The ageing process has been biologically reversed for the first time by giving humans oxygen therapy in a pressurised chamber.
Scientists
in Israel showed they could turn back the clock in two key areas of the
body believed to be responsible for the frailty and ill-health that
comes with growing older.
As people age, the protective caps at
the ends of chromosomes – called telomeres – shorten, causing DNA to
become damaged and cells to stop replicating. At the same time, "zombie"
senescent cells build up in the body, preventing regeneration.
Increasing telemere length and getting rid of senescent cells is the focus of many anti-ageing studies, and drugs are being developed to target those areas.
Now
scientists at Tel Aviv University have shown that giving pure oxygen to
older people while in a hyperbaric chamber increased the length of
their telomeres by 20 per cent, a feat that has never been achieved
before.
Scientists said the growth may mean that the telomeres of trial participants were now as long as they had been 25 years earlier.
In January
2020, Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, who after leaving the CDC became
president of Merck’s vaccine division, sold half her Merck stock options
for $9.11 million
Gerberding also
cashed out in 2016, when she sold $5.1 million in Merck stocks, and
2015, when she made $2.3 million. In total, Gerberding has made
$16,592,144 from her company stock options
Gerberding’s
former high-level ties to the CDC likely has had enormous influence over
Merck’s financial growth, considering Merck makes a majority of the
pediatric and adults vaccines recommended by the CDC
Red flags have
recently been raised about Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil, a vaccine
Gerberding promoted in a 2004 report to Congress before it was fast
tracked to licensure in 2006. The U.K. recently reported a 54% rise in
cervical cancer among 24- to 29-year-olds, the first generation to
receive the HPV vaccine
A January 2020
report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine warns HPV vaccine
trials have not been designed to detect whether the vaccine actually
prevents cervical cancer. Trials have shown, however, that Gardasil
raises the risk of cervical cancer by 44.6% among women with a current
or previous HPV infection
(Natural News)
Yes, there is life on Mars, and NASA has known about it for four
decades. Their own Viking lander experiment confirmed the presence of
life on Mars, but instead of sharing this groundbreaking discovery with
the world, NASA chose to bury the truth and hide the science for decades.
Now, the former NASA engineer who designed the experiment that
confirmed the presence of life on Mars is speaking out. His name is
Gilbert V. Levin, and in a new op-ed published in Scientific American, he lays out his belief that life was already confirmed on Mars in the 1970s.
“I was fortunate to have participated in that historic adventure as
experimenter of the Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment on
NASA’s spectacular Viking mission to Mars in 1976,” writes Levin. “On
July 30, 1976, the LR returned its initial results from Mars. Amazingly,
they were positive. As the experiment progressed, a total of four
positive results, supported by five varied controls, streamed down from
the twin Viking spacecraft landed some 4,000 miles apart. The data
curves signaled the detection of microbial respiration on the Red
Planet. The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests
of soils on Earth.”
As word of the discovery spread, many other scientists around the
world began to rejoice. Levin even received a personal phone call from
Carl Sagan, congratulating him on the discovery.
But within hours, NASA buried the results and swept it all under the rug, claiming the mass spec instrument hadn’t detected life at all.
NASA banned any experiment that could confirm life on Mars
From that day forward, NASA banned life detection experiments on Mars missions
in order to continue the science fraud. “Inexplicably, over the 43
years since Viking, none of NASA’s subsequent Mars landers has carried a
life detection instrument to follow up on these exciting results,”
writes Levin.
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket
provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency
preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food
toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.
In truth, NASA is a fraudulent “science” organization
that has, for four decades, pushed the false narrative that there is no
life on Mars. The cover-up has been well coordinated and aggressively
enforced. And since it’s impossible for private citizens to visit Mars
and see for themselves, it’s difficult for anyone to prove that NASA has
been lying all these years.
But now new evidence is surfacing that NASA has been blatantly lying
all along… not just about microbial life on Mars but even about the
existence of a Martian atmosphere that could support life.
(I reported on this last year in a popular podcast that was banned by YouTube. It’s now available on Brighteon.com, where real science videos are welcomed.)
After detecting life on
Mars in 1976 and sweeping it under the rug, NASA banned life-detection
experiments to hide the truth from the world
(Natural News)
Yes, there is life on Mars, and NASA has known about it for four
decades. Their own Viking lander experiment confirmed the presence of
life on Mars, but instead of sharing this groundbreaking discovery with
the world, NASA chose to bury the truth and hide the science for decades.
Now, the former NASA engineer who designed the experiment that
confirmed the presence of life on Mars is speaking out. His name is
Gilbert V. Levin, and in a new op-ed published in Scientific American, he lays out his belief that life was already confirmed on Mars in the 1970s.
“I was fortunate to have participated in that historic adventure as
experimenter of the Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment on
NASA’s spectacular Viking mission to Mars in 1976,” writes Levin. “On
July 30, 1976, the LR returned its initial results from Mars. Amazingly,
they were positive. As the experiment progressed, a total of four
positive results, supported by five varied controls, streamed down from
the twin Viking spacecraft landed some 4,000 miles apart. The data
curves signaled the detection of microbial respiration on the Red
Planet. The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests
of soils on Earth.”
As word of the discovery spread, many other scientists around the
world began to rejoice. Levin even received a personal phone call from
Carl Sagan, congratulating him on the discovery.
But within hours, NASA buried the results and swept it all under the rug, claiming the mass spec instrument hadn’t detected life at all.
NASA banned any experiment that could confirm life on Mars
From that day forward, NASA banned life detection experiments on Mars missions
in order to continue the science fraud. “Inexplicably, over the 43
years since Viking, none of NASA’s subsequent Mars landers has carried a
life detection instrument to follow up on these exciting results,”
writes Levin.
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket
provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency
preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food
toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.
In truth, NASA is a fraudulent “science” organization
that has, for four decades, pushed the false narrative that there is no
life on Mars. The cover-up has been well coordinated and aggressively
enforced. And since it’s impossible for private citizens to visit Mars
and see for themselves, it’s difficult for anyone to prove that NASA has
been lying all these years.
