crying, screaming ones like in the NYC custody story, are very persuasive. Those commercials and toys are meant to get kids eating McDonald’s early, so that they’ll be customers for life. (Did we mention fast food has been proven to be intentionally addictive?) Once hooked, McDonald’s knows your kids will return as adults, allowing them to continue their gross, destructive, exploitative practices in perpetuity.

Glyphosate and aluminum in vaccines associated with rise of autism epidemic

© Natural News
Natural News | Oct 22, 2014 | Jonathan Benson

Besides vaccines, there appears to be another major culprit in the escalating autism epidemic: Roundup herbicide. Data compiled from multiple government sources reveals that the steadily rising epidemic of autism in the U.S. is directly correlated with the rising use of glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup, on American crops.

A research student from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) put together several reports that reveal a corresponding increase between glyphosate use and autism incidence. The more glyphosate has become a standard chemical used on food crops, the more autism has become a problem, increasing in prevalence from about one in 5,000 people back in 1975 to one in 68 today.

One of the plotted graphs included in a report entitled "Is Roundup the Toxic Chemical That's Making Us All Sick?" which reveals a correlation coefficient of 0.9972 between autism and glyphosate use over the past several decades. This is about as close as it gets to a correlation coefficient of 1.0, indicating a near-perfect correlation between the rise in glyphosate use and the rise in autism.

Glyphosate damages gut bacteria, leading to symptoms of autism 

The human microbiome, it turns out, is directly affected by glyphosate, which acts as an antibiotic in killing gut bacteria. Not surprisingly, the symptoms of exposure mirror those of autism, which include things like inflammatory bowel syndrome, serotonin and melatonin deficiencies, defective aromatase, mineral deficiencies, mitochondrial disorders and seizures.

There are also a slew of other "inert" ingredients contained in the Roundup formula that act as amplifiers of glyphosate's toxicity, not the least of which are its adjuvants. None of these adjuvants has ever been properly safety tested, yet data that does exist show that they greatly increase the toxicity of glyphosate.

"Adjuvants in pesticides are generally declared as inerts, and for this reason they are not tested in long-term regulatory experiments," reads a 2014 study published in the journal BioMed Research International, and referenced in the MIT study.

"It is thus very surprising that they amplify up to 1000 times the toxicity of their APs [Active Principles] in 100% of the cases where they are indicated to be present by the manufacturer," it adds.

The full report is available here:

People.CSAIL.MIT.edu [PDF].

Aluminum in vaccines also linked to autism 

Also corresponding with the glyphosate-autism link is the toxic aluminum component found in many vaccines, which a separate report by the same MIT researcher outlines as a synergistic accelerator of disease. As she explains, vaccine aluminum further interferes with sulfate synthesis in the body, an effect also caused by just glyphosate alone that results in known symptoms of autism.

Practically all of what are considered to be the "classic" features of autism have some association with impaired sulfate synthesis in the brain. Aluminum is a toxic metal that interferes with this process, which is believed to occur during the night as people sleep, by accumulating in the brain and blocking the clearing of cellular debris.

Interestingly, sleeping disorders like insomnia are directly linked to a range of neurological diseases that includes autism. According to data available through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), insomnia occurs much more frequently as an adverse reaction to vaccines that contain aluminum compared to those that don't, an indication that the metal directly interferes with proper neurological function.

In the presence of glyphosate, aluminum also gains unique entry into the gut, where the two toxins combine to wreak havoc on the bacterial ecosystem. The consequences of this include conditions like leaky gut syndrome, kidney failure and pineal gland calcification.

More about this deadly connection is available in the full report:
People.CSAIL.MIT.edu [PDF].

Sources:

http://people.csail.mit.edu [PDF]

http://people.csail.mit.edu [PDF]

http://www.hindawi.com

http://www.autismone.org

http://people.csail.mit.edu [PDF]

http://people.csail.mit.edu [PDF]

http://science.naturalnews.com

Most Vaccines Contain Cancer-Causing Ingredients, But What More…?

