Show of the Month April 2011

TOP B

HOME

Show of the Week April 8 2011

The Patriots of Canada demand that the above bill is struck down by parliament

GM crops may be linked to a dangerous new pathogen

The Food Rights Firestorm Spreads

Making a Vitamin

Monsanto Being Sued By Organic Farmers

****************************************************************

The Patriots of Canada demand that the above bill is struck down by parliament.

We have the right to eat what ever food we wish. So a herb is called a remedy and now you wish to take pharmaceutical dick up your GI and make this herb illegal? This is not the will of the people.--Let look at what the pharmaceutical industry has done for us, shall we. (partial list only; 'now I am praying for the end of time!')

1. Made and distributed HIV by vaccination like but not limited to: Hepatitis B, polio and small pox
2. Made DNA chain scission chemicals like but not limited to AZT. These chemicals are called so called pharmaceutical cures to the disease AIDS, primary infection thereof is always by vaccination; but these chain scission chemicals kill the patient. See the Concord Study.
3. Make and distribute by vaccination female pregnancy hormones, shrinking our son's testicles. World wide sperm count is less than half what it was for my generation.
4. Make and produce toxins put into our vaccinations, thereby causing a huge increase in cancer rates and deaths. Cancer cells are immortal and the inbred monkeys are trying to unlock the keys to eternal life by using Canadians as guinea pigs.
5. Monsanto owned by the Vatican, makes genetically modifies seed that has genes producing pesticides. These genes jump over into our gut DNA when ingested and mutate our DNA, which then starts producing pesticides. This is the disease that causes the symptoms called cancer: toxic injury, the oxygen respiration to our cells drops and then the communication between our cells is screwed up; allowing the T-bacilli to get out of control (our immune system no longer controls the T-bacilli). T-bacilli is the progenitor for all cancers in all humans and mammals.
When T-bacilli is out of control it screws up the pancreas production of enzymes like protease, then our bodies stop being able to metabolize proteins. Note they give AIDS victims protease inhibitors and this causes cancer. The HIV genetically engineered microbe is 50% bovine leukemia RNA and 50% sheep visna RNA and it only attacks the protease sites on T-cells. 50% of Jews and 40% of Anglo Saxons do not have protease sites on their T-cells and therefore this man made microbe is ethnically selective.
5b. Monsanto received a patent in 2009 for aluminum resistant seed and now we find the military and commercial airlines (sold their soul for cheap fuel) spraying aluminum, barium, mould and bacilli in the sky, raining poisons down on our heads and our land. See chem trails on U-tube.
6. The pharmaceutical industry made the SARS microbe which only kills Asians and part Asians. The 50 victims in Toronto where all Asian or part Asian.
7. Mesothelioma blamed on the asbestos industry is really the fault if the pharmaceutical industry. this lung cancer cause is a co-factor (AIDS is caused by a co-factor as well) as the Simeon 40 virus used as a carrier of our vaccinations is the co factor along with asbestos. If one never took a vaccination, one could eat asbestos and never get Mesothelioma.

CWhat has the herbal remedy industry done for us? Cured disease, including cancers (cured the disease that causes the symptoms called cancer). Ayurveda (Indian herbal medicine) and TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) have 5000 years of scientific positivism (scientific inductive knowledge: the unbiased interpretation of empirical evidence) proving the efficacy of these remedies. The pharmaceutical industry cannot compete, so they twist and corrupt the political process using phenomenological knowledge (urban myths here not cognitive reasoning) to get bills like Bill C-51 pasted. This is treason, as it is eugenics against Canadians.

*********************************************************************

GM crops may be linked to a dangerous new pathogen

In February, FARFA published a letter from Dr. Don Huber, one of the nation’s senior scientists, in which Dr. Huber warned the USDA about a newly discovered organism that has the potential to cause infertility and spontaneous abortion in farm animals, raising significant concerns about human health. Dr. Don Huber believes the prevalence of the unnamed organism may be related to the nation’s over reliance on the weed killer known as Roundup and/or to something about the genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready crops.

Dr. Huber recently wrote a letter to several European officials with more details about the issues, accompanying a copy of his original letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack. Below is the text of the cover letter.