But now new evidence is surfacing that NASA has been blatantly lying
all along… not just about microbial life on Mars but even about the
existence of a Martian atmosphere that could support life.
(I reported on this last year in a popular podcast that was banned by YouTube. It’s now available on Brighteon.com, where real science videos are welcomed.)
NASA to send scout helicopter to Mars, proving there’s an atmosphere
Earlier this year, the corporate media began reporting that NASA was
sending a scout helicopter to Mars as part of the 2020 lander mission.
This helicopter, touted by NASA administrator Bridenstine, is a dual
rotor, solar-powered helicopter designed to map terrain for the lander
rover. See this UPI story as an example of what’s being reported by the scientifically illiterate media: NASA engineers have installed the miniature helicopter on the
space agency’s Mars 2020 rover. The Mars Helicopter, nicknamed Scout,
will be the first aircraft to fly on another planet. “For the first
time, we are going to fly a helicopter on another world with the Mars
Helicopter,” Bridenstine said in March.
The problem with this story? According to NASA and the entire news media, Mars has virtually no atmosphere. Obviously, rotor-powered aircraft don’t function without an atmosphere, since they can’t produce lift in a vacuum.
According to NASA, the atmosphere on Mars is only 600 Pascals at
ground level. Earth’s atmosphere at sea level is 101,000 Pascals, and
even with that “thickness” of air, it’s still difficult to get a
mechanical craft of the ground using spinning rotors.
Yet according to NASA, we’re supposed to believe that a dual-rotor
helicopter will fly in virtually no atmosphere, powered by on-board
solar panels and batteries, somehow defying gravity that’s 38% of
Earth’s gravity with an atmosphere that’s only 0.6% as thick.
Any aeronautical engineer will tell you that’s impossible. If rotors
worked in a vacuum, then the space shuttle would have a giant propeller
mounted on its nose, doing away with all the rocket thrusters.
The only way a helicopter will fly on Mars is if there’s an atmosphere to create lift when the rotors spin. This isn’t rocket science. In fact, it doesn’t involve rockets at all. Propellers don’t work in a vacuum.
NASA faking helicopter “research” with laughable videos that are funnier than CNN’s faked green screen videos
To try to convince us all that they have developed a helicopter that
can fly in (nearly) a vacuum, NASA has released some of the most
hilarious, laughable video footage we’ve ever seen.
As you can see from the following video snippet, NASA has developed a
self-crashing helicopter that can only bounce and crash. The fact that
NASA wants us to believe this is going to be loaded up with imaging and
telemetry equipment — plus solar panels and batteries — is absurd. It’s
like a bad Saturday Night Live skit. Notice, too that this “helicopter”
isn’t even carrying batteries and appears to be receiving its power
through a tether that’s attached to the center of the floor.
It’s almost as bad as CNN’s fake Iraq War broadcast featuring Charles Jaco, which was completely staged in a studio, where CNN pretended
to be in Saudi Arabia and its journalists pretended to be under a gas
attack or a SCUD missile attack… we’re not sure which since once of them
put on a helmet and the other donned a gas mask. It’s some of the most
hilarious “news” that has ever been broadcast.
There’s a good chance you have an ancient medicine that is capable of fighting cancer
in your yard – and it’s also quite possible that you regularly pull it
out or mow right over it. Dandelions might look like weeds, but they
could actually be the most valuable thing to ever grow in your garden.
This flowering plant, which may have originated in Eurasia, gets its
name from the French “dent de lion”, which mean’s lion’s tooth, on
account of its jagged, tooth-like leaves. Known for its high vitamin A
content, dandelions have long been used to naturally prevent urinary
tract infections as they can impede the growth of microbes within the
urinary system.
The plant is known for its liver support, and its tea is often used
for detoxification. However, it is the root of the plant that has been
getting the most attention lately as its extract has been shown to offer
anti-cancer effects. So far, it has killed cancer cells for cancers
such as melanoma, pancreatic cancer, leukemia, and colon cancer in
animals and lab settings. A phase 1 human clinical trial is already
underway to explore its use in end-stage blood cancers like lymphoma and
leukemia.
In one study from the University of Windsor in Ontario, dandelion root extract was shown to prompt human melanoma cells to kill themselves within just 48 hours, leaving nearby healthy cells alone. Meanwhile a study published in the International Journal of Oncology found that dandelion tea could reduce prostate and breast cancer cells.
In addition to its anti-cancer effects, dandelion root can also
enhance heart health. Its extract can help treat blood acidity and high
blood pressure, and the medicinal root can reduce blood cholesterol and
help fat to break down. It can also inhibit inflammation, which is at
the heart of many modern chronic illnesses.
The power of the elements:
Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients
like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more.
Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store and help support this news site.
How to get the health benefits of dandelion
Dandelion root can be found
in capsule, liquid extract or tincture form, and it can even be roasted
as a healthy coffee alternative. Although it’s possible to buy prepared
dandelion root teas, if you have this plant growing in your yard, it’s
quite simple to make the tea yourself. (Unless you use pesticides on
your lawn.)
If you want to make your own dandelion root tea, dig the root of the
plant up carefully and rinse it off, then chop it up or grind it finely.
Food Revolution Network suggests that you use anywhere from half a
teaspoon to a full teaspoon at a time, placing it inside a tea bag and
steeping it in boiling water for 20 minutes. If you need to harvest a
lot at once, you can dehydrate it and store it. They suggest drinking
two cups of dandelion root tea per day.
Of course, you can also consume the greens. They’re great in salad,
or you can add them to soup or even a smoothie to get more vitamins A,
B6, K and C, along with calcium, riboflavin, folate, magnesium,
manganese, iron and potassium, among other nutrients.
Stop letting this amazing cancer-fighting plant go to waste and start experimenting with ways to include dandelion in your diet for better health. Sources for this article include: FoodRevolution.org Naturalpedia.com NaturalNews.com
President
Trump and members of the US Congress have recently received briefings
about US Navy pilot sightings of UFOs. When combined with the Pentagon
acknowledging that it had created a classified program to study the UFOs
from 2007 to 2012 with Congressional funding, the briefings are leading
to increasing speculation on whether we are on the verge of official
disclosure on UFOs and their true origin. Furthermore,
the briefings are occurring at the same time as legislation for the
creation of a Space Force is making steady progress through Congress.
