Shocking stories of corruption, cover-up and hidden epidemics by Monsanto and friends - Episode 38

Listen to the Podcast:

In this week's episode...

In this episode of Live Healthy Be Well we offer you a live recording of Jeffrey speaking at the Hippocrates Health Institute's "The Real Truth about Health Free 10 Day Conference".  In this talk Jeffrey tells some amazing stories of corruption, cover-up and other deceptions by Monsanto, the EPA and the biotech industry.  These stories are not to be missed and will surprise and confound you with the blatant ways they have tried to deceive and confuse the world about the dangers of GMOs, Roundup and Glyphosate.

Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript

So, I want to say that I feel I have been doing this for 24 years and I have spoken a thousand times in 45 countries and national television, whatnot. And I feel I am partly responsible, partly I am motivated to make sure you guys change your diet before the end of my talk. But that is not what this talk is about. So, I am brought, Oh, Steven stole the DVDs too. Steven walked away with the DVD. All right. There is some DVDs out there that will do the job. Especially the most recent one called secret ingredients that I created with Amy Hart. It is so effective not only at convincing you to switch to non-GMO but also organic because as you'll see, you do not want to eat just the non-GMO because that is  also sprayed with Roundup.

 

00:03:37:28 --> 00:04:47:07

Jeffrey Smith: All these foods are sprayed with Roundup. So now that I have said that, and I know that all of you are going to watch the film secret ingredients at SecretIngredientsMovie.com or at iTunes or Google play, then I do not have to feel so much pressure to focus on that information. So, I can focus on fun stories. I must say that fun stories in my world are how Monsanto and their minions deceive, threaten, kick people out of positions. How they suppress evidence. And these stories are so important for activism because as I approached the subject 24 years ago, who was it? Who was saying that GMOs were safe? Monsanto and the FDA. So, who am I to say that they are not safe if there is big corporations as it is safe? If the government says it is safe, what we need to do is to discredit those who deserve being discredited. But the best way, yes, it is true.

 

00:04:50:02 --> 00:05:59:15

Jeffrey Smith: And as an activist and communicator, I am going to say one of the best ways is through stories. Stories are so effective. And in my book, seeds of deception, which I released in 2003 it became the world's bestselling book on GMOs and it stated as such for over a decade because it was based on stories. And the first story was of Dr Arpad Pusztai, the leading researcher in his field. He had worked at the, at the Rowett Institute in Edinburgh and had published 300 published scientific studies and was their Go To man. He was the money magnet that because he was so popular and the top person in his field, he would be getting all these different grants and researchers to do so. He was working there and he won out over 27 competitors to get the grant from the UK government to figure out how to test for the safety of GMOs and working with people in three different institutes and 30 people.

 

00:06:00:01 --> 00:07:11:05

Jeffrey Smith: He took the concept of genetic engineering and wrote the protocols, and those protocols were supposed to be used by the European union to figure out if GMOs were safe. And as part of his research, he took perfectly harmless, genetically engineered potatoes, engineered to produce an insecticide, and he put them through the rat feeding protocol. Now, he knew that this insecticide was safe. It was a lectin, and he was the world's experts in lectin. He started the worlds. He started that category of science and it was the lectin he knew more about than anyone, any other lectin, and he knew it was safe. So, when the potato, it is a little bit of feedback here. When the potato was engineered to produce this lectin as an insecticide, he was like, Oh, it is so safe. We do not really need to test it. But when they did test it, they found that the rats developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, smaller brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver and damaged immune system.

 

00:07:11:05 --> 00:08:28:23

Jeffrey Smith: And just 10 days. You could see that in the intestinal walls on the, on the right side, the rats that were fed genetically modified potatoes. Now what was interesting about his research is that he fed one group of rats, the genetically engineered potatoes that were producing this insecticide. He fed another group of rats, the same natural potatoes in the same balanced diet in addition to the potatoes. But he fed a third group of rats, natural potatoes, but that their meals were spiked with the same amount of the insecticide that the GMO potatoes were producing. So, you had GMO, non-GMO, and non-GMO plus a little spray of the insecticide. Only those that ate the genetically modified potato got sick. So, it was not the insecticide. It was somehow the process of genetic engineering, the generic process, the same process that was being used to create the genetically modified crops being eaten in the U K at the same time.

 

00:08:29:09 --> 00:09:17:26

Jeffrey Smith: And when I talked to Dr Arpad Pusztai about what was his most shocking moment, and I will tell you some more shocking moments, but in his, in his story, the most shocking moment came beef came right after he discovered all of this. He was asked by his director, Professor Phillip James. James walked into his office and put about six or 700 pages down on his desk and said, the minister of agriculture needs a scientific opinion on these because he is voting in Brussels about GMOs. And Arpad Pusztai the scientists looked at James and knew that James had these

 

00:09:19:10 --> 00:09:59:23

Jeffrey Smith: secret confidential submissions because he was on the 12-member committee to review them. Arpad also told me that he knew James would never read these pages. He was not a working scientist. He was a committee man, as were the other 11 members of his committee. So, he realized when he looked at these stacks that probably no one had actually ever read them. And he was supposed to read them to give him a scientific opinion because James had not read them and now was needed by the minister of agriculture. So, Arpad said, how much time do we have? And James said two hours and a half hours.

 

00:10:01:26 --> 00:10:46:02

Jeffrey Smith: So Arpad and his scientist's wife divided them up and they looked at the two things they design and the results and he said, reading those studies, Jeffrey was the most shocking moment in my life because I realized what they were, what we were doing was science. What they were doing was as little as possible to get their foods on the market as quickly as possible. But it was really very poor research. It was bad science. And he described to me all the things that they did not do that needed to be done, how these foods could be incredibly dangerous.

 

00:10:49:02 --> 00:12:00:27

Jeffrey Smith: And he spoke to the minister and he said, you know, I was not expecting to give a strong opinion after just two and a half hours, but I must say there is  not enough information to allow these foods to be put on the market. The minister said, I do not know why you are saying this, those foods are already on the market. They have been in the market for two years. This was a shock. They had been feeding these genetically modified foods to the population for two years and then when Arpad got these results from his rats, he realized the GMOs on the market were created from the same process, but they never checked the immune system. They never weighed the organisms, they never did real biochemical research in terms of the blood. They did not do these type of slides. In other words, since they were created from the same process, they could be creating the same problems, but no one in the world had ever looked. So, these, this same slide could be defining what is happening in the human gut.

 

00:12:03:29 --> 00:13:08:25

Jeffrey Smith: When he discovered the issues, he was very concerned and around the same time he was invited to speak on a UK TV show and with permission from Professor Phillip James, the director, he went and was interviewed. They knocked it down to two and a half minutes and he basically said that he did not think they would be good, was good idea to use the population as Guinea pigs and that he personally would not eat it. And he was the leading scientist in the world in his field. The one, the one who was probably the most qualified to evaluate the submissions by the (inaudible) because he had just spent years figuring out how to evaluate the safety of GMOs and he said completely worthless evaluations done by the industry and completely dangerous in terms of the process. He got back to his Institute and his professor Phillip James was like all excited because there was tremendous publicity, and this was a way that the Rowett Institute could get some more money in some more research.

 

00:13:08:25 --> 00:13:49:09

Jeffrey Smith: And he diverted all of the phone calls that were supposed to go to Arpad Pusztai tied to his desk so he could talk about how great the research was. And he even put out his own press release without even talking to Arpad and it was wrong. But then the next afternoon, two phone calls were placed from the UK prime minister's office forwarded through the receptionist to Professor James. We had heard also that it was Monsanto that called Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton, who called Tony Blair and Tony Blair's office called Phillip James, and the next day Arpad was fired.

 

00:13:51:20 --> 00:15:36:13

Jeffrey Smith: He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. They withdrew the data; they never implemented his safety protocols. He still had to stick around for his contract. He had nothing to do. He had to sit. No one would sit with him in the dining hall. It was like complete, complete horror and seven months in one heart attack later he was invited to speak before parliament and so he was a force. They were forced to give him his data back and he spoke before them. His research was published in the Lancet and other publications and it was the most in-depth animal feeding studies ever conducted on GMOs and it showed that the generic process of genetic engineering was unsafe. But during the seven months when he was unable to speak, there was a massive effort to discredit him and they put out incredibly inaccurate lies and disinformation so that people did not know what to do. So, the reality of his discovery never took hold because if it had GMOs would have been eliminated from the food supply on the spot. Now his sacrifice, his, I have asked him, would you do it again? He said, I am a scientist. I am empirical scientist. I go with what is for fact. And he also pointed out, he said, you know, after I spoke out, they took GMOs out of Europe. That happened. I opened my book with it.

Let us, give a hand to Arpad Pusztai

 

00:15:40:03 --> 00:16:18:24

Jeffrey Smith: amazing man. I opened my book, seeds of deception in the moment that the doorbell rang in his home. He had been unable to speak for seven months. Susan, his wife, answered the door and there was like 30 reporters either right in front of them running from their cars or parking. She said, we cannot speak about what would happen. We would be sued. It is okay. The reporter from channel four TV said waving the paper in front of her. They have released your husband, he could speak. He gave her the thing. She called for Arpad. Arpad came out. He started reading it. There it was. The gag order was lifted while he was reading the 30 reporters slipped behind Susan and sat in the sat in the living room

 

00:16:22:10 --> 00:17:49:28

Jeffrey Smith: and he was able to speak for the first time and over 700 articles were written about GMO safety within a month in the UK. Within the first week, one editor said it does. It divided society into two warring blocks. There were two UK newspapers. They were taking a stand against GMOs, one or two for GMOs back and forth, back and forth. 10 weeks after the gag order, April 27th after the gag order was lifted, Unilever, Britain's largest food company publicly announced no more GMOs in Europe. The next day, Nestles is no more GMOs in Europe. The next week, no more GMOs in Europe. These same companies continued to sell GMOs to the unsuspecting us population because this whole Arpad Pusztai affair was described as one of the 10 most under-reported events of the year by project censored. So, information was critical and stopping GMOs. And it was a high-profile headlines scandal. And it was a story how he was beaten up, essentially fired, and ultimately vindicated. So, it was the stories that carry the weight. And so, the book

 

00:17:50:00 --> 00:18:54:00

Jeffrey Smith: seeds of deception weaves the health dangers into these stories, which is why it was so effective and why I am enjoying so much the opportunity to give a full lecture just on stories of deception and, and you know, there is  like the Monsanto playbook, oops, here is  the stomach lining. By the way, it is even worse. And these, these particular pictures, they are in my second book, genetic roulette. A friend of mine who I did not know at the time, Dr Michelle Pero was looking at these pictures and an alarm went off and said, Oh my God, I now understand she is a pediatrician, one of the top in the country named as such for years. And in the early two thousands, there were all of a sudden a raft of very complicated new diseases that she was not seeing before. The same remedies were no longer working. She couldn't figure it out.

 

00:18:54:01 --> 00:20:01:22

Jeffrey Smith: Her colleagues were having the same issue. She looked at this and said, this is what is happening in the guts of the children. This was the fear of Doctor Arpad Pusztai. So, she put all her children and families on organic diets and things reversed. In fact, the film secret ingredients which she is in, is about individuals and families who switched to organic. And autistic kids are no longer on the spectrum. Infertile couples have children, people with skin problems, cancer allergies, brain fog, brain fog, that was a joke. All sorts of diseases and conditions went away. And it was not just because we happened to pick these people who had something else going on cause it was repeated over and over again in her practice and the practice of David Perlmutter, who's in the film in others. So that is why that film is so impactful because it is stories, emotional stories that make you cry.

 

00:20:02:00 --> 00:21:00:14

Jeffrey Smith: And then you have the scientific evidence weaved in to explain why the GMOs and the Roundup were contributing to the autism, the paralysis, the tumors, the brain fog, and you understand the specific neurotransmitters that go out, the microbiome that gets attacked, the mitochondria, you understand that, so you get permission to believe the stories that you are reading and watching. So that gives them, that gives the mind the ability to say, yes, this is true because now you understand it and then you have the commitment. So, I am sharing this as part of the tactics and strategy that I have used for 24 years, and so now I am going to give you some stories that you can share. Here is a story. Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Remember that? Injected into a cow to increase milk supply.

 

00:21:04:13 --> 00:21:04:23

Jeffrey Smith: Okay,

 

00:21:05:06 --> 00:21:59:04

Jeffrey Smith: Santos here, it is still in some dairies, but most kicked out because of the massive education program. I talked to a former, I talked to a former, just find different spots on the thing. Now the person with the cameras really consider yours. Hello. I talked to a former Monsanto scientist and he said that three of his colleagues were testing the milk from cows, treated with the company's bovine growth hormone, and they found so much of a cancer promoting hormone called IGF one the three Monsanto scientists refused to drink milk thereafter unless it was organic. One bought his own cow. Now you see how much fun it is to tell that story,

 

00:22:00:13 --> 00:22:00:26

Jeffrey Smith: say

 

00:22:02:25 --> 00:22:04:08

Jeffrey Smith: seed once hit or really does not want.

 

00:22:04:27 --> 00:22:05:03

Jeffrey Smith: Yeah,

 

00:22:06:22 --> 00:22:43:14

Jeffrey Smith: maybe you could bring me both. Both microphones. You see if you could say that Monsanto one scientists refuse to drink milk after they tested it because of the cancer promoting hormone. they found and one bought his own cow. That is interesting. And that is memorable. But if you simply say, I would not eat that. It causes cancer. Or there is research that causes cancer, the response could be, oh yeah, everything causes cancer. You see, so I am

 

helping you and whatever, whatever activism you do, create stories. Here is another story. Okay. One of my favorites about bovine growth hormone,

 

00:22:45:14 --> 00:24:10:29

Jeffrey Smith: so, they wanted to approve it at the FDA because the FDA was mandated to promote GMOs. So they were waiting for this one study that was done by Monsanto's friends, Monsanto scientists and Monsanto's friends, and they injected cows now with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, but another companies that never went on the market at 2% the dose that Monsanto uses, and they found that there was a  I think a 27% increase in bovine growth hormone in the milk, and they said it was not substantial. Now it is a hormone in any increase is  serious, but they said it was not substantial, but then they said it really does not matter because 90% this is what the FDA said, 90% of the hormone is destroyed during pasteurization. You can see it is found in that research study. So if you look at the research study, you realize that what they did is they pasteurize the milk 120 times longer than normal, but they only destroyed 19% not 91 nine 19 so they added powdered hormone to the milk 143 times the natural occurring level, just poured it in, poured it in it, then pasteurize it 120 times longer than normal.

