It is true that the majority of individuals who have become mass shooters such as this young man were taking psychiatric medications. Many of these drugs are known to have side effects that can cause suicidal or even homicidal feelings or thoughts. Perhaps what needs to happen is a complete re-assessment of the whole pharmaceutical model of treatment itself. It is not only a major problem in the area of psychiatric treatment, but in the treatment of systemic disease in general. ... There are better, safer and healthier options that work quite well and without the negative side effects. Unfortunately our entire medical system and society is so indoctrinated into the mega billion dollar pharmaceutical model because that is where the big profits are to be found. View Comment
Yes indeed Ken. ... "... and to the Republic, for which it stands..." ... This country was founded as a Republic, but has been craftily turned into a democracy to suit the money powers lust for control of the masses. ... and the majority of the population is completely unaware.
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Our two wolves have become the Democrat and Republican political parties. View Comment
Scientific American, (Aug 2009); "Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?";
" ...Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology... ”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ View Comment
El-Shamei, ZS et al, Histopathological Changes in Some Organs of Males Rats Fed on GM corn
(Ajeeb YG) Journal of American Science 2012 8(10)
"Ajeeb YG is a genetically modified (GM) insect resistant corn produced by incorporated the MON 810 (Monsanto) borer resistance trait in the best corn germplasm Ajeeb. The safety of Ajeeb YG corn was assessed by comparison of toxicology response variables in rats consuming diets containing Ajeeb YG with those containing Ajeeb corn grains. Corn grains from Ajeeb YG or Ajeeb were incorporated into rodent diets at 30% concentrations administered to rats (n=10/group) for 91 days. An additional negative control group of rats (n=10/group) were fed AIN93G diets. Rats fed on GM corn showed histopathological changes. Liver displayed cytoplasmic vacuolation of centrolobular hepatocytes and fatty degeneration of hepatocytes. Kidneys showed congestion of renal blood vessels and cystic dilatation of renal tubules. Testes revealed necrosis and desquamation of spermatogoneal germ cells lining seminiferous tubules. Spleen showed slight lymphocytic depletion and splenic congestion. Small intestine showed hyperplasia, hyperactivation of mucous secretory glands and necrosis of intestinal villi were detected. Due to these observations, we suggest that the risk of GM crops cannot be ignored and deserves further investigations in order to identify possible long-term effects, if any, of GM food consumption that might help in the post market surveillance."
http://www.academia.edu/3405345/Histopathological_Changes_in_Some_Organs_of_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG_ View Comment
Jrnl Of Applied Chemistry, (March - April 2013); "Chemical Analysis of BT corn "Mon-810: Ajeeb-YG ®" and itscounterpart non-Bt corn "Ajeeb";
"Obviously, the genetic modification of Bt corn showed significant differences from the conventionalcounterpart, where, the total protein, crude fat, crude fiber & total saccharides showed significant increase in Btcorn as compared to non Bt corn. Whereas ,the starch content showed significant decreased compared to non Bt.The Mineral content were also affected, where calcium & sodium were significantly decreased in Bt corn, while phosphorous increased dramatically in Bt corn. All fatty acids were detected with various values in Bt corncompared to non Bt corn except for Palmitoleic acid & 13- octadecenoic acids were not detected in Bt corn andmost probably lost. In respect to amino acids, some essential and non essential amino acids were lost in Bt corn.Thus, it may be conclude that the genetic modification process caused several alternation in the chemicalcomposition in corn that may be toxic to the human food and the animals feed. Accordingly, further long termfeeding studies are required to assess the actual safety of Bt corn."
http://www.academia.edu/3341205/Chemical_Analysis_of_Bt_corn_Mon-810_Ajeeb-YG_and_its_counterpart_non-Bt_corn_Ajeeb_ View Comment
Jrnl Of American Science, (2012);
"Morphological and Biochemical Changes in Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn";
" Abstract : This study was designed to evaluate the safety of genetically modified (GM) corn (Ajeeb YG). Corngrains from Ajeeb YG or its control (Ajeeb) were incorporated into rodent diets at 30% concentrations administeredto rats (n= 10/group) for 45 and 91 days. An additional negative control group of rats (n= 10/group) was fedAIN93G diets. General conditions were observed daily, total body weights were recorded weekly. At thetermination of the study periods, some visceral organs (heart, liver, kidneys, testes and spleen) and serum biochemistry were measured. The data showed several statistically significant differences in organs/body weight andserum biochemistry between the rats fed on GM and/or Non-GM corn and the rats fed on AIN93G diets. In general,GM corn sample caused several changes by increase or decrease organs/body weight or serum biochemistry values.This indicates potential adverse health/toxic effects of GM corn and further investigations still needed. ..."
http://www.academia.edu/3138607/Morphological_and_Biochemical_Changes_in_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG_ View Comment
Welcome to the latest 'Kondratieff' 'Winter'. This one's going to be a duzie;
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/christopher-quigley/kondratieff-waves-and-the-greater-depression-of-2013-2020 View Comment
Peer reviewed study from; "Environmental Sciences Europe";
"Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years" - Sept 2012;
"Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%."
"Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."
From Monsanto's web site;
"Roundup agricultural herbicides and other products are used to sustainably and effectively control weeds on the farm. Their use on Roundup Ready crops has allowed farmers to conserve fuel, reduce tillage and decrease the overall use of herbicides."
Here is one small example of the way that the truth gets attacked and buried by big money, ...or, you just go on believing in the integrity and honesty of what industry backed science is selling;
Regarding the scientist Seralini, who you are obviously familiar with at this point;
"Independent GM researcher wins court victory for defamation"
GM Free Cymru, Press Notice, 19 January 2011
"On Tuesday January 18, the court of Paris concluded the lawsuit between Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini, researcher in molecular biology at the University of Caen and President of the Scientific Council of CRIIGEN, and the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies [Association FranÃ§aise des Biotechnologies Végétale] (AFBV), chaired by Marc Fellous.
Séralini sued for libel following a smear campaign, which appears to have come from AFBV. This was part of a furious response from the GM industry to a number of papers by Seralini and colleagues which demonstrated serious statistical and other shortcomings in the Monsanto research dossiers submitted in support of applications for the approval of three GM varieties. The papers had not argued that the Monsanto GM maize lines were actually dangerous, but had simply argued that there were no grounds for assuming them to be completely harmless. They asked for further research and longer animal feeding studies than those that had been conducted.
Seralini believed the researchers Claude Allegre, Axel Kahn, and Marc Fellous were behind the defamation and intimidation campaign in France and that is why he pursued Fellous in the courts. He argued that the campaign had damaged his reputation, reducing his opportunities for work and his chances of getting funding for his research.
During the trial, it was revealed that Fellous, who presented himself as a 'neutral' scientist without personal interests, and who accused those who criticise GMOs as 'ideological' and 'militant', owned patents through a company based in Israel. This company sells patents to many corporations such as Aventis. Seralini's lawyer showed that various other AFBV members also have links with agribusiness companies -- so their scientific impartiality and integrity came under careful scrutiny.
The court found in Seralini's favour. The judge sentenced the AFBV to a fine on probation of 1,000 EUR, 1 EUR for compensation (as requested by the plaintiff) and 4,000 EUR of court fees. ..." View Comment
So it's ok for research results to come from obviously pro GMO industry funded sources but it's not ok for research results to come from a source that is anti - GMO? ... Interesting.
While it would appear that there is a consensus regarding safety amongst the major international organizations such as the WHO, there is not in fact a consensus amongst the scientific community regarding the safety of GMO's. If there were you would not find for example the list of apparently rather significant scientists in the following linked article raising issue with GMO safety;
"Leading scientists say no consensus on safety of genetically modified organisms";
- http://www.examiner.com/article/leading-scientists-say-no-consensus-on-safety-of-genetically-modified-organisms View Comment
jwcnmr - You obviously carry a high regard and trust for industry funded research and industry itself, and choose to ignore the facts regarding the corruption that exists there in service to the big bucks. Perhaps you're a stock holder. We sure benefited immensely from Monsanto's agent orange defoliant during the Vietnam War (that Monsanto had assured us was not harmful to people either). Tell that to all the vets who have and are suffering the effects. We also benefited immensely from recombinant bovine growth hormone that Monsanto created to force cows to produce more milk. The only problem was not only did it result in cows having to be given loads more antibiotics because of the infections that were developing from over milking, but now the consumer was also being regularly dosed with the effects of all of this on their bodies.
I expect you also are very much in favor of industry owning and controlling the food supply on a global level and creating crops that are impotent and incapable of producing seed, to insure that farmers are forced to annually have to purchase more seed from the patent holding industry. .... I mean hey, it sure as hell is profitable in more ways than one. Just consider, if the fact of the rising incidence of cancer within the population over the past couple of decades has anything to do with the nearly synchronous rise in the presence of gmo's in the food supply, it only means more big bucks to the pharmaceutical industry as it's profits continue to rise congruently. .. Of course we shouldn't pay any attention to the numerous medical doctors out there who have seen more than one of their patients systemic conditions clear up soon after they eliminated gmo foods from their diet. There's no scientific proof of this however, so we should just ignore it. God knows industry would never sell any products that it knew was potentially harmful to people and or the natural environment. Industry's track record is a testament to that fact. ... yeah right.
Sorry. ... You go right on putting your faith in the integrity of industry funded scientific research. Personally I am painfully too aware of just how untrustworthy it in fact is. It's called selfish greed. It is also the reason why there is so little research present which challenges it's findings. The money to support such research being done, simply is not there, because there's no profits to be gained from it and if such findings happen to appear in any of industries own research, it gets buried real fast. Note here once again what I posted here previously regarding the scientists from the FDA who pleaded with Obama to clean up the agency. .... Big money. .. it's what runs our world today, and it aint in service to humanity my friend. If you believe that you really are uninformed, or perhaps you missed what took place in 07' 08' in the housing market. .... and a new housing bubble is being blown up right now thanks to the control that industry has over the federal government.
The trouble with research today is that it is in no way in service to humanity, (as much as industry would have you believe that it is, and does a very clever job of selling the public that idea), it is in service to big profits and nothing else. If you don't believe that you are a fool. View Comment