Connect with us

Alternative News

Here’s Why More Than 35 Countries Have Banned Genetically Modified Crops From Their Country

Published

on

The global resistance against Genetically Modified Crops is growing at an exponential rate. A few years ago, you were almost ridiculed for suggesting that GM foods could be a problem, and now scientists and researchers are presenting information that has 19 new countries joining an already long list of nations to completely ban, or have severe restrictions on, GMOs — as well as the pesticides that go with them.

advertisement - learn more

These countries will not allow genetically modified crops to be grown in their country. The opt-out countries are requesting that biotechnology companies exclude their territories from GMO seed sales, and some countries, according to RT news, are simply putting things to a halt until more research is conducted.

For those of you who do not know, GMO crops have had their DNA artificially altered, which is a process that would not happen in nature. This is done by introducing genes from a completely different species in order to boost the plant’s resistance to pests or herbicides, or create some other desired effect.

“By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.” 

– Geneticist David Suzuki (source)

Again, we are talking about more than three dozen countries. That’s more than half of the countries within the European Union, some of which include: Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Poland, and Belgium. The magnitude of this resistance cannot be ignored.

advertisement - learn more

Here is a current list of countries  that have banned the growth of these crops. Other countries not on the list have restrictions on them, and some still allow the import of these crops. But the trend seems to be a complete ban as the years move on. It’s a complicated issue, especially when you ponder the fact that science has now been heavily politicized. More on that later in the article.

Health/Environmental Concerns Mixed With Scientific Fraud

So why are these countries doing this? Two of the main reasons have to do with environmental and health-related concerns. Alongside all of these troubles (according to Reuters), some countries simply want to take time to do proper research — flying in the face of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) decree that GMOs are completely safe. There are many who disagree with this assertion.

“As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe.”

– Jane Goodall (source)

The quote above from Goodall comes from Steven M. Druker who, in 1996, did something very few Americans were doing then — learn the facts about the massive venture to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply. The problem of unawareness still exists today, but it’s getting much better thanks to activists like Druker.

Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. In 2015 he published a book on the lawsuit. In the book, Druker provides details of his experience, and he’s also released the documents on his website showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws present in the FDA’s policy.

It’s called Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

The book has some very impressive reviews. For example, David Schubert, Ph.D., molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, said that this “incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read.”

Stephen Naylor, Ph.D., CEO and Chariman of Mai Health Inc., an individual who spent 10 years as a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and pharmacology, stated that Druker’s “meticulously documented, well crafted, and spell binding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us.” 

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and professor emeritus of genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

In publishing his book and filing this lawsuit, Druker exposed how the agency covered up the warnings of its own scientists about the risks, lied about the facts, and then ushered these foods onto the market in violation of federal law.

It’s also noteworthy to mention that Druker has actually served on the food safety panels at conferences held by the National Research council and the FDA, presented lectures at numerous universities, met with government officials throughout the world, and conferred at the White House Executive Offices with a task force of President Clinton’s Council on Environmental Quality.

You can also check out his website, where he has published key FDA documents revealing hazards of genetically engineered foods and the flaws with how the agency made its policy. 

Let’s not forget all of the science cited by these other countries.

A great example is a study that was published in the journal Evironmental Sciences Europe. The WHO has never cited any long term studies that prove the safety of GMOs. When a study was finally conducted, it found severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, in rats fed GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup — levels that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. The rats also developed large cancer tumours.(source)

Other studies have found instances of adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues. They also determined that no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods have been established. Many studies have emphasized that more scientific effort is needed in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods. (source)(source)

Studies have also linked GMO animal feed to severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs. (source)

Here’s what Irina Ermakova, VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, said last year when Russia was mulling over the decision to ban GMOs:

It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped…. [We] should stop it from spreading.  (source)

Keep in mind that we are talking about GM crops, which are sprayed with billions of pounds of toxic chemicals every year. These chemicals have been linked to a number of diseases, ranging from autism, to cancer, to Alzheimer’s disease and more.

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.” 

