EK
[F1]Per Os = orally
[F2]Interesting play on words on how this is being used to explore military use in space
[F3]May have to RE Evaluate cause due to aluminum particulates and barium and radioactive particles and nano polymers falling from the sky—this can be an issue and the real cause of this condition happening
[F4]Almost sounds like a Marketing Game—there is some truth to the genetic acceptance but this would be contingent to the genes in the foods rather then the individual –in some cases there maybe an element to this where there maybe a mutated gene in a person causing some kind of anomaly –but the real test should be the test in the genetics of food
[F5]We are dealing with worms who would have a direct contact to genetics
[F6]May have to RE Evaluate cause due to aluminum particulates and barium and radioactive particles and nano polymers falling from the sky—this can be an issue and the real cause of this condition happening
[F7]This is an Illuminati doctrine and when humans and Nature can not co exist human are to be expendable—go asked the natives you can see how this is manifesting in North America
[F8]Now You have to Wonder was this a Self Induced entitlement—with all the wonderful science on this tech we all know there is nothing sustainable here about it
[F9]There are 3 seed banks which have stored non GMO seeds —these are usually released after a cataclysmic event to re start the food supply again
[F10]Never Mind Just America —the whole planet—there has been an ongoing insanity to feed animals GMO based foods—to avoid a controversy with having it grown direct—they just allowed the soil to be contaminated with these genetics and now the worms –bugs- bacteria –fungi will all be affected by this
[F11]This is a JOKE and do not waste your time the USDA is assisting in the implementation of the Monsanto and Biotech properties
[F12]Counterfeits will be of no value
[F13]Due to the condition of a person in recovery stage this would be the easiest way to issue health and vitality back without exerting a high amount of energy and resources the body would need to use —
[F14]To protect against quacks—hmm seems like parliament has failed the quackery we are dealing with today is coming from the gov’t instituted systems and the medical and pharmaceutical and medical supply places —so much for this “legal “ protection
[F15]A coordinated attack by gov’t corporocracy that dismantled this activity before it got off he ground
These people who were chased away by fear should be ashamed of themselves –and should have resisted instead—they gave in to nothing
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
TOP
HOME
Show of the Month March 2o14
Show Of The Month March 1 2014
Show of the Month March 8 2o14
Show of the Month March 15 2o14
Show of the Month March 22 2o14
Show of the Month March 29 2o14
Virgin olive oil administration improves the effect of aspirin on retinal vascular pattern in experimental diabetes mellitus
Space Preservation Act of 2001
The Photoprotective and antioxidative properties of luteolin are synergistically augmented by tocopherol and ubiquinone
Codex Alimentarius-Regulation on food Safety-Lack there of
**********************************************************************
Virgin olive oil administration improves the effect of aspirin on retinal vascular pattern in experimental diabetes mellitus.
De La Cruz JP, Del Río S, López-Villodres JA, Villalobos MA, Jebrouni N, González-Correa JA.
Author information
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the possible influence of virgin olive oil (VOO) on the effect of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in platelet aggregation, prostanoid and NO production and retinal vascular pattern in rats with experimental type 1-like diabetes. We used 100 male Wistar rats that were distributed into five groups: (1) non-diabetic rats (NDR); (2) untreated diabetic rats (DR); (3) DR treated with ASA (2 mg/kg per d per os (p.o.))[F1]; (4) DR treated with VOO (0.5 ml/kg per d p.o.); (5) DR treated with ASA plus VOO. The duration of diabetes was 3 months, and each treatment was administered from the first day of diabetes. Variables that were quantified were platelet aggregation (I(max)), thromboxane B(2) (TxB(2)), aortic prostacyclin (6-keto-PGF(1alpha)) and NO, and the percentage of retina with horseradish peroxidase-permeable vessels (HRP-PV). Diabetic rats showed a higher I(max) (35 %) and TxB(2) (63 %) than NDR, and a lower 6-keto-PGF(1alpha), NO and HRP-PV than NDR ( – 74.6 %). ASA and VOO administration reduced these differences and prevented the percentage of HRP-PV ( – 59.7 % with ASA and – 46.7 % with VOO). The administration of ASA plus VOO showed a strong platelet inhibition (80.2 v. 23.4 % for VOO and 50.6 % for ASA+VOO, P < 0.0001), and reduced HRP-PV differences to – 31.6 % (P < 0.001 with respect to DR and P < 0.0001 with respect to DR treated with ASA). In conclusion, the administration of VOO to rats with type 1-like diabetes mellitus improves the pharmacodynamic profile of ASA, and increases its retinal anti-ischaemic effect.
Recipe—take the Virgin olive oil according to the ratio here .5 X your weight in kilos –example .5 X 77kilos = 38.5 mils just over an ounce—for the aspirin the used 2mg per kilo again we are looking at as an example 2 X 77= 154 mgs –
Mix them together—and use—start with tsp increments and increase it through the day— take it in tablespoon in divided times 3 a day
***********************************************************************
HR 2977 IH
Space Preservation Act of 2001
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001′.
SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.
Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.’.
SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.
The President shall–
(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and
(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.
SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.
The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.
SEC. 5. REPORT.
The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on–
(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and
(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.
SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.
Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for–[F2]
(1) space exploration;
(2) space research and development;
(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or
(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `space’ means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
(2)(A) The terms weapon' andweapons system’ mean a device capable of any of the following:
(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by–
(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;
(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;
(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or
(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.
(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)–
(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);
(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or
(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as–
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
(C) The term `exotic weapons systems’ includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.
*************************************************************************
The Photoprotective and antioxidative properties of luteolin are synergistically augmented by tocopherol and ubiquinone.
Planta Med. 2013 Jul;79(11):963-5
Authors: Wölfle U, Haarhaus B, Schempp CM
Abstract
Ultraviolet radiation induces DNA damage and oxidative stress which can result in skin inflammation, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis. [F3]The flavonoid luteolin that is present in high amounts in the dyers weld, Reseda luteola, is one of the most potent antioxidative plant metabolites and also has ultraviolet-absorbing properties.The aim of this study was to determine whether tocopherol and ubiquinone add synergistic antioxidative values to luteolin. None of the substances showed cytotoxic effects in concentrations from 0.25 to 4 µg/mL. The photoprotective and antioxidant effect of equivalent concentrations of luteolin, tocopherol, and ubiquinone and their combination in a ratio of 4 : 4 : 1 were studied in solar simulator irradiated human skin fibroblasts. Luteolin had a half-maximal radical scavenging concentration of 2 µg/mL, whereas tocopherol and ubiquinone were only effective at higher concentrations. None of the substances showed a phototoxic effect, and only luteolin had a moderate photoprotective effect at 2 µg/mL. The combination of luteolin, tocopherol, and ubiquinone exerted a synergistic radical scavenging effect already at a concentration of 0.25 µg/mL and a complete photoprotection at 2 µg/mL.In summary, our findings suggest that the potent antioxidant and photoprotective effect of flavonoids like luteolin may be further increased by the addition of low concentrations of other antioxidants such as tocopherol and ubiquinone. –PMID: 23839819 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Using things like hawthorn-rosemary or sage which has a good source of Luteolin by fusing this in oil and then add Cq 10 and vitamin E ( fuse in either almond oil or olive oil which has vitamin E in them naturally) and use –the ratio is 4:4:1 4 parts luteolin-4 parts vitamin E and 1 part cq 10
100ml would be 4 ml of luteolin- 4 mil Vitamin E 1 mil of Cq 1o
***************************************************************************
Codex Alimentarius-Regulation on food Safety-Lack there of
The concept of “certified organic” goes deeper, though, than a display of governmental avarice. It’s a weapon in the hostile takeover of the food supply, ala Codex Alimentarius. Here are a few highlights of Codex, according to a Natural News article by Dr. Gregory D’Amato:
* All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease”
* All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, removing all toxic nutrients from food (unless eaten locally and raw).
* Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex which will include such beneficial nutrients like Fluoride (3.8 mg daily) developed from environmental waste. All other nutrients will be prohibited nationally and internationally to all Codex-compliant countries [2].
* All nutrients (e.g., CoQ10, Vitamins A, B, C, D, Zinc and Magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to humans’ health [3].
* All advice on nutrition (including written online or journal articles or oral advice to a friend, family member or anyone) will be illegal.
* All dairy cows are to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone.
* All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
* The reintroduction of deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides that in 1991, 176 countries (including the U.S.) have banned worldwide including 7 of the 12 worst at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides (e.g., Hexachlorobenzene, Toxaphene, and Aldrin) will be allowed back into food at elevated levels [4].
* Dangerous and toxic levels (0.5 ppb) of aflotoxin in milk produced from moldy storage conditions of animal feed will be allowed. Aflotoxin is the second most potent (non-radiation) carcinogenic compound known to man.
* Mandatory use of growth hormones and antibiotics on all food herds, fish and flocks
* Worldwide implementation of unlabeled GMOs into crops, animals, fish and trees
TOP
**************************************************************************
TOP A
HOME
Show of the Month March 8 2o14
The Power of Local Unity: Small US Town Enacts Free Food Trade
Scientists find genetic mechanism linking aging to specific diets
The Photoprotective and antioxidative properties of luteolin are synergistically augmented by tocopherol and ubiquinone
Noah’s Ark
Monsanto “Goes Organic” and Wins “Sustainability Award”
**************************************************************************
The Power of Local Unity: Small US Town Enacts Free Food Trade
Sunday, February 2nd, 2014. Filed under: Activism
Sedgwick, Maine, the first town in the US to legalize any kind of food transaction as free and legal in order to keep the right to produce raw milk, organic produce, free-range eggs, and more, is revolutionizing the way America keeps its food rights – including saying no to GMOs. In other words, it is the first town to declare food sovereignty while opposing both state and federal laws.