This raises the intriguing question of whether Trump and members of
Congress have been told Space Force is necessary to deal with UFOs being
sighted by the Navy pilots which are being viewed by the Pentagon as a
potential threat. In an
interview with ABC TV host, George Stephanopoulos, President Donald
Trump admitted that he received a briefing about UFO sightings by US
Navy pilots that occurred in 2004 and 2015. In a June 15 story titled:
“Trump briefed on Navy UFO sightings,” Politico’s Matthew Choi wrote about what Trump told Stephanopoulos:
“I
want them to think whatever they think,” Trump said of the Navy pilots.
“I did have one very brief meeting on it. But people are saying they’re
seeing UFOs. Do I believe it? Not particularly.”
Trump was
here acknowledging that he doesn’t believe in UFOs, which has the
connotation of being an extraterrestrial piloted spacecraft. Reading
between the lines here, Trump is hinting that what the Navy pilots saw
were not UFOs but something else that he and the Pentagon knew the
answer to. When asked the question of whether he knew of an extraterrestrial connection to the sightings, he told Stephanopoulos:
“I
think our great pilots would know. And some of them see things a little
bit different from the past. … We’re watching, and you’ll be the first
to know.”
Trump
appeared to be deflecting from what he really knew about the alien
connection, but one thing he emphasized was that his administration is
paying attention to what the Navy pilots have been reporting. Again,
reading between the lines, Trump is saying that his administration is
actively seeking answers to the UFO phenomenon, and when he finds out,
he will relay this to Stephanopoulos and the general public. A few days later on June 19, Politico
ran a story where it discussed three US Senators that had also received
classified briefings on the UFO sightings by Navy pilots. In “Senators briefed on Navy UFO sightings”, Bryan Bender wrote:
Three
more U.S. senators received a classified Pentagon briefing on Wednesday
about a series of reported encounters by the Navy with unidentified
aircraft, according to congressional and military officials — part of a
growing number of requests from members of key oversight committees.
One
of them was Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, whose office confirmed the briefing to POLITICO.
“If
naval pilots are running into unexplained interference in the air,
that’s a safety concern Senator Warner believes we need to get to the
bottom of,” his spokesperson, Rachel Cohen, said in a statement.
Justifying
their interest in the Navy pilot sightings as a “safety concern” is a
convenient way for members of Congress to take an active interest in UFO
reports, which have been officially dismissed and ridiculed for
decades. This official policy goes back to 1953 when a CIA sponsored
panel of scientists gave a damming report on UFO sightings
that recommended a public education program to dismiss and ridicule UFO
(aka flying saucer) sightings on national security grounds. Ever since
then UFO sightings have been reported by the mainstream press in a way
that often mocks and ridicules the subject matter. What is very unusual
today is that serving Navy pilots are given permission to talk about
their sightings, and the press is giving their accounts serious
attention in articles without any ridicule factor. This is amply demonstrated in the many mainstream news stories that appeared after the New York Times and Politicoran
simultaneous articles about the Navy pilot UFO sightings back on
December 16, 2017. Both newspapers discussed the pilots’ UFO sightings,
leaked videos of the UFOs recorded by their planes instruments, and the
connection of the sightings to the establishment of the Advanced
Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) back in 2007 with
Congressional funding of $22 million. All this
coincides with the formation of Space Force as a sixth branch of the US
military, which is currently being debated by both houses of Congress.
In the last few weeks, two Congressional defense committees have approved the passage of bills
authorizing the creation of Space Force. It will take another month or
two for both the House of Representatives and Senate to pass their
respective bills, and to then resolve differences in language and
priorities between the two versions for their inclusion into the
National Defense Authorization Act for 2020. One thing is
becoming very clear, Space Force enjoys genuine bipartisan support in
Congress, and this appears to be a result of the current media and
Congressional interest in UFOs generated by Navy pilot reports and
Pentagon disclosures about its AATIP program. Was Senator Warner, a
Democrat, told by his Pentagon briefers that the UFOs sighted by the
pilots were an unknown threat, and this is why Space Force is necessary? A few weeks earlier, Senator Ted Cruz spoke about Space Force being necessary
to deal with space pirates. He was not talking about extraterrestrial
visitors, but rogue elements from different countries or corporations
that could challenge US supremacy in space. It’s not
coincidental that members of Congress are being briefed about Navy pilot
reports of UFOs that led to the Pentagon setting up its AATIP program
in 2007. They are being told that UFOs are an unknown threat, at the
same time as the Trump Administration and the Pentagon are pushing for
the establishment of Space Force.
It’s widely expected
that Space Force will be officially created and set up under the
Department of Air Force in 2020, mirroring the relationship between the
Department of the Navy and the US Marine Corps. After
its official launch, the stage will be set for the Air Force to unveil
the classified space technologies it has been covertly developing for
decades in a secret space program, which is described in detail in my
newly released book, US Air Force Secret Space Program: Extraterrestrial Alliances and Space Force. Official
disclosure is likely to unfold in different stages. The first will be
that many UFO sightings involve classified technologies developed by the
USAF, along with similar aerospace technologies developed by Russia and
China. Disclosure of an Air Force secret space program will be an
optimal way of surprising the US public with news about the different sized and shaped antigravity vehicles that have been deployed for several decades now. The second
stage of disclosure likely involves future announcements involving the
capture and reverse engineering of non-terrestrial technologies that
date back to the 1940s, as also described in the US Air Force Secret Space Program. A sure sign of what lies ahead is a leaked document
about Vice Admiral Tom Wilson, former Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, being denied access back in 1997 to a classified
corporate program involving the reverse engineering of non-human made
advanced technologies. The leaked
document identifies several scientists and former military officials who
could be summoned before Congress to testify about their knowledge of
such a reverse engineering program. Indeed the Pentagon official in
charge of the AATIP program from 2007 to 2017, Luis Elizondo, gave an
interview on Tucker Carlson on May 31 admitting that some UFO
technologies had been retrieved and were being studied by the US
government.
Carlson:
Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the US government on
this question that the US government has in its possession any material
from one of these aircraft?
