Why Eating Organic Is a Critical First Step in Getting Healthy - Episode 112

Listen to the Podcast:

Watch the Podcast:

Video not available
In this week's episode...

Jeffrey Smith joins Michael Kilpatrick on the Thriving Farmer podcast to discuss why adopting an organic diet is the critical first step in sustaining your health.

Do you take inventory of your food intake and how it impacts your body?

Jeffrey Smith is an American consumer activist, self-published author, and former politician. Jeffrey is the author of two books on genetically engineered foods, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, and Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives, which he made into a film in 2012. He focuses on advocating against GMOs and pesticides, exposing the dangers they bring to humanity. This info-packed episode details how proper health and nutrition sustains life and the modern day trends that create disease, as well as potential cataclysmic disasters we may face due to genetically engineered microbes.

In This Episode:

  • Why organic is so important in today’s ecosystem
  • About the Protect Nature Now campaign
  • About the disaster surrounding golden rice
  • Some recent studies regarding the effects of GMOs on our health
  • What the average person can do to avoid the dangerous pitfalls of modern food production and live healthy

The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...)  To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit https://www.responsibletechnology.org/

Join us at Protect Nature Now to Safeguarding Biological Evolution from GMOs 2.0. The place to get critical up to date information, watch our short film and most importantly, learn easy ways for you to take action against this existential threat. Visit: https://protectnaturenow.com/

Watch "Don't Let the Gene Out of the Bottle"

Get the book: "Seeds of Deception"

Sign the Petition https://protectnaturenow.com/signthepetition/

IG @irtnogmos

Facebook @responsibletechnology

YouTube @TheInstituteforResponsibleTechinology

Twitter @TheInstituteforResponsibleTechnology

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

Rough Transcript:

Speaker 2: (00:08)
Hey, thriving farmers, Michael Kilpatrick here with a very special guest to the thriving farmer podcast. Today we have Jeffrey Smith who is a leading spokesperson on GMO health issues. He has authored two global best-sellers directed five films delivered a thousand lectures and a thousand interviews in 45 countries trained over 1500 speakers and organized over 10,000 grassroots advocates. He is now sounding the alarm about the serious even irreversible hazards from new genetic engineering techniques, which can lead to health and environmental catastrophes. He and the Institute of responsible technology, which he founded are now sounding the alarm, but the serious and potentially irreversible will hazards for new genetic engineering, their project nature now campaign, which has more than 50 coalition organizers worldwide recognizes the genetically altered microbes can cause unprecedented health problems and collapsed ecosystems. They therefore call on government leaders to prevent all releases of genetically engineered microbes. Jeffrey, talk to us about, you know, the whole organic, uh, genetically engineered. Where are we in this ECOS system right now? And why is organic and the so important?

Speaker 3: (01:22)
Well, we have been looking at the impact of eating GMOs and food sprayed with Roundup on PR human health. And it's devastating. In fact, we interviewed 3000. I spoke at 150, uh, lectures where I asked the audiences, what did you notice when you got better from when you switched to GMO non GMO and organic, and they got better from 28 different conditions. And it was a warmness. Then I, and I sent out a survey to 3000, 256 people who got better from the same 28 different conditions. And now we see those conditions are basically what the animals that are forced fed GMOs and Roundup are either getting or their precursors. We understand the modes of action. We see those are related diseases on the rise in the U S population rising in parallel with GMOs and Roundup. And we're talking about weight problems, anxiety, digestive problems, autism Alzheimer's, Parkinson's various cancers, high blood pressure infertility.

Speaker 3: (02:31)
So we understand now why the GMOs and the chemicals, particularly Roundup sprayed on them can be promoting these diseases. But what's fascinating is that when you take livestock or pets or humans, and you take them from a GMO and Roundup blatant diet, and you put them on a non-GMO and ideally organic diet, the changes are remarkable in the one of the films that did with Amy Hart, secret ingredients. We have families and others that switched to organic food and children are no longer on the autistic spectrum in fertile couples are having babies, digestive problems, brain fog, skin conditions, all found relief. And the doctors in that film and many, many more that I speak to say, these are not one-offs. This is what we see every day in our practice. When people follow our advice and go organic, and then the scientists explain why. So I want to say that it's way beyond philosophy. It's very practical. We have evidence, we have science, we have clinicians explaining, but I'd say try it yourself. Okay.

Speaker 2: (03:44)
Okay. So cause the, the diseases and the, um, the problems you just named are pretty much what America suffers with right now, right? I mean, they're the things that you hear or I suffer, but this, I suffer with this and we're seeing, again, it just explode. I mean, our, we have the richest country in the nation in the world, but we were also the sickest, one of the sickest countries in the world. And you think a lot of it can cause you attributed directly back to GMO crops.

Speaker 3: (04:12)
Yes. GMO and Roundup because Roundup is not just sprayed on GMOs. As many farmers know Monsanto touts their properties to desiccate grains like wheat oats, as well as the beans, the lagoons. So we would spray it all over our food supply and you see there's a logic here. Okay. You know, people may think because I have a hammer, I look at everything as a nail. But if you understand a little bit about the foundations of human health, there are certain things that if they are damaged, they could lead to a long list of diseases. For example, the microbiome, the critters, the bacteria, and other critters inside our bodies are intimately linked to health. Hey, microbiome expert Kiran Krishnan says about 80% of chronic illnesses can be found as their source in changes in the microbiome. He also did research where he exposed the human microbiome to Roundup in a model and saw the changes.

Speaker 3: (05:15)
And I went through the 28 different conditions that people reported getting better from one at a time. And I said, is it possible that the changes in your study could show how these particular conditions could be created or exacerbated? And one at a time he explained that plausible causative pathways that could explain autism and brain fog and high blood pressure, et cetera. Now that's one. Okay. Just the microbiome too. We know that if you have human cells in a Petri dish and you add glyphosate, the chief poisoned in Roundup, the cell gaps between the cells open up. If that happens inside our gut called leaky gut, where the one cell thick walls that protect between the food and the bloodstream open up and then undigested proteins come through and elicit an inflammatory and immune system response. How bad is that? Well, a Harvard professor wrote an article, published, said all disease begins in the leaky gut.

Speaker 3: (06:22)
So now you have the microbiome problems. Now you have leaky gut and an altered microbiome also creates leaky gut. But another foundational thing is the micro, the mitochondria, the cellular batteries, the energy centers. Yep. Here's my key mitochondria, a theory of longevity. The difference between a 95 year old person and a five-year-old old person. If you look at the tissues, it's the health of the mitochondria. According to one study, it's also, there's a tensor theory of mitochondria. The guy won a Nobel prize. It's linked to all sorts of diseases, as well as brain fog and fatigue and cognitive disorders. And it gets damaged. You can see it under a microscope. You add glyphosate, it collapses. So these three things, they're just a few of them. It also affects hormones, which run the body, neurotransmitters like serotonin melatonin and dopamine get affects the structure and how longevity essentially of the DNA sequence.

Speaker 3: (07:25)
So when that gets damaged, that leads to cancer. It also can block the abilities of the body, both cellularly and in the liver to detox, which means all of the other environmental toxins, especially for farmers dealing with a lot of chemicals, they're not ushered out of the body as easily. And so they Mount, um, poisonous reactions. So now you can start to see, and I haven't even gotten into the mineral culation, which means that now we're demineralized and we're leaving metabolic pathways. That can't function. I haven't gotten into the birth defects and the multi-generational effects, but we understand scientifically why this is so important. And when you look at these charts showing for example, autism rising and the coalition coalition core efficient with the Roundup use on roundups, on soy and corn, it goes up nearly perfectly a perfect coalition correlation would be 1.9, 9, 7, 5 correlation doesn't prove causation, but with all of the other evidence, yeah, it is a very important graph to look at.