The town has passed an ordinance that protects citizens’ rights to “produce, sell, purchase, and consume any food of their choosing.” The ordinance laughs in the face of FDA regulations and their hodge-podge way of giving food a rubber stamp of approval, especially GMO. Three additional towns in Maine are expected to pass similar ordinances as well.
The move is somewhat similar to a move one England town made, where the citizens transformed their entire town’s landscape into a giant food-producing garden. Both are great examples of moving toward food sovereignty.
It isn’t just a declaration on the whim of a few city council members. There is a warrant added: “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” This means that federal interference is prohibited in our food supply – at least in Maine. If you can’t get Monsanto out of the government, take the government out of your food. It’s a brilliant way around the convoluted system now in place that almost gave Monsanto the right to be exempt from federal prosecution for its poison food and which tries to hoist it upon the whole Nation without consent.–David Gumpert reports-“What about potential legal liability and state or federal inspections? It’s all up to the seller and buyer to negotiate. “Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect.” Imagine that–buyer and seller can agree to cut out the lawyers. That’s almost un-American, isn’t it?”—A simple seller and buyer agreement is entered into where federal regulations can be bypassed by the seller agreeing to consume food grown by their neighbors organically in their garden or by the farm up the street with their own hormone-free dairy cows that customers have known for decades. It takes the feds and their dirty Monsanto money right out of the game. It is commercially grown food that is killing us all, after all – not locally grown food.–For those with their heads in a noodle about bypassing federal laws, the citizens of Maine have stated, “We the radicals who concocted this mutinous act of infamy believe that according to the Home Rule provisions of our State Constitution, the citizens of Sedgwick have the right to enact an ordinance that is “local and municipal in character.”–n Maine, citizens can take advantage of local bounty, seasonal organic crops, and the good-old-fashioned way we used to produce food without Big Ag and commercial interference. Rural America is putting the big city budget of Monsanto to shame with this innovative way of taking down the monopolizing food giant. It’s about time ‘radicals’ in every small town across this nation did the same.
Additional Sources:
SedgwickMaine
+++
ZenGardner.com
– See more at: http://www.zengardner.com/power-local-unity-small-us-town-enacts-free-food-trade/#sthash.cBE3ISuO.dpuf
***************************************************************************
Scientists find genetic mechanism linking aging to specific diets
Sean Curran and Shanshan Pang studied C. elegans, a one-millimeter-long worm that scientists have used as a model organism since the 1970s.Your best friend swears by the Paleo Diet. Your boss loves Atkins. Your sister is gluten-free, and your roommate is an acolyte of Michael Pollan. So who’s right? Maybe they all are.-In new research published this month in Cell Metabolism, USC scientists Sean Curran and Shanshan Pang identify a collection of genes that allow an organism to adapt to different diets and show that without them, even minor tweaks to diet can cause premature aging and death.-Finding a genetic basis for an organism’s dietary needs suggests that different individuals may be genetically predisposed to thrive on different diets — and that now, in the age of commercial gene sequencing, people might be able to identify which diet would work best for them through a simple blood test. “These studies have revealed that single gene mutations can alter the ability of an organism to utilize a specific diet. In humans, small differences in a person’s genetic makeup that change how well these genes function, could explain why certain diets work for some but not others[F4],” said Curran, corresponding author of the study and assistant professor with joint appointments in the USC Davis School of Gerontology, the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and the Keck School of Medicine of USC.-Curran and Pang studied Caenorhabditis elegans, a one-milimeter-long worm that scientists have used as a model organism since the ’70s. Decades of tests have shown that genes in C. elegans are likely to be mirrored in humans while its short lifespan allows scientists to do aging studies on it.-In this study, Curran and Pang identified a gene called alh-6, which delayed the effects of aging depending on what type of diet the worm was fed by protecting it against diet-induced mitochondrial defects. [F5]”This gene is remarkably well-conserved from single celled yeast all the way up to mammals, which suggests that what we have learned in the worm could translate to a better understanding of the factors that alter diet success in humans,” Curran said. Future work will focus on identifying what contributes to dietary success or failure, and whether these factors explain why specific diets don’t work for everyone. This could be the start of personalized dieting based on an individual’s genetic makeup, according to Curran. “We hope to uncover ways to enhance the use of any dietary program and perhaps even figure out ways of overriding the system(s) that prevent the use of one diet in certain individuals,” he said.–Story Source–The above story is based on materials provided by University of Southern California. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. -Journal Reference-Shanshan Pang, Sean P. Curran. Adaptive Capacity to Bacterial Diet Modulates Aging in C. elegans. Cell Metabolism, 2014; DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2013.12.005
*************************************************************************
The photoprotective and antioxidative properties of luteolin are synergistically augmented by tocopherol and ubiquinone.