Elizondo: I do. Yes.
Carlson: Do you think the US government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?
Elizondo:
Unfortunately Tucker I really have to be careful of my NDA
[Non-Disclosure Agreement], I really can’t go into a lot of more detail
than that …
Carlson: Okay.
Elizondo: But, ah, simply put, yes.
This would
set in place a means by which the Pentagon and the Trump Administration
could reveal how retrieved non-terrestrial technologies were used for
the USAF for the research and development of advanced aerospace
technologies using antigravity, torsion field and other exotic
propulsion systems. Finally,
after Space Force has been created and its arsenal of antigravity
spacecraft inherited from the USAF is publicly revealed, the truth about
some of the extraterrestrials currently visiting our world can be
announced. Extraterrestrial disclosure can be done in a way that does
not undermine public confidence over the US and other national
governments being able to defend their populations against any possible
hostile extraterrestrial actions. The
widespread media attention given to US Navy pilot reports, the
association of the UFOs with the AATIP program, and Congressional
passage of legislation establishing Space Force are all sure signs of
major disclosures that lie ahead.
Hemp, a species
of cannabis plant, has been valued since ancient times for its fibers
and seeds, but it’s been illegal to grow in the U.S. for decades
The 2018 Farm
Bill included a section legalizing hemp production, paving the way for
what many are calling the next big cash crop
While both
marijuana and hemp come from the cannabis plant, hemp is low in
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the substance that produces the
“high” associated with marijuana
Hemp is beneficial for the soil as it doesn’t require the use of pesticides and has a short growing cycle, making it sustainable
Hemp is valued as an omega-3-rich plant food and fiber and has more than 25,000 industrial uses
Many of hemp’s
health benefits relate to its cannabidiol (CBD) content, which has been
found to offer neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory
benefits
Hemp, a species of cannabis plant, has
been valued since ancient times for its fibers and seeds, but it’s been
illegal to grow in the U.S. for decades. That all changed in late 2018
with the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. It included a section
legalizing hemp production, paving the way for what many are calling
the next big cash crop.
Hemp has many uses, ranging from food to fiber,
but it’s also the source of the hemp-derived compound cannabidiol
(CBD), which shows promising medical uses. The CBD market in the U.S.
was estimated at $600 million in 2018, with projections shooting up
over $20 billion by 2022.1
The change in hemp’s legal status was a long time coming and paves
the way for this beneficial plant to be treated like other crops,
instead of an illegal substance.
The History of Hemp
The legalization of hemp is cause for celebration for more than just
hemp supporters, who have been spearheading legalization attempts for
decades. The move has ramifications for human health and the
environment, now that this plant will no longer be treated as an
illicit drug.
Hemp has been valued for thousands of years, with perhaps the oldest
discovery of hemp dating back to a piece of hemp fabric from 8,000
B.C.2 As noted by the National Hemp Association, hemp has been used throughout the world for centuries:3
“The spread of cannabis took place from China to the Middle East
and the Mediterranean area and, subsequently, to Europe, probably via
nomadic peoples. Starting around the year 600, the Germans, Frankish
tribes and Vikings produced rope, cloth and garments from hemp fiber.
In the Middle Ages, most people wore hemp sandals. Many farmers
grew hemp on a small scale. Since the Middle Ages, the industrial use
of hemp has seen a number of peaks.”
In the 17th century, for instance, ships took to the seas with sails
and lines made from braided hemp fibers. Hemp clothing was also
popular, and Rembrandt used hemp paper for sketching. In the U.S.,
Presidents Washington and Jefferson grew hemp, and according to the
Hemp Industries Association (HIA), “Americans were legally bound to
grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic.”4
By the 19th century, however, alternative materials like cotton and
wood pulp began to take hemp’s place, making it less popular. In 1937,
the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, which grouped hemp with marijuana,
making hemp sales heavily taxed. The financial strain caused may hemp
businesses to close and the hemp industry further declined.5
WWII brought with it a brief boost for hemp, with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) encouraging U.S. farmers to grow the
plant and the government offering subsidies for hemp cultivation. About
1 million acres of hemp were planted in the U.S. during that time, and
the stiff fiber was used to make parachutes, uniforms, tarps and other
products useful to the war industry.
“After the war ended, the government quietly shut down all the hemp
processing plants and the industry faded away again,” the HIA noted.6
The final nail in the coffin came with the passage of the Controlled
Substances Act of 1970, which grouped hemp and marijuana together as
Schedule 1 substances, a classification reserved for drugs with "high
potential for abuse" and "no accepted medical use."
Three years later the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was formed to
enforce the newly created drug schedules, and the fight against
marijuana and hemp use began.
Marijuana Versus Hemp: What’s the Difference?
While both marijuana and hemp come from the cannabis plant, hemp is low in tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), which is the substance that produces the “high” associated with
marijuana use. Whereas hemp typically contains 0.3 percent THC or less,
marijuana may contain anywhere from 5 to 35 percent THC, according to
HIA.
Interestingly, the 0.3 percent for THC in hemp came about quite by
accident when a couple of Canadian scientists designated that number in
a 1976 report they wrote on the two plants. Later, the DEA used the
same number when they were formulating rules to ban hemp and all
products with THC in them. The 0.3 percent later became part of federal
law with the 2014 Farm Bill, explained later in this article.7
And while the THC percentage varies in marijuana depending on which
part of the plant is used, the Alcohol & Drug Institute at the
University of Washington says the average THC in marijuana dried leaves
and buds in the U.S. can vary from less than1 percent to 20 percent.8
Marijuana is typically used for medicinal or recreational purposes,
whereas hemp can be used for a variety of applications ranging from
food and medicine to clothing, construction, body care and even plastic.
You can’t get high from hemp, but its high CBD content makes it
attractive for medicinal purposes.
Further, whereas marijuana must be grown in a carefully controlled
atmosphere, hemp is easy to grow and thrives in most climates.
Generally speaking, cannabis sativa, which has long and narrow leaves, is grown outdoors and has higher CBD and low THC, producing no psychoactive effects.
Cannabis idica, on the other hand, has shorter, wider leaves, grows
best indoors and contains higher THC, which produces the high most
recreational marijuana users are after.
However, because many hybrids have been produced, it’s not possible to identify these qualities from plant name alone.9
According to the 2014 Farm Bill, hemp refers to cannabis
sativa plants containing 0.3 percent or less of THC, and that
definition remained unchanged in the 2018 Bill.
The Slow Progress Toward Hemp Legalization in the US
In 2013, Colorado legalized industrial hemp farming for commercial
and research purposes, provided the farmers verified the THC levels and
paid for a permit. In 2014, the Farm Bill also included a section that
allowed hemp cultivation for select research and pilot programs, and
dozens of states introduced pro-hemp legislation to follow.
By 2017, nearly 26,000 acres of hemp were being grown in 19 states.10
Still, in a major waste of taxpayer dollars, the DEA would target hemp
farmers. Ministry of Hemp noted that prior to the 2018 legalization:11
“[F]armers in all these states still risk being raided by the
DEA, going to prison, and losing their property because the federal
policy fail[ed] to distinguish non-drug oilseed and fiber varieties of
industrial hemp from the psychoactive drug varieties (i.e.,
‘marijuana’)”
Now that hemp has been legalized, it removes restrictions for crop
insurance, banking and other barriers to farmers looking for a
profitable crop. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spearheaded
the bill, believes hemp could replace tobacco as a new cash crop,
stating:12
“At a time when farm income is down and growers are struggling,
industrial hemp is a bright spot of agriculture’s future. My provision
in the Farm Bill will not only legalize domestic hemp, but it will also
allow state departments of agriculture to be responsible for its
oversight.”
What’s more, hemp is sometimes described as a miracle crop,
providing sustainable material to replace trees for paper, for instance,
because it has a growing cycle of just four to six months. Hemp is
beneficial for the soil as well, as it doesn’t require the use of
pesticides due to its dense, deep roots, which repel weeds naturally.13
Because it grows so close together, hemp can be grown in tight
spaces, decreasing land use while still leading to high yields because
of its fast growing rate. Basically, hemp grows like a weed, tolerating
a variety of climates and soil types, and requiring relatively little
water. It was even used to extract toxins from the soil at Chernobyl.14
What Will the Legalization of Hemp Mean for CBD Products?
With hemp’s legalization, CBD products, which are already on the upswing, are set to take off. Their legal status
is another issue entirely. CBD is technically illegal according to the
DEA, and it’s unclear whether it will be reclassified. The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, classifies CBD as a drug and
has no plans to change that. In a statement, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott
Gottlieb said:15
“[T]he FDA requires a cannabis product (hemp-derived or
otherwise) that is marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit, or
with any other disease claim, to be approved by the FDA for its
intended use before it may be introduced into interstate commerce. This
is the same standard to which we hold any product marketed as a drug
for human or animal use.
Cannabis and cannabis-derived products claiming in their
marketing and promotional materials that they’re intended for use in
the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases
(such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, psychiatric disorders and
diabetes) are considered new drugs or new animal drugs and must go
through the FDA drug approval process for human or animal use before
they are marketed in the U.S.”
CBD can come from either marijuana or hemp.
Again, the distinction between these two plants hinges on the THC
content. Hemp has very little if any THC, whereas marijuana will have
varying amounts of THC. Hemp products such as hemp oil and hemp extract
are legal.
So even though they may have small amounts of CBD, hemp products
such as hemp oil can be lawfully marketed, provided they don’t
reference CBD or claim to cure any diseases. This is a potential
loophole the CBD industry could use. The drawback is hemp products may
not have much CBD in them, and they may not be clinically effective.
That being said, the new legal status will open up hemp and CBD for
research, potentially leading to more definitive knowledge about proper
dosing and usage. And as noted by the Ministry of Hemp, “Attitudes are
already changing. Even before being signed into law, the 2018 Farm
Bill inspired the Alabama state attorney general to back off from plans
to prosecute CBD stores.”16
The Many Benefits of Hemp
The hoopla over hemp is well deserved. Its seeds contain nearly as
much protein as soybeans and all nine essential amino acids, especially
arginine, which is beneficial for heart health.
Two main proteins in hemp seed protein, albumin and edestin, are
rich in essential amino acids, with profiles comparable to egg white.
Hemp's edestin content is among the highest of all plants. Hemp protein
is also easy to digest because of its lack of oligosaccharides and
trypsin inhibitors, which can affect protein absorption.
Hemp seeds are also an excellent source of plant-based omega-3s and
include a balanced 1-to-3 ratio of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Hemp
seeds, especially those with the hulls intact, are also rich in fiber
and contain a variety of vitamins and minerals, including vitamin E,
magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, zinc and B vitamins.
Many of hemp’s health benefits relate to its CBD content as well,
which has been found to offer neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory and
immunomodulatory benefits.17 Potential uses for CBD and other hemp extracts include:18,19
Medicinal uses aside, hemp seed oil is used in body care products
while the fiber can be used to make fabric, clothing, paper and even a
recyclable hemp plastic and hemp concrete. There are reportedly more
than 25,000 industrial uses for hemp,20 and this probably only scratches the surface of what this versatile plant is good for.
The legalization of hemp in the U.S. will now make it easier for
humans and the environment alike to enjoy the benefits of this natural
wonder plant once again.
If you’re concerned about a heart attack, there are lots of steps you
might take to reduce your risk. Perhaps you’re already exercising and
eating a healthy diet, but you’d like to give your efforts that extra
edge. Before your doctor convinces you to start taking a long-term
regimen of risky medications that may or may not actually be effective,
why not turn to nature for an alternative that is as delicious as it is
powerful?
A study carried out by researchers from Harvard Medical School revealed just how much two particular berries can help reduce a person’s risk of heart attack:
strawberries and blueberries. They looked at health data from more than
93,000 women aged 25 to 42 who participated in the Nurses’ Health
Study, which included information about their diet and health over the
course of 18 years.
They discovered that the women who ate the fewest blueberries and strawberries
had the highest risk of having a heart attack, while those who ate the
most of these berries were 34 percent less likely to have a heart
attack. Consuming the berries regularly brought about the positive
health benefits, and those with the healthiest hearts tended to eat at
least three cups per week of the two fruits combined, on average.
These benefits came about regardless of other risk factors like
alcohol intake, smoking, exercise, family history of heart attack, age
and high blood pressure, which means you can increase your risk even
further by combining a boost in your berry intake with other healthy
changes.
Studies in mice have also shown blueberries’ value in heart health. Researchers from the University of Maine found that mice who were fed a blueberry-rich diet had significant improvements in how easily their veins expanded and constricted, which had a blood pressure-lowering effect.
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket
provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency
preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food
toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.
How do berries help your heart?
It is believed that their power comes from their high content of the
flavonoids known as anthocyanins. These antioxidants can lower blood
pressure and increase the flexibility of blood vessels.
Should you run out and buy supplements that contain these flavonoids?
The scientists say no; they work best when you get them from the whole
foods themselves, and organic varieties will give you more nutrients
without the pesticide risk.
This is excellent news for people with heart concerns because berries
are so easy to incorporate into your diet. Of course, a commercial
blueberry pie isn’t going to do your heart any favors with its trans
fats and high sugar content, but thankfully berries work so well with a
number of healthy dishes.
For example, you can get your daily dose at breakfast by mixing some
berries into your organic oatmeal or yogurt – be sure you sweeten it
yourself with a bit of organic honey rather than buying the sugar-laden
prepared varieties. You can work berries into your lunch or dinner by
adding them to a salad; they pair extremely well with leafy greens like
spinach, and you can make your own quick dressing with balsamic vinegar
and extra-virgin olive oil to enhance their flavor and consume some
heart-healthy fats. If you’re not inclined to cook, you can munch on a
handful of berries as an easy snack at any hour.
Benefits of berry consumption extend beyond your heart
Just how toxic is Monsanto’s most prolific herbicide,
Roundup? While the active ingredient, glyphosate, has long been
scrutinized, new research shows that active ingredients in pesticides
and herbicides aren’t the only things people should be worried about. As
many people have suspected, the so-called “inactive” ingredients
featured in weedkillers like Roundup are not so benign after all.
What’s more disturbing: The fact that these purportedly innocuous
ingredients are actually poison, or that we’re only just uncovering this
sordid detail 40-some-odd years afterRoundup’s
debut? EPA estimates suggest that around 100 million pounds of Roundup
are applied to farms and lawns across the U.S. every year. Just how deep does the Roundup rabbit hole go?
Science shows Roundup is pure poison
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently conducted its
first-ever analysis of herbicide formulations that include glyphosate
and other chemicals. Apparently, it’s taken over four decades for the
government to suspect that perhaps, when glyphosate is combined with
other chemicals, it becomes even more hazardous.
As The Guardian explains, while regulators have required
that glyphosate be tested in isolation in the past, little to no
research has been done on the actual formulations including glyphosate
that are sold to consumers.
You might say that this method of handling pesticide regulation is
ineffectual — and you’d be right. And it’s only taken forty years for
the government to realize this?
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket
provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency
preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food
toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.
The EPA requested that the NTP conduct an investigation of
glyphosate-containing pesticides after the World Health Organization’s
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) named glyphosate as a
“probable human carcinogen.”
The NTP study has shown that glyphosate formulations are more dangerous than glyphosate is on its own.
In their summary, NTP scientists say that glyphosate formulations
reduced human cell “viability,” causing disruption in cell membranes.
The Guardian notes further that the NTP’s data shows
enhanced toxicity from glyphosate formulations, along with an ability to
kill human cells — but the organization is still averse to drawing any
sort of meaningful conclusion from their work.
As is typical of government agencies, the NTP is reluctant to say
more than that; Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP lab, told the Guardian, “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it.” Seriously? DeVito says more research is needed, but also noted that they don’t even know what Monsanto actually puts into Roundup.
“We don’t know what the formulation is. That is confidential business
information,” he commented. Isn’t that just great? If they don’t know
what the formulation is, how can they really prove anything? Maybe
that’s the point.
Past research shows similar findings
There are over 4,000 “inert” ingredients approved by the EPA for use
in pesticides. These include things like solvents, preservatives,
surfactants and other goodies.
In 2015, a study from France
showed that the purportedly inactive ingredients in Roundup “amplified
its toxicity.” Researchers at the University of Caen found that one
“inert” ingredient in particular, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA,
was exceptionally toxic.
As Scientific American reported:
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients]
in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote 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” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans,
alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.
Despite Monsanto’s attempts at refuting the findings, the French
researchers were hopeful that their evidence would inspire health
agencies to reevaluate Roundup’s safety. When this research is taken
along with the IARC’s contention that glyphosate is probably
carcinogenic, it raises serious questions about the safety of this
ubiquitous herbicide. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that
Roundup is more toxic than anyone appears to be willing to admit.
The great Roundup deception
No one, not even Monsanto itself, seems to be able to accurately gauge the toxicity of Roundup.
Government agencies, like NTP, say that they can’t have access to the
actual formulation of Roundup. This means that even if they come to an
“unfavorable” conclusion, there will always be room for Monsanto’s
products to have a “get out of jail free” card, because they weren’t
able to test the real thing.
Federal documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show that even the EPA is not sure
what current formulations for Roundup contain. The NTP has also
admitted they don’t really know what’s in Roundup. It’s “confidential,”
so no on can ever know what’s in it, apparently — even for the sole
purpose of establishing the product’s safety (or lack of it). And we’re
not supposed to find that suspicious?
While the government increases their surveillance of innocent people,
they’re also letting Monsanto pollute the world with a substance of
unknown contents and an immeasurable potential to cause harm. Isn’t that
something?
Further, Monsanto itself has been lying about the alleged safety of their flagship product, Roundup. Once again living up to their reputation as the “world’s most evil corporation,” internal emails show that despite being Roundup’s manufacturer, they themselves have no idea what their beloved weedkiller is capable of.
In a 2003 email, a Monsanto scientist reportedly wrote, “You cannot
say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary
testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the
formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”
In 2010, another email exchange revealed this gem: “With regards to
the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on
them directly.” So, Monsanto has never actually tested the Roundup
product itself — only the glyphosate — which also comes with its fair share of health risks. When will we learn: Corporations can’t be trusted to police themselves.
Stay up-to-date on the latest science on glyphosate at Glyphosate.news. Sources for this article include: TheGuardian.com ScientificAmerican.com EcoWatch.com
The concept of cell tower radiation causing cancer used to be tinfoil
hat territory – or at least that’s what those with vested interests in
the technology wanted people to think. Now, however, the body of
scientific evidence indicating that cell tower radiation can cause
cancer is growing too big to ignore.
The world’s biggest animal study of cell tower radiation, which was carried out by the Ramazzini Institute
in Italy, has revealed the dangers of exposure to environmental levels
of cell tower radiation. In the study, researchers exposed 2,448 rats to
1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation in amounts that mimicked those
that cell tower antennas give off for 19 hours a day. They found that
the female rats had a higher chance of developing malignant brain
tumors, while all rats had a higher chance of precancerous conditions
and Schwann cell hyperplasia.
This study went the extra mile, allowing the rats to live until their
natural death. Four fifths of human cancers occur after people have
turned 60, so following the animals over an extended period enabled them
to catch late-developing tumors.
The researchers say that their findings are enough to call on the
International Agency for Research on Cancer to take another look at the
carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation on humans.
For decades, the corporate-influenced media has characterized any
links between cell towers and cancer as being a “conspiracy theory.” Yet
the theory now appears to be scientific fact. “Where is the apology
from the lying media on all this,” asked Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, publisher of Science.news and author of Food Forensics.
“Now mainstream science is finally catching up to the warnings we
published over a decade ago, once again demonstrating that we were years
ahead of the nearly illiterate so-called journalists who cover science
topics for the fake news media. For years, they insisted there was no
link between cell tower radiation and brain tumors, effectively putting
billions of people at risk and costing an unknown number of innocent
lives,” Adams explained. “Now that the truth comes out, will they
retract their false accusations against those of us who were accurately
warning the public of the health risks associated with cell towers? Of
course not. They are fake news. Only independent media reports real news
in the interests of the public.”
Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit
allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive
minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more.
You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil,
superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine).
ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts
per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.
It’s worth noting that this study used far lower amounts of
radiation than those used by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. That
study also found the cancer Schwannoma of the heart
in male rats, but it faced some criticism for the high doses used. In
the Ramazzini study, however, the exposures were even lower than the
“safe” limits set out by the FCC, which means people can be exposed to
such levels of radiation legally.
Pregnant women and children urged to be cautious
Pregnant women and children need to be particularly careful about
their exposure, according to the study, as the researchers discovered
that animals exposed to radio frequency radiation had significantly
lower litter weights. Other experts concur, pointing out that the
current standards were not reached with this subgroup in mind.
In fact, the current FCC limits were set 20 years ago, when most
people didn’t have cell phones and the average call was just six
minutes. These days, we all know that cell phone use has risen
dramatically, and it’s surprising these limits have not yet been
reassessed.
The executive director of Environmental Health Trust, Theodora
Scarato, said that several nations already have stricter regulations
than the U.S. when it comes to cell tower radiation – namely Russia,
Italy, India and China. The group is joining public health experts from
places like Israel, France and Belgium in asking governments and the
private sector to carry out measures to make cell technology usage
safer. For example, they’d like to see campaigns educating the public on
how to use these devices safely and the potential dangers of exposure.
Meanwhile, technology companies can look into changing software and
hardware in ways that reduce people’s exposure.
Late last year, the California Department of Public Health released new guidelines on how people can reduce their exposure
to the radio frequency energy released when cell phones send and
receive signals from cell phone towers. For example, they suggest that
people avoid keeping their phone in their pocket or near their bed at
night.
In addition, the California Department of Public Health’s director,
Dr. Karen Smith, said that parents should restrict their children’s cell
phone use as children’s brains continue to develop throughout their
teenage years and can be affected more by cell phone usage.
Read EMF.news for more coverage of electromagnetic radiation and its health implications. Sources for this article include: GreenMedInfo.com NaturalNews.com IBTimes.com
In the interest of stopping “global warming,” government officials in the United Kingdom have partnered with companies and governments in the state of Virginia to hack down large swaths of southern hardwood forest in order to create “biomass” energy for use across the pond.
Since continuing to burn native fossil fuels like coal won’t help the
U.K. achieve its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the country
has decided to clear-cut entire forests here in the United States and
burn all the wood that’s collected to generate electricity – and it’s
calling this mass destruction of trees “green” energy.
This partnership between Great Britain and Virginia is costing U.K.
taxpayers the equivalent of nearly $1 billion annually, as their
electricity bills are padded with extra “green” fees that supposedly
help to cover the cost of mowing down America’s hardwood forests and
turning them into fuel for homes and businesses.
Because trees are technically renewable, the whole thing is
considered to be beneficial in helping to curb the threat of “climate
change,” despite the fact that burning wood creates a tremendous amount
of heat and ash pollution. But tacking “green” onto the endeavor is
apparently enough to pacify the climate fanatics who support the move,
and believe that it will help to reduce the U.K.’s “carbon footprint.”
“This is yet another shocking example of the mindless, destructive,
anti-science stupidity of the climate change alarmists,” warned scientist Mike Adams, publisher of Climate.news and founder of a globally-recognized food and environmental science lab (CWClabs.com).
“Industries are literally murdering living forests in the name of
greening the planet,” Adams said. “The very same people who used to be
tree huggers are now tree murderers, and none of them appear to
recognize any contradiction in their own stupidity.”
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket
provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency
preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food
toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.
According to The Ecologist, the felled trees in Virginia’s
hardwood forests are being turned into millions of tons of small wood
pellets that are regularly shipped over to the U.K.’s largest power
station, Drax, which is located in North Yorkshire. A U.S.-based company
known as Enviva first processes the logs into these pellets, which are
then hauled across the Atlantic and burned as fuel at the Drax plant.
It’s a laborious process that British authorities claim will help to
cut the nation’s carbon emission by 57 percent by the year 2030. Drax
plans to completely phase out the burning of local coal, instead
bringing in the wood pellets from overseas, which is supposedly
“greener.”