 

00:24:11:21 --> 00:24:17:12

Jeffrey Smith: Under those conditions, they destroyed 90% of the hormone and that is what the FDA reported.

 

00:24:18:05 --> 00:24:18:11

Jeffrey Smith: Okay.

 

00:24:18:25 --> 00:25:24:05

Jeffrey Smith: You can see how they rig their research. Now when you realize that they are doing that, are you going to believe anything else that they say? No. So again, these stories are so important because they are what we needed to discredit Monsanto and to discredit the FDA. Someone wanted to discredit the FDA. Steve Druker, are you in the audience here or are you Steve? He will be here tomorrow night when in a panel with me, he pioneered a lawsuit which forced the FDA to turn over 44,000 secret internal memos. And the story that came out of that was the overwhelming consensus among the scientists working at the FDA where the GMOs were different and dangerous and needed to be tested. Even human toxicological tests because it could create allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But the person in charge of policy at the FDA was Monsanto's former attorney Michael Taylor, and when he wrote the policy, he systematically took out the concerns of the scientists.

 

00:25:25:09 --> 00:26:24:22

Jeffrey Smith: So, one scientist said, what is this is just a political document. It has none of the, none of the side effects that we talked about. And the final policy, which is still in effect today, says the agency's not aware of any information showing that the foods created by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way. A total lie. How do we know? Because we have the FDA scientists saying the exact opposite saying it is the tech is the opinion of the technical experts in the agency, that the process of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and lead to different risks. And by trying to force the conclusion that there is no difference. It is like forcing a square peg into a round hole unquote completely lied in the policy, denying, denying the concerns by the scientists pretending they did not exist. And so just hearing that someone could say, Oh, so they cannot rely on the FDA.

 

00:26:25:14 --> 00:27:34:17

Jeffrey Smith: I cannot rely on Monsanto 30 seconds. We have just discredited the two main spokes people for the health dangers, for the health, safety of GMOs in story format. Oh, let's add the fact that Michael Taylor, after working at the FDA on Monsanto's behalf and also approved bovine growth hormone, went to Monsanto to become their vice president. And then later back to the FDA become the U S foods czar. So, this in one 32nd story, we have just removed the power of multimillions of dollars of advertising and people will, the FDA says it is safe. Well, the scientists did not say it is safe. It was the political appointees. You can go more into those, that story if you want. Now here is a story. Interesting. There was an article that wanted to scientific article published in a British journal that said when consumers in Canada were given full information, they choose to, they chose to eat the genetically engineered corn.

 

00:27:35:26 --> 00:29:22:01

Jeffrey Smith: It never mentioned this one little fact that above the non-GMO corn was a sign that said, would you eat

 

wormy sweet corn? This was designed by a pro GMO person. It was rigged research designed to give the wrong impression, designed to give the impression that people are, that people prefer eating GMO corn and not only did they say would you eat wormy sweet corn? They listed all of the pesticides and herbicides that were used on the wormy sweet corn and then the GMO corn had no sign over it and the scientists doing this objective research, he saw someone leave the store with the natural sweet corn and ran up to them and convinced them that they made the wrong decisions. Okay, next time I will try the GMO corn. This was how he conducted and never mentioned any of this in the peer review journal and there was a pro GMO British, a scientific journal. How do we know? Because it was awarded as the one of the best articles of the year. And then when all of this came out in a book, the fact that there was the, would you eat wormy sweet corn? It was actually published in a book by a reporter with the picture of the sign and a description of how the author had tried to, had actually run up to people to try and convince them that journal did not retract the paper or the award. It tells you that they are basically being controlled by the biotech industry.

 

00:29:24:27 --> 00:30:02:02

Jeffrey Smith: Well, we will get to that. So, part of the solution is educating people about the health dangers and shifting to non-GMO, but non-GMO is not good enough. Organic because of the Roundup sprayed on the non-GMO and tomorrow what I am going to speak on is a bigger danger and existential threat to the whole planet from GMOs, which you do not want to miss that cause that, that that is something that is so intense and so important that I think everyone needs to hear about this all over the world and their solutions that we need to develop for that too.

 

00:30:05:11 --> 00:31:19:20

Jeffrey Smith: So, there was a study done in 1996 by Monsanto, you do not have to read the screen, it is too much. 1996 journal of nutrition. Monsanto did one scientific study on GMOs, soy and basically the title was that there is  no difference. It is substantially equivalent, GMO, non-GM soy and that was all they put out in 1996 and people were eating it in 1997. Nothing else. It has been described as the model of how you do research to avoid finding problems. They diluted their GM soy 10-fold. They used too much protein so that there would not be any results in the rats from protein deficiency. Here is an example of how they did their work. When you are doing side by side comparisons for content, you know what is the composition? You go into the same climate and the same geography. You have a line in the field, one side's GMO, one side's non-GMO, there is  enough separation distance so there is  no contamination but you hold all of the other factors or the other variables constant.

 

00:31:19:20 --> 00:32:28:20

Jeffrey Smith: So, you are just looking at the only difference, not whether or not location. And then you'll have statistical significance. You lower the noise. So, what did Monsanto do? They had six different side-by-side studies all over the country and they pooled all the data by pooling all of the data. They eliminate the statistical significance of almost anything that is not extreme. And they still had at some extreme outliers like reduced or increased trypsin inhibitor, which is an allergen and some other things. And Barbara Keeler who was an investigative reporter and medical writer contacted the journal of nutrition and found that Monsanto had submitted data that never made it into the paper and was able to find the data where they did actually side by side comparisons in Puerto Rico and they found that there was with cooked GM soy as much as a seven fold increase in trypsin inhibitor.

 

00:32:29:20 --> 00:33:34:26

Jeffrey Smith: Trypsin inhibitor inhibits trypsin which breaks down protein. If you have proteins lasting longer in your gut, they have a greater capacity to create allergic reactions. It may be why we do not know. In the five years after GM soy was introduced, peanut allergies doubled because if you are not able to break down the peanut protein, you may get an allergic reaction. There is also a cross-reactivity between soy and peanuts that might have been enhanced in the GM version. We do not know, but trypsin inhibitor being in such high levels could be a disaster for the entire digestive track and immune system and that information was hidden. It was in the archives of the journal, never published. She found it and she published it with Mark LaPay in the Los Angeles times. Along with the fact that there was an anti-nutrient that was doubled, something that blocks the absorption of other nutrients, a reduction in protein, a reduction in other key elements of nutrition.

 

00:33:35:00 --> 00:34:37:04

Jeffrey Smith: And why were these left out? Because remember the name of the study was that they are substantially equivalent. If this information had been put into the article, it would have proven the opposite and maybe the soy would

 

never have been produced. The only reason they got the soy approved is because they used rigged research. When they tested the feed, they created Roundup ready soy designed to be sprayed with Roundup. They never sprayed it with Roundup before they fit it to animals. No one grows roundup ready soy and does not spray it with Roundup. That is why you grow it and originally it was being sprayed twice. Now it is being sprayed four times in some places, 10-fold number amount of glyphosate around up and they never even sprayed it. It was, it was described as a typical way, a perfect example of what you do in order to using the wrong statistical methods, the wrong controls, the wrong methods in order to avoid finding problems.

 

00:34:37:22 --> 00:35:32:19

Jeffrey Smith: And this was the study upon which GMO soy was introduced to our food supply. Now Mark LaPay, the coauthor of that letter, he wrote a book called Against the Grain, and while it was waiting, pre-publication Monsanto was concerned that he had heard that he had blown the whistle on the fact that they are genetically modified. Soy had a lower amount of phytoestrogens, which are good for the heart. So, they wrote a, they wrote a nasty letter asking him basically demanding that he not published the book and then they sit in a sentence and there is no difference in the phytoestrogens level. Now, Mark had no idea why it was or why, I guess, well, let us check it. It was like they tip their hand. They never realized that Mark had not tested for phytoestrogen levels, but when they wrote him the letter, he did, and sure enough, there was a lower level of phytoestrogen levels.

 

00:35:33:11 --> 00:36:31:03

Jeffrey Smith: So, he was ready to publish that, and he had to do yet to not talk about it for a while I was waiting to be published. So, Monsanto used that period, did their own research, and immediately published their own study, which said there is so much variability in phytoestrogens, you cannot even do a statistical analysis. So, it came out before Mark's article came out nullifying the results. But Mark realized that Monsanto went to the same laboratory that he went to do their study. So, he went to that one guy who was the world's expert at extracting and testing for phytoestrogen levels and he said, what gives? And the scientist said, yeah, Monsanto forced us to use an obsolete method of detection that was prone to variability. So, they designed this study specifically to have no statistical results. They forced it out into the public domain.

 

00:36:31:06 --> 00:37:28:24

Jeffrey Smith: They never mentioned in their public peer review journal that they had used the obsolete method. And the person at the laboratory was not allowed to publish anything saying that either. So, this is exactly how they rig their research. So, when you say, when you go and say, Oh, tobacco says this, big tobacco says as a drug company, say this, Monsanto says this, see it is in black and white. It is published. It could be absolutely meaningless, and we will explain a little bit how they do their work. So, Monsanto had to pull the high lysine corn submittal when it was being submitted to the European union because they asked some questions and Monsanto did not want to answer those questions. And they had originally submitted it to the Australian New Zealand board, and they approved it. But I had written up about it. I interviewed Dr Jack Heinemann who had done a scathing research study about it.

 

00:37:28:24 --> 00:38:25:07

Jeffrey Smith: I summarize what he did, put it in my book, and I found this this morning when I was preparing some of the slides, I found this, I had never seen this before about the high lysine corn withdrawal. I am going to go to this next page. You are not going to be able to read the details. It said European food safety authority was forced to take it seriously because of concerns from a large number of European countries, including Finland. And Malta, the scientific basis of the concerns were highlighted in Jeffrey Smith by Jeffrey Smith in his book genetic roulette and by professor Jack Heinemann in his book, I hope not hype. So, I ended up not realizing that my book influenced the withdrawal of this very dangerous high lysine corn. Thank you very much. I have no idea. And it describes how they had rigged their research. False assumptions. Failure to offer a test results based on cooked or processed corn. Failure to tip

 

00:38:26:20 --> 00:38:27:09

Jeffrey Smith: Monsanto. Hey,

 

00:38:32:22 --> 00:39:31:26

Jeffrey Smith: failure to test the whole GM plant feeding trials, confusing and contradictory characterizations, fraudulent mixing of GM strains, pooling of crop data, undesirable effects and experiments, feeding trials too short

 

changing the animal tissues choice of an irrelevant unrelated corn variety as the control group. By comparison with the GM lines. It was the clear intention of hiding potentially serious differences. I mean, Jack Heinemann did a brilliant job of breaking it down and then I took his like 300 pages of, of, of materials and brought out like a story. I would bring out a story. And that is what the regulators in Finland and, Malta apparently read the condensed version. So, there is a value to taking even clear scientific evidence, but if it is hidden behind hundreds of pages, it needs to be turned into a story. So, here is one story you will not remember high lysine corn.

 

00:39:32:20 --> 00:40:36:08

Jeffrey Smith: That is not, it is too, it is too vague. So, I want to tell you a story to help you remember this. High lysine corn, they wanted to create corn with extra levels of lysine because when you feed pigs, you must throw lysine in the feed as well. So why do not we have the corn produced? So they genetically engineered genes into the corn that produces the lysing and they said that the lysine protein that is  used in the corn that is  created in the corn, it has a history of safe use in the, in the human food supply because it is in soil and we have soil residues on food, right? We have some soil residues on food. And so, because their soil residues on food and we eat those soil residues, it means it has a history of safe use. And does not need to be tested. This is their logic. So, Jack Heinemann, a brilliant scientist, decided to call their bluff and said, okay, how much, how much corn does an average male American eat? Oh, this is going to tell me how to hold the mic.

 

00:40:38:11 --> 00:41:56:11

Jeffrey Smith: Now the more the phone is not, the phone's not him. If we have, if you have an average male American, how much corn do they eat per day? And if it were Monsanto's high lysine variety, how much of that protein would they be consuming per day? How much of that protein is found in soil? How much soil would they have to consume per day for this to consume the same amount of high lysine protein that they would consume in the average day of corn consumption? It turns out that the average male American would have to consume in terms of the amount of soil, 22,000 pounds per second back up the dump trucks and forest 22,000 pounds of soil into American every second of a day. And then they would have as much of that protein as they would eat in a typical corn day. And this is the kind of faulty assumptions that Monsanto uses.

 

00:41:56:15 --> 00:43:07:15

Jeffrey Smith: One of my favorites because the image is so hard to get out of your mind, you know, so this is an example of the absurdity of, of Monsanto's corporate science. So, there is a scientist named Irina Ermakova . She gave me the following few slides when we were speaking together at the European parliament and these are rat livers on the right that were fed GM soy and the rats on the left were fed non-GM soy. And you could see the changes in that. We now know that tiny levels of glyphosate caused fatty liver, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is now a, an epidemic with 30% of Americans experiencing it. And it can lead to more serious issues like liver cancer. She also did a study, where she found that the testicles of rats changed from pink to blue when they were fed. Genetically engineered soy. I like to leave this image on for a minute while I take a slow drink of water to burn it in the minds of people and to affect half the audience.

