toxicity - pesticides, herbicides and insecticides - Blackherbals.com

Continued from page 10 – New Study Proves Bt Toxins inGMOs Toxic to Mammalian Bloodparticularly in reference to red blood cells. The quantityand size of the erythrocytes (RBCs) were bothsignificantly reduced, as was the overall levels ofhemoglobin for which oxygen to attach to.All major factors regarding RBCs demonstrated somelevel of damage present for all levels of toxinadministered and across all Cry proteins, although therewere some clear variances present between differentproteins and levels for certain factors. The white bloodcell count was also quite noticeably raised, and asexpected it dramatically increased depending on theduration the subject was tested for.The tests clearly demonstrated that Cry proteins werecytotoxic to bone marrow cells, accounting for a portionof the measured effects. It should also be noted that aprevious study found that these proteins causedhemolysis (they killed blood cells) in vitro, particularlyseeming to target the cell membranes of red blood cells.Cry1Ab (the protein produced in common Bt corn andsoy) induced microcytic hypochromic anemia in mice,even at the lowest tested dose of 27 mg/Kg, and thistoxin has been detected in blood of non-pregnantwomen, pregnant women and their fetuses in Canada,supposedly exposed through diet [34]. These data, aswell as increased bioavailability of these MCA in theenvironment, reinforce the need for more research,especially given that little is known about sporecrystals’ adverse effects on non-target species.While Bt toxin is not known to bioaccumulate in fatcells and internal organs, it is of note that the studydemonstrated clearly that there was a significantincrease in measurable negative effects of the toxin astime progressed especially concerning the higher doses.Also of note was the increased inflammatory response,while it was quite minor, the scientists consider it to bestatistically significant due to the intricacies of theirchosen test subjects’ biology. No measurablegenotoxicity was found.The full results of the study and a more detailedexplanation can be found at, along with full citations forthis article:http://gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JHTD-1-104.pdfhttp://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/new-study-proves-bttoxins-in-gmos.html☻☻☻☻☻☻Continued from page 2 – Biotech’s Next Big Disaster:Seeds that Emit Multiple PesticidesYet the venerable journal Nature recently urged patience,because just over the next hill, the biotech giants willsurely succeed in bringing us better GMO crops.This reveals an underlying assumption about technology:when scientists discover a new way of doing things, it cannever be retracted; it will eventually work well;improvements will come.That false assumption sustains a tremendous amount offalse science, as well as profits, of course, for thecompanies involved.Just because medical researchers can come up with newchemo drugs that kill cells and destroy immune systems, itdoesn’t mean they have to.Despite failures along every front of GMO-cropproduction, despite the fact that predictions of higher cropyields and reduced use of pesticides and herbicides havefailed to materialize, Monsanto pushes on.Monsanto lies and pretends their work is an enormoussuccess. Their researchers, many of whom know thecatastrophic failure they are dealing with, neverthelesskeep going, keep telling themselves that this is science,and therefore it will ultimately succeed.Translation: The seven billion people of earth are theguinea pigs in a vast corporate experiment.Technocrats who envision trans-humans, a combine ofbrain and computerized brain, pin faith on the idea that,since brains can be hooked up to machines, they shouldbe. It’s “scientific progress,” and therefore it has tohappen.All this used to be called scientism, a massive overreachof misplaced faith, but now the word is largely defunct. Itwas too accurate. It nailed the obsession and showed howcrazy it was.Years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to an atheistgroup in Los Angeles. The topic was HIV research,because I had written a book about it, AIDS INC.I described the line of HIV research, and made a detailedcase for the fact that researchers had never proved HIVcaused a condition that was being called AIDS.My analysis was met with strong opposition. The groupwas unhappy.No problem. But it turned out their unhappiness wasbased on the notion that I was attacking science itself.And since they believed that’s what I was doing, theyContinued on page 1211-- Traditional African Clinic July 2013