Natural Society | Oct 22, 2014 | Christina Sarich

You can bet that polio vaccines will now be promoted since the Glaxo Smith Kline (accidental) dumping of live polio viruses into a Belgium lake. On the same token, you can bet that forced Ebola vaccinations are just around the corner due to fear of Ebola spreading through the U.S., but do we really want to trust an industry which already puts carcinogenic adjuvants into the vaccines used to “treat” measles, mumps, polio, rubella, cervical cancer, and more? I doubt it.

Vaccines are full of adjuvants, compounds that are meant to enhance the specific immune response against co-inoculated antigens. The word comes from the Latin word adjuvare, which means to help or to enhance. But these adjuvants don’t enhance anything but a compromised immune system.

Following are cancer-causing ingredients, neuro-toxins, and immune-destroying ‘extras’ as well as some disturbing evidence as to the true intent behind vaccines overall.

Formaldehyde – This is classified as a known carcinogen. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer admit this is so – so what the heck is it doing in vaccines? Over one billion doses of vaccines are given annually, with many of them containing this adjuvant. The CDC says that most formaldehydes are removed from the vaccine before it is packaged, but this substance is a DNA adduct, and no injection studies on formaldehyde have ever been conducted.
Unmetabolized formaldehyde reacts non-enzymatically with sulfhydryl groups or urea, bind to tetrahydrofolate and enters the single-carbon intermediary metabolic pool, reacts with macromolecules to form DNA and protein adducts, or forms crosslinks primarily between protein and single-stranded DNA (Bolt 1987).”
Maybe this is why formaldehyde has been linked to several types of cancers, including Leukemia. Formaldehyde has been used in the Anthrax vaccine, DT, DTaP, Hib, HPV, Hep A, Hep B, Influenza, Meningitis, Polio, and more. Many of these vaccines are administered to children, and schools won’t allow your children to attend classes unless they’ve received them. 25 of the 53 vaccines listed by the CDC have this known carcinogen in them.

Aluminum – Aluminum salts are in many vaccines. For example: aluminum salts are used in DTaP vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccines. Aluminum hydroxide (just one of the aluminum salts that is used) has been linked to macrophagic myofasciitis, or MMF, as well as the rising prevalence of autism.

Read: Vaccines Don’t Protect – Exposing the Vaccines for Immunity Fraud

Mercury from Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines – This adjuvant has been linked to autism, spasms, speech disorders, neurodevelopmental issues in infants, mental retardation, premature puberty, and more.

The journal Immunology & Cell Biology states the obvious:
“The problem with pure recombinant or synthetic antigens used in modern day vaccines is that they are generally far less immunogenic than older style live or killed whole organism vaccines. This has created a major need for improved and more powerful adjuvants for use in these vaccines. . .”
Dr. Maurice Stroun and Dr. Philip Anker from the Department of Plant Physiology at the University of Geneva, have also accumulated evidence that the transfer of genetic information is not confined to bacteria, but can also occur between bacteria and higher plants and animals. This means that vaccines can alter your DNA.

There is also evidence that freely-circulating foreign DNA can cause malignancy. In a 1977 issue of International Review of Cytology, Volume 51, Anker and Stroun discuss the possible effects of foreign DNA causing malignant cell transformations.

There are other adjuvants in vaccines as well, many of which are not revealed until after they have been mass marketed. The Gardasil Vaccine was recently found to have recombinant DNA that persists in the environment of human blood. These vaccines are meant to alter our immune systems and make us more susceptible to viral and bacterial infection.

You might surmise that government health organizations work hand in hand with big pharmaceutical companies to get these vaccines out to the people as fast as they can, never truly revealing the intent of their plans.
“Probably as much as 75% of the medicine of sickness is unnecessary and its cost can be avoided.” ~ Ghislaine Lanctot