You can find the full letter, along with the references cited and pictures of the crop disease spread, at:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/Huber-European-letter

March 25, 2011

Commissioner John Dalli
Commissioner fo Health and Consumer Policy
European Commission
B – 1049 Brussels
Belgium

Dear Commissioner Dalli:

This cover letter is provided to explain the reasoning and concerns that were conveyed in a letter which I sent to Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack on January 17, 2011 (Attachment 1). The letter was not intended for public distribution; however, the letter was ‘leaked’ and subsequently posted on the internet from which it soon became public knowledge world-wide. Once it was widely distributed, I gave permission for subsequent postings in order to keep it consistent. My busy meeting and travel schedule has delayed getting further information on this matter out publicly to the many individuals who have requested it. The scientific data on this newly recognized organism is being prepared for formal publication.

I wrote the letter to Secretary Vilsack for a very simple reason: we are experiencing a large number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically engineered (GMO) crops, and/or the products they were engineered to tolerate – especially those related to glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup® herbicide and generic versions of this herbicide). We have witnessed a deterioration in the plant health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops recently with unexplained epidemics of sudden death syndrome of soybean (SDS), Goss’ wilt of corn, and take-all of small grain crops the last two years. At the same time, there has been an increasing frequency of previously unexplained animal (cattle, pig, horse, poultry) infertility and spontaneous abortions. These situations are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.---Incidence of high infertility and spontaneous abortions in the various animal species is becoming more common. Often, all previously known causes of these conditions can be ruled out as factors for these particular farm operations (Attachment 2). Detailed examination for the newly recognized organism has shown its presence in all of the cases examined to date. Koch’s postulates have been completed for animals to verify the cause/effect relationship with this newly culturable organism. A search for the source of animal infections revealed a high population of this newly discovered electron microscopic sized organism in soybean meal and corn products. The organism appears compatible, and probably synergistic, with other microorganisms such as Fusarium solani fsp. glycines, the cause of SDS of soybeans and also with gram positive bacteria.[U1] The organism also is in a very high population in Goss’ wilt infected corn caused by the gram positive bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis.

Although most corn hybrids have been genetically resistant to Goss’ wilt, preliminary research in 2010 demonstrated that the application of glyphosate herbicide, or the surfactant from glyphosate formulations, nullified this resistance and rendered them fully susceptible to this pathogen (Fig. 1). This disease was commonly observed in many Midwestern U.S. fields planted to RR corn in 2009 and 2010, while adjacent non-GMO corn had very light to no infections in spite of the high inoculum present in no-till crop residues (Figure 2). The increased Goss’ wilt in 2010 was a major contributor to the estimated almost one billion bushels of corn ‘lost’ last year (based on USDA August estimated yields and actually harvested crop reported by USDA in January) in spite of generally good harvest conditions.--Increased severity of plant diseases after glyphosate is applied (Fig. 3) is well documented and, although rarely cited, the increased disease susceptibility is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate (Johal andRahe,1988, 1990; Johal and Huber, 2009; Schafer et al, 2009, 2010). The loss of disease resistance in Roundup Ready® sugar beets when glyphosate was applied prompted researchers at the USDA sugar beet laboratory to include a precautionary statement in their paper, e.g. “Precautions need to be taken when certain soil-borne diseases are present if weed management for sugar beet is to include post-emergence glyphosate treatments” (Larson et al, 2006).---The loss of genetic resistance in Roundup Ready® corn hybrids to Goss’ wilt (Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis) (Fig. 1), synergistic relationship of the newly recognized electron microscopic organism causing infertility and abortions in animals with gram+ bacteria, and high populations of the new EM organism in RR corn leaves and silage creates a concern for the deregulation of Roundup Ready® alfalfa which is productive in many areas only because of its genetic resistance to bacterial wilt caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. insidiosum. This disease could make alfalfa unprofitable for production and, if the EM organism is associated with it in alfalfa as it is in corn, also unsafe for animal feed and their products such as milk for human consumption. The loss of alfalfa, the United State’s most valuable forage crop and fourth most economically important crop, could strike a mortal blow to struggling dairy and beef operations.---Extensive research has shown that this potent tool for weed management, glyphosate, is also a strong immobilizer (chelator) of essential plant nutrients to impair nutrient uptake, translocation, and physiological efficiency at only a fraction of the labeled herbicidal rate (Ekers, Ozturk, Cakmak, Zobiole, Jolly et al., 2004). Glyphosate is a powerful biocide to harm beneficial soil organisms important for nutrient recycling, N-fixation, nutrient availability, and natural disease control (Kremer & Means, 2009; Zobiole et al, 2009, 2010) with a resultant increase in diseases of corn (Fig. 2), soybeans (Fig. 3), wheat and other crops. The close relationship between mineral nutrition and disease severity is well documented (Datnoff et al, 2007). These activities can have deleterious effects on plant nutrition, disease susceptibility, and nutritional quality of the crop produced. Deleterious effects of GM crops also are vividly demonstrated in reports from livestock producers in the U.S. Although some of these reports are anecdotal because of limited analytical techniques to verify the cause, some producers have been able to resume economical operations by changing feed sources to non-GMO crops. Replicated independent research is needed in this area, especially in light of the serious toxicological concerns raised recently that show potential human and animal toxicity from very low levels of residual glyphosate in food/feed that are many times lower than permitted in U.S. food and feed products (Seralini et al., 2011). The recent Indian Supreme Court’s independent analysis and Ruling that GMO egg plant posed a significant health risk to humans needs further evaluation in the U.S. (AgroNews, 2011).---I feel I would be totally irresponsible to ignore my own research and the vast amount of published research now available that support the concerns we are seeing in production agriculture, without bringing it to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture with a request for him to initiate the much needed independent research. Many producers can’t wait an additional 3-10 years for someone to find the funds and neutral environment to conduct such critical research (Attachment 2. Entomologist’s letter to EPA).