– October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)

A new study published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September examined US government databases, and researchers searched for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a “correlation analysis” on a total of 22 different diseases.

Researchers reached an alarming conclusion:

These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow.” (source)

Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but using the Bradford Hill criteria, it’s easy to see why so many scientists/countries are opposing GMOs.

The shift toward organic food is strong and growing; it’s what consumers are demanding. After all, who wants pesticides accumulating in their body, especially ones that have been incontrovertibly linked to several diseases?

For example, a recent study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research, found that an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide exposure in adults by 90%.  (source)

Another study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, indicated that among individuals eating similar amounts of vegetables and fruits, the ones who reported eating organic produce had significantly lower OP pesticide exposure than those who normally consume conventionally grown produce. You can read more about that here.

These chemicals are manufactured by big bio-tech corporations like Monsanto, and the fact that they’ve been caught lying doesn’t help their credibility one bit. For example, a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International shows that Roundup herbicide is 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. (source)  Roundup was also (finally) linked to cancer recently by the WHO, although a number of scientists had already provided tremendous amounts of proof for this:

“There is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals. On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans. A US EPA report and several more recent positive results conclude that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria. One study in community residents reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.” (source)

Political Agendas?

Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. There is fact that previously classified secret government documents exist which show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds. If information about our food needs to be concealed from the public domain, then something has gone seriously wrong with the food industry. It’s great to have an organization like WikiLeaks shed some light into a world that’s been hidden from us for so many years.

The cables reveal that the State Department was lobbying all over the world for Monsanto and other major biotech corporations., and that American diplomats requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to meet with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries.” These included countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe.

A non-profit consumer protection group called Food & Water Watch published a report showing the details of the partnership between the federal government and a number of biotech companies who have pushed their GMO products on multiple countries for a number of years:

In the past decade, the United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State Department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and governments, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives.

Agricultural development is essential for the developing world to foster sustainable economies, enhance food security to combat global hunger and increase resiliency to climate change. Addressing these challenges will require diverse strategies that emphasize sustainable, productive approaches that are directed by countries in the developing world.

The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — even including opposing laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Here is one cable (out of many) from Morocco.

Here is a 2008 cable that summarizes a French documentary called “The World According to Monsanto,” which attacks the U.S. biotech industry and the fact that Monsanto and the U.S. Government constantly swap employees and positions.

This is just one example that clearly shows how giant corporations essentially dictate government policy. These food corporations are responsible for pushing independent agriculturists out of business. They control the world’s seed supply, forcing farmers to become dependent on their seed. Monsanto and corporations like it have created patented GMO seeds and are preventing farmers from seed saving and sharing, resulting in a dependence on their genetically modified product.

Between 2007 and 2009, the State Department sent annual cables to ‘encourage the use of agricultural biotechnology,’ directing every diplomatic post worldwide to “pursue an active biotech agenda” that promotes agricultural biotechnology, encourages the export of biotech crops and foods and advocates for pro-biotech policies and laws.” (source)

“The US Department of State is selling seeds instead of democracy. This report provides a chilling snapshot of how a handful of giant biotechnology companies are unduly influencing US foreign policy and undermining our diplomatic efforts to promote security, international development and transparency worldwide. This report is a call to action for Americans because public policy should not be for sale to the highest bidder.”

– Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive (source)

One of the most revealing cables is from 2007, and it looks at French efforts to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety. Here is a cable that shows Craig Stapleton, former ambassador to France under the Bush administration, asking Washington to punish the EU countries that did not support the use of GM crops: “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”

The U.S. government was not only working for the biotech industry. They were also threatening other governments who did not comply. Think about that for a moment. Over the years, the United States government and Monsanto have collectively pushed their GMO agenda upon the rest of the world. Why? Do you really think it is to help feed the world? This could easily be achieved if we came together and pooled our resources. The entire planet could have access to organic food and it could be done for free.

A Shift in Consciousness Encompasses Everything

It’s quite amazing to see what has happened over the past ten years alone. The birth of social media networks has brought forth a wealth of new information in the form of alternative media. While there may be many “fake news” sites out there, there are also many valid information sources that have created awareness and sourced their work properly. They shared information that mainstream media would not share. After all, mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations, and also heavily influenced by government and corporate agendas.

Our world has been drenched in secrecy, and more people are having a hard time trusting mainstream media networks. It’s simply best to let people decide for themselves and examine the sources for themselves, rather than having somebody on television telling the world “what is.”

The fact that billions of people every year were accessing information about corporate and government fraud, and information that is not always presented to the world, just goes to show how big this shift in consciousness is. New ideas are being presented that challenge old beliefs, and more people are starting to question the world around them and the entire human experience.

What are we really doing here? A lot of people see a clear need for change, and recognize that if we continue to follow our ways with regards to politics, finance, health, environment, education, and more, we’re not really going forward.

Our souls are craving a new human experience, and creating awareness about several aspects of that human experience, like GMOs, for example, plays a key role in changing it. So when it comes to GMOs, vote with your dollar!

Don’t let “fake news” labels determine your truth. Don’t let someone else make your decisions for you. Examine the sources for yourself, think critically, and make your own decisions. We do not need another entity, like Snopes, telling us what is and what isn’t. It’s time to think for ourselves, and stop letting the government, corporations, and politicians do it for us.

We can’t continue to put change in their hands; we have to put it in our own.

 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Media Misses Key Detail On Recent Trump GMO/Pesticide Ban ‘Lifting’, Here’s Why

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump's administration recently released a memo cancelling a 2014 Obama-era memo about GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticide use. The media covered this story as a 'lifting of a ban' on GMOs, yet that's not what either memo says.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we still leaving the door open for GMO and pesticide use in both administrations? Why is the media, across the whole board here, using any story possible to put people against the current administration? Has the deep state lost control?

In early August, Trump’s administration released a new memo from the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the 2014 version of the memo, out of Obama’s administration would be cancelled and the terms of the new memo would now be in place.

The memo was in reference to a GMO and neonicotinoid bans that put in place to help protect the bee population and wildlife refuges. The 2014 memo was a positive step forward as it was publicly stating, even at higher governmental levels, that GMOs were harmful to agriculture and wildlife, as were neonics. This initial memo was coined a GMO and neonics ban, even though the language in the memo doesn’t actually say that.

Before we continue, we recognize and have painstakingly covered, the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides and GMOs on our environment and wildlife. We have called for an all-out ban, based on our research, numerous times over the last 6 years and still hold completely strong to that truth.

What is discussed in both of these memos in regards to how to go about using pesticides and GMOs are NOT safe for our environment and wildlife. The fact that both administrations are leaving the door open for use is not in humanities best interest.

The 2014 Memo

Specifically, the 2014 Obama-era memo states that when it comes to both GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides, they can be used on a case by case basis when refuge managers request such and the case is brought through the proper channels of approval.

Below is a piece of that memo, which can also be viewed here, referring to the requested use of neonics.

advertisement - learn more

2014 memo referring to neonic pesticides.

When it came to the subject of GMOs in the 2014 memo, Obama’s administration made their stance very clear as well:

2014 memo referring to GMO use.

In both cases, we see that it was never an all-out ban, but simply an open door where neonicotinoid pesticide use and GMO use to be requested and reviewed on a case by case basis.

Now let’s have a look at the 2018 memos that resulted in media coverage alluding to a ‘lifting of the GMO and neonic ban’ put in place by the Obama administration.

“The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted.” Reuters

The 2018 Memo

When referring to GMOs, the 2018 memo states:

And when speaking about neonicotinoid pesticides the 2018 memo states:

As you can see once again in both cases, the language is the same. There was never an all-out ban in place, and all uses will be based on approval on a case by case basis.

What Media Coverage In This Way?

When we initially printed this story, we only had access to the 2018 memo that was recently released. Based on widespread media coverage and the memo itself, it appeared as though this was, in fact, a lifting of the ban. But once we got our hands on the 2014 memo from the Obama admin, it became clear this was the same language, and that the media was now weaponizing this story against Trump’s administration.

