Connect with us

Alternative News

Scientists Discover Ingredient Within Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide That Suffocates Human Cells

Published

on

Monsanto’s Roundup, used in yards, farms, and parks around the globe, has been a top-selling weed killer, despite the controversial claims against it, which include its main ingredient, glyphosate, being declared by an international agency to be a “probable human carcinogen.”

advertisement - learn more

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has since followed suit, labeling glyphosate a carcinogen, while Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich announced that Russia had “made the decision not to use any GMO in food productions.”

A French court found Monsanto guilty of lying in 2009, having falsely advertised its Roundup herbicide as “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly,” and claiming it “left the soil clean.”

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), revealed an even more disturbing truth: glyphosate is possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.” Autism, gastrointestinal diseases, allergies, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, infertility, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS are just some of the diseases and conditions mentioned.

New Research

Now researchers believe Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, specifically embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells. The findings intensify the extreme debate regarding ‘inerts,’ which are solvents, preservatives, surfactants, and other substances added to pesticides by manufacturers.

Health studies have mainly focused on the safety of glyphosate as opposed to the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup, but this new study discovered that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells, even when the concentrations were more diluted than the ones used on farms and lawns.

advertisement - learn more

Among the inert ingredients is polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, which the study found to be more deadly to human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself.

“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” explained the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” commonly found on Roundup-treated crops, like soybeans, alfalfa, and corn.

The team of researchers believe Roundup may cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production. This could result in abnormal fetal development, low birth weights, or miscarriages.

Nevertheless, Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, says that the study’s methods don’t reflect realistic conditions.

“Roundup has one of the most extensive human health safety and environmental data packages of any pesticide that’s out there,” announced Monsanto spokesman John Combest. “It’s used in public parks, it’s used to protect schools. There’s been a great deal of study on Roundup, and we’re very proud of its performance.”

Meanwhile, the EPA touts glyphosate as having low toxicity when used at the recommended doses, and says there is strong evidence that it doesn’t cause cancer in humans. “Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” noted EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The EPA has also classified POEA as safe to public health and the environment.

But the French team behind this new study begs to differ: “The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures.”

Inert ingredients are typically less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients, but it doesn’t make them any better. Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization, says the term itself is often misleading, since federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as ‘inert.’ But this only means they don’t kill insects or weeds, not that they are necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless.

Some inert ingredients have even been found to potentially harm human health. A Croatian team recently discovered that an herbicide formulation containing atrazine caused DNA damage, which can lead to cancer, though atrazine alone did not.

“POEA helps glyphosate interact with the surfaces of plant cells,” noted Negin Martin, a scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. It causes water’s surface tension to lower, thus aiding glyphosate in dispersing and penetrating the waxy surface of a plant.

For the French study, researchers tested four different Roundup formulations, all of which contained POEA and glyphosate at concentrations below the recommended lawn and agricultural dose. They even tested the two separately in order to distinguish what caused more damage to embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells. They discovered that glyphosate, POEA, and all four Roundup formulations damaged all three cell types. Umbilical cord cells were especially sensitive to POEA, glyphosate became more harmful when combined with POEA, and POEA alone was the deadliest to cells in comparison to glyphosate.

The researchers found that the two ingredients work together to “limit breathing of the cells, stress them and drive them towards a suicide,” according to Seralini.

Monsanto scientists claim the cells in the study were exposed to unnaturally high levels of the chemicals, however. “It’s very unlike anything you’d see in real-world exposure. People’s cells are not bathed in these things,” explained Donna Farmer, another toxicologist at Monsanto.

But Seralini’s team did multiple concentrations of Roundup, and still saw cell damage at all concentrations.

Dan Goldstein, a toxicologist with Monsanto, claimed the study didn’t use very good models of a whole organism, such as a human being, but Cox says it is lab experiments like these that help determine if a chemical is safe or not.

“We would never consider it ethical to test these products on people, so we’re obliged to look at their effects on other species and in other systems,” she explained. “There’s really no way around that.”

Other researchers have found results similar to those of the Seralini group’s. In 2005, University of Pittsburg ecologists put Roundup in ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles, ensuring they used the manufacturer’s recommended dose. Two weeks later, they discovered 50 to 100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles were dead.