Based on the scientific evidence currently accumulating, I do not believe it is in the best interests of the agricultural producer or consuming public for regulatory agencies to approve more GMO crops, particularly Roundup Ready® alfalfa and sugar beets, until independent research can establish their productivity when predisposed to potentially severe diseases, the irrelevance of the new EM organism, and their nutritional equivalency. In my letter, I asked the Secretary to allocate the necessary resources to do this, and requested that he exercise the utmost caution in deregulating these crops until such findings resolve the concerns expressed in the letter, if they do.

Don M. Huber
Professor Emeritus, Purdue University

TAKE ACTION

Depsite the many arguments against the release of GM crops, the USDA approved Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa and sugar beets.  Unless President Obama stops it, GM alfalfa and sugar beets will be widely planted this spring and begin contaminating our soils and crops.

Contact President Obama:
      Phone: (202) 456-1111
      Fax: (202) 456-2461
      Online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

MESSAGE: "The USDA's decision to approve Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets is wrong. I am calling to urge President Obama to reject approval of genetically modified crops. I care about the integrity of the food I eat. Please take immediate action to stop this approval."

**********************************************************************

The Food Rights

Is Big Dairy Helping Regulators Use MA As Test to Bust Raw Milk Buying Clubs?

Just to re-cap, the agency’s position, as articulated in its response to the suit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (described in my previous post), is three-fold:

--There’s no absolute right to any raw unprocessed food, unless the FDA says it’s okay;

--There’s no right to good health, except as approved by the FDA.

--There’s no right for citizens to contract privately for their food.