You may follow CE’s work a lot, or you may be new to it, we are politically neutral and do not side with political parties in any way. We report on what ACTUALLY happens, not a slanted angle based on a political agenda. In that perspective, we are not attached to events but can instead see how they play into a big picture.

With that said, why did the media cover this story in a manner that was so damning to the Trump administration?

We have been reporting on the fact that from our observation, experience, and analysis, as well as our conversations with contacts we have connected to the intelligence communities, we feel that Trump has come into this space as an outsider to the specific cabal/deep state group that has been in control for many many decades. This was the cabal group that would have put Hillary in place if there wasn’t a divide taking place in the intelligence community that had the plan flipped. You can learn about that in detail here.

Leading up to the election, and since he has been POTUS, Trump has been all out attacked by every single news station, with the exception of FOX, in a big way – an unprecedented happenstance. Since we know that only 5 corporations own all of the US media, and these 5 corporations are tied to powerful elite within the deep state, it would begin to seem like a war on an outsider more than anything else. Again, a detail we have covered in depth over the last 2 years as many examples of this have surfaced.

Below is a video that dives into this story and the deep state involvement in more detail, but the thing to note here is, we must step beyond identity politics and siding with a political party in general if we want to see the truth of our world and begin to change it. This is the illusion being set forth to divide us and keep us from unifying under a deep understanding. Before we react to and believe much of what is coming out of the mainstream media today, we must recognize this deeper war taking place here and dig deeper to find the truth.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

World’s Largest Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A groundbreaking study shows the strong connection between Cell Phone towers and cancer. It's one of many showing how electromagnetic radiation is harming human health at an exponential rate, and another example of industry trumps science.

  • Reflect On:

    There are thousands of scientists creating awareness about this, but the industry has become so powerful that they can do whatever they want. How are they allowed to continue when we have definitive proof of harmful health effects? What's going on?

Scientists call on the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer to re-evaluate the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation after the Ramazzini Institute and US government studies report finding the same unusual cancers.

I am posting this article with the permission of Environmental Health Trust and can be found online at ehtrust.org.

(Washington, DC) – Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy announced that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer. A $25 million study of much higher levels of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has also reported finding the same unusual cancer called Schwannoma of the heart in male rats treated at the highest dose. In addition, the RI study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats and precancerous conditions including Schwann cells hyperplasia in both male and female rats.

The study findings are making headline news. Read the Corriere Di Bologna article “Cellulari, a study by Ramazzini: “They cause very rare tumours.

“Our findings of cancerous tumours in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumours of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans,” said Fiorella Belpoggi Ph.D., study author and RI Director of Research.

The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.

advertisement - learn more

“All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according to the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding,” explained Ronald Melnick Ph.D., formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). “Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures.”

“This important article from one of the most acclaimed institutions of its kind in the world provides a major new addition to the technical literature indicating strong reasons for concern about electromagnetic radiation from base stations or cell towers,” stated Editor in Chief of Environmental Research Jose Domingo PhD, Professor of Toxicology, School of Medicine at Reus University, Catalonia, Spain.

“The US NTP results combined now with the Ramazzini study, reinforce human studies from our team and others providing clear evidence that RF radiation causes acoustic neuromaa (vestibular schwannoma) and gliomas, and should be classified carcinogenic to humans,” stated Lennart Hardell MD, PhD, physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on environmental causes of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus Anthony B. Miller MD, Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of Canada and the UK, and Senior Medical Advisor to EHT who is also a long-term advisor to the World Health Organization.

“This study raises concerns that simply living close to a cell tower will pose threats to human health. Governments need to take measures to reduce exposures from cell tower emissions. Cell towers should not be near schools, hospitals or people’s homes. Public health agencies need to educate the public on how to reduce exposure from all sources of wireless radiofrequency radiation—be it from cell towers or cell phones or Wi-Fi in schools,” stated David O. Carpenter MD, former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. “This is particularly urgent because of current plans to place small 5G cell towers about every 300 meters in every street across the country. These 5G ‘small cell’ antennas will result in continuous exposure to everyone living nearby and everyone walking down the street. The increased exposures will increase risk of cancer and other diseases such as electro-hypersensitivity.”

You can listen to the full press conference below:

Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds, and their study design is unique in that animals are allowed to live until their natural deaths in order to allow detection of late-developing tumors. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age. This longer observation period has allowed the RI to detect such later-occurring tumors for a number of chemicals, and their published research includes studies of benzenexylenesmancozebformaldehyde and vinyl chloride.

The Ramazzini research results come in the wake of similar findings from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) large-scale experimental studies on cell phone radiation. Both studies found statistically significant increases in the development of the same type of very rare and highly malignant tumor in the heart of male rats—schwannomas.

“This publication is a serious cause for concern,” stated Annie J. Sasco MD, DrPH, SM, MPH, retired Director of Research at the INSERM (French NIH) and former Unit Chief at the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, France, who commented that, “some of the results are not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of animals involved. Yet, that does not mean they should be ignored. Larger studies could turn out statistically significant results and in any event statistical significance is just one aspect of the evaluation of the relation between exposure and disease. Biological significance and concordance of results between humans and animals clearly reinforces the strength of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The facts that both experimental studies found the same types of rare tumours, which also have pertinence to the human clinical picture, is striking,”

“Such findings of effects at very low levels are not unexpected,” stated Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president of EHT, pointing to a Jacobs University replication animal study published in 2015 that also found very low levels of RFR promoted tumour growth. “This study confirms an ever-growing literature and provides a wake-up call to governments to enact protective policy to limit exposures to the public and to the private sector to make safe radiation-free technology available.”

In January 2017 at an international conference co-sponsored by Environmental Health Trust and the Israel Institute for Advanced Study at Hebrew University, Fiorella Belpoggi PhD, Director of Research at the Ramazzini Institute, presented the study design and the findings that RFR-exposed animals had significantly lower litter weights. Belpoggi’s presentation and slides are available online. The Ramazzini findings of lower litter weights are consistent with the NTP study, which also found lower litter weights in prenatally exposed animals. At that time, the  Italian journal Corriere published an article about the presentation of the Ramazzini study and quoted Belpoggi’s recommendation of “maximum precaution for children and pregnant women.”

Noting that “current standards were not set to protect children, pregnant women, and the growing numbers of infants and toddlers for whom devices have become playthings,” Davis, who is also Visiting Professor of Medicine of Hebrew University Medical Center and Guest Editor in Chief of the journal Environmental Research, added, “Current two-decade-old FCC limits were set when the average call was six minutes and costly cell phones were used by very few. These important, new, game-changing studies show that animals develop the same types of unusual cancers that are being seen in those few human epidemiological studies that have been done. In light of these results, Environmental Health Trust joins with public health experts from the states of California, Connecticut and Maryland, as well as those in France, Israel and Belgium to call on government and the private sector to carry out major ongoing public health educational campaigns to promote safer phone and personal device technology, to require and expedite fundamental changes in hardware and software to reduce exposures to RFR/microwave radiation throughout indoor and outdoor environments, and to institute major monitoring, training and research programs to identify solutions, future problems and prevention of related hazards and risks.”

“More than a dozen countries recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation exposure to children, and countries such as China, Italy, India and Russia have far more stringent cell tower radiation regulations in place when compared to the United States FCC. However, this study provides scientific evidence that governments can use to take even further action,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT.

The article is Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission” by L. Falcioni, L. Bua, E.Tibaldi, M. Lauriola, L. De Angelis, F. Gnudi, D. Mandrioli, M. Manservigi, F. Manservisi, I. Manzoli, I. Menghetti, R. Montella, S. Panzacchi, D. Sgargi, V. Strollo, A.Vornoli, F. Belpoggi .  It appears in Environmental Research published by Elsevier.

This study is making headline news. See examples here:

About Environmental Research

Environmental Research publishes original reports describing studies of the adverse effects of environmental agents on humans and animals. The principal aim of the journal is to assess the impact of chemicals and microbiological pollutants on human health. Both in vivo and in vitro studies, focused on defining the etiology of environmentally induced illness and to increase understanding of the mechanisms by which environmental agents cause disease, are especially welcome. Investigations on the effects of global warming/climate change on the environment and public health, as well as those focused on the effects of anthropogenic activities on climate change are also of particular interest.

About Environmental Health Trust

EHT is a scientific virtual think tank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. EHT maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies: more than a dozen countries recommend reducing wireless exposure to children.

Ramazzini Institute Resources

Link to the Ramazzini Institute Study.

Link to Media Advisory Online With Biographies for Experts on Conference Call

How To Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation5G Factsheet

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation

Dr. Lennart Hardell and Colleagues Comments on the NTP

Dr. Melnick Comments on the NTP

Dr. Annie Sasco Comments on the NTP/  Ramazzini Comments 

Environmental Health Trust Comments  on the NTP RF

Dr. Anthony Miller NTP Submission

Additional Resources:

Link to Infographic on Cell Phone Radiation

The National Toxicology Program Presentation on DNA Damage

 Recommendations on Reducing Cell Phone Radiation5G Factsheet

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation

Dr. Lennart Hardell and Colleagues Comments on the NTP

Dr. Melnicks Comments on the NTP

Dr. Devra Davis/EHT Comments on the NTP

Dr. Annie Sasco Comments on the NTP

Dr. Anthony Miller Comments on the NTP 

Additional Resources:

Link to Infographic on Cell Phone Radiation

The National Toxicology Program Presentation on DNA Damage

Conference Call Bios 

Fiorella Belpoggi, PhD

Lead author of the new study will discuss how the research was designed to test cell tower base station radiation association with cancer. Dr. Belpoggi is the Director of the Ramazzini Institute Research Department and Director of the Cesare Maltoni Research Center, Bologna, Italy. Dr. Belpoggi has been invited as an expert participant to meetings on the evaluation and safety of chemicals at the European Parliament, at the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs and at the European Food Safety Agency and as a temporary advisor to the World Health Organization/European Centre for Environment and Health .Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds. Full Bio

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD

Dr. Hardell is a clinical and medical research doctor at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden. He has published more than 300 peer-reviewed scientific articles specializing in epidemiological research studying cancer risks related to exposure to environmental toxins such as Agent Orange, the herbicide glyphosate, and cell phone radiofrequency radiation. As one of the world’s leading experts on this topic, he served as an expert on the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) Working Group for the classification of radiofrequency fields in 2011. Bio here.

Ron Melnick, PhD

Dr. Melnick is a toxicologist, served 28 years a a scientist with the National Institutes of Health focused on assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He lead the design of the $28 Million National Toxicology Program(NTP) Studies on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation.  Dr. Melnick can discuss comparisons between the Ramazzini Institute research and the recently released NTP data on cell phone exposure on rats and mice.

David O. Carpenter, MD

Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician and graduate of Harvard Medical School. He is the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. He has been involved in this topic since the 1980s when he served as the Executive Secretary of the New York State Powerlines Project. He is Co-editor of the Bioinitiative Report and has testified on EMF issues to both houses of Congress and also to the President’s Cancer Panel. He has two books and numerous publications on EMF, and over 400 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of human health and environmental exposures. Bio here

Devra Davis, MPH, PhD

Dr. Davis is an epidemiologist, former member of the National Toxicology Program Scientific Review Board is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Turkey. She was Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. President of Environmental Health Trust, she is also an award-winning scientist and author on environmental health issues. She can address the emerging studies on cell phone radiation worldwide. Full Bio

Watch Dr. Melnick present on the NTP study last year in this video.

https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

© 2018 Environmental Health Trust. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Environmental Health Trust ehtrust.org. Want to learn more? Sign up for the newsletter here. Link is here https://ehtrust.org/publications/newsletters/

 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

Don’t Buy Anyone An Amazon Echo – Not Even Yourself

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A group of hackers have successfully turned the Amazon Echo into a surveillance tool to listen in on the conversations of unknowing targets.

  • Reflect On:

    Even if hacking these devices is difficult to do, does the fact that it is possible to make you reconsider using "smart speakers" such as these? What is your privacy worth to you?

In recent years “smart speakers” are becoming popular as home tools to assist with day-to-day tasks; making phone calls, searching google and basically anything else you might use your phone for. Upon command, they wake up and complete the task given and offer a hands-free, voice-activated method to make our lives easier, so what could possibly go wrong? Well, recently a group of Chinese hackers have figured out a way to use the popular Amazon Echo as a spy device and listen in on the day-to-day conversations of targeted individuals.

This group of hackers has spent months developing a new method for essentially hijacking the Echo. While it is far from a total takeover of the smart speakers, it is, from what we know, the closest thing to a practical demonstration of how these devices can absolutely be utilized as a method of secret surveillance.

During the recent DefCon security conference, researchers Wu HuiYu and Qian Wenxiang shared their presentation called, Breaking Smart Speakers: We Are Listening To You, explaining how they hacked into an Amazon Echo and turned it into a spy bug.

Now, before we start thinking Big Brother is listening, it is important to know that this hack involved a modified version of the echo, which did have some parts swapped out. However, this doctored device was still able to hack into other, non-modified devices and it does so by connecting both the hackers Echo and a regular Echo to the same local area network, or LAN. This process allowed the hackers to turn their own modified Echo into a listening bug by relaying audio from the other Echo’s speakers without any indication that they were transmitting anything.

Although this was a difficult process, the Chinese hackers proved that it was, in fact, possible and could represent a first step towards exploiting this increasingly popular device.

So, What Does Amazon Have To Say?

Before the presentation, the researchers notified Amazon of the upcoming exploit and they pushed out some security fixes back in July when asked about the attack from Wired, the company responded by stating that, “customers do not need to take any action as their devices have been automatically updated with security fixes.” The spokesperson added that “this issue would have required a malicious actor to have physical access to a device and the ability to modify the device hardware.”

advertisement - learn more

Unfortunately, that last statement overlooks the fact that the hackers did not have access to the physical device that they were intercepting — only the LAN and anyone can get their own Echo quite easily online and in stores. So, although Amazon updated the security of these devices, it is still possible that hackers could once again, figure out a way to gain access to the device.

According to the hackers,

“After a period of practice, we can now use the manual soldering method to remove the firmware chip…from the motherboard and extract the firmware within 10 minutes, then modify the firmware within 5 minutes and [attach it] back to the device board,” they write. “The success rate is nearly 100 percent. We have used this method to create a lot of rooted Amazon Echo devices.”

Do We Need To Be Concerned?

To be able to effectively and easily hack an Echo remotely wouldn’t be easy, says Jake Williams, a former member of the NSA’s elite hacking team Tailored Access Operations. However, if spies were able to take over a device like the Echo it would make a powerful tool for surveillance because unlike a phone, it picks up sound from a room, not only right next to the device, but anywhere in earshot.

“These smart speakers are designed to pick up all the noises in the room, listen and transcribe them,” says Williams. “As a result, they’d make phenomenal listening devices if you can exploit them.”

Let’s not forget about what happened earlier this year where a couple from Portland, Oregon received a phone call from a person they knew warning them to unplug your Alexa device right now, you’re being hacked. This person had received a voice mail which contained a private message between the couple talking about hardwood floors. You can read more about that here.

I Have Nothing To Hide, Why Should I Care?

This is a common response from many people in regards to privacy issues. But this issue goes so much deeper than that. As Edward Snowden says,

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

We have a right to our privacy. If these devices can, in fact, be used as surveillance tool’s then there is a very good chance that they are being used. We have already seen a tremendous level of corruption from the NSA spying on Americans’ and even Facebook violating our rights and using messenger to listen in on our conversations. Why would we feel that these devices that are literally plugged into our homes and flat out listening to us and our “commands” couldn’t be used as a method of surveillance?

Cell phone’s alone have been proven to be able to listen in even when the phone is turned off. These smart speakers have even more capacity as they pick up sound all over the place and have a much broader range.

Should you let this stop you from getting your own Echo or similar device? Well, that’s up for you to decide, for me it’s not worth it.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!