Now, a group of more than 250 environmental, health, and labour organizations has petitioned the EPA to alter their requirements for identifying pesticides’ inert ingredients. The decision for the agency to grant the petition is due this fall.

“It would be a big step for the agency to take,” Cox noted. “But it’s one they definitely should.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Japan Demands More Proof From The U.S. That Iran Attacked Tankers

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Japan is asking for more proof that Iran was responsible for tanker attacks. The US has made rash claims that Iran was without providing any strong evidence.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we witnessing the rise of yet another false flag attack that could push for war? Is it not interesting to witness the difference between Japanese government culture and US government culture?

A chance for awareness and a change in conversation here. The Japanese government has been requesting that the United States provide concrete evidence that shows Iran did, in fact, attack the two tankers near the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a statement hours after the attacks that alleged Iran was responsible, the US had no proof to make these claims.

Not long after, The Department of Defense released a video allegedly showing an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine attached to the side of the Japanese-operated tanker Kokuka Courageous. This, of course, does not mean that Iran put the mine there, nor is there any evidence of this.

The Pentagon most recently released a photo showing an Iranian patrol boat near the tanker, again, proving nothing.

Iranian patrol boat near tanker.

Japanese government officials remain unconvinced that Iran is responsible, and they are not unwise to think so, the evidence is still very weak.  “The U.S. explanation has not helped us go beyond speculation,” said one Japanese senior government official.

The US has made their assertions based on  the fact that their “intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.”

advertisement - learn more

Let’s recall how sure the US was about the 9/11 attacks as well, which to this day remain a mystery for anyone who’s done even a shred of their own research on the topic. Even now, it’s difficult to know who was truly involved and what really happened in detail on that day. To cover-up 9/11’s laughable story, the term conspiracy theory has riddled intelligent and scientific questioning.

The 9/11 attacks began a war that has still not ended. It has seen millions perish and the power elite have made billions of dollars off the war along the way.

Let’s also not forget the Pentagon has been known to invest in creating fake PR material to push war as revealed when the Pentagon paid a PR firm over $500 Million to create fake terrorist videos.

Japan Not So Quick To Fire

Thankfully, a source close to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, “These are not definite proof that it’s Iran.” “Even if it’s the United States that makes the assertion, we cannot simply say we believe it,” he said.

Using the US’ logic, Japan’s Foreign Ministry has stated that if the proof is simply having the expertise sophisticated enough to conduct the attack then “That would apply to the United States and Israel as well.”

“The attacks have severely affected the prime minister’s reputation as he was trying to be a mediator between the United States and Iran,” said the source close to the premier. “It is a serious concern, and making mistakes when determining facts is impermissible.” (source)

Still, the Japanese government has held back on stating who they feel is responsible for the attacks, a wise, peace-seeking move.

The Takeaway

In a classic, calm style, Japan remains unconvinced that Iran attacked the tankers because there is no evidence this is the case. Much like what transpired with 9/11, where still there is no evidence for who the US attacked being responsible for 9/11, a more calm and collected approach keeps war racketeering out of the picture.

I feel this is an important observation to make as we, as a people, can change the conversation away from the gullible assertions that Iran is responsible, fuelling our governments into war, and instead have a more grounded discussion of figuring out any details prior to coming up with the next step, which truly doesn’t even have to be war. A great chance for humanity to wake up and take a new path here. It starts with conversation. The key detail is think and assess before acting. Heart-based decision making vs head based or agenda based.

Are we witnessing the rise of yet another false flag attack that could push for war?

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Donald Trump Finally Shares His Thoughts About UFOs

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Donald Trump was recently asked about UFOs, and he hinted towards the fact that he's not really a believer, despite the fact that the reality of these objects can no longer be denied.

  • Reflect On:

    How much do presidents really know about UFOs and other programs that don't really have any government oversight? What's really going on?

Talking about the existence of UFOs is no longer taboo. It’s gone quite mainstream, and it appears that it’s not really a question of belief. There is more evidence for the existence of UFOs than there is evidence for many things humanity accepts as 100 percent real.

This evidence comes in the forms of actual military and commercial radar trackings of UFOs, videos and pictures of UFOs that’ve been released by multiple governments, and statements from hundreds of the highest ranking military personnel from across the world about UFOs being far more technologically capable than any aircraft on Earth.