More Americans appear to be getting the message. The outcry in California against SB 201 in 2008 was a first sign. Then, of course, the people’s will was thwarted by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s veto. Over the past six months, we’ve had the popular push in Wisconsin, a state where the regulators have gone bonkers to eliminate raw milk, to pressure legislators to approve making it available from the farm; the proposed law now sits on the desk of a governor who has indicated he hears the consumer outrage (but is certainly subject to the not-so-gentle whispers from Big Dairy and the FDA).---And now, just within the last few weeks, we see a firestorm building in Massachusetts over a seemingly small but arbitrary decision by a regulator to restrict consumer access to milk. Unlike Wisconsin, which never officially sanctioned raw milk sales, Massachusetts has long allowed sales from dairy farms, and delivery to consumers by any of a half dozen or more buying clubs.---Everything was working fine in Massachusetts—more dairy farmers producing ever more raw milk and in the process creating a revival for the state’s moribund dairy industry. No hint of illnesses in over a decade.---The Massachusetts Department of Agriculture seemed to be doing its job of supporting state agriculture by encouraging raw-milk-producing dairy farmers rather than fighting them, like the regulators in neighboring New York state. Late last year, MDAR publicly supported dairy farmer Doug Stephans in his fight with state and local public health authorities and helped him gain approval to sell raw milk from his Framingham, MA, dairy.---But then something happened early this year to change MDAR’s approach. The agency sent cease-and-desist letters to four buying clubs that had been quietly and efficiently delivering raw milk to consumers who didn’t want to burn the gasoline or were unable because they don’t have cars or even are disabled, to travel the hour or two hours to dairy farms in central Massachusetts and pick up their milk. (The buying clubs essentially enter into contracts with individual consumers to pick up and deliver their milk.) The letters weren’t well received by the owners of the buying clubs, and they began mobilizing support from their customers and legislators to challenge MDAR. They argued that Massachusetts laws and regulations don’t specifically prohibit the buying clubs, making the cease-and-desist letters so much paper.---MDAR seems to have agreed, because two weeks ago it proposed a new regulation to prohibit the buying clubs. The regulation would make Massachusetts the first state in the country to explicitly ban raw milk buying clubs.--In advance of a hearing May 10 on the proposed regulation, a Massachusetts legislator friendly with the MDAR commissioner, Scott Soares, set up a meeting last Monday for the regulator to discuss with a few consumers his reasons for going after the buying clubs.---Surprise--15 consumers and farmers showed up for the meeting, and started peppering the startled Soares with questions about why he was taking an action that will inevitably reduce consumers’ access to raw milk, and quite possibly put at least a few of the more than twenty dairy farms selling raw milk out of business.---These 15 consumers weren’t just a few people off the street. They included some prominent local citizens who know how the system works—a local lawyer, a public health professional, the head of a nonprofit organization, and a high-ranking federal regulator. The latter, Hugh Kaufman, was Chief Investigator with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Ombudsman Office, among other high-level positions over a forty-year period. Kaufman put Soares on the spot during the Monday meeting when Soares said at one point that there was as much passion from anti-raw-milk people as from pro-raw-milk people. Who were these anti-raw-milk people, Kaufman inquired.--“He said that large dairy producers had communicated to him,” recalls Kaufman. “I asked him who they were. He said he couldn’t tell me.”---But Kaufman says Soares talked about concerns the dairy representatives have “that if something goes wrong with raw milk, it will hurt all the dairies.” (This is a familiar refrain by the conventional dairy industry that has no basis, since public health and health regulators are quick in any suspected illness from raw milk to alert consumers, in shrill terms, to the distinction between raw and pasteurized milk.)---That led Kaufman to inquire whether Soares had written any of this down. Soares said he hadn’t.---Kaufman maintains that when government officials have conversations with industry representatives while new regulations are being considered, the officials are supposed to open a docket—make a written record of what happened and when.---I should say at this point that four other people who were at the meeting with Soares have confirmed Kaufman’s account of what occurred. Moreover, I tried via phone and email to obtain comment from Soares. His publicity official emailed me Thursday asking what I wanted to inquire about. I wrote her back that I wanted his version about what was said at the Monday meeting about his contacts with dairy officials. I didn’t receive a response.---Kaufman thinks he understands the problem: “Soares couldn’t handle 15 knowledgeable people. In the process, he opened up a pandora’s box. Now his legal problem is that he is hiding from the public the names of the large business entities, that he is meeting with, who are pushing him to restrain trade. As well as hiding from the general public, the fact that he's being pushed by these business entities in the first place. Not making a public record of these ex-parte discussions with the big dairies lobbying him to harm their competitors, during an Official Government Rulemaking, is NOT legit.”

I’ll add to Kaufman’s impressions. We know that the FDA and Midwest agriculture officials have targeted raw milk buying clubs—the case of Wisconsin buying club owner Max Kane and the pressure to force him to testify about where he obtains his milk and who his customers are is a direct result of the official crackdown.---What MDAR’s Soares seems to be saying is that the dairy industry is part and parcel of the campaign to hamper raw milk distribution by cracking down on buying clubs.---And now we have the official FDA policy to not only limit access to natural foods it deems dangerous, but to oppose private contracts (such as via buying clubs).---At least it’s all out in the open. Now it’s up to consumers to let the regulators and politicians know how they feel about this joint government-industry enforcement campaign to deprive citizens of health-giving foods of their choice. The next big opportunity comes May 10, at 10 am at 100 Cambridge St, Conference Room A, 2nd Floor in Boston, Mass. Come one, come all. It’s all within shouting distance of where the real Boston Tea Party took place.