Planta Med. 2013 Jul;79(11):963-5
Authors: Wölfle U, Haarhaus B, Schempp CM
Abstract
Ultraviolet radiation induces DNA damage and oxidative stress which can result in skin inflammation, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis. [F6]The flavonoid luteolin that is present in high amounts in the dyers weld, Reseda luteola, is one of the most potent antioxidative plant metabolites and also has ultraviolet-absorbing properties.The aim of this study was to determine whether tocopherol and ubiquinone add synergistic antioxidative values to luteolin. None of the substances showed cytotoxic effects in concentrations from 0.25 to 4 µg/mL. The photoprotective and antioxidant effect of equivalent concentrations of luteolin, tocopherol, and ubiquinone and their combination in a ratio of 4 : 4 : 1 were studied in solar simulator irradiated human skin fibroblasts. Luteolin had a half-maximal radical scavenging concentration of 2 µg/mL, whereas tocopherol and ubiquinone were only effective at higher concentrations. None of the substances showed a phototoxic effect, and only luteolin had a moderate photoprotective effect at 2 µg/mL. The combination of luteolin, tocopherol, and ubiquinone exerted a synergistic radical scavenging effect already at a concentration of 0.25 µg/mL and a complete photoprotection at 2 µg/mL.In summary, our findings suggest that the potent antioxidant and photoprotective effect of flavonoids like luteolin may be further increased by the addition of low concentrations of other antioxidants such as tocopherol and ubiquinone. –PMID: 23839819 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Using things like hawthorn-rosemary or sage which has a good source of Luteolin by fusing this in oil and then add Cq 10 and vitamin E ( fuse in either almond oil or olive oil which has vitamin E in them naturally) and use –the ratio is 4:4:1 4 parts luteolin-4 parts vitamin E and 1 part cq 10
100ml would be 4 ml of luteolin- 4 mil Vitamin E 1 mil of Cq 1o
*************************************************************************
Noah’s Ark
Everything I need to know, I learned from Noah’s Ark .
ONE: Don’t miss the boat.
TWO: Remember that we are all in the same boat!
THREE: Plan ahead. It wasn’t raining when Noah built the Ark.
FOUR: Stay fit. When you’re 60 years old, someone may ask you to do something really big.
FIVE: Don’t listen to critics; just get on with the job that needs to be done.
SIX: Build your future on high ground.
SEVEN: For safety’s sake, travel in pairs.
EIGHT: Speed isn’t always an advantage. The snails were on board with the cheetahs.
NINE: When you’re stressed, float awhile.
TEN: Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
ELEVEN: No matter the storm, when you are with God, there’s always a rainbow waiting.
****************************************************************************
Monsanto “Goes Organic” and Wins “Sustainability Award”
Posted By ANH-USA On February 18, 2014 @ 3:00 pm In Real, Not Phony Food Safety, Say No to GMO |
This isn’t a spoof. In addition to this story, we’ll provide you with a round-up of GMO-related news, including why your neighbor may shortly be planting GMO grass right next to you. Action Alerts! –We won’t spend time in this article reiterating past research on why genetically modified organisms [1] (GMOs) are dangerous—you probably already know that they can randomly produce toxic effects [2]; introduce alarming levels of chemicals [3] into our ecosystems and diet; and have been shown to cause [4] serious health problems—but there have been some recent developments in GMO politics, science, and regulation that we want to share with you.
Here are the news items we’ll cover:
Monsanto Wins Award for…“Sustainability”? [5]
GMOs Aren’t Enough—Monsanto Wants to Monopolize Conventional and Organic Crops, Too. Action Alert! [6]
Is Someone Growing Unregulated GMO Grass Right Next to You? Action Alert! [7]
All Eyes on New Global Precedent for GMO Contamination [8]
Industrial Herbicides Are Even More Toxic Than We Thought [9]
Is Industry Persuading Scientists to Quash Chilling Scientific Findings? [10]
Monsanto Wins Award for…“Sustainability”?
When most of us think of sustainability, we think of environmental practices that will allow current and future generations to enjoy nutritious, locally farmed foods, clean water, pure air, and a non-toxic, natural world. As the concept has developed, it’s also become applicable to other realms, including economics and healthcare. For example, ANH-USA advocates for [11] sustainable healthcare—practices that allow you to naturally maintain your health and extend your lifespan.
To the EPA, [12] sustainability “creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony,[F7] that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations.”–Taking these definitions into account, it may surprise you to learn that last month, Monsanto—yes, the same Monsanto whose expensive seeds caused an estimated 125,000 Indian farmers [13] to commit suicide—was recognized [14] as one of 2014’s Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World.[F8]–Monsanto was ranked 37th on overall sustainability, 5th among American companies, and 5th globally in the materials industry by an organization called Corporate Knights [15] (CK), a media and investment advisory company whose flagship magazine has one of the world’s largest circulations and is published quarterly as inserts in the Washington Post and the Globe and Mail (UK).