Furthermore, we’ve had mainstream UFO disclosure. For example, Christopher Mellon, who served 30 years in the federal government and was Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Intelligence from 1997 to 2002, has published multiple articles on mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times about the reality of these objects and the need for governments to take them seriously.

Mellon’s Washington Post article detailed a number of extremely credible UFO encounters with the military. But again, this isn’t new information. In the 1950s, President Harry Truman went on national television announcing to the world that UFOs are real, and that they discuss the topic at every conference that they have with the military, that “there’s always things like that going on, flying saucers and they’ve had other things.” (source)

This is why it was very interesting to hear Donald Trump finally share his thoughts on the UFO phenomenon, as you can see below.

advertisement - learn more

Was He Lying? Important Points To Consider

Being a UFO researcher for approximately 15 years myself, one thing has become quite clear to me and others in this field who have looked into the subject in depth: This topic goes far beyond the knowledge of the highest ranking people within the government, including the President. We are talking about Special Access Programs (SAP). From these, we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.”(source)

You can read about the latest discoveries on the black budget, here.

One of the latest “proofs” of this came in the form of a testimony from Dr. Edgar Mitchell. It was a video testimony within UFO researcher Dr. Steven Greer’s “Sirius” documentary, where Mitchell details a meeting him and Greer had with Amiral Thomas Ray Wilson, who was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, regarding extraterrestrial space crafts and “crash retrieval” programs. This meeting was in 1997.(source)

What’s interesting is that a document was just leaked detailing notes from the well known scientist Dr. Eric Davis, who had a meeting with Wilson in 2002 regarding that specific meeting and what happened after it.

The document shows how Admiral Wilson was denied access to information about crash retrieval programs about downed extraterrestrial craft. This would mean crafts that were either shot down or who had potentially crash landed. (not sure what this means! like an extraterrestrial craft that was shot down? Please rephrase for clarity! thanks!)

It now makes sense why Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Defence Minister, said that the protocol with regards to these objects is to “shoot first and ask questions after.”

The document outlines how defense contractors have more knowledge regarding this subject, more so than the highest ranking people within the government. The document doesn’t include specific names but states, in this case, a popular aerospace contractor.

You can access that document and learn/read more about it here.

So, we are talking about your Bigelow’s and your Lockheed Martins. When I think about Bigelow aerospace, I think about the comments made by its CEO Robert Bigelow, stating that he has knowledge that extraterrestrials are and have been visiting our planet. When I think about Lockheed Martin, two former directors come to mind who have pretty much said the same thing: Ben Rich (former Lockheed Skunkworks Director) and To The Stars Academy’s (TTSA) Steve Justice, who was a Lockheed Aerospace Director.

The point is that Donald Trump probably knows very little about this topic, as with most presidents before him. It is controlled by a power that goes far beyond the government, perhaps by an international group of ‘powerful’ people with tremendous amounts of resources. One thing is certain: The private contractors definitely have more knowledge, as they are the ones that work with these crafts and perhaps even reverse engineer them and what not. But again, there are those above them that probably control this issue.

Trump may be telling the truth. He could be sharing how he feels, and he may not have come across information that convinced him, or he could be lying and thinking about the upcoming election as well – playing politics if you will.

Either way, the reality is that the existence of UFOs cannot be denied, so it’s surprising that Trump would make such comments.

The Takeaway

Some people believe that all of this is a hoax. The trust is that’s what the elite wanted us to think for so long. The subject has long been branded as a “conspiracy” theory, with high ranking officials like the very first director of the CIA, Roscoe Hillenoetter, admitting that:

Behind the scenes, high ranking air force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that the unknown flying objects are nonsense. (source)

Today, there’s been a complete flip flop in opinions, and the subject is now slowly but surely being acknowledged. Some people believe this is part of the elite’s plan to create a false flag alien invasion and/or control the narrative in a certain way. We have yet to see that.

Related CE Article: And Just Like That, UFOs Are Real In The Mainstream

At the end of the day, the idea that other life forms are and have been visiting us dates back thousands of years. It has huge implications and leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. We still, however, have a lot to uncover/discover.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Jordan Peterson Is Backing A Censorship-Free Platform Called ‘Thinkspot.’ Here’s Why

Published

on

Image: Gage Skidmore at https://flickr.com/photos/22007612@N05/29054996858

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Jordan Peterson has stated he will be backing a new platform called Thinkspot that promises to offer free speech and create meaningful conversation around video creators topics.

