Sunday, 23 September 2012

Study Finds Genetically Engineered Corn Causes Massive Tumours, Organ Damage, and Early Death

The chickens on genetically modified (GM) food have been coming home to roost this week, though as happened with DDT, thalidomide and other toxic chemicals those involved will doubtless fight a rearguard action for years to come.

“a study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems.”

The research was considered so "hot" that the work was done under strict secrecy i.e. to prevent sabotage by vested commercial interests. 

Rats only live a few years. Humans live around 80 years, so we will notice these effects in animals long before we see them in humans. The gigantic human lab experiment is only about 10 years old, so we are likely decades away from tabulating the human casualties. This is some of the strongest evidence to date that we need to exercise the precautionary principle ASAP and avoid these foods.”

In short we now know that where genetic engineering introduces genes into plants for insect resistance additional toxic proteins will subsequently accumulate in plant tissues consumed by animals and man. “These toxins are found in the blood and readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb”. In a Quebec study the Bt toxin was found in the blood system of 93% of women from non-farming communities. 80% of them passed that on to their babies i.e. the placental barrier is not a barrier to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like glyphosate.

We also know that a substance called glyphosate which is the ‘active ingredient’ in many modern herbicides eg Roundup used on GM corn, soybeans etc can have very unwelcome effects on humans.

Glyphosate doesn’t kill weeds or grass directly; it accumulates in the plant and ‘gives it a bad case of (the equivalent of) AIDS’ ...... so that the plant succumbs to local soil borne pathogens. Glyphosate in fact stops the weeds or grass absorbing the beneficial nutrients they need from the soil. In other words, it lowers their immune system and they die as a result.

“The problem stems from the way glyphosate persists in and alters (plants and) the soil, which has wide-ranging ramifications. As a potent organic phosphate chelator, glyphosate immobilizes micronutrients that are essential for normal physiological functions not only in soils, but also in growing plants and in those who eat the plants, namely animals and humans.

The nutritional efficiency of genetically engineered plants is profoundly compromised. Far from helping improve nutrition, micronutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc can be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent in such plants! Glyphosate also decimates beneficial microorganisms essential for proper plant function and high quality nutrition, while promoting the proliferation of disease-causing pathogens.

"Glyphosate is a very powerful selective antibiotic that kills beneficial, but not pathogenic, microorganisms in the soil and intestine at very low residual levels in food," Dr. Huber writes. Residue levels permitted in food are 40 to 800 times the antibiotic threshold and concentrations shown in clinical studies to damage mammalian tissues.”

Both the toxic proteins produced by the foreign bacterial genes and the glyphosate chemical are now present in the feed and food produced for animal and human consumption.”

Even in the EU where GM foods have to be marked this is no protection for the end consumer who eats meat which has been reared on GM foodstuffs, which is currently permitted to be imported into the EU. So, at the moment the only way we can be reasonably sure that we are not ingesting ‘the nasties” mentioned above is by eating food from a trusted supplier which is labelled as organic. 

Sunday, 2 September 2012

Enlarged prostate problems? Best to bone up first even before seeing your specialist

Take a look at Even for the medical profession gone are the days when every doctor would advise men over a certain age to have regular socalled PSA screening to test for cancer of the prostate. A lot of money was wasted on that test. 'PSA levels can change for many reasons other than cancer. Two common causes of high PSA levels are enlargement of the prostate (benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH)) and infection in the prostate (prostatitis). It can also be raised for 24 hours after ejaculation and several days after catheterization.' 

If you have an uncomfortable 'pressing' feeling in the perineum area between the legs and above that area 'on the inside' so-to-speak, maybe like you are 'sitting on a ball', that may turn out to be caused by an enlarged prostate. Leave off bicycling while you have it checked out professionally!

Absent any immediate life-threatening diagnosis from the experts, check out alternative treatments. If you just have a (benign) enlarged prostate, you may find that a few drops of Saw Palmetto tincture taken daily for a few months will remove the discomfort totally with little or no risk of side effects. There are also other homeopathic and herbal remedies which can often help your body to cure the problem: see your homeopath or herbalist. But remember that your own dietary e.g. excess alcohol, and other habits (bicycling?!), could be the cause of an enlarged prostate, and so you will have to be prepared to do detective work in that area as well.

And when should you contemplate surgery? Well, the article extracted below is a reminder why surgery to remove an enlarged prostate is now thought to be probably normally not the way to go unless your specialist comes up with very convincing reasons for it - which you should check and doublecheck yourself.

"If you were diagnosed with an enlarged prostate about 10 years ago, then you may be one of many unlucky men. Especially if your blood tests revealed a higher than normal PSA. You would've probably gone under the knife straight away, because surgery, followed by radiation or chemo (or both!), was the common course of treatment back then. 

Fortunately, there were a few good doctors back then (and more thankfully now) prepared to hold off on treatment and monitor your condition instead. In light of recent PSA research, hopefully more doctors will discontinue yearly PSA monitoring altogether. 

All men should be so lucky. But far too many are not. 

Changing the standard of care 

A recent New England Journal of Medicine study enrolled more than 730 men with localized prostate cancer — meaning their cancer had not spread beyond the prostate. Their average age was about 66 years. 

In half of the men, surgeons removed their prostates. Men in the other half were "observed." They weren't treated. Doctors screened their PSA levels. 

After 10 years, there was very little difference in death rates between the two groups. The difference was so small that it landed within the possible margin of error. 

Meanwhile, more than 20 percent in the surgery group suffered complications from their surgery, including one death. 

Let's make this as simple as possible. Most men with localized prostate cancer should not be treated. And this is especially true for men in their 70s and beyond. 

Men? Doctors? Are you getting all this? It could hardly be more important! Let's not wait years for the standard of care to change… nobody should take an aggressive course of action if it is not absolutely necessary. 

"Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer" New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 367, No. 3, 7/19/12, 

"Prostate cancer surgery fails to cut deaths in study" Gene Emery, Reuters Health, 7/18/12,"