Ubiquitous as CK is, we find their criteria for “sustainability” [16]—also called their “key performance indicators”—more than a little absurd:
Energy productivity
Carbon productivity
Water productivity
Waste productivity
Innovation capacity
Percent tax paid
CEO to Average Employee Pay
Pension fund status
Safety performance
Employee turnover
Leadership diversity
“Clean capitalism” pay link (rewards “companies that have set up mechanisms to link the remuneration of senior executives with the achievement of clean capitalism goals or targets”)
As one University of Toronto business ethics professor noted, [17] “Only the first four actually have something to do with what most of us mean by ‘sustainability.’ The rest are…not relevant to the question of sustainable use of resources, or to the notion of sustainable economic growth that is compatible with environmental conservation.”–And even the first four have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with profits. After all, the award-givers define “energy productivity” as how much revenue companies can squeeze out of one unit of energy. The health of the environment literally has nothing to do with it.–For the countless natural health practitioners, organic farmers, consumers, and activists who unceasingly fight and sacrifice to “walk the walk” of sustainability, the bastardization of this important term is not a joke. It is offensive.–Perhaps “excellence in sustainability” is CK’s code for “excellence in propaganda.” As we’ve consistently reported, there is nothing sustainable about Monsanto and their GMO seeds. For example, GMOs do not increase crop yields [18]. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists report [19] found that GMO soybeans do not produce increased yields, that GMO corn only marginally increases yields, and that no GMO crop has even been found to have intrinsic yield (meaning, yield in “real life,” and not laboratory, conditions).—We’re not quite sure who CK thinks they’re fooling, or what they get out of this nonsense. A more interesting question is why Monsanto is trying so hard to “greenwash” its image. –Meanwhile the Geneva-based Covalence group placed Monsanto dead last on a list of 581 global companies ranked by their reputation for ethics. For more on this, see chapter 11 of Crony Capitalism in America 2008–12 [20], a book recently published by ANH-USA’s board president, Hunter Lewis.
GMOs Aren’t Enough—Monsanto Wants to Monopolize Conventional and Organic Crops, Too. Action Alert!
Since it purchased the company in 2008 [21], Monsanto has been quietly cultivating its Seminis brand, as well as several other semi-anonymous brands, to breed and sell seeds that aren’t GMO. –To create these seeds, Monsanto and its minions are claiming to use nothing more than traditional crossbreeding [22] (where plants with desirable qualities are laboriously “mated” until they yield progeny with the targeted traits). This process takes quite a bit of “time, land, and patience [23].”–Don’t be fooled: Monsanto isn’t using your grandparents’ crossbreeding. They’re engaging in a highly technical process that appears to takes place in a lab, not a field, and also appears to involve manipulation on the genetic level [24].Worse yet, they don’t seem to want to make foods healthier. For example, Monsanto is attempting to breed fruits and vegetables that taste sweeter than their traditional counterparts [25]. Read: they’re engineering a way to add more sugar than nature intended. The last thing that most people need is more sugar or fructose in their diet.–Is this a blatant attempt to win back the “hearts and minds” of consumers? According to one Monsanto official, “There isn’t a reputation silver bullet, but it helps.”–There is another important question to ask here: If Monsanto truly believes that GMOs are the future, why are they investing in conventional crops?–There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s possible that Monsanto doesn’t have faith in its own product: the company is already facing consumer pressure and emerging long-term health problems associated with GMOs.–For this reason, they could simply be hedging their bets. What if, in the future, the scientific consensus is that GMOs are harmful, or there’s a GMO-sparked environmental disaster, or the government decides to intervene? They may think they have to prepare for the possibility that GMOs may eventually fail. Seminis and its sister subsidies are Monsanto’s “insurance:” if GMOs crash and burn, they have a conventional cash cow to fall back on.[F9]
Is Someone Growing Unregulated GMO Grass Right Next to You? Action Alert!
In July 2011 [27], the USDA—often characterized as a power-hungry agency [28]—gave GMOs a regulatory hall pass. The agency determined that, thanks to a tiny technical loophole [29], they had no oversight over GMO Kentucky bluegrass [30]. This meant that the grass—and any GMOs created via the same GMO technique [31]—could be planted anywhere, at anytime, with zero government oversight.–The public backlash was immediate, though we knew at the time that the true extent of this disastrous decision wouldn’t be felt for years to come. Unfortunately, we were right.–Late last month, Scott’s Miracle-Gro quietly announced [32] that their employees will “test” the Roundup-resistant GMO grass by planting it in their home lawns in Marysville, Ohio. Scott’s hopes to have thousands more consumers planting their GMO grass by 2016—and thanks to the USDA, there’s no framework in place to keep this from happening.