****************************************************************************

Making a Vitamin---Buy a bulk supply of ingredients or powder a herb or dry fruit and pulverize the fruit ---weigh out the volume and then add to capsules---let’s say you want a diabetic formula—the you would either powder down some karalla or bitter melon-- sift it- and weigh out a portion –then fill the capsules---

This is a guide to the size of capsules and by seeing this you can see how much they will hold---a 00 will hold almost a gram and there is usually an allowance for filler ---but in this case what you will make will be 100% pure and without filler—so take your powder and fill the capsule of choice and utilize the remedy---remember that since this is 100% purity there will be less dosing required—Always do your research when making your own—as to not over dose yourself---if you find by making your own—and it is to much then reduce the volume in the capsule---so now let’s say you want to combo up some things—then do the same thing measure off the volume of each component, whether 2 or more, then mix well in a blender ( this is how it is done commercially as well ) then do the math with this—take let’s say 50 grams of cinnamon powder and 50 grams of bitter melon powder and you are putting it in a 00 capsule you will have an approximate 350 mgs of each in the capsule ( rounding the numbers here ) –you take the volume and multiply the number by the amount you are using this should give approximate 350 mgs of each and you can continue to do this as you add the volume and divined the amount down

**************************************************************************

Monsanto Being Sued By Organic Farmers

Genetically modified seed giant Monsanto is notorious for suing farmers [PDF] in defense of its patent claims. But now, a group of dozens of organic farmers and food activists have, with the help of the not-for-profit law center The Public Patent Foundation, sued Monsanto in a case that could forever alter the way genetically modified crops are grown in this country. But before you can understand why, it's worth reviewing an important, but underreported aspect of the fight over GMOs.

One of the many downsides to genetically engineered food is the fact that modified genes are patented by the companies that isolate them. This is not typically part of the story that gets much attention when you read about all those great (but nonexistent) magic seeds that will grow faster, better, cheaper, etc. and seem to forever remain "just around the corner."

As any music or movie lover knows from experience, patent and copyright law in this country is a mess. You only need to look at the music industry's successful campaign to sue random consumers over file-sharing to know that. Fun fact: no fiction copyright granted after 1929 -- whether a movie, television show, or book -- will ever be allowed to expire because that was the year of Mickey Mouse's "birth" and Disney has convinced Congress that Mickey should never fall into the public domain. That's one screwed up way to go about protecting the interests of authors. And forget about the folks over at the U.S. Patent Office -- it's clear that they have no idea what they're doing anymore.

In my recent Common Ground cover story on GMOs, I referred to the fact that the federal government "insists the food revolution will be genetically modified." Well, what biotech companies want more than anything is for the food revolution to be patented. Why is that? Because, unlike pharmaceuticals, patented genes will never go "generic" after some number of years. Monsanto and its biotech buddies can keep milking that transgenetic cow for decade after decade.

GMO crops have another interesting quality -- you can "use" a patented gene without even knowing it. When you download and share music and movies on peer-to-peer networks or plagiarize blog posts or books, let's face it -- you know what you're doing. But if you're a farmer, GMO seeds can literally blow in to your fields on the breeze or just the pollen from GMO crops can blow in (or buzz in via bees) and contaminate your organic or "conventional" fields. And if that happens, Monsanto or Syngenta or Bayer CropLife maintain the right to sue you as if you had illegally bought their seed and knowingly planted it.---In an appropriately Orwellian twist, the companies even call such accidental contamination by their products "patent infringement." And, in the face of a government more than willing to allow companies to "defend" their "intellectual property" in this way, organic farmers and others have now stepped up and said, in short, "Hell no!":

The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients."

If the suit is successful, not only will it limit Monsanto's ability to sue farmers, the company will have far greater responsibility for how and where its biotech seeds are planted. The regulatory free ride will be over. While that won’t eliminate GMO crops, it will at least give organic farmers a hope of avoiding contamination.---What I find intriguing about this suit is that it comes on the heels of a set of rulings against biotech companies and in favor of organic farmers. As I have speculated before, courts have decided that the interests of organic and other non-GMO farmers are now significant enough to require protection. While the USDA and the White House seem happy to do Monsanto's bidding (as they did in recent decisions to allow Roundup Ready beets and alfalfa), the federal courts -- and even the Supreme Court -- do not seem so quick to dismiss the economic harm that might come to unfettered use of GMO seeds. This one, my friends, bears watching.

TOP B

[U1]Synergy would mean that it would work well and cause a stronger or more potent reaction when combined---in other words a stronger pathogen

Lighting source	Mouse lifespan
Unfiltered sunlight (UV included)	16.1 months
UV transmitting plastic (UV included)	15.6 months
Window light (no UV)	9.4 months
Daylight fluorescent (no UV)	8.2 months
Pink fluorescent (no UV)	7.5 months

Study identifies novel phenolic compound in maple syrup

Study identifies novel phenolic compound in maple syrup

How to Dehydrate Boiled Eggs

Instructions---things you'll need: