Do you have any idea why the obesity rate in the United States has gone from under 10% in the 1960s to over 40% in 2021. And also if someone does have glyphosate in their body, is there any way to get it out of their body and Jeffrey, according to the industry, what are the benefits of GMOs? And are they true? So if you watch a commercial on TV, if you go to a Monsanto shareholders meeting, if you listen to pro GMO people, what are they claiming are the benefits and are these benefits true? Jeffrey? You do you wanna go

First? Okay. Uh, yeah, so yeah, it's really interesting to watch obesity growing around the world, actually. And I've been noticing that all the countries that have an obesity problem, um, also are consuming life is a contaminated foods. Whereas the ones that don't, aren't, it's a very strong correlation around the world. Um, I actually looked into Africa, for example, and, and South Africa has, has used glyph Asate for a long time. They actually, you know, came right behind the United States. Monsanto worked hard in there to get the GMO maze. And so South Africa consumes a lot of, um, glyph Asate. And most of Africa is actually very low, much lower levels of glyphosate than we are. They have many small farms, small family farms. They don't really use a lot of glyphosate and it's, and, and then there's the countries along the Northern part of, um, Africa right along the Mediterranean coast where they don't really grow food because it's desert and they import a lot of Western food.

(01:40)
So they get a lot of glyphosate in their diet as well. And when you look at African obesity, it's very striking because the countries that, that have low glyphosate, there's a very big, uh, gap between these few countries that are getting, eating a lot of glyphosate, contaminated foods. And then all those other countries that are not, it's a huge gap in the obesity rates between those two groups of countries, which lines up very well with the glyphosate, the United States, we're all fat and we're all consumed. So it's consuming lots of glyphosate. So it's hard to sort that out in our country and exactly how glyphosate causes obesity is actually quite, um, hard to figure out, to be honest with you, I could see how it causes all kinds of things that would lead to obesity. Part of it might be simply storing, um, toxin. Other to that you're exposed to that are fat soluble, that you need those, uh, fat cells to be able to squirrel those away so that they won't cause toxicity to your body.

(02:33)
And the reason why you have to squirrel them away is because glyphosate disrupts your ability, delivers ability to turn them into water soluble molecules so that they can be excreted through the urine. So glyphosate interferes with the ability to clear these isogenic, uh, molecules that are being, uh, that other ones that you're being exposed to, um, as well as things that are being produced by the ye by the yeast glyphosate causes yeast overgrowth because it kills off bacteria and the yeast, uh, produce toxic, uh microtoxins that can also, uh, disrupt your metabolism. So that's, that's one way I, I mentioned earlier the liver problems with, uh, metabolizing fat. So there's a, and the li and the, um, uh, uh, I lost the, the name, uh, shoot <laugh> the enzyme that digest fats. Um,

LICO, LICO,

Uh, <laugh>, uh, that's funny that I lost it. I said it earlier, but anyway, yes, I remember that digest fat lip

Pays lip pays.

I pays. Thank you. Lip pays. Yes. I was putting too many syllables in it. Lipase, um, is, is contaminated with glyphosate. You know, Anthony did that test on lipase and, um, and I've been looking at, you know, I have a theory about, um, glyphosate that it's disrupting proteins by getting inserted into them in place of glycine, by mistake. Glyphosate is a glycine molecule, complete glycine molecule, except that it has, uh, extra stuff stuck on it's nitrogen atom, and, and, and, uh, the way that it disrupts the enzyme that it famously disrupts is it makes a lot of sense if you assume that it's substituting for a particular glycine residue in that enzyme. I talk about this at lengthen my book, and I have a whole chapter where I, I show all the evidence that I feel is compelling to show that this is happening. This is one of the things that Monsanto ment denies that it's possible.

(04:25)
And lot, most people believe that it's not possible because like, because the industry is saying that I think if you do assume this is happening, then you can find all these proteins that you can predict would be affected in a similar way. And if they are affected, it would have these results. That would then make sense in terms of these various diseases. So this is how one pro one molecule could cause so many diseases, because it's fundamental that what it does is to mess up so many proteins that have critical roles in metabolism that prevents you from really, uh, processing food in the correct way. And so that the, the, um, you can't digest the fats, uh, you, you, you can't, uh, get rid of the toxic chemicals and you end up just, and particularly if you have a genetic predisposition, uh, you end up stuffing, um, all these toxic molecules that you can't, uh, fix, uh, that you can't protect yourself from you, stuff them into these fat cells. And so it's a, it's a protective mechanism to keep from being toxic.

And I get to speak about myths and truths. So the biotech industry claimed that originally that you couldn't possibly have a cross contamination from GMOs to non GMOs, uh, one executive testified somewhere that you'd be more likely getting pregnant from a toilet seat than having a GMO plant contaminated to non GMO plant. Well, now, now they say, well, it happens, it's inevitable, but it's not important. Mm-hmm <affirmative> um, they said that, uh, GMOs would reduce the use of agricultural chemicals. Well, actually the amount of, of pest of herbicides increased by 256 million pounds over the first 13 years. And it's in, in it's much, um, accelerated since then, um, they say that the BT toxin that is produced in the corn and the continent in south America in the soy would reduce the use of insecticides. Well, it turns out if you count the BT toxin that's produced in the crop, there's a dramatically, a dramatic increase in that overall use of insecticides per acre, but you also end up the BT toxin creates a resistance to itself and the insects.

(06:47)
And so in many cases, the amount of spraying has gone up in some cases, 15 to 20 fold, but, um, tremendous amounts of increase in spraying when the BT toxin is no longer killing the targeted insect, and sometimes there's, it'll kill its insect, but then there's another set of insects that come in and fill up that ecological niche, and they can end, end up destroying crops and requiring more toxicity. So they said it would in decrease agricultural chemicals at the same time when they were increasing the number of plants to produce Roundup, the factories to produce Roundup. So they knew it wasn't true. Uh, they said that it will increase yield where an average, the average GMO does not increase yield. Um, there's a, there's a yield drag because of the process of genetic engineering. The, the amount of increase in the corn because of its ability to kill these insects year after year was about 0.2%, very, very small increase in its yield.

(07:48)
Whereas, um, agroecology and organic methods can increase yields up to a hundred percent, especially in non industrialized areas, developing countries, the average of a, of a one experiment that was done, I think on millions and millions of farms was I think 71% increase in yield. When you compare that to in many cases, the average increase in yield is negative for GMOs. They also said that because it increases yield, it will feed the world. Well, experts say that first of all, increasing yield will not feed the world. It's not a magic bullet. Not only does it not increase yield, but if it did increase yield, it wouldn't solve it because we have more food per person than any time in human history. And yet nearly a billion people go to bed hungry or malnourished every night. And that it's, it's economic issues. It's structural issues. It's access to food, but it's not this magic bullet, moreover, because it's expensive to develop a genetically engineered crop and get it on the market.

(08:49)
It takes money away from the better, uh, technologies and systems that could actually feed the world. So it actually does the opposite. They say that it's safe and predictable. It is extremely unsafe and highly unpredictable. And, uh, I think I've covered the main ones. Um, but it turns out that there is a use for genetic engineering in laboratories behind closed doors for research. Uh, our friend, my friend, Michael Antonio, does, uh, the gene therapy research for humans where he can figure out ways to fix effective genes that are not inheritable by the offspring of that human. So there's benefits there. You can, you can use it to identify genetic material so that when you do normal crossbreeding, you can see which of the offspring have the genes that you're looking for to speed up the process. It's called marker assisted selection. You don't genetically engineer.

(09:54)
You just use it to guide your natural breeding. So there's benefits there. Um, you can possibly use gene genetic engineering to make proteins in a contained situation, although there's problems with that because we tracked that, that was creating an L trip to Fen food supplement back in the eighties. And the process of genetic engineering was almost certainly responsible for some contaminants in the L Tripp fan that created an epidemic that killed about a hundred Americans and caused five to 10,000 to fall sick or become permanently disabled. So we don't think that it's being used properly with the respect, for the things that can go wrong, even in these contained environments. So there's the, there's the viewpoint. The Institute for responsible technology is not against all forms of genetic engineering. We say we don't want it released outdoors, and we don't want it in the food supply.

(10:49)
Now that we understand what genetic enhancement of potentially pandemic pathogens can do and how they can be released from labs accidentally. We don't even want any genetic enhancement of pathogens that can create pandemics even behind closed doors. And if anyone's using microbes behind closed doors, they need to lock it down seriously, because even ones that are considered benign could have a tremendous impact. We have a film called don't let the gene out of the bottle at protect nature. now.com you'll see one well meaning, uh, group of scientists wanted to release a genetically engineered bacteria that we're gonna help farmers on the farm. And if it had been released as planned, it could theoretically have ended terrestrial plant life. Another one that was almost released could have theoretically altered weather patterns. So these are well documented. You can see the short 16 minute film at protect nature now, and it gives you an example of the reality versus the myth.

(11:52)
Um, it would the movie you just made, that's a brand new film. Yes. It came out, um, on earth week 2021. Um, and it, we had, we had released the, the trailer. We had about a half a million views. Now we're trying to pump up the views on the actual 16 minute film when you watch it, you're gonna wanna take action. Because when you realize that the EPA passed with flying colors, this bacteria type that could have ended terrestrial plant life on the planet, and another one could have changed the weather patterns. And then there's a, an H five N one, uh, avian flu, which is 24 times more FA fatal than COVID 19 virus. And it was made airborne by genetic engineers, which if it happens to escape, it could decimate the hu the human population. So we have very specific needs. No, don't do that anymore in the lab.

(12:46)
And don't release GMO microbes outside. It doesn't make sense. If we have a chance to talk about the genius of the microbiome today, you will want to know how important it is. It is so important that the, the mother's milk part of the mother's milk doesn't feed the baby. It's indigestible by the baby. It's designed to feed the baby's microbiome. And if the baby has needs it, the needs are expressed in the microbiome of the baby. That goes back to the mother through the breast so that they can then modify for it's like the, the microbiome is our micro Jedi army <laugh>. And if we, and this, this film is about the dangers of genetically engineering, that army, the genetically engineering and altering so that it doesn't do what it's been programmed to do. We all, we outsource 90% of our daily metabolic functions to our microbiome. The reason why we can get away with 22,000 genes, less than an earthworm is because we interact with 3.5 million genes from the microbes living inside us. But it's because we we've evolved with that. When you introduce a genetic element, that's not part of that evolution. We don't know what's gonna happen. It might throw it off causing disease, et cetera. We do know. And what happens when you take Roundup? What happens to the microbiome? I'll leave it there.

Thank you for listening to live healthy. Be well, please subscribe to the podcast. Using whatever app you listen to podcasts with, or go to live healthy, be well.com to subscribe. This podcast will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption. In ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistle blowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until now, please share the podcast with your friends. It will enlighten and may even save lives. Save.