High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.

Your Call to Action:

1. Call Guyer High School and tell the appropriate person something like the following:

"Hello, my name is _______________. I saw that your AP History course has issued a book titled, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. In this book, on page 102, the definition provided for the Second Amendment is incorrect and seems to be suggesting that only members of a State Militia are allowed to keep and bear arms. Who made the decision to use this text book? I'd like them to issue a public statement on this book's attempt to redefine the 2nd Amendment and why they chose to use it. We would also like this issue to be discussed at the next school board meeting. Please include it on the official agenda."

John H. Guyer High School
7501 Teasley Lane
Denton, TX 76210
P: 940-369-1000

2. If you live in the area or if you child attends this school, organize with your neighbors and storm the next school board meeting to demand answers.

School Board Meeting

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:00 PM

The Denton ISD Board of Trustees will be meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 24, in the Board Room at the Dennis Stephens Central Services Building. For more information please contact Kim Stevenson, administrative assistant to the superintedent, at (940) 369-0002.

3. Inspect your child's history book and photograph other instances of intentional misrepresentations. Post pictures and blog about these occurrences. Demand your school districts regain control of their curriculum.

4. Share this story with your friends, family, and media connections to raise awareness.

UPDATE:

Just got off the phone with Kim Stevenson, Admin to the Superintendent.

1. Board members will not address any speaking on an item that is not part of the official agenda.

2. A community member could not add an item to the agenda.

3. You must sign in at Kim's desk in order to speak. You can speak up to 2 times and for 3 minutes. If a large number of us are attending we can assign a person to be our spokesperson and they may possibly give that person extra time.

The state adopts the textbooks every couple of years. She advised that besides attending next week's board meeting that we also speak with Darrell Muncy, Director of Student Services or speak with someone in the curriculum department.

UPDATE from Sean Getts, the father who took the picture:

"I had no idea that a pic I posted on FB would spread like wildfire. 99.99999999% of the people probably don't even know that it was my 16 year old daughter that actually brought it to my attention. I certainly planned on taking action, but the attention its received nationally has been incredible."

Source: http://www.dailypaul.com/299365/high-school-ap-history-book-rewrites-the-2nd-amendment

Read More

Exposing Agenda 21 - In one easy lesson

What is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.  Social Equity (Social Justice) Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources fforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy. 

Economic Prosperity? Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies. Local Sustainable Development policies Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.

Who is behind it? ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

Where did it originate? The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority? More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed thedocument for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation. Revealing Quotes From the Planners “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced    ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR

Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is! “The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996. “No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

Agenda 21 and Private Property: “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…”Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.  “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

Reinvention of Government: “We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

What is not sustainable? Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report. Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people! “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development. 

Tom Deweese the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and is the President of the American Policy Center, a grassroots, activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia.

http://whatisagenda21.net/agenda21.htm

Read More

Death by Flu Shot. 7 Year-Old Receives Flu Vaccine; Dies 4 Days Later

When a normal, healthy, vibrant seven year-old child dies suddenly we want to know why.  Things like that just don’t happen – at least they didn’t used to happen at the rate they appear to be happening lately.

This report from an Independent News Source in Vermont  relates the story of what happened after Kaylynne Matten was taken by her parents for her annual physical on December 2, 2011.  During the physical Kaylynne was given a flu vaccine.  Four days later she was dead.  She wasn’t even sick when she went to the doctor!

The state health commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen, “is not convinced” the girl’s death was from the flu vaccine, citing the “very rare” incidence of serious reactions to the flu shot and the huge numbers of people who receive them each year. Dr. Chen declares that serious reactions to flu vaccines are so “rare” that death by flu shot has never been reported in Vermont.

BINGO! There’s the problem. Every time a healthy child dies or is seriously injured by a vaccine, those who are responsible for determining the cause of death immediately rule out vaccines because they are “so safe” and serious reactions are “so rare” – No. They’re not. They’re just not reported because of people like Dr. Chen, whose job is dependent on the sale of vaccines. That’s what he does. He ensures that all of the people in his state are fully vaccinated. Without vaccines, Dr. Chen would be unemployed; at the very least he’d be looking for another job. But then, without vaccines there would be a LOT of doctors looking for jobs, so there’s a good chance Dr. Chen would be collecting unemployment benefits.
Dr. Chen is worried that people will over-react to this girl’s death. He cautions about “alarmist” reactions to the death of Kaylynne Matten.  Excuse me?  We are not supposed to be ALARMED?  Clearly, Dr. Chen has become complacent when it comes to young children dropping dead for “no apparent reason.”  Dr. Chen is worried that if people become “alarmed” their concerns may lead them to avoid getting a flu shot. If they start looking into the dangers of flu shots, it’s a very slippery slope.  You know how it goes.  Flu shot research is like “the gateway drug” that causes us (parents who are easily influenced) to become fanatics.  We research the flu vaccine and the true dangers of the flu and before you know it we start to realize we’ve been lied to.  From there it’s all downhill for Dr. Chen and his cronies.  As we become “hooked” on research we learn more and more about vaccines and the more we learn the more we realize that vaccines are dangerous and the risks of infectious diseases are small in comparison.

As the article states, Vermont already has one of the most dismal (hear the sarcasm, please) vaccination rates in the nation. If even more people start researching and learning about the children and adults throughout the U.S. and the world who have died or been seriously harmed by vaccines, that dismal number might just fall even farther. Heavens! That would be a real tragedy – for Dr. Chen.

The fox is guarding the hen house  How in the world can this vaccine-related death even be questioned? It’s like saying “John Smith walked across the 495 beltway and was hit by a semi. Mr. Smith survived the accident and was taken to the hospital where he lapsed into a coma and died 4 days later. Mrs. Smith believes it was the semi that killed her husband. The hospital administrator (who happens to be married to the driver of the semi) is not so sure. Autopsy results are pending…” GIVE ME A FREAKING’ BREAK!

According to the CDC there are between 3,000 and 49,000 deaths each year in the U.S. due to the flu (influenza). That sure sounds like a lot of people dying from the flu. Before we become “alarmed” by these “huge” numbers, lets see what they mean in terms of the percentage of U.S. citizens.  The U.S. Census Data indicates that the population of the U.S. is somewhere around 300,000,000 people:  304,059,700 as of the latest data.  That means in a “good” year (fewer deaths from flu) the percentage of U.S. citizens who die from the flu is 0.0000986%.  Whoa….. that’s a lot of zeros.  In translation, this equates to 9.8 (less than ten) people for every 1 Million citizens in the U.S.  Of course, in a very BAD year the numbers are higher.  Taking the worst-case scenario (49,000 deaths), the yearly death toll would be 0.0016115% of the U.S. population. This number equates to 1.6 (less than two) deaths per 1,000 people. That’s a little bit scarier.  However, we have to consider how many of those deaths occur in 7 year-old children.

Just what is the real risk of death from flu for a seven year old?  How do we find out?  If we just read the article, we are told “The majority of those severe illnesses and [3,000 to 49,000] deaths occur among infants, young children, pregnant women, seniors and people with chronic medical conditions.”  I don’t know about you but when I read this I tend to think this means infants, young children and pregnant women are those who are MOST at risk. It might just be me, but when something falls at the top of the list when someone is talking about relative risk, I associate that with meaning they are the ones we need to be most concerned about. Actually, the opposite is true in this case.

The CDC has this to say about the demographic of annual deaths from the seasonal flu:

Among persons aged <19 years, an estimated annual average of 97 (range: 41 in 1981–82 to 234 in 1977–78) influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes occurred . The average annual rate of influenza-associated deaths for this age group was 0.1 deaths per 100,000 persons (range: 0.1–0.3). Among adults aged 19–64 years, an estimated annual average of 666 (range: 173 in 1981–82 to 1,459 in 2004–05) influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes occurred. The average annual rate of influenza-associated deaths for this age group was 0.4 deaths per 100,000 persons (range: 0.1–0.8). Among adults aged ≥65 years, an estimated annual average of 5,546 (range: 673 in 1978–79 to 13,245 in 2003–04) influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes occurred. The average annual rate of influenza-associated deaths for this age group was 17.0 deaths per 100,000 (range: 2.4–36.7). Deaths among persons aged ≥65 years accounted for 87.9% of the overall estimated average annual influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes.

So…. how do we figure out the risk for a seven year-old? One way would be to divide 97  by 19, which would give us the average number of deaths per year of age. We can estimate this as FIVE, since 97 is very close to 100 and 19 is very close to 20.  According to this calculation, there are approximately FIVE seven year-old in the U.S. who die from the flu each year. Clearly the risk of death from the flu was astronomically small for 7 year-old Kaylynne.

Dr. Chen can talk all he wants about the risks of flu. His fear mongering won’t save his job. People are too smart to fall for the trickery anymore. Parents in the United States and around the world are tired of being lied to. We are tired of doing as we are told and watching our children die as a result.

Dr Chen:  I suggest you update your resume. I think you’re going to need it.

Source: 

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/death-by-flu-shot-7-year-old-receives-flu-vaccine-dies-4-days-later/

Read More

Shock study: Chemotherapy can backfire, make cancer worse by triggering tumor growth

Scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B, which boosts cancer cell survival. ‘The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” said Peter Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Long considered the most effective cancer-fighting treatment, chemotherapy may actually make cancer worse, according to a shocking new study.
The extremely aggressive therapy, which kills both cancerous and healthy cells indiscriminately, can cause healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment.
Researchers in the United States made the “completely unexpected” finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.
They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.
Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.
The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
"The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.
The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.
"Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics," wrote the team.
The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumors.
CANCER TREATMENT OVERVIEW
The result paves the way for research into new, improved treatment, said Nelson.
"For example, an antibody to WNT16B, given with chemotherapy, may improve responses (kill more tumor cells)," he said in an email exchange.
"Alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/shock-study-chemotherapy-backfire-cancer-worse-triggering-tumor-growth-article-1.1129897#ixzz2J8SFuP2D 

Read More

Baking Soda Cancer Cure

 University of Arizona Cancer Center member Dr. Mark Pagel will receive a $2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to study the effectiveness of personalized baking soda therapy to treat breast cancer. In other words, clinical trials on the use of oral sodium bicarbonate for breast cancer treatments are about to start![1] Obviously there are people in the know who have understood that sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), that same stuff that can save a person’s life in the emergency room in a heartbeat, is a primary cancer treatment option of the safest and most effective kind.

Of course I feel vindicated for everything I wrote in Sodium Bicarbonate – Rich Man’s Poor Man’s Cancer Treatment, which still stands as the only full medical review on the subject of using simple baking soda in the practice of medicine. When taken orally with water, especially water with high magnesium content, and when used transdermally in medicinal baths, sodium bicarbonate becomes a first-line medicinal for the treatment of cancer, kidney disease, diabetes, influenza and even the common cold. And importantly, it is also a powerful buffer against radiation exposure, so everyone should be up to speed on its use. Everybody’s physiology is under heavy nuclear attack from strong radioactive winds that are circling the northern hemisphere.

Actually it is no surprise that a University of Arizona researcher received this grant because there has been cancer research going on for years there. Dr. Robert J. Gillies and his colleagues have already demonstrated that pre-treatment of mice with sodium bicarbonate results in the alkalinization of the area around tumors. The same researchers reported that bicarbonate increases tumor pH and also inhibits spontaneous metastases in mice with breast cancer.[2] It also reduces the rate of lymph node involvement.

I recently published about fungal infections, and breast cancer has been found to be associated with increased frequency of mold-fermented cheese consumption.[3] Fungi produce toxic metabolites called mycotoxins[4] that can cause cancer. Aflatoxin is a mycotoxin with carcinogenic potency that is found in inferior peanut butter and other nut and dairy products. Researchers in 1993 examined human breast cancer tissue and found significant carcinogenic aflatoxin within the cancer tissue implicating aflatoxin and thus fungus as a cause of breast cancer.[5]

The pH level of our internal fluids affects every cell in our body. Chronic over-acidity corrodes body tissue, and if left unchecked will interrupt all cellular activities and functions. In other words, over-acidity interferes with life itself. It is at the root of cancer.

Sodium bicarbonate medical treatments are the time honored method to “speed up” the return of the body’s bicarbonate levels to normal. Sodium bicarbonate happens to be one of our most useful medicines as it treats the basic acid-alkaline axis of human physiology.

The pH of our tissues and body fluids is crucial and central because it affects and mirrors the state of our health or our inner cleanliness. The closer the pH is to 7.35-7.45, the higher our level of health and wellbeing. Staying within this range dramatically increases our ability to resist acute illnesses like colds and flues as well as the onset of cancer and other diseases. Keeping our pH within a healthy range also involves necessary lifestyle and dietary changes that will protect us over the long term while the use of sodium bicarbonate gives us a jump-start toward increased alkalinity.

The pH scale is like a thermometer showing increases and decreases in the acid and alkaline content of fluids. Deviations above or below a 7.35-7.45 pH range in the tightly controlled blood can signal potentially serious and dangerous symptoms or states of disease. When the body can no longer effectively neutralize and eliminate the acids, it relocates them within the body’s extra-cellular fluids and connective tissue cells directly compromising cellular integrity. Conversely when the body becomes too alkaline from too much bicarbonate in the blood, metabolic alkalosis occurs, which can lead to severe consequences if not corrected quickly.[6]

Jon Barron presents a way of looking at pH that opens up one of the major benefits of alkaline water:

Hydrogen ions tie up oxygen. That means that the more acid a liquid is, the less available the oxygen in it. Every cell in our body requires oxygen for life and to maintain optimum health. Combine that with what we know about hydrogen ions and we see that the more acid the blood (the lower its pH), the less oxygen is available for use by the cells. Without going into a discussion of the chemistry involved, just understand that it’s the same mechanism involved when acid rain “kills” a lake. The fish literally suffocate to death because the acid in the lake “binds up” all of the available oxygen. It’s not that the oxygen has gone anywhere; it’s just no longer available. Conversely, if you raise the pH of the lake (make it more alkaline), oxygen is now available and the lake comes back to life. Incidentally, it’s worth noting that cancer is related to an acid environment (lack of oxygen)—the higher the pH (the more oxygen present in the cells of the body), the harder it is for cancer to thrive.

Understanding this is important for two reasons: (1) it reveals one of the primary benefits of alkaline water—more “available” oxygen in the system and (2) it explains why alkaline water helps fight cancer.

The ocean, the mother of all life, has an average pH of about 8.1. The ideal pH for blood sits at about 7.4, slightly alkaline—not acidic.- Jon Barron

Barron concludes:

If you’re eating well and living cleanly, then yes, you want to drink water with a naturally occurring pH only slightly above neutral. However, if you are eating the typical Western diet, high in meat, grains, sodas, and sugars that acidify the body, then you have a different problem. Your pH balance is now so far out of normal that you must go beyond normal in the other direction to counter it. My recommendation for daily drinking water pH is about 7.5-8—depending on how acid forming your diet is. Long-term consumption of higher pH water should be reserved for special circumstances. The most famous mountain waters in the world, waters renowned for their healing properties, are highly alkaline. I’m referring to the waters coming down from the Himalayas, and specifically to the waters of the Hunza Valley, which have a pH that runs between 9 and 11.

One does not have to be a doctor to practice pH medicine. Every practitioner of the healing arts and every mother and father needs to understand how to use sodium bicarbonate. Bicarbonate deficiency is a real problem that deepens with age so it really does pay to understand and appreciate what baking soda is all about.

Source:

http://drsircus.com/medicine/sodium-bicarbonate-baking-soda/baking-soda-cancer-laugh

Read More

Gatorade to remove flame retardant chemical from its drinks

Brominated vegetable oil, a synthetic chemical that has been patented in Europe as a flame retardant, will no longer double as an ingredient in Gatorade sports drinks.

Molly Carter, a spokeswoman for Gatorade owner PepsiCo Inc., said the company has been considering the move for more than a year, working on a way to take out the ingredient without affecting the flavor of the drink.

A spokesperson for Gatorade’s owner PepsiCo, Molly Carter, mentioned to reporters that Pepsi had been considering removing BVO for about a year, pending their discovery of a new and better replacement ingredient that wouldn’t alter the taste. Molly claims the petition from change.org with over 200,000 signatures had little impact.

Ah yes, you can hear Gatorade consumers concerns: “Yum - this fire retardant sure is tasty. Wonder if I can get some pure BVO if they take it out?” Not to worry, Gatorade gulpers, it will be several months before a new “flavor and color emulsifier” will be replacing the BVO fire retardant: sucrose acetate isobutyrate (SAIB).

Molly Carter asserted there’s no rush or specific date set for getting the reformulated drinks out. The reformulated Gatorade flavors “will start rolling out in the next few months,” Molly said.”We’re not recalling Gatorade. We don’t think our products are unsafe. We don’t think there are health or safety risks,” she claimed.

BVO has been banned as a food and beverage additive in Europe and Japan. But it has been used for decades in U.S. beverages such as Gatorade, Mountain Dew, Squirt, Fanta Orange, Sunkist Pineapple, Powerade Strawberry Lemonade or Fresca Original Citrus.

An observer from a gaming bar in the Atlanta, GA suburb of Marietta reports seeing video gamers stack up and drink a half-dozen or more Mountain Dews and gulp them down for their sugar and caffeine, keeping them stimulated and alert while gaming. They’re also unwittingly getting a strong dose of BVO flame retardant.

Binging on these BVO beverages has resulted in medical treatments for skin lesions, memory loss, or nervous disorders. According to Scientific American magazine, studies have indicated that BVO can accumulate in body tissues.

Mice exposed to bromine compound fire retardants exhibited long-term negative health and fertility events in some studies. But maybe it’s okay for humans. After all, BVO solutions are vegetable based. Unfortunately, the vegetables are soy and corn, which are usually GMO planted or GMO contaminated.

As early as 1977, the FDA approved BVO as a food or beverage additive at 15 parts per million. They based this figure on data from “industry studies.” Wonder which industry that might have been? But since then, BVO has been completely banned from foods and beverages in Japan and Europe. Maybe they know something about those long-term effects from BVO tissue accumulation.

So what’s the point of using BVOs in the first place? The heavy bromine atoms keeps synthetic artificial (tautology intentional) flavors from floating to the top of the beverage. Yum, toxic flavorings remaining constant throughout the beverage.

Source:

 http://www.naturalnews.com/038869_Gatorade_BVO_flame_retardants.html#ixzz2JPXCmLkW

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-gatorade-flame-retardant-20130125,0,2176497.story

Read More

Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled

 Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.

Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world’s most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland’s prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public health.

But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.

October 24, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson

Contrary to the belief of some in the scientific community, Dr Arpad Pusztai does not have horns or a malevolent cackle. Nor does he inhabit an imposing gothic mansion bought with the proceeds of guest appearances as an eco-hero. In fact, he lives in a modest semi in Aberdeen.

This elderly man is one of the most divisive figures in biology. Many blame him for tilting the balance in the PR battle over GM food towards public rejection. His research on GM potatoes - which came explosively into the public spotlight in a World in Action programme in August 1998 - has been dismissed as poorly done, muddled and even fabricated. Yet to anti-GM campaigners he is a hero - the scientist who stood up to the establishment and, as a result, had his career squashed at the behest of shadowy forces in the GM industry and the government.

"I think it did a lot of damage because … the vast majority of people were somewhat neutral at the time," said Professor Chris Leaver, a plant scientist and strong supporter of GM at Oxford University. "I think the NGOs … decided that they would make a play using him. I think he got hijacked and then he got out of his depth."

The affair finished off Pusztai’s research career (although at the time he was already 69) and affected his health. His supporters were appalled by his treatment at the hands of the publicly funded Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, which he had served with distinction for most of his career. He was regarded as a world expert on plant lectins - defensive proteins that kill insects and other invaders - with over 300 scientific papers, including two in the prestigious journal Nature.

"I would have characterised [his treatment] as disgraceful. I don’t see how any reputable scientist … could be treated in this way," said Dr Stanley Ewen, a pathologist who was then at the University of Aberdeen and who worked with Pusztai.

Having said of GM food in 1998: “If I had the choice I would certainly not eat it”, and that “I find it’s very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs”, it’s easy to imagine Pusztai was ideologically opposed to GM. But this is far from the truth, he tells me. “I’m strictly science-based … It is not an ideology for me.” Still, he confesses that his opposition to the technology has hardened over the years, and he still won’t eat it. “Even now, I am not a campaigner. I have never belonged to any organisation campaigning for or against it.”

                                            Arpad Pusztai

He felt he had a duty to speak out, “just to inject some caution into this business”, he says. “Make no mistake, this is an irreversible technology. It is no good 50 years later to say: ‘We should have known.’”


  Concerns aired

Pusztai clearly wanted his concerns to be aired publicly, but he does not come across as a man who relished or courted publicity. He was very happy, for example, that the institute’s director, Philip James, shielded him from interview requests. “I was quite happy with this … I am an academic scientist. I’ve never been exposed to this,” he says, “I’m really not a very media person.”

Pusztai says James, on the other hand, was anxious to exploit the media attention. “The director kept running around like a blue-arsed fly. This was a tremendous public relations business for him.”

James even put in a complimentary phone call to Pusztai that August evening. “I telephoned Pusztai immediately after the broadcast to congratulate him on the modest way in which he had presented the evidence on the programme,” says James, although he denies relishing the publicity. He says he had grave doubts about the interview going ahead in the first place.

By this stage, Pusztai was feeling extremely uncomfortable about what he was hearing on news bulletins about his own research. “I heard things that really disturbed me,” he says. “My head was buzzing … the whole thing was getting totally out of hand.”

The results that Pusztai had hinted at in his interview were a comparison of rats fed ordinary potatoes and potatoes that had been genetically modified with a lectin from snowdrops. The rats on the GM diet grew less well and had immune problems even though the lectin itself caused no adverse effects at high concentrations. His conclusion was that the GM process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious. The GM potatoes were not a commercial variety and were never intended for human consumption, but the lectin modification - which made them poisonous to insects - was an experimental model for other GM varieties.

But newspaper stories generated confusion over the nature of the genetic modification. These articles refer to potatoes modified with a lectin gene from jackbean that is poisonous to mammals. But no one can agree on where this came from. The misinformation was formalised in a press release issued by the Rowett. James says Pusztai approved it. Pusztai says he was not aware of it until it was published. Either way, the jackbean experiments that never were have proved extremely damaging to Pusztai. Even now, GM scientists dismiss Pusztai’s work on the grounds of a supposed schoolboy error: of course the rats suffered, they say, they were being fed potatoes that were genetically modified to produce a poison.

The day after the World in Action programme, Pusztai’s boss changed his mood from congratulation to condemnation. “My change in attitude was dramatic because I discovered that Pusztai … had never conducted the studies which he had claimed,” says James, an accusation that Pusztai strongly denies. He says he never claimed to have done the jackbean experiments. “He just simply wanted to put a real cap on it,” says Pusztai. “The simplest way to do it was to suspend all research activities into this business.” Pusztai’s supporters claim that James came under pressure from Downing Street to put a lid on the affair.

   Suspended and silenced

James suspended Pusztai and used misconduct procedures to seize his data. Pusztai’s rolling annual contract was not renewed and he was banned from speaking publicly. Pusztai says he wanted to publish his results but was concerned that James would veto any approach to an academic journal.

In 1998, if James had hoped that gagging Pusztai would make the affair go away he was wrong. Continued media speculation was doing considerable damage to public confidence in GM food and this prompted the Royal Society - the UK’s premier scientific academy - to enter the fray.

Although none of Pusztai’s results had yet been published, it set about reviewing the information that did exist - an internal report written by Pusztai, an audit of the data produced by the Rowett, and an independent statistical analysis carried out by Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland. The data was sent to six anonymous reviewers. The subsequent report savaged Pusztai’s results, but he remains defiant.

The Royal Society putdown was predictable. The reviewers had placed a hotchpotch of lab reports and statistical analyses that were never intended for publication under intense scrutiny. “There was practically nothing in it but numbers,” says Pusztai. He and Ewen point out that peer reviewers had praised the methodological details of the experiment when their application for a £1.6m research grant from the Scottish Office was given the go-ahead.

Some of the disputed data did eventually see the light of day in October 1999, when Ewen and Puztai published a paper in the prestigious medical journal the Lancet. Because of its controversial nature, the data paper was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light. The paper - which used data held by Ewen and so was not subject to veto by James - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue compared with rats fed on normal potatoes. It has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet.

I put it to Pusztai that he is demanding a level of testing for GM food that is not applied to conventional plant breeding. Radiation and mutation-causing chemicals, for example, are standard techniques used to create new varieties, and both can create unexpected genetic changes. He bats this away. “Two negatives don’t make a positive,” he responds. “It doesn’t mean that I agree with those techniques.”

The difference with GM, he says, is that there is a political agenda at work. “Ninety-five per cent of GM is coming from America, so naturally it is in their interests to push it,” he says, “I have no ideological grounds against Monsanto [the biotechnology company]. For me it’s a scientific argument. They have not done a proper job [of testing], and they are just using their political and economic muscle to foist it on us.”

Does he regret speaking publicly about his research prior to publication - generally regarded as a cardinal sin by scientists? “No,” he says. “I was publicly funded and I thought the public had a right to know.” He also rejects the notion that he would have achieved more by waiting until the science was in print. Since he went public, he estimates he has given between 150 and 200 lectures around the world. And in 2005 he was honoured with a whistleblower award from the Federation of German Scientists.

"Even our best scientific publications - I don’t think they are read by more than 50 people," he says. "This had impact … to my damage, but it had impact."

Source:http://truthabouthumanfood.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientist-that-discovered-gmo-health.htmltp://truthabouthumanfood.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientist-that-discovered-gmo-health.html

Read More