A study from the Russian Academy of Sciences has found that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) causes sterility in hamsters, birth defects, high mortality rates, and other effects. There are numerous other studies with similar findings; however the depth of this study is impressive. One of the conclusive elements of the study finds that by the 3rd generation, the hamsters were completely sterile.
The release of this new information provides yet another health risk, and confirmation on earlier problems related to fertility, birth weight of offspring, and infant mortality.
In this feeding study they used hamsters, an animal which has not been previously featured in GM safety studies. One group of hamsters was fed a normal diet without any soy whatsoever, a second group was fed non-GMO soy, a third ate GM soy, and a fourth group ate an even higher amount of GM soy than the third.
Using the same genetically modified (GM) soy that is produced on over 90 percent of the soy acreage in the US, the hamsters and their offspring were fed their respective diets over a period of two years, during which time the researchers evaluated three
generations of hamsters.
First they took five pairs of hamsters from each group, each of which produced about seven to eight litters each, totaling about 140 animals. At first all went well, but serious problems became apparent when they selected new pairs from the offspring.
The first problem was that this second generation had a slower growth rate and reached their sexual maturity later than normal.
However, this second generation eventually generated another 39 litters:
- The no-soy control group had 52 pups
- The non-GM soy had 78
- The GM soy had only 40, of which 25 percent died
So these second-generation GM soy-fed hamsters had a five-fold higher infant mortality rate, compared to the 5 percent normal death rate that was happening in the controls.
But then an even bigger problem became apparent, because nearly all of the third generation hamsters lost the ability to have babies altogether. Only a single third-generation female hamster gave birth to 16 pups, and of those, one fifth died. In short, nearly the entire third generation of GM soy eaters were sterile! But it doesn't end there. In the GM soy-fed groups they also found an unusually high prevalence of an otherwise extremely rare phenomenon - hair growing inside the animals' mouths.
The complete report will be available in July. Pretty scary stuff. You should be startled to find that GMO is in most foods that you eat. Monsanto holds the patent for the majority GMO used in the United States. This is the same company behind Agent Orange too. As if all this wasn’t enough, in 2009 Obama appointed Monsanto executive Michael Taylor as his “food czar.” With this conflict of interest, you can expect no backlash to Monsanto. Of course, this is assuming Obama and other elites aren’t aware of the mischievous Monsanto.
Let us not forget about Obama’s “science Czar,” John Holdren, who wrote the (1977) science text-book Ecoscience. This eugenics book talked about over population of the planet and how there should be forced sterilization (through food and water supply), forced abortions, and so on.
Below are direct quotes from the text book.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through doption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for nvoluntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control Involuntary fertility control “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size “In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
There are more. Remember this is just one of Obama’s Czars, and his “science Czar” to boot. With Michael Taylor being his “food Czar,” is this a pattern? Just some non-GMO food for thought.
Sources:
http://www.mmshealthyforlife.com/?p=3735
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
0 comments:
Post a Comment