 

00:43:10:10 --> 00:44:32:21

Jeffrey Smith: And she also, fed these rats, genetically modified soy. There is  a female rats, there are Russian speaking rats fed them GM soy starting two weeks before they got pregnant and continued through pregnancy and lactation and more than half of their babies died within three weeks compared to 10% when the mother rats ate non GM soy. Well, as you could imagine, and by the way they were smaller and could not reproduce, she was attacked viciously. She was a member of the Russian Academy of sciences. She lost her job and was unable to find similar work after that. This is the kind of impact that Monsanto has around the world. I am just giving percentage. I am giving you a small percentage of the stories that I know about and have collected. And some of them more recently come from the Monsanto trials. I want to say I am so pleased that the results of the first three Roundup trials where plaintiffs were accusing Monsanto of causing their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, that Monsanto lost and the juries awarded them two point billion dollars.

 

00:44:37:27 --> 00:45:38:05

Jeffrey Smith: Now the judges reduced it to 190 million from 2.3 billion, but that is still a heavy chunk of change. And the last official count for the number of plaintiffs waiting for their day in court was 42,700 but unofficial estimates put it

 

at about 100,000. So there the recent evidence, the recent report now is that the lawyers are talking to Bayer, which owns Monsanto and to do our settlement. And there is one lawyer who I know who's holding out because he thinks he should get more for his clients, but it can go either way. In the next few days, there is a trial going on now in St Louis that will be televised. So, you can go online and Google it and find out how to get to the Monsanto St Louis Roundup trial and have incredible entertainment. And I am going to share some of the, and we have even more entertainment.

 

00:45:38:05 --> 00:46:40:11

Jeffrey Smith: I mean real entertainment of stories from the lead attorney who won two of the three cases. His name is Brent Wisner and we interview him@responsibletechnology.org but Monsanto does not like Brent Wizner. It could be someone's phone. If someone's phone is not on airplane mode in the front, you may want to put it in airplane mode. In fact, putting your phone, not just turning it off, does not stop the transmissions. You got to put it in airplane mode before you shut it off. And then, or even just airplane mode without shutting it off and it stops the transmissions. So, if you want to get some really amazing stories, dramatic, better than watching those courtroom document courtroom, movies. Watch my interview with Brent wisner@responsibletechnology.org and that is  where you could also make a donation as, as it was recommended by Steve. So, one thing we know is that the discredit bur Bureau that I have been fighting and reporting on really exist.

 

00:46:40:11 --> 00:47:44:26

Jeffrey Smith: It is a budget item and it it, it is called let nothing go. That is their program. Not a single tweet, not as single post, certainly not as scientists discovering problems. Certainly not Jeffrey Smith writing an article, let nothing go was their policy. It is like scorched earth policy and they had front groups and fake scientists and trolls all going after anyone that came out with a statement against GMOs or Roundup or Monsanto. So, if you look at how they got round up with its active ingredient, glyphosate on the market, and there is a lot of details here, you do not have to read it. I will just tell you the story. There is a company called industrial Biotest laboratories that. They were doing 35 to 40% of all toxicological tests in the country and the justice department who investigated it said, one person said it was the place to go because everyone knew they would get their products passed.

 

00:47:45:01 --> 00:48:45:20

Jeffrey Smith: How did they get their products passed? Because it was fraudulent. They did 22,000 toxicological studies, including 10,000 that were used for agricultural chemicals, 2000 of which were considered the primary studies. That resulted in allowing 325 insecticides and herbicides to move forward. And when they looked at the research over years and years, they found that maybe 10% were valid and the rest were fraud. And that most of those same pesticides continue to be sprayed on the fields. So, what kind of fraud? In some store, in some studies, 80% of the rats died and were replaced. The rat evaluations for those that died did not exist. They would sometimes cut and paste information from one study and put it into another. They do two years studies in eight months. They talked about doing evaluations of the UTI of male rats. You know, it is, they were completely, completely incompetent.

 

00:48:46:02 --> 00:50:03:08

Jeffrey Smith: I read 20 pages of it yesterday, ration for this talk. It was like, it was absolutely disgusting what was going on in this laboratory. And it turns out that three people went to jail, including Dr. Paul Wright, who had worked for Monsanto, was a toxicologist and then went to IBT to oversee some of the studies for Monsanto then went back to Monsanto. And while he was back at Monsanto, he was being indicted and went to jail. And 11 of the 19 chronic toxicological studies of glyphosate were performed by IPT, fraudulently. And even after that, when it was considered and validated more recently, a report by the EPA cited the IBT studies as reasons why it approved Roundup, not mentioning that it had been invalidated. Later in the EPA, they were given a research study by Monsanto where it was clear that a low dose caused a particular tumor in a higher dose, caused more tumors, and the control group had no tumors.

 

00:50:03:21 --> 00:51:43:22

Jeffrey Smith: And so, they said, we are going to call it a possible carcinogen in 1985, which could have stopped the commercialization of Roundup. So, what happened was Monsanto needed the EPA to reverse it and argued over and over again, what can we do to reverse it. So eventually they, you could read from the memos made public from the lawsuit. And in 1985 memo, from Monsanto's George Levinkas he said that they were going to hire Dr Marvin Kuschner who will review the kidney sections and present his evaluation to persuade the agency that the observed

 

tumors are not related to glyphosate. Kuschner had never seen the slides before. He had never been given the data. But here the person for Monsanto was telling another executive what Kuschner would, would find because that same Levinkas. Tried to downplay a study earlier about Monsanto's PCB. So, he knew how to rig the research and Dr Kuschner looked at the controls and circled something and said, see, there is a tumor in the controls. No one else looking at it saw a tumor. None of the EPA scientist said there is a real tumor there. He just circled and Aaron said, there is a tumor here, which would cause lack of statistical significance and invalidate the study. So, they argued and argued for years and eventually the EPA gave up and declared it not a carcinogen.

 

00:51:46:14 --> 00:52:44:06

Jeffrey Smith: And yet the world health organization's Institute for international agency for research on cancer use the same study to support. It is evidence that it causes cancer. They also then we are getting a lot of pressure because they were saying glyphosate causes cancer because it is Genotoxic, meaning it damages the DNA. So, Monsanto hire Dr.

James Perry, the world's expert at Geno toxicity and said, look, if these four studies and tell us what you find, and he looked at the four studies and said, yep, it looks like it is genotoxic. They have looked back and said, wait a minute, look at all of these studies is the up that increases the evidence. It certainly looks like it is genotoxic. Monsanto's internal memos made public from a lawsuit quote. We want to find slash develop someone who was comfortable with the Genotoxic profile of glyphosate Roundup and who can be influential with regulators and scientific outreach operations.

 

00:52:44:22 --> 00:53:37:26

Jeffrey Smith: We, my read is that Perry is not currently such a person and it would take some time and money to get him there. And he said, we simply are not going to do the studies that Perry suggests. He suggested to do all those studies. They ignore that. They ignore that one. One edit, one sign, one edit executive wrote. Has Dr. Perry ever done research for industry before? In other words, does not he know he is not supposed to find these findings? So, what did Monsanto do? They were supposed to legally turn over the findings to the EPA. They broke the law, hid the study, and then ghost wrote their own study as a review paper, hired scientists to sign it. And the conclusion was just the opposite to what Perry found, that there was no Geno toxicity.

 

00:53:40:25 --> 00:55:06:20

Jeffrey Smith: We found in the, in the documents to the EPA, that Marion Copley, who was a 30 year senior toxicologist, wrote a letter to Jess Roland who was the head of the committee that was evaluating whether glyphosate causes cancer glyphosates the chief poison and Roundup. And it was a letter that did not hold back. She had cancer, she was dying. She had to leave the EPA and she said she needed to do this before she died. And she listed 14 ways that glyphosate could promote cancer. And she said any one of these mechanisms alone could cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them. And that it is certain that glyphosate causes cancer. She said to Jess Roland, do not play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants, meaning Monsanto for once, do the right thing and do not make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on the cancer committee and changed final reports to favor industry. Just promise me never to let Anna on the committee her decisions do not make rational sense. If anyone in the office of pesticides, programs is taking bribes it is, her, so she did not hold back. So, what did Jess Roland do? Jess Roland, it turns out was Monsanto's lapdog.

 

00:55:09:05 --> 00:56:04:11

Jeffrey Smith: He tipped off Monsanto months before he was, they were supposed to know that the international agency for research on cancer was doing an analysis of glyphosate and carcinogenicity giving them the chance to prepare their defense. He also told Monsanto executives that there was another agency in the government that was going to do an evaluation of glyphosate and carcinogenicity and he was determined to stop them. And he said, if I can kill this, I should get a medal. And it was killed. And some other comments going back and forth between people at the FDA verify that Jess was doing a nice job, that maybe he could help us after we were top retires and then mysteriously and non-final report on the glyphosate analysis.

 

00:56:05:24 --> 00:56:06:03

Jeffrey Smith: Anyway,

 

00:56:08:18 --> 00:57:48:10

Jeffrey Smith: it just stopped working. Okay. So, he oversaw the committee that determined the glyphosate did not cause

 

cancer. The report appeared on the website for the for the EPA before it was supposed to be put there. No one knows how it got there. It was immediately copied by Monsanto and sent to the press and sent to regulators and then it was taken down with an apology and a few days later Roland left the EPA. So, we think it was him. Now an analysis of how Roland's committee found that glyphosate did not cause cancer when the world health organization's committee did was published interfere review journal. The world health organization used peer reviewed published studies that had an overwhelming evidence of cancer in Roland's committee. They relied almost exclusively on Monsanto studies and we are seeing how Monsanto conducts their studies. They are no wonder, and they also have. They avoided studies that use the whole formulation. They just focused on glyphosate. Even though Roundup, which has a lot of other ingredients, some that are a thousand times more toxic than glyphosate, that Roundup as a whole can be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. And that Roundup as a whole has a lot of evidence of causing cancer. But the EPA does not have to look at the whole formulation because their rules are designed by industry. So, they just look at,

 

00:57:51:24 --> 00:59:03:14

Jeffrey Smith: so, when Roland tipped off Monsanto, they created a whole plan and the documents of that plan became public because of this lawsuit. It is been such a valuable trove of information. And the purpose of the plan was to orchestrate outcry. This was before IARC the international agency for research on cancer issued its results. So, Monsanto did not even know what the results were, but they knew the research and could anticipate that they were going to be determining that it was either a carcinogen or a probable carcinogen. And so, they created, they use their front groups. They decided to go write specific articles to have an independent count, quote, independent counsel review. They had created third party social media posts. They had growers’ associations on board opinion leaders, etc. They planned all this, the same tactics that I have been reporting on for years, but we have not all, I mean this was gold for us. It is like yeah; we know they do all these things but here it was in their own handwriting

 

00:59:09:24 --> 01:00:02:02

Jeffrey Smith: and here is where we, okay. And so, for example, they had an expert panel review whether it causes cancer and one person, one scientist said, I cannot be a part of a deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication. We call that ghost writing and it is unethical. So, one person stood up to them but others on the committee did not. And we have in fact the consulting agreement and how much money changed hands with someone who was supposed to be an independent person. And the documents said never influenced by Monsanto. Even though we see evidence that people in Monsanto wrote the critique and rewrote it and insisted that their lapdogs do what they said so that when they published it, it was Monsanto's words.

 

01:00:04:29 --> 01:00:50:26

Jeffrey Smith: They also described in their own emails. We ghostwrite recall. He said, we just edit it and, and we, they, the scientists just edit it and sign their names and he said, recall, that is  how we handled Williams Kroes and Monroe 2000 the Williams Kroes Monroe 2000 is probably that review paper that they wrote. Instead of issuing the Perry report, which is being cited by regulatory agencies all over the world, showing the for say does not cause cancer. They are admitting that they wrote it. In fact, Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras acknowledged when he was describing what he did during the year. Yep. Ghost wrote cancer review paper.

 

01:00:54:15 --> 01:02:05:26

Jeffrey Smith: And he even tried to argue that he wanted to have his name on it because he wanted some credit because he is been doing this for two years. For two years. He is been ghostwriting and he wanted some credentials, but they said, no, we cannot have Monsanto, offering anything that is favorable of glyphosate. So, they kept his name out of it. They had a guy named Henry Miller submit an article to Forbes that had been drafted by Monsanto when it became public. Forbes took it off their website and everything else that, that Miller had written. He was one of Monsanto's lapdogs at the FDA. I was invited to speak on the doctor’s TV show, which is a national TV show with millions of viewers just after the IRAC determined that glyphosate caused cancer. And I was asked if I could debate the Monsanto toxicologist, Donna Farmer. Now Monsanto has a long-term policy of never debating me. In fact,

 

01:02:07:28 --> 01:02:59:08

Jeffrey Smith: they will not even be on the same stage and sometimes they will not even appear on the same conference. So when I, the last time I was on Dr Oz, I was speaking with doctor interviewed by Dr Oz and then he turned to the camera and said, we are going to do something that we have never done before. Jeffrey Smith is so controversial that the other side

 

will not appear on stage with him. So, we are going to ask them to leave and then we are going to interview a scientist who is going to defend roundup them. So, we left and went to the green room and watched her give a lie after lie after lie after lie. And it was so obvious why she did not want us on stage because we would have pointed out that everything she said was false and they had to do what was called a pickup because something did not get recorded.

 

01:02:59:08 --> 01:03:40:06

Jeffrey Smith: Right. So, they gave us a chance to answer one question again. And so, we knew what she had said after we spoke, because it would be edited into the part before she spoke. And so, we got a chance to give the truth about something that she was lying about and that got them so angry. They wrote letters saying, you did this on purpose, you are working with Jeffrey Smith. You are biased. It was totally not true. In fact, they, they attacked me. They try and do an entire, you know, detective work on me, private detective investigation. And all they could find out was that I like to dance. And then I meditate.

