Is grafting people as easy as grafting the food that they eat? When did you volunteer for that?
Grafting Food is Grafting People New studies in cell research are bringing up some alarming new questions concerning GMOs, and one of them in particular makes liver failure or cancer seem like child’s play compared to the garish possibilities that arise when we start to look at how genetically modified foods likely affect our DNA.
Let’s get one thing straight, first. All kinds of things can alter our DNA, for the better or worse. Bruce Lipton, a pioneering biology scientist, proved that emotions can change our DNA; research has shown that even exercise or chemotherapy can alter our DNA; ancient cultures have known that sound can affect our DNA; and the newest research states that we aren’t relegated to a specific destiny because of our genes, but it seems our brains are being rewired via DNA to become ‘new humans.’
Our DNA contains two strands of nucleotides that make up its stair-like structure. Each nucleotide contains one of four bases (adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine) a phosphate group and a sugar molecule. The bases contain nitrogen, which bond in very specific ways. In one species the way the four bases connect to each other are very different than how they will organize in another.
In fact, double stranded RNA (dRNA) GMO created by Monsanto can allegedly turn off certain gene signals and turn on others. Usually, if you put in a Roundup ready gene into a plant, it requires a protein that can make a Roundup ready plant that can resist Roundup and still grow. However, the new dRNA can survive without protein synthesis. This allows the dRNA to alter genes.
In mice who were fed this dRNA, the liver completely changed its cell organization, and the mice grew strangely. The same effects were found when these dRNA were added to human cells. Allegedly, this GMO food can be turning on cancer causing genes, or quiet our immune systems. In other ways, the GMO wheat we are consuming is so different than organic wheat that it is causing us to be addicted to it. Some are calling it bioterrorism for this reason. GMO food plants make these new dRNA so that the gene structure is silenced or amplified in very specific ways. There are no evaluations of dRNA and how it will affect our genes by the FDA, and Monsanto is working on dRNA technology, buying up companies that are developing it so that it can be issued as the next round of GMO food they unleash unwittingly on us.
Researchers in Australia and New Zealand are exposing this issue. Even inhalation of the GMO company’s sprays can change the way our bodies produce DNA and associated proteins. Most frightening is the fact that this dRNA can translate through the offspring of the people exposed to it. In Canada, new research is showing that pregnant women’s blood samples contained traces of toxins found in GMO foods. Who knows what the long term ramifications are of messing with our very genetic structure, but they can’t be promising considering the track record of Monsanto thus far.
“The finding that GE toxins and also herbicide residues are being absorbed into consumers and unborn babies blood, shows that organic and GE-free foods should be first choice for families and especially pregnant women,” said Soil & Health – Organic spokesperson Steffan Browning.
There are plans to introduce this dRNA in food, medicines, vaccines, and ‘pesticide’ sprays. Unless you want to play a game of wait and see with your own genetic evolution, it might be time to go all organic until more research is leaked on the subject of GMO and DNA alteration.
The one who takes responsibility gets the control. If people take responsibility over their own food then they get to control it. If they allow others to be responsibile, then they have the control.
It's that simple.
Who Gets to Control the Food?
(Mark Dunlea) The agriculture section of the Ecology Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the latest Free Trade Agreement (FTA) assault against food sovereignty, where the profits of multinational companies are placed ahead of the food security needs of individual nations.
The TPP seeks to revive the stalled expansion of the World Trade Organization
The TPP is a trade agreement under secret negotiation by by Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Japan will join at the next meeting).
Access to food is a basic human right. Instead, TPP expands the notion that food is just another commodity subject to economic speculation and exploitation solely to increase the profits of multinational corporations. TPP promotes export-oriented food production, its passage will increase global hunger and malnutrition, alienate millions from their productive assets and resources; land, water, fish, seeds, technology and generations of cultural knowledge.
In order to guarantee the independence and food sovereignty of all of the world’s peoples, it is essential that food is produced though diversified, community based production systems. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to control their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping of agricultural products in their markets, and; to guarantee local fisheries-based communities the right to manage their aquatic resources.
A TPP trade agreement will impact all levels of the food system, from the growers, to the markets distributing the food; from the quality of the food available to consumers, to the ability of governments to protect and be held accountable to their people. The TPP is designed to help agribusiness get bigger and more powerful in their drive to consolidate ownership of the food system — from seed to shelf. The TPP will speed up the global race to the bottom in terms of farm prices, workers’ wages, environmental standards and human rights.
Farmers have been excluded from the negotiations over TPP. Access to meetings and materials are limited to officials and corporate stakeholders. U.S agricultural representatives are predominantly Big-Ag supporters, including Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, and Walmart. Free Trade cannot be Fair trade when the people are excluded.