Alarmingly, if your neighbor plants GMO grass, your lawn may become full GMOs, too. Cross-contamination of non-GMO crops is already a reality. Pollen can travel anywhere from the length of three football fields to thousands of miles away [33]. Given this, and the fact there’s little to no space between suburban lawns—it’s completely unrealistic to assume GMO grass will stay where it’s planted.–It will be interesting to see whether GMO lawn grass producers sue you for having their grass when it spreads into your lawn. That is what Monsanto has done for years to innocent neighboring farmers. Since suing each suburban neighborhood is presumably not a workable model, what new one will devised?–The truth is that we are at a now-or-never moment with respect to GMOs in America[F10]. The more these seeds are released into the air, neighboring farms, and now suburban lawns, the harder it will be to stop them–Write to the USDA[F11] immediately and tell the agency to stop protecting the biotech industry at the public’s expense! GMO Kentucky bluegrass shouldn’t be allowed due to a technical loophole—otherwise, GMOs created via the same GMO technique as this grass could be planted anywhere, at anytime, with zero government oversight.
All Eyes on New Global Precedent for GMO Contamination
GMO crops have been known to contaminate organic crops, bringing severe economic damage to small farmers. The problem has gotten so pervasive that the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association has had to publish a seventy-page booklet [35] on how to avoid (and test for) GMO contamination.–For example, one organic corn grower [36] whose crops were contaminated was forced to sell her corn for $1.67 a bushel—far below the $4 market price for organic corn.–All eyes are now on an Australian court case [37], wherein one farmer is suing Monsanto for the GMO contamination of his organic wheat and oat crop. The episode resulted in the farmer losing his organic certification and export license (Australia has a zero tolerance policy for GMO material in organic products)—the keys to his very livelihood.–The outcome of this case could set a global precedent, and seriously affect the regulation of organics to protect the interests of GMO growers and producers (sad to say, it will almost certainly not be vice versa). We’ll continue to watch it very closely.–Meanwhile, a recent Supreme Court ruling confirmed that Monsanto can sue farmers [38] whose crops are contaminated—even if it’s not their fault, because Monsanto has promised to behave better and not take advantage of innocent farmers!
Industrial Herbicides Are Even More Toxic Than We Thought
The uncontrolled GMO grass “experiment” is even more alarming in light of the growing body of evidence that glyphosate [39], a main chemical component in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is a major health threat.–Keep in mind that GMO Kentucky bluegrass, like some brands of [40] Monsanto’s GMO corn, cotton, and soy seeds, is engineered to be Roundup-resistant. This means that growers can apply as much Roundup as they’d like to kill the weeds they don’t want, while leaving their plants intact. The GMO seed and the herbicide enter the environment together.–Also remember that many weeds are now learning [41] to be Roundup-resistant. To compensate, growers are forced to spray more and more Roundup [42]—which that means more glyphosate in our foods, ecosystems, and bodies, or use even more dangerous chemicals.–Despite assurances by Monsanto and the EPA [43], glyphosate is a hazard to humans, animals, plants, and organic and conventional agriculture. New research published in the International Journal of Toxicology [45] found that commercial glyphosate-based herbicides—at levels far below the normal agricultural applications—are extremely toxic to human many cells, and are lethal to human liver cells.–This research confirms Dr. Charles Benbrook’s [46] and ANH-USA’s investigation into the environmental, economic, and human health effects of glyphosate. Our research found, for example, that glyphosate is toxic to fish and essentially all plant life (if you haven’t read this comprehensive case study, you can download the PDF here [1]).-We should be focusing on reducing our addiction to chemical farming, not coming up with new ways to expose ourselves to more and more toxins. We have the opportunity to solve this problem before the disastrous health effects become widespread and irreversible. Future generations will not get the same chance.
Is Industry Persuading Scientists to Quash Chilling Scientific Findings?
Another recent study [47], authored by French researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini and published in BioMed Research International, confirms the International Journal of Toxicity study. It too found that herbicides and pesticides—notably those that are glyphosate-based—are far more toxic than industry and the EPA would lead you to believe. Séralini found that formulations like Roundup were “several times more toxic” than their main ingredient alone (i.e., glyphosate), and that “Roundup was by far the most toxic” of the chemical formulations tested.–Just hours after the study’s publication, Dr. Ralf Reski, a BioMed editor, immediately resigned [48], stating, “I do not want to be connected to a journal that provides [Séralini] a forum for such kind of agitation.”–We wonder: is Dr. Reski really concerned about scientific sensationalism? According to his own résumé [49], his “independent” research is 53% funded by industry. Did Dr. Reski proactively protect his source of funding? Did industry threaten him?–In September 2012, Séralini published a study [50] suggesting that a long-term diet of GMO corn can cause health problems—including breast cancer and severe organ damagein animals. After a year of artificial controversy, the paper was retracted [51], much to the dismay and protest [52] of a significant part of the scientific community.—Séralini’s peers felt the retraction was made on invalid grounds [53]. It was withdrawn for being poorly designed, despite the fact that it followed almost exactly the same protocol [54] of a trial conducted by Monsanto and published in the same journal. Moreover, they saw in the retraction evidence of undue industry influence on the scientific community: a few months before the study was retracted, a former Monsanto scientist was appointed to the journal in a newly created editorial position [55].–To be published in journals like BioMed, studies go through a thorough editor and peer-review process. BioMed requires [56] an initial review by the editorial office; approval from an editor knowledgeable about the subject in question; and a peer review by between two and five outside evaluators. That’s three layers of intense scrutiny before a study can even be published.–It now seems that Séralini, despite of the integrity of his work, has been blacklisted—a clear warning to other objective, independent researchers.