  • Reflect On:

    Does the conversation had on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter truly contain value? Or is there a great deal of trolling to weed through? Will this help create a space where Big Tech can't control speech?

In the era of dire need for new and meaningful social media platforms, author and clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson confirmed he is backing a new free-speech platform called Thinkspot. He confirmed the platform is in beta testing during a podcast last week.

According to Peterson, Thinkspot.com, will be a space where creators can monetize their work and users can engage in thoughtful conversation about topics without worrying about Big Tech censorship. An issue that is currently heavily seen on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Some argue that these issues more greatly affect conservative voices vs left-leaning voices, and this appears to be true, although from my analysis it seems to be less about conservatives/politics and more about truths coming to the surface about agendas being push by the elite through the left.

A nuanced look at this censorship reveals that the political agnostic elite is simply using the left to create a culture of outrage to widen the gap within humanity and create an environment where censorship is widely requested by the people, instead of being unwelcomely proposed by the elite. This is a classic case of the power elite creating a problem, getting the needed reaction, and then proposing their pre-thought solution.

More About Thinkspot

“Per the Joe Rogan podcast this week, I’m backing a new platform called Thinkspot, currently in Beta,” Peterson announced via Twitter on Monday. “Get on the waitlist here, exciting announcements coming very soon.”

During the podcast where Peterson was speaking to podcast host and comedian Joe Rogan last week, he explained that Thinkspot’s terms of service will uphold free speech principles. “Once you’re on our platform, we won’t take you down unless ordered to by a court of law.”

The platform, like many others in the works, will be less about accruing gigantic audiences where people have access to everything for free, and instead will be a subscription service where creators can monetize their work. the reason for this is simple, money has to be made somewhere to run these things. If the users don’t pay, you bet it will mean data harvesting is the driving force.

“We’re hoping we can really add dialogue to the podcast and YouTuber world,” explained Peterson. “We’re also gonna do the same things with books, so if you buy an e-book on the platform, you’ll be able to annotate publicly. … We can do that with books that are in the public domain, too.”

“We’re hoping that we’ll be able to pull people who are interested in intelligent conversation, specifically, into this platform, maybe start pulling them away from YouTube and some of the less specialized channels — that, plus our anti-censorship stance,” he added.

Specialization is the key in the end. YouTube is great, but conversation is often limited to good mixed with a lot of trolling and those who don’t really add much value to the mix. Trolling is also prominent. This is where users simply come to the conversation to throw down just a few words of hate, aggression or disbelief without ever actually explaining one’s position. What value does this truly have? This behaviour is very prominent on Facebook and YouTube.

Thinkspot has thought of that. In an effort to avoid “trolling,” Peterson states the platform will have a 50-word minimum when it comes to comments.

“If minimum comment length is 50 words, you’re gonna have to put a little thought into it. Even if you’re being a troll, you’ll be a quasi-witty troll,” said Peterson, adding, “If your ratio of upvotes to downvotes falls below 50/50 then your comments will be hidden, people will still be able to see them, if they click, but you’ll disappear … We don’t know if 50/50 is right.”

In the end, this policy is a good attempt at creating more meaningful conversation without censoring people because of what they say. Ultimately, the platform has two barriers of entry if you will, a small fee, and time. These should be effective means of weeding out those who don’t have anything of value to add to the conversation which, arguably, will lead to more meaningful and productive conversation.

The Takeaway

As we covered in detail in a recent podcast and video on CETV, it appears as though mainstream media, like Vox, has the power to create enough of a stink about something that Big Tech will respond and follow their demands. Is this coordinated? Perhaps, but there isn’t enough evidence to say for sure yet.

What this has done is given those who are willing to make enough noise, whether they are right or not, the power to have Big Tech begin censoring or demonetizing users. Just so happens, many of them are on the right of the political spectrum. Again, we don’t see this to be so much about left/right politics as much as it seems to be about a concerted effort by the power elite to maintain a divide and silence those who try to expose the divides and agendas being pushed.

Once again, the right simply is less driven to give up all their power to the government at the moment, to the elite, this message cannot spread.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod