Archive | June 1, 2015

US And Israeli Pressured Nigeria To Sell Out Palestine At U.N.*

US And Israeli Pressured Nigeria To Sell Out Palestine At U.N.*

You may recall that last December the Security Council considered a resolution to call for an end to the occupation, and that the motion failed because it only got eight yes votes. Nigeria abstained after it had been expected to support the resolution. Now Nigerian Foreign Minister Aminu Wali has apologized to the Palestinian Authority for abstaining. From Middle East Monitor, citing the newspaper Al Quds:

Aminu Wali of Nigeria


The statement said that Wali has officially apologised to the Palestinian ambassador, citing huge pressure put on his country pushing it to vote against the Palestinian motion. He said that the pressure amounted to a “national security threat”.

The statement does not say who applied the pressure. The Guardian coverage of that vote last December is headlines, “US and Israeli intervention led UN to reject Palestinian resolution:”

The UN security council rejected a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to Israeli occupation within three years after Israel and the US crucially intervened to persuade Nigeria to abstain from voting.

Palestinian officials and other observers had thought Nigeria would back a Jordanian-tabled resolution, thereby delivering a nine-vote majority on the council which would have required a US veto to be blocked. Washington had been working strenuously to avoid having to use its veto.

Even a half hour before the vote, Nigeria was expected to support the resolution. Netanyahu’s pressure, per the Guardian:

Netanyahu confirmed he had spoken to both Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Jonathan before the UN vote. “I spoke with both of them,” he told reporters. “They promised me personally that they would not support this decision and they stood by their words. That is what tipped the scales.”

Netanyahu had a private meeting with the Nigerian president – seen by Israel as a potential ally on the security council – during the latter’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem in October.

IPS reported that Kerry twisted arms, calling Goodluck Jonathan in December to get the abstention.

And all this so that the U.S. would not have to exercise its veto in the Security Council, as it had in 2011, on the resolution against Israeli settlement activity.

The pressure is of course reminiscent of U.S. lobbying for the partition resolution of 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine. That also involved some arm-twisting of smaller nations.


Related Topics:

Destroying Nigeria Vital to World Entropy *

Bishop Badejo: U.S. won’t fight Boko Haram because of their Eugenics Agenda in Africa*

Palestinians Call to end Israeli Occupation*

Palestine Demands Israeli Withdrawal by 2016*

Palestine Drops Bid to Suspend Israel from FIFA*

Palestinians Now Forced to Live in Caves*

Woman Who Led Palestinian Bid for ICC Membership Arrested 24hrs of Succeeding*

Israel Stopped South African Minister’s Visit to Palestine*

If U.S. et al Hold out Long enough there will be no Palestinian State to Recognize*

Hundreds of Palestinians Prevented from entering Jerusalem during Ramadhan*

Ceasefire Initiative Aims to Dismantle the Palestinian Resistance*

Egypt Blocking Egyptian Humanitarian Aid to Gaza*

The Root Cause of the Never-Ending Conflict in Palestine; and How to Fix It*

Israel Prevents Release of Palestinian Tax Revenues*

Neo-Nazis Help Israel Block Recognition of Palestine*

Israel Says “Go to Hell” to E.U. Recognition of Palestinian Statehood*

The Enduring Hunt for Personal Value*

The Enduring Hunt for Personal Value*

By Tony Schwartz

Why does Michael Phelps keep returning to a brutal training regimen in the pool, long after he’s achieved every imaginable accolade as a swimmer?

Why do men who have earned hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, work relentlessly to earn even more, long after it could possibly make any material difference in their lives?

Why does a substantial group of politicians with no remote chance of being elected president feel compelled to traverse the country campaigning 18 hours a day for more than two years?

As little as these varied people have in common, their shared core hunger is for value. Once our basic needs are met, we human beings arguably crave value above all else.

We each want desperately to matter, to feel a sense of worthiness. In a 2008 analysis of more than 200 studies, the highest rises in the subjects’ levels of cortisol — a hormone released into the body in response to stress — were prompted by what researchers summed up as “threats to one’s social self, or threat to one’s social acceptance, esteem and status.”

In his book “Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic,” James Gilligan recounts the story of visiting with an inmate who was out of control. The man was in solitary confinement 24 hours a day and attacked his guards whenever he was approached.

“What do you want so badly,” Mr. Gilligan asked the inmate, “that you are willing to give up nearly everything to get it?”

Ordinarily so inarticulate that he could barely be understood, the inmate didn’t hesitate in his reply.

“Pride, dignity, self-esteem,” he said.

“If you ain’t got pride, you ain’t got nothin’.”

Over 40 years of studying violence, Mr. Gilligan was struck “by the frequency with which I received the same answer when I asked prisoners, or mental patients, why they assaulted, or even killed someone. Time after time, they would reply, ‘Because he disrespected me.’”

Or as Elijah Anderson, a sociologist, characterizes what he calls “the code of the streets:”

“Respect is viewed as an entity that is hard won but easily lost so must constantly be guarded.”

How different is it to tenaciously seek and accumulate wealth as a source of value? In these cases, what’s so easily lost in these cases is not the wealth itself but any enduring sense of value it provides for its accumulators.

In my own relatively small way, I learned this lesson at an early age. Nearly three decades ago, at the age of 35, I wrote a book with Donald Trump called “The Art of the Deal.” It became a No. 1 best seller, and I earned more money in a short time than I had in all the rest of my working life.

The book’s success provided a welcome relief from financial anxiety and greater material well-being, but it did not fuel any enduring sense of value. To the contrary, the fact that so much external success didn’t deliver what I had always imagined it would left me feeling empty and bewildered. What it did prompt was a search for a more sustainable source of value that has continued for the rest of my life.

There is little doubt that we each need the basic source of value that money can provide. By giving us the ability to meet our basic needs, it frees us from being preoccupied by them.

The problem is that we can so easily be seduced into believing that generating more external value – whether in the form of wealth, status or even achievement — leads to a greater sense of internal value. Each of these, pursued as a means to ensure our value, deliver diminishing returns over time.

Any single-minded pursuit, unmoored to a deeper purpose, has the potential to take on the characteristics of an addiction. More and more is required to obtain the same high, and the compulsion of the pursuit prompts a growing sense of the despair and unworthiness it is meant to solve.

My search for the deepest sources of value is not over, because the journey is lifelong. But one simple principle does seem increasingly evident. We derive the greatest value not by seeking to build a better case for ourselves. Instead, we do so by understanding better what we value most — meaning, what we stand for most deeply and who we really want to be. Then we use that conviction and those skills in the service of others.

We feel best about ourselves when we stop focusing obsessively on filling our own sense of deficit. Paradoxically, making others feel more valued makes us feel more valuable.


Related Topics:

Personal Freedom, or My Freedom vs. Yours?*

Who Needs Who!

Love Misplaced By Capitalism*

The Last Illusion

Alchemy of the Heart

Generosity in Islam

The Unity of “I”

A Child’s Personal Sovereignty… Stolen!*

GM Salmon Susceptible to Disease*

GM Salmon Susceptible to Disease*

A never-before-seen draft environmental review of AquaBounty Technologies’ (ABTX) genetically engineered (GE) salmon reveals that Canadian government scientists disagree with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on key questions related to the safety and performance of what may be the first GE animal approved for human consumption. In light of these findings, Food & Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth and Consumers Union today called on the FDA to terminate its ongoing review of GE salmon.

The partially redacted, 400-page draft risk assessment from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes startling findings about the welfare and performance of GE salmon, including that GE salmon:

  • Are more susceptible to Aeromonas salmonicidaa type of disease-causing bacteria, than non-GE domesticated salmon, which indicates unique animal health problems and raises environmental and public health concerns that the FDA has never considered.
  • Are exhibiting dramatically diminished growth rates in AquaBounty’s commercial facilities, casting more doubt on the widely disputed claims about the accelerated growth rates of GE salmon.
  • Are displaying widely varied performance, including inconsistent growth rates, suggesting that the growth-hormone gene construct inserted in the fish is not operating in a predictable manner, raising questions about the durability, safety and commercial viability of GE salmon.

“The findings from the Canadian risk assessment show that FDA has based its assessment of this totally unnecessary technology on blind trust,” said Wenonah Hauter. “It’s clear that there are unique safety issues that FDA has failed to consider, which is why we are calling on the agency to terminate its review of GMO salmon.”

The contradictions found in the Canadian risk assessment follow a series of embarrassing missteps in the FDA’s ongoing regulatory review of GE salmon, including the FDA’s failure to document two major biosecurity lapses at AquaBounty, including a storm-related mechanical failure that involved “lost” salmon. Additionally, in 2014, it was discovered that AquaBounty’s production facility in Panama has been operating without legally required permits related to environmental safety.

“The modus operandi at FDA is to rubber stamp AquaBounty’s flawed and biased studies and then call its review process ‘science-based,’” said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety.

“FDA’s inadequate risk assessment is at odds with reality, with science and with the public, which has long called on the agency to put consumers’ health and environmental safety ahead of the corporate interests of the biotechnology industry.”

The 2013 Canadian draft risk assessment recently became public through a legal battle over Canadian regulators’ approval of commercial GE salmon production, which several public-interests groups are challenging. No government anywhere in the world has ever approved GE salmon for consumption or declared it safe to eat, and commercial production has not yet begun. The FDA’s regulatory approval is still pending.

“Major grocery chains, consumers and salmon producers are all rejecting genetically engineered salmon,” said Dana Perls, food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

“This new assessment adds to the body of science showing that this genetically engineered fish doesn’t offer any benefit to aquaculture, has unique health problems and presents environmental risks. Why is the FDA continuing to spend scarce tax-payer dollars reviewing this fish that offers all risk and no reward?”

The commercial salmon industry has long disputed AquaBounty’s claims that GE salmon can reach market weight in half the time as conventional salmon. A variety of sources, including new data found in the Canadian risk assessment, indicate that GE salmon probably grow slower than the highly domesticated Atlantic salmon currently in commercial production. The only benefit claim that AquaBounty submitted to the FDA for regulatory approval is fast growth.


Related Topics:

GMO ‘Expert’ and Lobbyist Freaks out When Offered a Glass of Monsanto to Drink*

In Brazil Monsanto’s Roundup is Causing Cancer after Approving 3 GM Crops*

Rabaa Al-Adawiyya Sign is a Rejection of Murder and Destruction says Saudi Minister*

Rabaa Al-Adawiyya Sign is a Rejection of Murder and Destruction says Saudi Minister*

Saudi Arabia’s minister of religious affairs has described the four-fingered Rabaa Al-Adawiyya sign used by opponents of the coup against Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi as a rejection of murder and destruction. According to Salih Ali Al-Sheikh, it is not a crime, which it is interpreted as by the Egyptian authorities.

The London newspaper Al-Ahdath quoted the minister as saying that some of the people who sympathise with the Muslim Brotherhood only do so as an expression of opposition to the destruction and murder that took place during the events in Rabaa Al-Adawiyya Square in 2013. For this reason, he said, it is mandatory to be fair and thorough when judging the users of the symbol.

Salih Ali Al-Sheikh

Salih Ali Al-Sheikh

According to Al-Hayat newspaper, he said that those who hoisted the sign of Rabaa did not do this necessarily out of sympathy with the Brotherhood as an organisation. They are showing their displeasure at what happened, he insisted.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is implementing Islam,” said Minister Al-Sheikh. “Should the Muslim Brotherhood’s programme have been implemented it would have achieved some of what is being implemented in the Kingdom. Those who visited Saudi Arabia from amongst the fair leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood returned with a positive image about its implementation of Shari’ah.”

However, he added the Brotherhood’s competing project criticises Saudi policy and the members of the organisation believe that they must criticise their competitor in order for their own state to be established.

The minister explained that whoever gave a Friday sermon or delivered a lecture in a Saudi mosque about what happened during the Rabaa events has been called to account because making political comments is the prerogative of the state and not individuals.


Related Topics:

Four-finger ‘Rabaa sign’ – The Symbol of Protests against the Egypt Military Coup*

In Their Own Words: Egypt’s Young Revolutionaries Behind Bars*

Sheikh Qaradawi Leaves Al-Azhar in Protest against ‘Military Coup’*


Saudi Prince Calls for Prosecution Of Officials Who Backed Egyptian Coup*

The Indigenous of Maine Claim Sovereignty*

The Indigenous of Maine Claim Sovereignty*

By Alex Freeman

Due to Governor Paul LePage launching direct political and environmental attacks against the Penobscot, Micmac and Passamaquoddy tribes of Maine, leaders of those tribes have recalled their representatives from the state legislature and are asserting their sovereignty from the State of Maine.

The Maine Indian Land claims Settlement act has failed and we cannot allow ourselves to continue down the path,” Chief Francis said.

“We’re saying it’s a failed social experiment.”

In August of 2011, Governor LePage signed an Executive Order recognizing a “special relationship” between the sovereign State of Maine, and the sovereign tribes within the State. In this order, the Governor instructed all State agencies to include a tribal liaison, whose role would be to facilitate communication and direct policy in all areas of State jurisdiction in such a way as to include the voice and interest of native peoples. The Order instructs that

“the State and Tribes should work together as one,” and Tribal interests should be heeded when developing policies and procedures “on matters that significantly or uniquely affect those tribes.”

In April of this year, LePage rescinded that Order. The new Order maintains that native tribes in Maine retain their sovereignty, but holds that they now have a “relationship between equals with its own set of responsibilities,yet declares that tribal lands, forms of tribal governance and natural resources controlled by the native tribes are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Maine. The takeover of lands was prompted by an EPA letter to the State, and claims that lack of Tribal participation in “the State’s interests” required the usurpation of Tribal sovereignty. The Letter, in fact, actually supports the Tribal position, as the Tribal standards of environmental protection are much stricter than those of the EPA or the State of Maine. Those close to the Penobscot Tribe tell The Fifth Column that LePage threatened to sue the EPA over the proposed new regulations, leading the Agency to back down.  LePage’s Order, then, becomes a direct political attack against the Tribes in affront to their sovereignty and an effort to exact more control over the land by the State of Maine.

Even though Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis and his Tribe couldn’t have been “happier” with the EPA ruling, the State of Maine blamed the Tribe for poor water quality and dissolved its sovereignty over the land and resources. This comes in spite of a Penobscot lawsuit over fishing rights in the Penobscot River and another legal battle between the State and the Passamaquoddy Tribe over rights in other fisheries in the region, as well as Maine’s already stringent water quality standards. Initiallya little bit — well, a lot — confused” by the new Executive Order, Chief Francis declared,

We have gotten on our knees for the last time, from here on out, we are a self-governing organization, focused on a self-determining path.

Francis spoke outside of the Maine Statehouse on May 26 in a rally celebrating the severing of diplomatic ties between the Tribes and the State. He was joined by leaders of the Passamaquoddy Tribe, but not the Houlton and Maliseet Tribes, who cite too much of a vested financial interest in the outcome of several bills currently pending.  Matthew Dana II and Wayne Mitchell, just prior to the rally, issued statements on the floor of the legislature announcing the separation, and abandoning their pro forma seats in the state government. Each Tribe was allotted one seat in the legislature, where they were allowed to submit and discuss bills, but denied the right to vote.  According to the Tribes, this is the first time since 1842 that a Native Tribe was not present in the legislature.

We have gone to great lengths to demonstrate good faith and cooperation, only to be lied to,states Passamaquoddy Chief Fred Moore.

Meanwhile, LePage maintains in one breath that it is the interests of the State of Maine that have not been respected, yet in another breath has stated that he would veto any Tribal bill that reaches his desk from the legislature. Urged to rejoin the legislature by Speaker Mark Eves, former Representative Mitchell of the Penobscot Nation told supporters that the decision to leave non-voting positions in the legislature had been made, and that any return would “be on our own terms.” In the meantime, any interaction between the Tribes and the State of Maine will take place as separate and equal nations, not colonialized subservients to an occupying government that repeatedly refuses to respect Tribal interests.

The unique break in diplomatic ties signals the reassertion of full sovereignty for the Tribal Nations. The precedent and political implications could spread to other tribes throughout North America, and serve as a model for natives and non-natives alike as state and federal governments continue to enact laws violating the rights of the People, and others to protect the environmentally and economically destructive interests of corporations. The reassertion of sovereignty, more immediately, may protect much of the land and water in Maine from fracking, Tar Sands production, and mountain top mining.  More importantly, the Tribes are declaring that they no longer consent to the State to “define our sovereignty or culture or to interfere with our self-governing rights.


Related Topics:

The Vanishing Indigenous Nations of the U.S. – Five Facts*

Indigenous Canadians Sue Government over White Adoptions*

Eugenics: Kidnapping of the Indigenous Sioux in South Dakota*

Canada Forcing the Indigenous to Give Up their Land*

This is what TPP Looks Like: World Bank Demands Argentina Pay French Company*

Australians Rally against Kicking the Indigenous off their Own Land*

US Vaporized and Experimented on the Indigenous of Marshall Islands*

Indigenous Group Rejects $1 Billion Offer for Natural Gas Terminal on Ancestral Lands*

New Contraceptives Increase Risk of blood Clots by 50 – 80%*

New Contraceptives Increase Risk of blood Clots by 50 – 80%*

By Dustin Siggins

Women who use modern contraceptives have at least a 50% greater chance of having potentially deadly blood clots, according to a new study published in the British Journal of Medicine.

The study — which examines women aged 15-49 over the last 13 years — used two different United Kingdom databases to examine how frequently women developed blood clots while using new combined contraceptives, as compared to older contraceptives.

“Risks for women using newer pills were around 1.5-1.8 times higher than for women using older pills,” according to a press release announcing the study’s results.

“In absolute terms, the number of extra [blood clot] cases per year per 10,000 treated women was lowest for levonorgestrel and norgestimate (six extra cases), and highest for desogestrel and cyproterone (14 extra cases).”

A BJM editorial about the study noted that the results showed “newer contraceptives increased risks by around 3.6- to 4.3-fold compared with non-use, and by around twofold compared with oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, norethisterone, or norgestimate.”

“Combined, the results provide compelling evidence that these newer oral contraceptives are associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism than older options, despite attempts to develop safer hormonal contraceptives for women,” concluded the BJM editorial.

The report’s lead author, University of Nottingham Research Fellow Yana Vinogradova, told in an e-mail that “the risk [of blood clots] is 2.4-2.5 times higher in women taking old contraceptives compared with no use.”

The author told LifeSiteNews that “in each database, there were about 3 million women 15-49 years old, and more than 5,000 of them had [a blood clot].” The study said that 28 percent of women in the United Kingdom use contraceptives.

Despite the higher risk, the release also says that “the authors stress that oral contraceptives are remarkably safe, and…the reported three-times increased risk of VTE in women using oral contraceptives in their study is still lower than the up to 10-fold increased risk of VTE in pregnant women.”

The study is just the latest to find significant potential harm from using modern contraceptives. Last year, a study found that high-dose estrogen pills “increased breast cancer risk 2.7-fold,” while “those containing moderate-dose estrogen increased the risk 1.6-fold.”

Likewise, a 2014 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study found a possible link between hormonal contraceptives and gestational diabetes, and a 2013 CDC study found a possible connection between use of the birth control pill and glaucoma.

Despite the higher risks of blood clots among women who use contraceptives, especially newer forms, Vinogradova defended the study’s finding that “this is an observational study so no definitive conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect.”

“Definite conclusions can be drawn only from a randomized controlled trial where patients with known and unknown risk factors are randomly allocated into the arms,” she wrote.

“Conducting a randomized controlled trial in these circumstances is not feasible, therefore only observational studies can be performed. In observational studies, exposed and non-exposed participants may have different risk factors for outcome.”

“Although we considered all available from the databases risk factors, there may be other unknown or not-available ones. So the estimates of risks associated with different types of contraceptive pills provided by our study are the most accurate to date.”


Related Topics:

The Pill, Our Bodies, and Ourselves

Stopping the Menstrual Flow During Ramadhan

Yaz and Yasmin, the Birth Control Pills that can Kill*

Gates Next Contribution to Eugenics*

Doctors on Trial in 9th Circuit Court*

Doctors on Trial in 9th Circuit Court*

United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

Friday April 17, 2015 9:00 a.m.

Leanna Smith v. State of Arizona

By Steven R. Isham

The contrast between the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the Arizona Juvenile Courts is the difference between transparency and darkness; the difference between fairness and corruption; the difference between hope and despair.

Walking into the courtroom the feeling is one of awe and respect. The decorum required in the court room is one of mutual respect and dignity of everyone involved. The architecture is marvelous with the marble walls, the vaulted ceilings, and the pew like seating gives an aura of the commitment to fairness and respectability. When one looks at the American flag, “Old Glory”, it is a true sign of everything our judicial system stands for.

The Panel of three Judges and their staff demonstrate a professionalism and equality between themselves and the participants. Nowhere in their behaviors or interactions is there a single instance of bias or impropriety. The Panel revealed a comprehensive understanding of the case, the evidence, and the issues to be resolved.

The defense attorneys and the plaintiff attorneys were well prepared and “all” the evidence was on the table for consideration. Nothing was withheld, nothing disregarded. The behavior of all the attorneys was so different than ever before. The viewer could see that their performance was raised to the level of importance in this setting.

The sheer volume of evidence that was provided to the Panel that was not provided to the Arizona Juvenile Court proceedings, was overwhelming in its quantity and critical importance. The fact that information and evidence was withheld from the Arizona Juvenile Court and subsequently provided to the Panel exposes the improprieties consistently spoken about by Arizona parents and families cursed with involvement with the Arizona Department of Child Safety.

The Arizona Juvenile Court system is the “antithesis” of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. It is completely inconceivable how the difference can be so glaring between the two courts and the standards of fairness while no one seems to care.

The one irrefutable fact remains: The Mother and the Father are innocent of any wrongdoing!

What’s next?
The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has up to ninety days to render the decisions on the two cases. The process was fair and now we will wait to discover if it is justice served.


  • Criminal complaints to be filed
  • Complaints to the Arizona Medical Board, the Arizona Psychology Board, the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners

Watch the proceedings which were recorded in the courtroom:



Related Topics:

The U.S. has Mandated Drug Research on Children*

The American Family Being Forced Into Extinction*

Mother Fights Back for Child Developmentally Disabled by Vaccines*

The Bush Syndicate: Kansas Children for Sale*

7 Children Kidnapped by the State from Homeschooling Family to Remain in Custody*

Glyphosate has been a Known Carcinogen Since the 1970s*

Glyphosate has been a Known Carcinogen Since the 1970s*

By Brian Shilhavy

Dr. Anthony Samsel was recently interviewed by Tony Mitra, where he discussed certain documents he has in his possession from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allegedly show Monsanto knew about research connecting glyphosate to cancer since the 1970s.

Dr. Samsel is a research scientist and consultant who has been studying the toxicity of glyphosate, the world’s most prevalent herbicide used in commercial agriculture on GMO crops, for many years now. He has authored several papers with Dr. Stephanie Seneff on the toxicity of glyposate, including:

  • Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases III: Manganese, neurological diseases, and associated pathologies.” Surgical Neurology International 2015, 6:45.
  • Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, ” Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance.” Interdiscip Toxicol. 2013; 6(4): 159-184.
  • Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases” Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416

The biotech agricultural community has laughed off these studies primarily by attacking Dr. Samsel and Dr. Seneff’s credentials on this topic.

However, they are not laughing anymore.

In March of this year (2015) the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report listing glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma and prostate cancer. The news made headlines in most of the major mainstream media outlets.

Dr. Samsel states that glyphosate is not a “probable” carcinogen, but it is a carcinogen, based on studies that were hidden for years as they were classified as “trade secrets.” Here is the trailer for this interview:

In this interview, Dr. Anthony Samsel states that he now has documents received from the EPA which are “trade secret” documents belonging to Monsanto. These documents allegedly are safety studies about glyphosate from the late 1970s to the early 1980s, and others beyond those dates.

The documents reference animal studies, according to Samsel, with short-term and long-term studies conducted on mice, rats, rabbits, and dogs. Monsanto allegedly asked the EPA to seal these documents as “trade secrets” so no one else could review the data from these studies.

Samsel discusses one particular study on rabbits that looked at the effects of glyphosate on the skin. They monitored the rabbits’ blood chemistry, and one of their findings found an increase of lactate dehydrogenase, an enzyme in the blood related to tissue damage.

Another study, according to Samsel, showed that glyphosate went right into the animal’s bone marrow. Samsel claims this is dangerous, because new cells are born in the marrow and pass on to the thymus gland, where T-cells and white blood cells are eventually formed. Samsel considers this significant, especially in light of the recent WHO report that listed glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” in causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma and prostate cancer.

Next Samsel discussed long-term studies conducted in rats that lasted 26 months. He considers those studies very significant. The reason they are very significant, is because they used a control group and much lower doses of glyphosate. Most people believe that the higher the exposure to the herbicide, the greater the effect. Samsel stated that glyphosate has an “inverse dose response relationship,” and that this is clearly shown in the Monsanto “trade secret” studies.

According to Samsel, these studies from 1978 to 1980 by Biodynamics in New Jersey clearly showed tumor growths in many organs at low doses of glyphosate. These studies were submitted to the EPA in 1981. The studies showed significant tumor growth in organs such as the kidneys, but these studies were dismissed as “not significant,” primarily by allegedly manipulating the control groups.

Here is Part 1 of the interview:

In Part 2, Dr. Samsel explains how one of the ways Monsanto was able to dismiss results of their studies was by using a standard lab animal feed supplied by Purina, which is known to increase carcinomas. This animal feed was in the “control” animals, to minimize the effects of the results in animals exposed to glyphosate. Samsel states that he has “several studies” that show this link between the lab feed and cancers.

Dr. Samsel returns to the topic of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase, which was found in animal studies among the sealed documents. He states that this particular enzyme can induce cancer, and that significant lactate dehydrogenase increases were confirmed in more than one animal study.

Dr. Samsel stated that he is still sifting through all the data from these sealed documents, and that he is about to write a paper on glyphosate and cancer. He states that these “trade secret” documents are documents that Monsanto had the EPA seal so that nobody could revisit the data. According to Samsel, these documents show:

  • unequivocally, that glyphosate causes cancer.
  • Should it be on the market? No. Should it be in our food? No.

He states that taking glyphosate off the market will not necessarily solve the problem if they substitute it with another herbicide.

No herbicide belongs in our food.

Whether it is 2,4-D, Dicamba, Glufosinate…. there should be no herbicides in our food because it disrupts our bacterial homeostasis, and it disrupts our immune system. When we disrupt our bacteria and the microbiota within us, disease ensues. Disease begins with the destruction of our microbiome.


Related Topics:

U.S. Diplomacy: Retaliation and Pain for Countries that Reject GMO’s*

Monsanto Poisoning by Glyphosate – Two Children Dead and Counting*

Criminalizing Healthy Food Paves Way for TPP*

TPP Preparedness: EU Drops Pesticide Laws*

Sri Lanka’s New President Puts Immediate Ban on Glyphosate*