TPP will empower agribusiness to sue countries for trying to limit the kinds of food they import. Domestic food safety standards can also be challenged / weakened as barriers to trade. The TPP will increase risks to food safety in the U.S, as similar “equivalence rules” in prior agreements have forced the U.S. to, for example, permit the import of sub-standard meat product.
Public Citizen, a non-governmental organization, points out that there are over $13 billion in pending corporate “investor-state” trade pact attacks on domestic environmental, public health and transportation policy. Mere threats of such cases have repeatedly resulted in countries dropping important public interest protections, exposing their populations to harm that could have been avoided. The use of international tribunals to overturn regulations has increased dramatically in the past decade. Tobacco firms are using the regime to challenge tobacco control policies.
Yet while TPP countries have agreed to provide foreign investors an array of extraordinary new privileges, the TPP countries have not required investors to agreed to health, labor or environmental obligations.
Like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which displaced millions of Mexican corn farmers, the TPP is expected to flood markets with cheap products, increasing pressures on small farmers to grow cash crops, rather than traditional food crops. And, like NAFTA, TPP will force small farmers off the land forcing them to migrate to cities, and cross borders hoping to survive. FTAs have undercut the right of local producers to receive a fair, locally determined price for their products by forcing farmers to compete in the global food market.
As a result of FTAs, agricultural production has increased the use of fossil fuels for production and transportation, thereby increasing pollution; increased the use of chemical inputs; expanded the health and environmental risks associated with genetically modified material; and reduced biodiversity by favoring mono-cropping.
Many environmental, farm and fair trade groups are concerned about the negative impact the TPP could have on where and how dairy products are produced and processed. The U.S. dairy industry generates $140 billion in economic activity and employs an estimated 900,000 workers, while providing nourishment to millions more. The nation cannot afford to compete with dairy imports produced under unfair conditions.
Rather than adopt the TPP, governments must uphold the rights of all peoples to food sovereignty and security, and adopt and implement policies that promote sustainable, family-based production rather than industry- led, high- input export oriented production.
The Green Shadow Cabinet supports agroecological trade policies that:
Ensure adequate remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers;
Exercise the rights to protect domestic markets from imports at low prices;
Abolish all direct and indirect export supports;
End domestic production subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture, inequitable land tenure patterns and destructive fishing practices;
Protect fish resources from both land -based and sea-based threats, such as pollution from dumping, coastal and off-shore mining, degradation of river mouths and estuaries and harmful industrial aquaculture practices that use antibiotics and hormones;
Establish national and local mechanisms for quality control of all food products so that they comply with high environmental, social and health quality standards;
Recognize and enforce communities’ legal and customary rights to make decisions concerning their local, traditional resources;
Ensure equitable access to land, seeds, water, credit and other productive resources;
Prohibit all forms of patenting of life or any of its components, and the appropriation of knowledge associated with food and agriculture through intellectual property rights regimes and
Protect farmers’, indigenous peoples’ and local community rights over plant genetic resources and associated knowledge — including farmers’ rights to exchange and save seeds.
Ban the production of, and trade in genetically modified (GM) seeds, foods, animal feeds and related products;
Encourage and promote traditional agriculture and organic farming, based on indigenous knowledge and sustainable agriculture practices.
~ Jim Goodman serves as Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Dunlea as Director of the White House Office of Climate and Agriculture, and Brian Tokar as Director of the Office of Technology Assessment in the Ecology Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet. This statement is one of over a dozen issued in support of the Green Shadow
- See more at: http://govtslaves.info/tpp-secret-negotiations-underway-to-control-the-worlds-food-supply/#sthash.mKSwXimt.dpuf
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Thomas R. Hampson
Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Lewis and several military female victims testified to harrowing sexual abuse at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, March 13, 2013. Lewis stated he “was raped by a senior petty officer … told by a commander not to report it, and later was diagnosed with a personality disorder and discharged.”
Lewis says, “As I demonstrated, men are a majority of the victims in the military. DoD’s infamous ‘Ask her when she’s sober’ marginalizes male survivors and sends a message that men cannot be raped and therefore are not real survivors.”
Why is the best-kept military secret that most soldierly sexual assaults are now definitively homo, not heterosexual, male-on-male sexual exploitation?
The corporate dictionary definition of “sexual assault” is “to knowingly cause another person to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat; ‘most states have replaced the common law definition of rape with statutes defining sexual assault.’” [Dictionary.com, WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University]
While men are statistically more loathe to report their sexual victimization than are women, 10,700 male soldiers, sailors and airmen in 2010 actually reported their sexual assaults. What this means is not totally clear, since men are cannot technically be raped, despite the term being regularly used in the recent hearings on the matter.
The Washington Times reported “The Defense Department estimates 19,000 sexual assaults occur each year, but only 17 percent are ever reported. In 2010 … 8,600 victims [who reported were female, an incredible 4 percent of the women in the military that year], and 10,700 victims were male, reported the Service Woman’s Action Network.”