 

01:03:44:13 --> 01:05:17:14

Jeffrey Smith: And while I was writing my book, seeds of deception, I was teaching, people in my town had a swing dance. So, they, Oh, now we have the angle, he is a dance teacher. And so when they tried to do a hit piece on in the New Yorker against, Dr Oz and one of their paid people, Bruce Chasity, who was received a lot of money to try and go after me, said basically, you know, that, and one of the reasons why we cannot trust Dr Oz cause he had a dance teacher, Jeffrey Smith on who was just a, it was a meditation teacher. And it is like, you know, this is how, this is what they get. This is how far they go. So, I was on TV. Donna got the last word and she said, I mean this very honestly, she was obviously had media training over and over again and had practiced all these lines and smiling and just, she had definitely, I mean the media training is very important for the people in Monsanto years and years of it. I mean this very honestly; I am extremely highly confident that this product has a mom and I could back it a confident in this product as a mom and I could back it up as a scientist. So then when the scientists, when the, when the lawyers got all these millions of documents and posted many of them on the website, I searched under Donna farmer's name and found that in private, she was not so confident and I called the producers of the doctors and I said, guess what? We have evidence that Donna Farmer was not being completely honest.

 

01:05:19:16 --> 01:06:04:02

Jeffrey Smith: Oh. And so, I sent them the quotes and I said, I would also like to introduce you to an attorney, Brenton Wizner and a plaintiff that he is representing so we can have a full package. I said, yeah, send it to me, and I said to her, how much time do you think you'll be donating or dedicating to this, this segment of a rebuttal? And that she said maybe three or four minutes. So by the time I got on, they did something that was probably the first time ever in the show before or since they dedicated an entire episode of one hour on the Monsanto cancer thing had me on it, had Brent Wisner on it, had the plaintiff on it and we kicked butt.

 

01:06:10:24 --> 01:07:31:11

Jeffrey Smith: They invited, but Donna Farmer but she refused. Monsanto sent a two paragraph (inaudible) over the air and so we, we totally won the one the audience over with that one. Some examples of what Donna Farmer said in private to another Monsanto person. You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen. We have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. William Hayden's in an email to Donna Farmer says, we are in pretty good shape with glyphosate, but vulnerable on the surfactants that it is that glyphosate is okay, but the formulated product, which is Roundup and thus their surfactant does the damage. Oops, and William Hayden's to Donna as well. Their surfactant or the formulation will come up in the tumor promotion skin study because we think it played a role there. In other words, promoting tumors. There was one study where they put a Roundup on the, on the shaved skin of rodents and 40% of them got tumors and none of the control groups, and then another one, Terry, Donna and I reviewed the mortality data.

 

01:07:31:16 --> 01:08:42:06

Jeffrey Smith: It is not outside the realm of possibilities that the three deaths were treatment related and then she, you could see that she was given an article to ghostwrite and she went and edited. You could see where she struck things out. Here is a perfect sentence. Instead of, and overall, although the results are suggestive, they fail to demonstrate a significant association of glyphosate exposure with the risk of spontaneous abortion, miscarriage and now appears after her edit. Overall, the results fail to demonstrate a significant association. So, she took out that the results are suggestive

 

and then she took her name off the paper and Monsanto's name off the paper after contributing. And that is how it got published. So, this is, I mean this was gold to get millions of pay pages like this was absolutely fantastic. And they, they talked about the full formulation and they stay, they were given all sorts of suggestions from Dr. Perry to do studies on the full formulation.

 

01:08:42:29 --> 01:09:58:15

Jeffrey Smith: And they did a little study on absorption ability and they take cadavers and they put it on the cadaver and it was getting in there about 10% which is 3.3 times the allowable level. And so, they said it could blow the Roundup risk evaluation and they are getting a much higher dermal penetration than we have ever seen before because of those surfactants. And then we have another, another email that says we dropped the program for glyphosate evaluation of the absorption, including the surfactants because a further study would not likely to, but not, not, was not likely to help us meet the of the project. Objective was to get it approved. If they had revealed, if they had turned over the data to the EPA about what they got, it would not have been approved. So, they did not. They just stop doing for the research studies, and in this third trial, a toxicologist who had studied it, dropped the bombshell. They did in fact turnover absorption studies to the EPA. They took cadaver skin and they cut it out and they baked it in an oven. Then they froze it. Then they put Roundup on it and hardly anything got absorbed and that is what they reported.

 

01:10:00:24 --> 01:10:47:28

Jeffrey Smith: I loved these things. To me, these are like, this is gold for an activist. It is, I remember talking to Dr Arhad Pusztai. I had not published my book yet, and I read somewhere else that he was burglarized and his research notes were, were stolen. Now I had interviewed him longer than anyone else in the world for hours and hours. I pest everything that I had written back to him to make sure it was accurate. I called him up and said, Arpad, you did not tell me you were burglarized. He said, I did not think it was important. I said, our pod, this is great news because these are the kind of stories that tell you who we are dealing with and why we cannot trust them with anything, especially our children.

 

01:10:50:13 --> 01:11:57:26

Jeffrey Smith: There is  surge study by Dr Dr Seralini that what he did is he was a toxicologist on the French committee that evaluated the submissions by the bow tech industry for their GMOs. And he noted that all their corn-fed rats submissions had serious issues. And in just in just 90 days in the Roundup ready corn example, there were over 50 statistically significant differences suggesting, signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys. And he decided to do his own research, but not for 90 days, for two years. And not just doing the small number of tests that Monsanto got away with but do a whole bank of tests. And he found that in the two years, starting in the fourth month, right after Monsanto ends its studies in 90 days, the rats started to get tumors and by the end of the study they had multiple massive tumors, which you can see on the

 

01:12:04:23 --> 01:13:30:24

Jeffrey Smith: Monsanto got me. Okay. They died. They had premature death and they had organ damage to the liver, kidneys, pituitary, and in some cases, hormone damage. And what they did when this study was, they wanted to find out whether it was the Roundup or the corn or the Roundup and the corn. So, on the left side, it is a rat from the study that had just eaten the Roundup ready corn that had never been sprayed with Roundup on the right side. It is a rat where the Roundup was in the drinking water, but they did not eat the GMO corn. They ate natural court. And in the middle, it was the Roundup ready corn that had been sprayed with Roundup. All three groups had multiple massive tumors, early death, and organ damage. So, it was the Roundup alone, the GMO alone, and in combination that caused these problems. It was first the most, the most in depth animal feeding study ever conducted prior to, this was from Dr Arpad Pusztai who discovered inherent dangers and this was the next, this became the most in depth study two years and immediately, immediately Dr Seralini got hammered within 24 hours before the build time that scientists could read and evaluate and develop a response.

 

01:13:31:03 --> 01:13:49:23

Jeffrey Smith: They were circulating, talking points to all of their front groups and all of their front scientists sending it to the, to the papers saying the same thing and that at certain point when so many of their own people said the same thing, they declared it a consensus and one of the things they said was he used the wrong rats.