TOP A
************************************************************************
TOP B
HOME
Show of the Month March 15 2o14
BEEF JUICE
Beetroot and Hawthorn May Improve Heart Health
1939 Cancer Act-of the UK
Oleuropein boosts testosterone level, lowers cortisol secretion, stimulates anabolism
**************************************************************************
BEEF JUICE
The body derives several benefits from regular use of beef juice. It apparently could bring about a strengthening of the body without irritating the cells in the intestinal tract which might bring about a change in the nature of the lymph and the lymphatic functioning that might in turn disturb the body, causing sleeplessness and general irritation. The following readings are commentaries on it plus descriptions of how to prepare it. — “The combinations that have been indicated for the body as to diet are very good; yet we would add the greater strengthening influence without the addition of weight or of heavy foods – which would materially aid, and would not irritate those tendencies for the accumulations or separations in the active forces of mucus that has produced and does produce in the lymph those segregations and accumulations about which the body becomes so disturbed at times. These as we find may be had in the Pure Beef Juice; not broth, but prepared in this manner:
Take a pound to a pound and a half preferably of the round steak. No fat, no portions other than that which is of the muscle or tendon or strength; no fatty or skin portions. Dice this into half inch cubes, as it were, or practically so. Put same in a glass jar without water in same. Put the jar then into a boiler or container with the water coming about half or three-fourths toward the top of the jar, you see. Preferably put a cloth in the container to prevent the jar from cracking. Do not seal the jar tight, but cover the top. Let this boil (the water, with the jar in same) for three to four hours. Then strain off the juice, and the refuse may be pressed somewhat. It will be found that the meat or flesh itself will be worthless. Place the juice in a cool place, but do not keep too long; never longer than three days, see? Hence the quantity made up at the time depends upon how much or how often the body will take this. It should be taken two to three times a day, but not more than a tablespoonful at the time – and this sipped very slowly. Of course, this is to be seasoned to suit the taste of the body.
“Also once a day it will be most beneficial to take beef juice as a tonic; not so much the beef itself but beef juice; followed with red wine. Do not mix these, but take both about the same time. Take about a teaspoonful of the beef juice, but spend about five minutes in sipping that much. Then take an ounce of the red wine
“Q-5. What quantity of beef juice to be taken daily?
A-5. At least two tablespoonsful, but no fat in same. A tablespoonful is almost equal to a pound of meat or two pounds of meat a day; and that’s right smart for a man that isn’t active!” (1424-2)
“Beef juice should be taken regularly as medicine, a teaspoonful four times a day at least, but when taken it should be sipped, not just taken as a gulp.” (5374-1)
“As we find, we would use small quantities at a time – but take almost as medicine – of the beef juices … This is easily assimilated, gives strength and vitality, and is needed with the vital forces of the body in the present. Take at least a tablespoonful during the day, or two tablespoonsful. But not as spoonsful; rather sips of same. This, sipped in this manner, will work towards producing the gastric flow through the intestinal system, first in the salivary reactions to the very nature of the properties themselves, second with the gastric flow from the upper portion of the stomach or through the cardiac reaction at the end of the esophagus that produces the first of the lacteals’ reaction to the gastric flows in the stomach or digestive forces themselves; thirdly making for an activity through the pylorus and the duodenum that becomes stimulating to the activity of the flows without producing the tendencies for accumulation of gases.”