The rape rate of our dedicated servicewomen is documented as unparalleled in our nation’s history and demands candid politically incorrect discussion. This column, however, focuses on the male-on-male sexual assault Mr. Lewis called rape; more accurately defined as forcible sodomy, that is “oral or anal copulation.”
Most likely, the definition of rape was expanded in the hearings to include the use of objects and unwanted masturbation, or other sexual invasion. Whatever definition of homosexual sexual assault is used, the numbers are shocking.
With 1,219,510 men serving in 2010, if only 17 percent of all male “rape” victims reported, does this mean, based on the aforementioned figure of 10,700 victims, that 62,941 military men were sexually assaulted by other men that year?
Does this mean “only” 5.16 percent of our bravest and best male servicemen were sexually violated by other lust-dominance-driven servicemen in 2010? Did some kind of sick form of hazing play a role?
Were these damning data widely known and debated in the public forum, the legislatures and the courts before the ban on homosexuality was lifted in 2011?
If not, why not? Precisely when did this traumatic rate of military sodomite abuse begin? Did it begin increasing when the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was implemented?
Does it coincide with the appearance of hazing by sodomy in high schools across the country in the last 10 years or so? Is the Boy Scouts board aware of the military homosexual abuser data as they debate their gay Scout ban?
Indeed, whether or not such outrageous male sexual assault estimates are 10,700 or 62,941, these crimes would be traumatizing to their victims and their colleagues, and could be a significant cause for the massive increase in military suicides – and revengeful violence.
A Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP) report notes that, “Historically the suicide rates have been lower in the military than those rates found in the general population.”
However, the hard data confirm “rape victims are prone to suicide,” although continued deployment would logically exacerbate such depression and despair.
Yet, despite the high rates of male and female rape and forcible sodomy, the CDP report dodges the prominent role of both sexual abuse and pornography – that is, how-to sex abuse manuals and videos – in fueling the lust and contempt that spawns both offender sexual abuse and victim suicidal ideation.
True, “The military is 85 percent men and 15 percent women.” Still, according to the Naval Personnel Command (2012 Sexual Assault Awareness Month Training Guide), “about 56 percent of estimated sexual assaults in our military are men, and 44 percent are women.”
The politically correct Naval report ignores the Big Porn Elephant in the room as normalizing the rapes of women and the homosexist assaults on fellow servicemen.
While “heterosexual” pornography has commonly been used to arouse and then seduce “straights” into homosexual sex, “gay” pornography is widely available in mainstream homosexist publications like The Advocate Classified.
And, buff, “straight” military men are regularly depicted there as preferred, sexual targets.
Begun in 1976, The Advocate, our oldest and largest homosexist publication, always carried pornographic ads and films, but in 1992 shifted these to a separate Advocate Classifieds and later to the Internet.
Last year Air Force officers searched “troops’ desks and cubicles in search of photos, calendars, magazines, screen-savers, computer files and other items that might be considered degrading toward women.”
There was no mention of confiscating pornographic items degrading toward men.
The cleanup is a long time a comin’. In 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld The Military Honor & Decency Act partly due to “the special circumstances of the military environment, in which the appearance of professionalism and proper conduct is critical.”
On July 1, Frank Rush, acting assistant secretary of defense for force management, signed DoD Instruction 4105.70, banning “Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property.”
“We need a cultural change where every service member is treated with dignity and respect,” said Secretary Hagel, announcing new initiatives to prevent sexual assault.
“Hagel also unveiled the Defense Department’s annual report on sexual assault, which estimates that about 26,000 troops experienced some form of “unwanted sexual contact” during the past year. That’s roughly one in every 50 troops in the active-duty force.
But, if 10,700 men and 8,600 women reported the euphemized “unwanted sexual contact” – and if only 17 percent of victims report, how does this reduce to 26,000 military victims?
The official reports seem contradictory.
Secretary Hagel wants to eliminate pornography to “really drive the cultural change.” Of course, we can have no honorable or trustworthy military until all vestiges of pornography – from cartoons to Internet adverts, videos, films, calendars and phones, and the rapists and sodomites it trains and justifies – are excised from military service, from the Pentagon elites to the privates under them.
Now, does this mean the elite 5,200 child pornography users at the Pentagon will finally be arrested and tried? For, indeed there are “charms By which the property of youth and maidhood May be abused.”
Thomas R. Hampson, a licensed Illinois private investigator, is founder of the Truth Alliance Foundation.
Posts
In fact, double stranded RNA (dRNA) GMO created by Monsanto can allegedly turn off certain gene signals and turn on others. Usually, if you put in a Roundup ready gene into a plant, it requires a protein that can make a Roundup ready plant that can resist Roundup and still grow. However, the new dRNA can survive without protein synthesis. This allows the dRNA to alter genes. 