 

01:13:52:11 --> 01:14:48:27

 

Jeffrey Smith: The rats were prone to cancer, but it was the same rats that Monsanto used in their study. He took Monsanto studies and just extended it for two years. They said, Oh, there is not enough rats in the control group. It was the same number of rats in the control group of the Monsanto study. He just extended it for two years. Then they said these rats, cause man 80 to 90% of the rats eating the GMOs and Roundup got tumors. They said in our studies, even the control group, 80% 90% get tumors. So, there is no statistical difference when you compare it to historical controls. This is one of their methods they use to rig research. But there was only about 10% of the rats in Seralini study that had tumors. So, what, how do you explain that? So, and I had been advocating for this for a long time.

 

01:14:49:23 --> 01:16:03:11

Jeffrey Smith: They gathered my Sterlini's team. They gathered lab chow, rat chow, mice, chow from all over the world and tested it. And they found that the control groups, which were eating this chow were eating food that contain GMOs and Roundup. So, in all their scientific studies, pairing animals that were purposely fed GMOs and Roundup to animals that were also fed GMOs and Roundup. So, no wonder the Sprague Dawley rats in their study, 80% to 90% got cancer or tumors because they were feeding them GMOs and Roundup and other pesticides and heavy metals. In the rat chow. So, it turns out that Seralini and his methods were impeccable. I mean, they could have done some things better, but they clearly showed that GMOs should be taken off the market and he won a federal whistleblower award, but he really never got the impact that his study deserve because of the massive disinformation campaign.

 

01:16:03:17 --> 01:17:33:26

Jeffrey Smith: And again, the materials made public from the lawsuit show some of the insights story. So, David Saltmiras, who was that person that ghost wrote some of the stories. He sucks. He, he boasted that he successfully facilitated numerous third-party letters to the editor, meaning he wrote them, and other people sign them. And then he described it as the last rights for Seralini few remaining shreds of credibility. They also, um, asked Bruce Chassy, he is the guy that they pay to go after me, created a whole website against me, which misquoted my book and then challenged my book. He, I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send a letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists. Wally Hayes was the editor of the journal that published Seralini and he basically says, pushing it out. And he said, I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis. In other words, it must be third parties and then Bruce Chassy to wallet to Wallace Hayes. My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and start a new review process. And then we find out that Wallace Hayes then became hired by Monsanto, paid $400 an hour as their consultant, and that one of Monsanto's scientists had been brought on as the biotech associate editor for this journal. And then guess what? They retracted the study.

 

01:17:35:29 --> 01:18:53:17

Jeffrey Smith: They retracted the study and described about three or four reasons why they retracted it and one was it was not conclusive. Now alert scientists said, if we apply those criteria to all of the studies that you normally publish, one third of them would be taken away. Furthermore, there is published reasons why criteria, why you retract a study, and this feels none of them. So, the flushed Wallace Hayes wrote another one saying, well, there was not enough rats to constitute a cancer study. They never used the word cancer in the study. It was a toxicological study. They were surprised about the tumors. They never made a conclusion about cancer. So, Wallace Hayes absolutely did not know what he was talking about. And he was obviously bought by industry. Fortunately, soon after it was retracted, it was republished by another peer review journal. So, Wallace Hayes's grew peer review to twice this journal. Peer reviewed it. So, it passed three peer reviews and remains intact. It was interesting, I was reading the final arguments of the third trial for Monsanto.

 

01:18:55:02 --> 01:18:55:07

Jeffrey Smith: Okay.

 

01:18:55:11 --> 01:19:06:08

Jeffrey Smith: And my name comes up and it is a, it is an email from one Monsanto executive to another, any subject title, whack-a-mole.

 

01:19:08:15 --> 01:20:54:03

Jeffrey Smith: And they are talking about how I published an article about how GMOs were more dangerous to children.

 

And they were telling Bruce Chassy to go after me and they said, Jeff said it again. That was the quote from their email. And the response by the other Monsanto executives was funny. You should we use the word whack-a-mole, Donna Farmer and I started using that two years ago in our responses. So, I am part of the whack-a-mole campaign for Monsanto. And now if you do not, thank you very much. I am from a and whack-a-mole is a, is an arcade game where a mole comes up and then you hit it as hard as you can and as fast as you can with a mallet. And then another one comes up when you hit it with a mallet and another one comes up. And if you can knock as many down as you can gain skein points and keep your glyphosate on the market. That is how it is in the arcade games. And I want to now tell you why you must change your diet. And I told you at the beginning that if you really want to know why, watch the movie secret ingredients. And my first, my earlier book, full length documentary, genetic roulette is also available in the lobby that convinces it is convinced more people to avoid eating GMOs than any other movie. But I did not mention in that movie that Roundup was also sprayed on grapes, rice, fruit, vegetables, wheat, soybeans, corn. All the grains, all the beans and (inaudible).

 

01:20:54:21 --> 01:22:11:20

Jeffrey Smith: Glyphosate are higher in oats and beans than in soybeans because they spray it just before harvest as a desiccant to dry down the crop. It forces fast ripening of the grain and it is right in the food that we eat. So, I used to have oatmeal as a safe non GMO food. Oatmeal is never genetically engineered. So when I would go and speak at conferences like this and I would go to the, the, the breakfast, I would have oatmeal, but I now never touch the oatmeal because it is high level of glyphosate. Same with wheat. Unfortunately, we did not glyphosate right before harvest and organic is not so organic wheat. I would eat organic if I eat organic oats, organic beans, hummus, chickpeas, no, even if it is non-GMO, even non-GMO bread, non GMO wheat bread could be sprayed with Roundup. So that is why it is important to eat organic. And as you'll see in the film secret ingredients, and I will be out there in a few minutes to sell copies and then I must go off to a theater to show it and answer questions.

 

01:22:11:20 --> 01:22:52:14

Jeffrey Smith: In port Washington, you'll see that when you change your diet to non-GMO and organic, you are no longer being exposed to the chemical that Monsanto worked so hard to hide the evidence from and the GMOs that they did the same thing for. And you realize that it is bashing your system and it may be the driver of the particular chronic diseases that you and your family are suffering from. So please switch to organic. Take notes, see how your energy level is, your health, your symptoms, your mood, a change, and then tell everyone you know about it.

 

01:22:57:25 --> 01:23:59:02

Jeffrey Smith: No GMO seeds are grown organically. Organic does not allow GMOs intentionally. GMOs are not allowed in organic. Glyphosate is not allowed in organic. Sometimes there is occasionally fraud more often drift, but it is usually only a small percentage. I cannot take questions now because my time is up. The light is flashing red. I will be able to answer questions while I am at the booth, the table over there, and tomorrow I speak about an existential threat where if we are not careful, the new gene editing could replace nature in this generation so that all future generations will instead, instead of inheriting the products of the billions of years of evolution, will inherit products of laboratory creations whose number one most common result is surprise side effects. A formula for a cataclysm, and we want you to know about this so we can stop it. Thank you all very much for my storytelling opportunity.

 

Thank you for listening to Live Healthy Be well. Please subscribe to the podcast using whatever app you're listening to podcasts with, or go to livehealthybewell.com to subscribe this podcast and inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption, and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistleblowers, 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. Safe eating.

Downloads

Save this episode...

SUBSCRIBE