According to officials at Drax, the burning of wood pellets rather
than coal will supposedly help reduce carbon emissions at the plant
alone by as much as 80 percent. This figure comes from laboratory
experiments conducted at the University of Nottingham that supposedly show major carbon reductions.
Truth bomb: Burning wood actually produces more carbon than burning coal
But is this actually true? Not exactly. As explained by The Ecologist,
to generate the same amount of energy from wood pellets as from coal
ends up producing about eight percent more carbon – meaning wood-burning
is actually more polluting than coal-burning.
But because European law regards wood biomass as “carbon neutral,”
this isn’t even considered – not to mention the mass destruction of
hardwood forests that’s left in its wake. And Drax doesn’t even have to
report the amount of carbon emissions coming from its chimneys due to
this “carbon neutral” designation.
If Drax was, in fact, required to monitor carbon emissions, it would
reveal that biomass is hardly “green” in the way that some people think
it is. At least 11.7 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) was generated
at Drax just last year alone – and if this was all biomass energy, it
would be an additional eight percent more CO2.
And while the replanting of trees can help to sequester some of this
carbon, trees take several decades to regrow. This implies that creating biomass
is hardly a “green” endeavor, and is actually causing widespread
destruction to, in this case, America’s precious natural resources.
“Britain may be on track to eliminating the use of coal but they are not on track to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions,” The Ecologist
explains. “We’re not going to meet our one and a half or two-degree
targets that all governments, including the British government, agreed
to in Paris.”
“Burning more wood makes it absolutely impossible to meet that
target. We now know that if we overshoot that the consequences last for
100s to a thousand or more years. So there’s no off switch, there’s no
reverse gear.” Sources for this article include: TheEcologist.org NaturalNews.com
Shocking internal emails, uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act, have revealed yet another scandal:
The FDA knew that the toxic weed killer, glyphosate, was contaminating
the U.S. food supply — and ignored the dangerous threat posed to
American consumers. Apparently, the finding of glyphosate in heavily
consumed products like granola bars and corn is of no concern to FDA
officials; supervisors have reportedly declared that the glyphosate
present in these items doesn’t count because they aren’t part of the
agency’s “official” report.
Science be damned; the federal government has a report to write — and
now, some are wondering if perhaps somebody, somewhere has already told
them what to put in it.
For decades, the FDA has been responsible for testing food samples to
ensure that specific quality standards are met. This includes
monitoring foods for illegally high amounts of pesticide residues. Until
recently, however, the FDA had not been testing for glyphosate
residues — a fact that drew much scrutiny from the Government
Accountability Office, as well as consumer watchdog organizations.
Glyphosate in and of itself has drawn a lot of criticism, due to its litany of adverse effects on human health
and the environment. The star ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup came
under fire in 2015, after the World Health Organization’s International
Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate was a “probable
carcinogen.” Some research has shown that increasing use of this
pesticide may be contributing to the rapid decline of bee populations, as well.
Get CLEAN FOOD and help support our mission to keep you informed: The Health Ranger Store
lab verifies everything we sell with accredited testing for heavy
metals, microbiology and food safety. Certified organic facility,
ISO-accredited on-site laboratory, no GMOs or synthetic ingredients. The
world's #1 source of lab-verified clean foods and superfoods for
nutritional healing. 600+ products available. Explore now.
Now a string of emails from the FDA show that multiple FDA
scientists have found concerning levels of glyphosate residue in
everyday foods. In separate investigations, chemists Richard Thompson
and Narong Chamkasem found traces of glyphosate that exceeded legal
amounts in different foods.
In one email, Thompson wrote to his colleagues, “I have brought wheat
crackers, granola cereal and corn meal from home and there’s a fair
amount in all of them,” and noted that only his broccoli sample seemed
to be free of glyphosate.
Chamkasem’s findings were similar, with the chemist noting that there
were exceptionally high amounts of glyphosate residue in corn. In an
internal FDA email, Chamkasem reported that they had detected glyphosate
in corn at 6.5 parts per million, while the legal limit is 5.0 ppm.
“These emails shatter any remaining faith in the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration operating as some sort of defender of public health,”
explained Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, founder of CWC Labs and author of Food Forensics.
“The fact that the FDA deliberately withheld these alarming findings
from the public speaks volumes about the real motivations of this failed
agency,” Adams added. “It’s clear to every scientifically-minded person
that the FDA goes out of its way to hide the truth about agricultural
chemicals in the food supply, most likely to protect the financial
interests of chemical pesticide and herbicide corporations which wield
tremendous influence over government regulators.”
How the FDA buried its findings while food consumers continued to eat cancer-linked weed killer chemicals
Perhaps what’s most concerning about this is that a supervisor at the FDA essentially waved off this finding. Normally, The Guardian explains,
a finding like this is reported to the EPA. However, an FDA supervisor
wrote to an EPA official, declaring that the corn tested by Chamkasem
was not an “official” sample.
Chamkasem also reportedly uncovered glyphosate residues in oatmeal
products and honey in 2016. FDA documents show that after announcing
these findings, Chamkasem’s lab was “reassigned to other programs” and
the entire investigation was actually suspended temporarily. Again, the
FDA declared that these items were not part of their glyphosate residue
review.
The fact that foods like wheat and oats are not part of the FDA review is actually highly concerning, as it’s become well-known that farmers use glyphosate as a desiccant. Wheat, oats and other foods
are commonly sprayed with glyphosate late in the season to hasten the
harvesting process. So, there’s plenty of reason to suspect these foods
are also contaminated, even if they aren’t supposed to be treated with
glyphosate.
But sadly, as The Guardian notes further, it seems unlikely
that either Thompson’s or Chamkasem’s findings will be included in the
official FDA report. When asked about glyphosate testing, an FDA
spokesperson reportedly stated that “the FDA had not found any illegal
levels in corn, soy, milk or eggs, the four commodities it considers
part of its glyphosate ‘special assignment.’ The “unofficial findings”
from the emails were not addressed.
As usual, big government operates on its own agenda — who is going to hold these people accountable? Read more news on glyphosate at Glyphosate.news. Sources for this article include: TheGuardian.com USRTK.org TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com