**************************************************************************
IV. Nitrogenous Foods. Meat Teas, Meat Extracts, Meat Juices, Peptones And Peptonoids, And Dried Meat Powders
(l) Foods prepared from meat are sold under the name of meat teas, meat extracts, meat juices, peptones and peptonoids, and dried meat powders. Some are supposed to have marvellous nutritive value because of the evaporation of a watery extract of the meat, or of the juice expressed from meat, into a fluid which is stated to contain the nutritive elements of the original muscle fibre in a concentrated form. Others base their claims on the predigestion of the protein before concentration. It is not invariably true that these preparations are made from meat. The absence of creatinin, in some specimens, suggests that these particular ones are purely artificial products.—Analyses of various meats show that the average percentage of protein is about 20 and that it is, therefore, impossible to concentrate meat down to less than a fifth of its bulk, if the total nutritive value of the protein is to be retained. Reference to the tables of analyses of these nitrogenous foods shows that in few instances does the percentage of protein equal that of the original meat from which the food is made, while in many it is very considerably less, even if undiluted. In those cases in which the percentage of protein is high, the food is usually given diluted with a large quantity of water. –The high percentage of extractives in many of these preparations proves that they are fluid extracts of meat. These extractives are of no nutritive value, throw an extra strain on the liver and kidneys, and are probably actively injurious. The high proportion of salts and extractives leads to thirst and diarrhoea, if these foods are given in large quantities.[F12] -A. In the ordinary process of making beef tea and clear soups the product is strained and the protein, coagulated by heat, which forms the nutritious sediment, deprived of its stimulating taste, is usually thrown away. A weak gelatinous fluid is left which is converted into a firm jelly on cooling, if the gelatin amounts to one per cent. Beef tea is often made in institutions from some one or other of the various meat extracts, instead of from fresh meat, so it is worth while to consider the nutritive value and the expense of these different preparations.
Approximate Composition Of Beef Tea Preparations
Water. Proteins. Extractives. Mineral Ash.
Mason’s – strong beef tea . 8902 686 2.47 1.65
Bovril Co. – Vril, albuminous beef tea…………… 84.00 1017 417 1.66
Brand’s – fibrous beef tea . 83.21 11.40 452 086
According to the Lancet analysis Mason’s beef tea contains meat fibre 3.74 per cent, soluble albuminoids and extractives 10.58, mineral salts 2.37.
A comparison of the above preparations with beef tea, as ordinarily made, is distinctly to their advantage. Home made beef tea contains about 1.5 per cent of protein and, if made by the boiling process, may contain considerably less. An analysis of a sample of that made at St. Thomas’s Hospital yielded the following results (The Hospital, June 11, 1904) : –
Water . . . . ….. 96030
Fat………. 0199
Insoluble protein and meat fibre . . . . 0.208
Soluble proteins and gelatin . . . . . 1.342
Meat bases …….. 0.608
Non-nitrogenous extractive matters …. 0.843
Mineral matters ……. 0.770
The total dry solids amounted to 3.97 per cent and of that 1.55 per cent only, inclusive of gelatin, was of value as food.
The price of beef tea made from various foods is given in the following table (The Hospital, June 1, 1907): –
Name of Food. Price. Amount Required. Cost per Pint.
Lemco …. 5s. 6d. per lb. 1 lb. for 60 pints Id. and a fraction
Ramornie1 . 5s. „ 1 oz. „ 3 „ Ditto
Oxo….. 3s. 9d. l 1b. „ 22 „ 2d.
Nursing Oxo2 . 4s. „ l 1b. „ 22 „ 2 1/5d.
Invalid Bovril . 4s. 6d. 3 oz. „ 4 „ 2 1/4d.
Mason’s beef tea – – 3 1/2 d.
Brand’s beef tea 10d. 31b. „ 7 „ 4 1/4d.
Oxvil …. – – 5d.
Foreign meat . 2d. – 3d. ,, – l 1/2 – 2d.
These results are based on institutional prices. The price per pint is not an absolute criterion of the value, unless we regard these preparations as of such little use for nutritive purposes that the actual percentages of protein can be neglected. Probably this is true, for the amount of protein which can be taken in this form is really remarkably small.
These foods may be restorative and stimulant, but they are certainly only feebly nutritive and are an expensive form of diet. The use of beef tea and meat extracts depends on the fact that in digestive disorders and in fevers, in which digestion is impaired, the appetite is bad, and the tongue furred, the patient dislikes food, but can take a hot, clean, non-cloying fluid which by virtue of the heat has some stimulating and nutritive properties [F13]. These preparations have a great influence on the minds of the patient and friends, who are apt to dread abstinence from food as a source of extreme danger and have an abounding faith in the nutritive value of beef teas, jellies and meat extracts. As a food milk is infinitely superior. There is one advantage in these foods which must not be overlooked. They encourage appetite and the secretion of gastric juice. A few tablespoonfuls of clear soup or of a diluted meat extract, taken at the beginning of dinner or just beforehand, will improve both appetite and digestion. A large amount may be harmful by unduly diluting the gastric juice. They may be regarded as concentrated flavouring substances of meat the nutritive matters being extracted. Liebig’s Extract was the first and remains the most typical of these meat extracts. As originally made it is practically free from protein and fat. It is a concentrated watery extract of meat, heated under pressure, filtered and evaporated.
1 Liebig’s Extract of Meat as prepared by the Australian Meat Co.
2 Peptonized.