Speaker 2: (08:34)
Think about culation you said there, because if I'm not mistaken, that's how Roundup actually works is it basically stops the roots of the plants from being uptake, any new nutrients and all those minerals, and then the plant just starves and dies.

Speaker 3: (08:48)
Well, I think it's interesting. This is quoting, uh, my friend, Dr. Don Huber, professor Ameritas, Purdue, um, who studied and was contracted by Monsanto to do research on Roundup and has done it on independently as well. He points out it's a little more sophisticated. Okay. But you're right. Um, glyphosate was originally patented as a de scaler for industrial boilers and pipes to pull the, the minerals off the walls as buildup because it grabs our minerals. It's a key later. It just grabs it and then takes it with it. So when you look at the uptake of minerals by plants and the translocation of those minerals through the plant, it's devastating. If you look at the bars, it's like the normal one and the little tiny bar for the plants that have been exposed to wow. Glyphosate, even the Roundup ready crops. So by making the plant unable to, to access the minerals and also knocking out the shikimate pathway, which is a particular pathway in plants, the plant becomes highly susceptible to disease.

Speaker 3: (09:58)
Ah, what if you took a plant and, and you used sterile soil and you were pipeline glyphosate, you would stunt the plant, but you would not kill it. The same plant in field soil, you spray, you spray glyphosate based herbicides and it kills it. So what's the difference. Glyphosate in the soil kills the beneficial bacteria and feeds the fungus. Aha. Now the fungus grows because it's being fed glyphosate. You can look at, um, yeah, Robert Kramer's research. They used to be with the USDA. I think it was a four or 500% increase in fusarium on the roots, but that's just one form of why fungal pathogens are growing in the soil. When you kill the beneficial bacteria in the soil. One of its jobs is to keep the fungal, the soil-based pathogens levels low. So now you've knocked out the warden, keeping the levels low.

Speaker 3: (10:59)
You had the fungus, and now you have these soil-based pathogens, which then easily kill this plant. That's defenseless. Now, if you think that glyphosate promotes soil-based pathogens, then we should be seeing a growth of soil-based pathogens in us agriculture. And he has identified, I think it's 60 different soil based pathogens. Um, you know, uh, Goss's wilt in corn, sudden death syndrome and soy and with remarkable, remarkable evidence, linking it to glyphosate. I mean, you just, for example, in a, in a, a side-by-side you take a look at genetically engineered soy field and a non GMO soy field, the GM soy field might be filled with sudden death syndrome and the other one, not, but even like aerial photographs where the tractors that were spraying the glyphosate doubled up because they were turning on things that had more GOs as well. I mean, not causes sudden death syndrome in the soil and the soy or Goss's wilt in the corn.

Speaker 3: (12:01)
You could see the actual and Huber did research founding it, that headlight on wheat was also promoted because of the glyphosate. So what it's doing in the soil, it can do to us promoting allowing the pathogens as a, as an antibiotic, it is an antibiotic. That's why it messes up the microbiome. It's selective. It just doesn't carpet bomb, everything. It goes after the beneficials. And I talked to Kira Christian, he said, I don't know any other antibiotic in existence that does this killing the beneficials, like lactobacillus and bifidobacteria and allowing the cell Manila causing and the eco, the net negative Eco-Line on the cluster. All these Clostridiums. They can, they can grow and wreak havoc in our system. And that's one of the ways that it works both on plants and in humans.

Speaker 2: (12:51)
Okay. So one thing you did say there too, about them using it to spray wheat, to help kill it so they can know ripe ripen evenly. And I was blown away and I didn't even, I didn't even like trust the person that I said. So I called my friend who does 1100 acres of organic wheat, organic grains in upstate New York. And they're like, yeah, they said, it's common because you want that even ripening. But what that causes is that means the last couple of weeks of that wheat life is this being starved of nutrients and it's getting sick and would we go buy a cow and that's being starved and a sick, will we eat that? No, we were just,

Speaker 3: (13:28)
I say, if you look at Monsanto's website where they promote this, he actually recommends spring down the week three to five days before harvest. Okay. So it's a lot about two weeks, three to five days. Now, what, what happens is, um, according to Huber's re uh, research that he's done and also, uh, gathered about 85% of the glyphosate that goes in, gets sprayed into a plant, goes into the plant and stays there. And about 15% goes out through the roots, messing up the soil. But what happens is, as the plant is dying, um, it sends the glyphosate to the fast-growing, uh, parts of the plant, which is generally the, the, the grain or the beans. And so you end up with a large percentage in the food. Now, oats I'm told are exposed in a specific way so that you're not only going it systemically through the plant, it gets soaked straight from the yes, spray.

Speaker 3: (14:25)
That's why oats are one of the greatest carriers of glyphosate into human bodies, uh, in the world. Even more than soy, because it is, it is sprayed just before harvest and it gets sponged up now because, you know, imagine that you're a organism and you're dying. What is your, and your, and you have your seeds for the next generation. You send all the energy to the next generation. You ripe in your, your so that it's fast ripening, like, yeah, like protect the children. You give them the energy, it ripens. Now the farmers have uniform ripening, the farmers have dry down. So if they happen to stack their, their harvest, it doesn't mold as well as much they've killed all the weeds in the thing. So they staged it for next year, from a farmer's standpoint. It's brilliant. Yeah. On a consumer's standpoint, I'm not going to talk about the microbes in the, and the waterways and all that.

Speaker 3: (15:25)
But from a consumer standpoint, you've just put in a chronic toxin that is known to damage the humans. And if we, if we just look at, you know, even just looking at the Roundup trials, when the Monsanto lawyers did their best to convince three different juries, including jury members that were scientists, that there was no evidence that Roundup caused or contributed to the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the plaintiffs, the juries were completely convinced that Monsanto's arguments fell flat. They brought in scientists who were not actually experts in the area because the expertise, the experts in the actual creation of glyphs of cancer from glyphosate agreed that it caused cancer. And so just from that perspective, you end up putting a carcinogen or technically a class two, a carcinogen, probable human carcinogen into your food that you're then producing and selling. Now it's going to save you money because it's killing all the weeds.

Speaker 3: (16:28)
And because it's causing the Fest ripening, especially if you're in the Northern climate and you want to shorten your ripening because you're going to want to have to face the changes. I get it there. And everyone else is doing it, your neighbors doing it. So you know that when it gets combined and sent to the elevator, it's going to have glyphosate in any way. So what are you going to do different? That's going to make a difference. You might as well do it and make money, but the issue is, it still is toxic. It still is a class to a carcinogen. It still is linked to birth defects and all sorts of diseases and damage. And so it's like we would like to change all the farming at once. And so you don't have to look across the way and see the other person using techniques, which are not, which don't support health.

Speaker 3: (17:13)
So no one has to do it. I get the pressure. And at the same time, while we're talking about Roundup, it's not, I mean, it is so easy to weed for the Roundup ready crops. You just spray over the top. It does, it saves time, saves money. And then you get to have that bragging rights of completely clean rows. It's like you, if you know, no farmer wants to look at a neighbor that's completely clean and his own that's full of weeds. It feels bad. And so there's that pressure. And then there's the extra pressure. They don't, you don't want to be destroyed by drift. If someone is spraying Roundup or even worse Dicamba cause Roundup, you know, the weeds of outsmarted glyphosate. So now they don't die with glyphosate. So now they have, uh, crops that withstand not only the Roundup herbicide, but also Dicamba, but Dicamba after you spray, it can revolve it to lies, float in the air, travel miles, land on your crops and cause problems. And that's, what's happening in millions of acres, there's lawsuits, et cetera. So now just to protect your own crops, you have to grow GMO so that you don't get damaged. If you happen to get hit by a cloud of Dicamba. So I can appreciate the difficulty of farming in this environment. I get it. And glyphosate and Dicamba are not safe for human health. Yeah.

Speaker 2: (18:33)
Now a couple of points that I wanted to make. There's I actually, my original farming mentor was one of the original scientists at Cornell when glyphosate was the first year they had it. And he told me all about the trials and stuff, fascinating stuff. And it was absolutely what you said, a wonder drug at that point. The problem is what you just said though, is that it's no longer effective. So our farm, we bought it for this farm about a year ago and I called my, uh, the spray guy in the area and said, I need to know what was sprayed here the year before. Well, they had 12 different herbicides because they had to do a cocktail because none of them worked. So they just put 12 in the thing, spray the whole field in a way they went. And I think the other thing is we haven't tested all these combinations together, either most of these things are tested individually. So we don't know what happens when they enter, they get sloshed in the same tank for, for challenges there. So, yeah. And I think to kind of wrap up the Roundup thing, you just said the jury three juries, and Monsanto's pretty much bankrupt if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 3: (19:38)
No, they're not bankrupt. They were purchased by bear. Okay. They were threatening bankruptcy. Okay. They tried to use that as an excuse to why the lawyers should accept their $11 billion settlement or, you know, it's now up to about 16 billion and that's just for one disease, one type of cancer. I I've, um, I submitted information to their stockholders that they're not getting all the information from bear. There are many more diseases with far more people affected that we can link scientifically to glyphosate. And it just takes a few more research studies and some more lawyers willing to jump in and they're going to be a whole nother raft of, of, uh, trials. So, um, with respect to your own farm, just to give you a heads up, um, Monsanto got, um, hit with a, uh, a ruling by a New York judge for false advertising. When they claimed that glyphosate Roundup was biodegradable.

Speaker 3: (20:41)
According to the re according to the trial data Monsanto's own research showed that it was degraded by 2% in 28 days. But actually it depends on the nature of the soil, the biomedical, the pH, the clay, et cetera, and there's specialized, um, uh, agents specialized back or microbes in the soil that break it down. The longest recorded half-life, which takes to destroy. Half of the chemical was over 22 years. That's not common, it's way less than that on normal, but it shouldn't, you know, you're, you would expect that if it was sprayed last year, there's still a bunch of glyphosate. Now, the way it is in your, in your soil, it, because it's a key later, it will bind with minerals. But if you add some kind of phosphate, I think that it can, that can be what breaks it apart. Now you have active glyphosate in your soil again now because you had it sprayed in the soil.

Speaker 3: (21:40)
You also have dead microbes that were beneficial. You have a fungal based pathogens, which might be enhanced also the compaction, because one of the roles of the MC of the fame of the beneficial bacteria is to have spongy structure and that gets destroyed. So what's a common site after rain in the Midwest. If you look at a GMO field and a non-GMO field, um, for Roundup ready, soy corn, there'll be puddles in the GMO field. And none in the non-GMO few, because the GMO field has compactified soil. It may use the same compactified tractors and all that. But in addition, the chemical causes the flattening or the, or the compact suffocation, and then increases the runoff, which can increase a lot of problems, including flooding.

Speaker 2: (22:35)
Yeah. And you're absolutely right. Our field is very compacted. We felt that now, obviously we were adding prebiotics and back back bacterias and compost and all the things to try to flush that as fast as we can, but you're absolutely right. We're seeing those exact effects on the field and, you know, trying to get rid of that as much as possible.

Speaker 3: (22:54)
So there's, there's a couple of companies that are going to try and convince you to use genetically engineered microbes on your soil. Um, we started a new campaign called protect nature. Now you referred to it at the beginning, which is it's designed to stop all outdoor release of genetically engineered microbes and also no indoor gain of function research on potentially pandemic pathogens, which if they escaped the laboratory could create new pandemics. That feels like the science, but they still think, yeah, you would think, but it's not. It may not be as intuitive to say, oh, you who are buying a, do it yourself, a CRISPR kit on Amazon don't release those microbes that you were creating your own biohacking lab in your basement. Don't pay for the price of dinner or the equipment you to create new microbes, name them and release them. Don't put joined by our sin bios, um, materials on your, on your, uh, field.

Speaker 3: (23:54)
Here's why we did not need a pandemic to know that microbes can travel and that they can nutate and that they can wreak havoc. We probably, most people don't know that microbes also go to swap meets where they exchange genetic materials like baseball cards, or really judge it and dag dragon cards. So they, they exchange their genetic material and there's a trillion or so types of microbes out there. And they perform really important work. They sequester carbon, they build up soil thought data, both inside the human body and inside the soil. And in all levels of the ecosystem, on the leaves in the trees, in the atmosphere, they create rain drops. They help the condense water vapor drain drops. They're like a little Jedi army that works in our behalf, unseen unappreciated, but they're miraculous. Now imagine if you create a genetically engineered microbe and you release it and it travels and it mutates, and it swaps its genes with other microbes that may end up inside us or in the atmosphere, or in one of hundreds or thousands of different ecosystems that were not anticipated and at hundreds or thousands of different microbes that were never outfitted with the original gene.

Speaker 3: (25:10)
Yeah. Now how bad is it to mess up? That's the technical term mess up the microbiome? Well, if you go to protect nature now.com protect nature now.com. And you look at the 16 minute film. It's my latest film. It's my shortest. And it's called don't let the gene out of the bottle. We start off with a description, how they genetically engineered bacteria, which was planned for release. But two weeks before it was released a graduate student that just happened to be doing some research on it discovered that if it had been released and used as planned, it could have rendered farmer's fields in fertile. Well, let me explain now. And, and, and Elaine Ingam who I'm going to be giving a webinar with on September 23rd and working with she's in the film to, um, she was asked in the film, what would, what's the logical consequence of releasing this as planned?

Speaker 3: (26:11)
And she was aware that genetically engineered bacteria, according to an undisclosed, but verified EPA research, that the bacteria travels all around the world. She's also an expert at the microbiome and realizes that certain ones could have a survival advantage and push out their natural counterpart. If it had a survival advantage, if it had taken root so to speak. Cause this Klebsiella plant ticklish is involved in every root structure in every place on earth. She said it could wipe out terrestrial plant life. One specific microbes, genetically engineered could wipe out terrestrial per life. We introduced another one that could change weather patterns. So now let me explain the, this was designed for the benefit of farmers. They all meaning it had been approved by the EPA. Well-meaning the idea was instead of burning the crop residues, you rake it up, put it in a big barrel with the bacteria.

Speaker 3: (27:16)
It would turn the back there, turn the crops into alcohol. Okay. Then in two weeks, then you'd have alcohol to run your tractor, alcohol, to sell a farm. You take the nutrient rich sludge at the bottom that becomes your fertilizer spreader on the field. And now what a beautiful idea, instead of burning off the carbon and burning off the nutrients, turned it into into fertilizer and alcohol. Beautiful idea. More self-sufficiency more money, big mistake because the graduate student took that nutrient, which sludge mixed it with soil, put planted wheat seeds compared to controls, came in one morning and bang all of the short pieces of, of wheat. All the sprouts were now slime. The whole thing was just slime. The wow contained active bacteria that was turning a cellulose into alcohol. Wow. So imagine if it was sent out, it was just going to be released two weeks later to see how far it spread.

Speaker 3: (28:17)
And so that's when the whistleblowers, when they found out the whistleblowers at the EPA approached Dr. Ingham and said, we'll tell you how far it spreads. We released genetically engineered bacteria, not the same type in Louisiana and started monitoring it. And it's now around the world, it's everywhere. So she spoke at the UN about it. She's spoken around the world about it. It was, there were headlines, you know, near catastrophe, the bacteria that we could have avoided apocalypse avoided. I mean, and now hardly anyone knows about it and people say, oh, they're just, you know, it's, it's an exaggeration. We don't know if it's true, but now we understand the microbiome is so important that it actually helps us prevent disease, treat disease. I mean, think about the brilliance of this. We have, we have evolved with the microbiome. So the entire evolution of humanity, and we have now outsourced 90%, according to Karen Christian, one of the world's experts, 90% of our daily metabolic functions to the microbiome.

Speaker 3: (29:22)
We get to use their 3.5 million genes and not just rely on our measly 22,000, which is less than an earthworm. So we are a community. So the microbiome has figured it out that if a woman has breast cancer, it sends a particular bacteria to contain it. If a man has Ellis or someone has Alzheimer's, fungus goes up to contain it. If you reduce the microbiome of the brain, according to some researchers, I've talked to, the IQ, goes down second trimester of a pregnant woman, a milk digesting bacteria moves into the birth canal. So it inoculates the baby so they can digest the milk. And it turns out that a big portion of the milk is undigestible by the baby. It's designed for the microbiome because the healthy microbiome sets the baby up for a healthy life. Not only for their life, but possibly for future generations, again, passed on.

Speaker 3: (30:16)
It is incredible. The microbiome to serve its own needs may want you to be social. So it can start to pick up microbiome, Smothers. It may want you to eat sugar, but if you're doing something that it wants, it may activate the reward center in your brain because it trains you. It is ridiculously intelligent. There are certain microbes that will tell the body, you have a problem with the inner gut lining. You need to replace this cell. We have no way of doing it without the microbiome, because we have outsourced that to them. Now we come in with a new genetic element that didn't co-evolve with us that could change the nature of nature that could mess it up. And now we don't, even since we know so little about the microbiome or at all of it, we know we wouldn't even know what to look for or to track it to some probiotic or prebiotic that was genetically engineered and released in Ohio.

Speaker 3: (31:12)
We wouldn't know to do that. We would just say, oh, new disease or, oh, change in weather patterns are changing in the Sahara or whatever. We wouldn't be able to track it. We wouldn't be able to recall it. It would just be part of the new nature of nature. And we would have to be, we would be pushing it on to all future generations because of our inability to think system-wide to understand that this little thing can have a huge impact for all future generations. We understand a little bit about that from invasive species. So in 1859, when they released 24 rabbits in Australia to make settlers feel mirror at home, they didn't, they didn't realize that they were completely changing the ecosystem. And by the 1920s, there was an estimated 10 billion rabbits that had grown from the 24. We get that because they're, they're visible.

Speaker 3: (32:06)
Now we're talking about a way of changing the genome, the gene pool, changing species, changing the ecosystem of the microbes in ways that we cannot predict that. And since they are the foundation of human and ecological health, we are playing with a disaster. This is an existential threat. And what makes it an existential threat is that the way to create a GMO now has become so cheap and easy. You can do it in your basement. And the biotech industry has convinced governments that gene editing is unpredictable. It's predictable and safe, which it's not. It's very dangerous. It can create massive collateral damage in the DNA. What was described by nature comp prominent pro GMO journal as chromosomal, mayhem, and we are giving the ability for anyone to disrupt nature for all future generations. So this is why protect nature now has stepped up. So just to answer an obvious question, what can we do about it?

Speaker 3: (33:10)
Glad you asked, um, go to protect nature. Now watch the film, go to the advocacy platform there every few weeks, we load it with a different set of educational materials. You went to your information, all of your elected officials show up single click. They get it media in your area, single click, they get it. You can tweet your elected officials. Different things will be loaded. And then they will be informed. We are going to Washington working with people now to implement these important safeguards, but obviously it's gotta be worldwide. And to help us go worldwide and to help us succeed in the U S while you're at protect nature. Now, please go to the donate tab and make a monthly recurring donation. So we know how much is coming each month. So we can hire more people to open up offices, to do the things we need to do to create the scientific white papers that we're already doing. You have two white papers and a legislative report, et cetera. We need to move this forward immediately. We can't, I've been working on GMOs for 25 years and we can't wait 25 years now because we're then a million new GMOs might be, uh, microbes might be introduced and each one has the potential to survive and affect nature in an irreversible manner. Okay.

Speaker 2: (34:29)
A couple of things, I want to point a jump in on what you said there. So how much does it cost to buy one of these kits to do gene editing and make a GMO in my basement,

Speaker 3: (34:39)
Wondering $69

Speaker 2: (34:41)
Hundred. And so that means literally millions of people have the capacity to go do that. And millions of people have the capacity to completely destroy the world.

Speaker 3: (34:53)
Let me, let me caution you in that particular kit. From what I understand, I know when I just read it, they give you the opportunity to do five particular transformations, which they probably have already decided are unsurvivable. So if you flush it down the toilet, you haven't been doing an ecological release, however, yes,

Speaker 2: (35:14)
There's a huge

Speaker 3: (35:14)
Caveat there. Yeah. First of all, the price is going to go down. The power's going to go up as evidenced by the fact that between one and $2,000, you know, have a lab in your basement, which is far more powerful than any chemistry set, uh, for kids, you know what I was growing up. And with that through mail order, you can buy what you need to do CRISPR, um, microbes. And it's pretty straightforward. And they're now you're, you're outside the realm of these five transformations. Again, the price is going to go down. The power's going to go up. And so a lot of people in Homeland security department of defense, national security are concerned about the fact that we're now giving the keys of the genome and microbial transformation to anyone. So, you know, dental around purpose use of this for, for devious means is a real issue.

Speaker 2: (36:06)
Well, and I think we all have seen in the last year that where nothing could go wrong. Suddenly we have a global pandemic, which has changed in the world as we speak from one little slip-up

Speaker 3: (36:17)
Right. And the thing is the good, the, the silver lining there. If there's a silver lining, there is that now people understand they have to pay attention to microbes. They understand that microbes travel mutate and can wreak havoc. And so we are actually have to demand, you'll see, in the film, don't let the gene out of the bottle that genetic engineers took a H five N one flu virus that has a, maybe a 24 fold higher level of death rate than the COVID. And they made it airborne. You see, normally that that avian flu is very, very hard to get in history, less than a thousand people, but the death rate was more than half and because you have to be around birds alive. So they made it airborne, which means theoretically, if it escaped the lab, it could be another pandemic when a pandemic with a death rate that could decimate the human population.

Speaker 3: (37:13)
So, so we bring that up and say, this is one lesson we need to pay attention to from the pandemic. The other lesson is if we're preventing a catastrophe for human health based on microbes that are genetically engineered enhanced, let's also prevent environmental catastrophe with genetically engineered microbes. And whereas for human health, that would cause disease. It's a more narrow number of researches for general microbiome health, for human and environment. It's a, it's completely unknown. It's completely unpredictable because of the ability to swap genes and mutate and, and, you know, even well-meaning scientists who want to help the lives of farmers and give them more money and give them the way to run their tractors, they could destroy the planet, theoretically.

Speaker 2: (38:07)
Yeah. And I think we've seen that again and again and again, with the golden rice that you know, has destroyed, uh, India. Um,

Speaker 3: (38:14)
Well, no golden rice has not to sprayed India yet. Let me be clear. The golden rice was just approved, um, in the Philippines for the first time for commercial use, I just did a Facebook live about it. It is a complete disaster for so many reasons, uh, potential health, disaster, um, potential economic disaster. It doesn't, it doesn't perform well for the farmers there. So it was a political approval. Yeah. Um, what has been a disaster in India is genetically engineered cotton. Okay. And so, and so you were right. There's a disaster in India. And if there's farmers listening, I'm going to say something actually, if there's humans listening. And I assume that the people that those were saying, they're human, we have a few listeners left.

Speaker 3: (39:10)
Um, so Monsanto took a major investment P uh, position in Heico a seed producer in India that sells among other things, cotton seeds. And they put out a campaign that was never before seen in India. They hired Bollywood actors. They paid prominent farmers in the area to promote it. They had big, big parties and festivals where they, they bought everyone hose and that they're putting it on, that were used for cultivation. They put the hose and they burned the hose thing, or they did something anyway. It wasn't, no, it wasn't for weeds. It was for, it was for insecticides. I said, no more insecticides, because this BT cotton is going to kill a bollworm and it's going to make you all sorts of money. So they took a picture of a cigarette salesman and put it, made him look like a farmer and put it on a poster and claim that he made a lot of money, took a picture of a guy standing next to a tractor, took them and put it on a poster claiming that he was able to buy a tractor from this.

Speaker 3: (40:08)
And the guy said, no, the stuff was terrible. I lost money. I had no idea. They took him, took my picture for that. They, they have, they lied about the materials. They did not do the research that they needed to do. And it's been a disaster in every method of measurement. And some of the worst is this, these, the Indian farmers were so convinced that this was the way to riches. They had to buy the seeds, which are sometimes more than a thousand times more per gram than you can buy them in the U S because they were taking advantage of them. They couldn't get the loans from the bank. So they went to the loan sharks with the way that as much as 7% interest per month. Oh. And they invested in the seeds, the seeds were subject to root rot, leaf curl, um, higher needs for more labor, smaller bowls, lack of germination, uh, all these different diseases.

Speaker 3: (41:08)
And when they did work, they created cotton. That was a lower quality. Um, they ended up sometimes killing the bull worm, and then another type of insect came and over ran. And now the bollworms and the, you know, the cotton cotton bollworms, they're now resistant. So now, now they're eating the BT, uh, pesticide, as you know, for lunch. And the people walking and working in the fields are getting itching. They allowed animals to graze their cotton plants after harvest and in some seasons. And in some areas, it killed the animals. I went to an investigator in a, in a written up about doctors did an analysis of people who had itching and other flu like, and allergic like symptoms because of it that are also related when exposed to the BT insecticide in the, in the U S but here's where the greatest thing of disaster is many of the farmers who invested in the BT cotton did not make enough money to pay back their loans.

Speaker 3: (42:13)
The cotton was tested in high irrigation, uh, trials, but it doesn't do well in rain fed. And the vast majority of India's cotton fields are rain fed. And so it was an economic disaster for so many. The farmers were looking at losing their fields that had been in the family for generations, so many committed suicide, and then the debt was released. And some tastes as though the family received money as a result. Now, the number of suicides is staggering. So sit down 250,000. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Of the BT cotton farmers that committed suicide and in door to door surveys of families where suicides had occurred, 85% were directly related to the bad performance of the BT, 90 something. And another 10% were indirectly related. So virtually, you know, that's where we get about a quarter of a million where BT cotton related out of the 300,000 overall suicides.

Speaker 3: (43:24)
Now this information in one of the books you've published it's um, so the BT, um, in genetic roulette, which is here, um, I compare the results of a case study of 23 Indian farmers who were exposed to BT written up by doctors. And I list all of their symptoms. Then I look at two studies in the Pacific Northwest where they sprayed the natural BT. For those that don't understand. Cause BT, we just didn't spend much time on that team means bacillus thuringiensis. It's a particular bacteria in the soil where if you gather up the spores and the bacteria and you spray it, you kill caterpillars. It kills certain it flex it, very pokes holes in their guts and kills them. Okay. Now, um, the claim was that it was going to have no effect on humans and that's why it's available. But if you look at the spray, if you are a farmer, it says, don't take internally.

Speaker 3: (44:25)
If you do contact the poison control center, if you look at the peer reviewed, published research, people who were exposed to the BT spray in the Pacific Northwest, when it was sprayed by playing for, for gypsy moth infestation had the same allergic and flu like symptoms. As the people in India, the only difference was exacerbation of asthma. Everything else was exactly the same, right? Everything else was exactly the same. And we now know that the EPA, which approved BT toxin in to be created inside cotton, inside corn, inside soy, what it was approved to be eaten on the theory that it didn't affect humans. Now we know that in high concentrations, in a laboratory, it pokes holes in human cells. We now know that humans that have BT antibodies are having allergic reactions to the BT when they're applying it. We now know that it does impact humans.

Speaker 3: (45:23)
The BT that's created in corn is three to 5,000 times more concentrated than the BTU would spray. It's designed to be more toxic and it doesn't wash off. If you spray BT as a farmer, as a gardener, it'll wash off it'll biodegrade in about four hours, 48 hours, but in a encapsulated cell in corn, you're eating a high dose. And not only that, but in Canada, they tested the blood of 23 of Canadian women. And 93% of the blood from the Canadian women that were pregnant, have BT toxin in their blood. And 80% of their unborn fetuses had BT toxin in their blood. How did it get there? Probably through the holes that are board inside the cells, because it can poke holes in human cells. Now, the authors of the study said, we're confused because even though people in Canada eat a lot of corn products, they're usually derivatives like corn sugars, which don't have any proteins in them.

Speaker 3: (46:24)
So the BT toxin is a protein. It wouldn't be in the high fructose corn syrup, but if, if it's not exposed every day, why would we have 93% of the pregnant women tested have the BT in their blood? It should wash out. So they said, well, maybe it's the BT. It's fed to the livestock and maintains its structure. It's eaten every day by these women in Canada. So that's a plausible untested theory. I'll offer another one in 2004 nature. Biotechnology published a study by netherworld and others showing that part of the gene inserted into soybeans to make those soybeans Roundup ready, transferred into the DNA of bacteria inside human intestines. Now they don't know if it was producing proteins. We do know that the promoter which switches it on transferred. So theoretically it could. And then this was promoted. This funded by the pro GMO UK government.

Speaker 3: (47:31)
As soon as they found out, they pulled all funding from the study. I spoke to one of the authors of the study said we couldn't do any more research. So they never tested to see if the BT gene, the gene that's inserted into corn to produce this insecticide that creates an allergic reaction in humans and mice that can poke holes in human cells that can damage the microvilli fingers coming off the intestinal walls in mice, possibly in humans. They didn't test to see if the BT gene transfers to gut bacteria and continues to function. If it does, it means our own intestinal. Flora is producing. Insecticides becomes an insecticide factory. If that's the case that could explain why 93% of the pregnant women tested and BT toxin in their blood, because they were producing it in their own bodies. This is gene transfer, horizontal gene transfer.

Speaker 3: (48:25)
This is what microbes do all the time. Now there's the people who try to defend say, this is not possible. We'll say plant genes don't transfer into gut bacteria. Well, first of all, we know that part of the gene from soybeans who were genetically engineered did transfer, but there are natural barriers. I'll acknowledge to plant genes, transferring to gut bacteria. The genetic engineering process eliminates those barriers. It takes bacterial genes which are designed to transfer. It eliminates a number of things. It has a different size. It has a similar sequence. It has certain properties it's too technical to go into, but we've done this in this, in this book, showing that they've optimized the inserted gene to transfer it to human gut bacteria. So we may have Roundup ready, gut bacteria, BT toxin, producing gut bacteria, the papaya, and the send the zucchini and yellow squash that are genetically engineered, may produce viral proteins inside of us.

Speaker 3: (49:30)
What a viral proteins do. They lower our defenses for viral infection, which we don't want right now. So there's all sorts of things that can be happening inside of us because of this potential for gene transfer. But if we ignore that completely, you just have to look out at the microbial world and they're doing this bacterial sex all the time, transferring genes between each other and populating the microbiome with new gene combinations. If it's the combination that someone created in their basement or Monsanto created in their laboratories, we have completely insufficient information to determine what it'll do. It was like in 1996, when I learned about GMOs, it was from a whistleblowing scientist who said, I, you know, he was an award-winning genetic engineer who got money from the NIH. He said, I know absolutely 100% that Monsanto was releasing GMO, soy and corn, him and Midwest this year, this was a 1996.

Speaker 3: (50:30)
Can not predict with any degree of certainty that their foods will not cause health damage to the eaters and that there, and then whatever they, whatever they plant can corrupt and contaminate the gene pool of corn and soy and possibly near relatives forever. He was absolutely certain. And I talked to another scientist who did genetic engineering in the UK. She said, I was surprised that they were ready to do that. I figured they knew something about genetic engineering that we didn't, that somehow they had solved all these problems. And now it could produce something predictably. It turns out they didn't, it was the same unpredictable method, not only that, but they refuse to do the research to even verify basic characteristics of their own GMOs to see if it was healthy. They just put it out because it did the job. So these are the companies that are about to do the same already engaged in contaminating the microbiome.

Speaker 2: (51:27)
Wow. Now let's talk about GMOs for a second because I know there's been, you know, a lot of hesitancy from a lot of the sail, tentative health and talking about, Hey, but now we've got more studies out there that start to really show some of these, uh, the travesty of what it's doing to us. I know there was a major French study and that kind of, they went back and forth on that. Do you have any more, more recent research on, on the GMOs and just how they can affect our human health?

Speaker 3: (51:58)
I want to, let's take a moment on that French study for a second, but yeah, new information came out about that. Um, Dr. Sara Leeny toxicological expert, he was part of the committee in Europe that was looking at GMOs and in France, there was looking at GMOs and he was aware that there was a bunch of anomalies, a bunch of problems in the physiology of rats that were fed Monsanto's BT corn around a pretty corn. And there were more in the Roundup ready, corn more than 50. And when he characterized that, he published an article saying that this is demonstration of evidence leading to toxic liver and kidney. So he was also aware that there was a lockdown on real research, that there was a lot of, uh, polit polarization that Monsanto had a committee, a group inside them that would attack anyone that came up with independent research that threatened their myth, that GMOs were safe.

Speaker 3: (52:59)
So he quietly secretly did a study where he took a Monsanto study that they had done on rounded. Pretty corn took the same type of rats, the same number of rats and the control and extended it for two years, feeding them the Roundup ready, and the same, the same percentage that that Monsanto did, and Monsanto stopped their studies. And that 90 days in the next month, the rats started getting tumors. Yeah, by the end of the two years, there was a massive number of huge tumors. They had to kill some of the rats, many of them, because the tumors had now become at least 25% of the body weight of the rats. So not only were they getting tumors, they were also having organ damage that showed that, you know, the precursor of the signs of organ damage preliminarily shown in 90 days were full-fledged organ damage, the liver and kidneys, and they died earlier.

Speaker 3: (54:01)
There's premature death rate compared to the controls. Now I've been aware, I've been writing about the spin machine of Monsanto. My book seeds of deception here is it was the world's best-selling book on GMOs for more than a decade. And it was about the spin machine woven in was, there was also the dangerous. So unfortunately, poor Seralini didn't stand a chance to the multi-billion dollar organization that, that ultimately tried to discredit him. Um, first of all, they sent out talking points to all of their front groups in front scientists saying he used the wrong rats. It was the same rats that Monsanto used. Um, they used the, you didn't do a cancer study, so he shouldn't be, he never mentioned cancer in the research. He said, these are tumors. If it was a cancer study, it has to be number. But he also was interesting is he did more research groups than Monsanto.

Speaker 3: (55:00)
One group he did was just fed the Roundup ready corn that hadn't been sprayed. And they also had multiple massive tumors, early death and organ damage. So it was just the corn. Another group had been fed just the Roundup with natural corn. So it wasn't the GMO corn. And they had multiple massive tumors, early death and organ damage. And several groups had different levels of, of, um, Roundup in their drinking water. So it was independently or together, the GMO's in the Roundup, but causing these problems. Now it turns out that the study, the, the journal that had published it, Monsanto put out this huge campaign to discredit. Sarah Laney had all misinformed, all these scientists who signed letters, they pre-rolled scientist letters and had other signed it. It was a huge campaign. Then they hired and paid the editor of this journal, a consulting fee of $400 an hour to do things for tens of thousands of dollars.

Speaker 3: (56:01)
And then soon after he retracted the study, right now, he retracted the study, um, saying there wasn't enough for cancer research, but the word cancer was never mentioned. And so then he'd had to come up with another excuse and he's been kicked out ever since. And, and then, but they also hired one of scientists to be their biotech editor. And as soon as that editor was put in there, he kicked out, disappeared. Another study showing problems. Now Sarah Leni study was then re-evaluated by another peer review and published and further another team in London took the preserved. Um, Oregon's proved that the evidence of, for example, liver damage was significant and that the Roundup clearly caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. And that the same mode of action that glyphosate did in plants causing the block of the shikimate pathway. This team looked at the chicken made pathway in gut bacteria of rats and found that was also blocked.

Speaker 3: (57:15)
The chicken made pathway producers, the precursors to serotonin melatonin and dopamine. So that means that you can end up with deficiencies of those happy brain chemicals, which can result in anxiety, sleep disorders, pain problems, um, Parkinson's and what do we see in terms of the disease list of things going up in the U S population, anxiety, depression, suicide, by overdose of opioids. We see, um, Parkinson's and we could see a plausible McCann, a mechanism that, oh, deficiency neuro-transmitters among other things. So the Sarah Laney study was the most in-depth long-term study done on Roundup ready, corn and Roundup. And it was authoritative, but inappropriately debunked because companies didn't want to pick it up because what happens is when a bunch of scientists who are on the payroll are working privately for months, Santo, but secretly come out with the same talking points. Then a few hours or days later, they say, it's a consensus. Then it stopped certain reporters from reporting on it, or they have to describe it. Well, some say it was not appropriate research and it kind of fizzled. It should have ended GMOs. It should have ended Roundup, but it didn't because the spin machine was so advanced.

Speaker 2: (58:41)
So what would you say to those that say, well, science is just science. You know, all scientists just follow the science.

Speaker 3: (58:53)
Well, I've never met anyone that said that these days. I remember I was speaking in Brussels to members of the European parliament and, um, European commission. And there was a man named pat Mooney who was started the etc group. And he said, it's very hard to get good science. Since the 1980s, there was a change in the way science was funded. And I don't to go into all the details, but it turns out to check books science. Now I've done evaluations within the GMO world. So I can speak to that. I have some awareness of the field pharmaceutical world, but I'll stick to the GMO world. In the recent Roundup trials, evidence came to light about a rigged research study by Monsanto. It was typical. Monsanto. What I'm about to tell you is very entertaining and horrifying. But when I heard it, I went, oh my God, this is so classic, Monsanto.

Speaker 3: (59:58)
This is so perfect. It's the kind of thing they've been doing in order to determine whether Roundup gets absorbed in the skin. They do an absorption test on human skin from a dead person, a cadaver. They put the Roundup, everyone's got to do it. I think 10% went in more than 3.3 times the allowable level by the EPA that would have stopped the registration. So they ignored it. They never told the EPA, which is probably illegal. They did their Monsanto study. Now they cut the human skin off the cadaver and baked it for a long time in an oven. We know what happens to meet in an oven. It gets tough. There's rare. There's medium. And there's well done. I'm imagining there's was well, well done, but it wasn't didn't in there. They probably tested and it wasn't good enough. So they froze it. They took the baked human skin and then froze it and then applied Roundup and hardly any got absorbed.

Speaker 3: (01:01:07)
So that's the number they said. They sent to the EPA. That's Monsanto science. So when you listen to the science and you don't know how things were done, typically people will read an abstract, maybe a conclusion. Many people will not read complicated charts. I work with scientists that meticulously took apart. Monsanto's research. I have a 41 page section in the book, genetic or left the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods, showing how the biotech industry, especially Monsanto, reg, their research, how they over cook samples, how they use the wrong statistics, how they use the wrong controls, how they use obsolete methods of detection, how they use were just absolutely re dickless catching them red handed. Then there's the assumptions. The assumptions that, oh, these dead rats, they didn't die because of the, the feed will take them out and replace them. Or here's one of my favorite assumptions.

Speaker 3: (01:02:11)
There's a high lysine corn that they were trying to get approved in Australia and New Zealand. Because when you feed, you feed them corn and you put licensed sediments. So let's put the licensed sediment right into the corner. So they took this, this submission and they said we don't need to do human analysis of this protein. That's added to the corn because it's found in soil. And because soil residues are found in human food, humans have been exposed to it for as long as we've been eating crops. So humans are safe. We don't have to worry about humans. So Dr. Jack Heinemann from New Zealand decided to call their bluff and figured out from the charts, what an average male American eats every day in corn. And he figured out if it was Monsanto's high lysine, corn, how much of that protein they would be exposed to on a daily basis, then he figured out how much of that protein is actually produced in soil and how much would be in, you know, a cup of soil. So how much soil would a average male American have to consume in order to have an equivalent amount? If they were eating Monsanto's highlighting corn, it doesn't sound possible. I'm sure. 22,000 pounds of soil per second. Oh my gosh. Not possible.

Speaker 3: (01:03:52)
So no one has ever asked me, no one has ever claimed that science is science these days, but it doesn't take very long to demonstrate that Monsanto's science and corporate science, checkbook science is completely rigged to force a conclusion. I mean, a friend of mine did research showing that their genetically engineered soybeans had lower levels of a final estrogen, which is supposedly helpful in heart disease or cancer. And so they Monsanto knew they were going to do the research. So they rushed their own research to publication. That said there was so much variation. We couldn't even do a statistical analysis. So now, as he said, she said, and the first one that when it finally came out, had no bearing, well, it turns out there was one lab in the country that was best at extracting phytoestrogens and both studies used it. So my friend called the lab director and said, what's going on? And he said, Monsanto forced us to use an obsolete detection method, which was prone to high variability. And did not mention that in the study.

Speaker 3: (01:05:07)
And so they rig their research to say, couldn't even do a statistical analysis because they used an inferior method of detection. I mean, when they want it to say that bovine growth hormone was in cows was reduced because of pasteurization. So don't worry about injecting. Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone into cows because there's hardly any bovine growth hormone in the milk. The FDA came out with a, just before they approved. It said 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. He said only 27% increase, but 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. So it's a non-issue first of all, it's a hormone. So any increase is an issue. Second, if someone drinks raw milk, that's an issue. Third, when you look at the actual study, they only injected. They didn't use Monsanto's approved variety of these and other companies that was injecting 2% of the bovine growth hormone. But even then it, and then they increased the 28 7.

Speaker 3: (01:06:09)
It increased the 27%. So they pasteurized it 120 times norm longer than normal, but it only destroyed 19%, not 90 19%. So then I added powdered hormone to the milk. 47 times the natural occurring level of, of the hormone was added to the milk, which they then pasteurized 120 times longer than normal. And under those conditions, it would, 90% was destroyed. So what is the FDA report? 90 distract. 90% is destroyed during pasteurization. This is a Monsanto study. Monsanto used, um, industrial biotech, which was an infamous study infamous, um, lab that ended up people going to jail because it was such fraudulent. It was described as the greatest scientific fraud in the history of the world by some, because they was a company that was doing 30% of all toxicological tests for it, for chemical companies and Monsanto pharmaceutical companies. And it was completely bogus. So when Monsanto wanted its Roundup study, tested Roundup tested in studies, it sent its uh, executive to be a member of the industrial biotech. And then after they did the study and said, there's no problem. He came back to Monsanto. That's when it was revealed to the EPA and the justice department about the fraud of the three people that went to jail. One of them was the Monsanto guy, completely fraudulent research. And this is, I mean, you get them. I don't have to talk anymore about this. I think you get it.

Speaker 2: (01:07:39)
Yeah, no, we we've. We've beat this. We've beat this one. All right. This has been great, but I don't want to keep you too much longer. Okay. So obviously a lot of what we talked about is incredibly troubling. It's makes you only want to grow your own food that you've got from heirloom seeds, but for so many people that is not possible to do all of that, what are some things that they can go do? Um, and obviously you talked about your website, um, it's, uh, protect nature now, dot is it.com.com? Yeah. Okay. So protect nature now, dot com watch the 16 minute video sign up, donate

Speaker 3: (01:08:15)
There. Let's talk about some other things that they can do to kind of protect themselves and their communities. I'm going to have two more websites and I'll see them slowly. So people are driving. They can try and memorize them. One is live healthy, be well, okay. Live healthy, be well.com and live healthy. Be well there I've said it three times. I think I'll stop. Um, first of all, I have my podcast. Yeah. Second, you can watch the movie secret ingredients, which is the most effective conversion tool to organic that we've ever seen. Uh, Amy Hart. And I created the film some years ago and seeing the changes in people's lives in their health, when they switched to organics, hearing the doctors, seeing the animations described by the scientists, it's very compelling. So this is not just for those that are eating organic already. That wants to be reassured it's because by now you have friends and family who run away from you.

Speaker 3: (01:09:17)
When you try and talk about food, who roll their eyes and or glaze over. When you start talking about why you eat, what you eat, this is what you want to show them. Say, can you watch this film with me? Or can you watch your upstanding of this film? This is what will get you to email me as has happened. Or people come up to me and cut. I've been trying to get my spouse for years or trying to get my kids for years, et cetera. So this is that. Then if you want help switching to an organic diet, we have a 90 day lifestyle upgrade by people in the film and others and experts, how to save money and time and choose the best and find out where to get these things. Um, so that's there. If you want other things you can do to clean your system, besides just changing your diet, we have a healing from GMOs and Roundup.

Speaker 3: (01:10:07)
So that's in live healthy, be well. That's about lifestyle changes. Now there's one other website, responsible technology.org. It's from the Institute for responsible technology. You make it easier, just responsible technology.org. There, sign up to get access to the report. It's free of Roundup residues. It's called glyphosate, glyphosate, residues in food. A us government refused to do the tests. They test everything else. But for some reason, because of their influence of Monsanto, they don't test for Roundup residues, but other organizations like ours have they've compiled all the data into one list. And so you can sort by raw ingredient by brand, you can find, you know, breakfast cereals and pie, all these things in there. And that way, when you can't buy organic, which is usually tiny amounts of Roundup, and also doesn't allow GMOs. So it's not allowed to use GMO's around it. You can't get organic, at least avoid the ones with high levels of residues.

Speaker 3: (01:11:19)
Also at responsible technology. We can, we give you a list of what the GMO's are. There's 12 of them and the derivatives, which are a lot more because there's a lot of soy and corn derivatives that are snuck into processed foods, under different names. And you have no idea. You won't have an idea unless you eat something that's non GMO project verified, but that may still have the glyphosate. Yeah. The, the organic, it doesn't allow either. And then if you can't get lows, then learn what to pick, uh, when you're shopping. And then once you've made your changes to a new brand, then you're good. So a little bit of homework and then a lifetime of benefit.

Speaker 2: (01:12:02)
Yeah. And this is great and responsible technology.org there right now, you've got the basics, GMO and Roundup. You've got the cover up, you got shop healthy, but you also have protect your pets and protect your children, which I think are really important. Um, and unfortunately, it's something we see is that so many parents will actually buy regular food for themselves, but then spend the money and buy organic food for their kids. I think that's heartbreaking because obviously as a parent, you want to protect yourself. So you're there for a long time to enjoy your kids. And, um, yeah, that's just, that's just, that just breaks my heart, that so many parents do that. But, um, I think also too, it's to look at because kids eat different food than parents sometimes. So look at that list right there and check that out.

Speaker 3: (01:12:46)
I want to say that a pediatrician, Michelle para who's in my films, three of them, extra things, three films. She noticed that there was a dramatic downturn in children's health, following the introduction of GMOs and Roundup sprayed on food. And she didn't know what it was until she had read one of my books or two of my books actually. And then he put it together and started experimenting and putting the kids on healthier food, organic and notice that, oh, they're reverting to what they were. It's easier to treat the diseases, but she she'll put like a family on organic can say, okay, this is where your autistic boy, but everyone eat organic. Don't make him feel different. So the family now buys organic. The autistic boys symptoms may be getting better, but she's doing a lot of things, other things for the boys. So it's hard to isolate what the girl's ADHD gets better.

Speaker 3: (01:13:35)
The father's kidneys get better. The mother loses weight. They're all getting better from the diet it's organic. And, um, it was interesting. I was interviewing her for secret ingredients and you'll see the interview. She said, I just got this email from a family that switched to organic. And the kid with pandas, which is a serious disease, was good, was better. He was basically better. And then they got quote, dietary fatigue, and they started just taking the old conventional food and the, all the symptoms came back. So now she has to start from scratch. Many doctors in the film talk about this. Backsliding has the proof needed by many people, that it was in fact, the diet and particularly the GMOs and Roundup, most likely it was causing the problem that was then solve when the diet changed. That was then reemerged. When the giant changed back for a vacation or cheating, et cetera.

Speaker 2: (01:14:28)
Well, I think that's so many of us who are very careful. We go on vacation, we eat out. Why is my vacation? I feel so horrible on my vacation. Not bet. It's just that. Well, Jeffrey, this has been, wow. This has been eye opening. Obviously I've read your books. I know your stuff, but to get it kind of like condensed back into an hour and a half, and some of this new research is out there is absolutely amazing. Um, I just picked up an epi, a podcast with, um, Shauna Swan, Dr. Shauna Schwan. Have you done talk to listen to her at all with the microplastics?

Speaker 3: (01:15:00)
No, I, I, you know, it's interesting. Um, people believe that because I'm involved with health and environment, that other issues would cause me to jump down the rabbit hole there. But in reality, I'm pretty rifle barrel. Like I, and I, cause I don't speak on anything that I haven't studied. You get a sense that I have a history here it's like 25 years of information interviewing scientists all over the world as a little bit, winning the debates against any probiotic scientists, because I happen to know this stuff really well, but I never venture talking about anything else. And I don't have time to keep up with all the things that are related to GMOs. So I'm struggling just to stay up there. So I'm not going to talk about microplastics. I'm not going to look at it. I've got my area and I'm fine with that.

Speaker 2: (01:15:53)
Yeah. Yeah. I need to get her on because she's talking about how the fertility rates in direct relationship to microplastics, you know, or we're on a basically extinction as a species, obviously

Speaker 3: (01:16:04)
Let's do mean fertility. I know we're going to go, but watch the film secret ingredients because there's a chiropractor who puts all over infertile couples on an organic diet and 100% of her infertile couples have kids

Speaker 2: (01:16:18)
A hundred percent. Yeah. That's awesome. Yeah. A hundred percent is huge. Incredible. Yeah. That's uh, that's, that's, that's kinda hard to, to, uh, disagree with, so, all right, well again, Jeffrey, thanks so much. Appreciate your time today. This has been fabulous. Um, and uh, we will get this episode out to our people and, uh, I'm sure, you know, I'm going to lose a few followers, but you know, this is such important information. Um, and you know, for you farmers, and I think one of the things too, because we do have those farmers out there, they're gonna hear this and they're gonna say, well, if I don't use Roundup, I don't know what I would do. And so I think to that, the, what I would say to them, yeah, it's true. It's not as like, there are, there's a lot of people out there, the Rodale Institute has done a ton of tremendous amount of work on helping people transition.

Speaker 2: (01:17:05)
Um, you know, there's a lot of information coming from them as lot of other resources out there. Um, but do research out at least do the research, look at what's out there. Because again, this is not just your bottom line. This is your health. This is you dying 20 years early because farmers have an incredible high rate of cancers from the, again, right there. You said round up every farmer, I, you know, who sprays that stuff, it gets on their hands. They don't think it's a problem, but we are seeing to the billions of dollars that it absolutely is a problem. And it's killing people. Right? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you,

Speaker 4: (01:17:42)
Michael. And everyone

Speaker 2: (01:17:43)
Safe eating. All right.

Speaker 1: (01:17:47)
[inaudible]

Speaker 4: (01:17:53)
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 live healthy, be well.com to subscribe. This podcast inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interviewed 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. Save.

Downloads

Save this episode...

SUBSCRIBE