Ferocious fear-mongering rhetoric, possible cancellation of presidential election as financial terrorists threaten Americans with chaos unless power-grabbing bailout bill is passed

By, Paul Joseph Watson

Thursday, September 25, 2008

From shying away from even mentioning such terms as “recession,” “unemployment” or “bank failures,” Bush, Bernanke and Paulson are now vigorously invoking the fear of financial meltdown as part of a campaign of economic terror to blackmail the American people into accepting the power-grabbing “bailout,” while John McCain, who last week said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, is now all but threatening to cancel the election should the proposal not receive swift passage.

Bush’s speech last night was a throwback to his March 2003 stump before the invasion of Iraq - replace words like “weapons of mass destruction” with “financial panic” and the tone of the two is not dissimilar.

Bush rammed home the fear by appealing to people’s personal anxieties.

“More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically,” barked the President.

“And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs.”

Bernanke and Paulson spewed similar rhetoric during Tuesday’s Senate Banking Committee meeting. Compare their dire proclamations with their outright refusal to even entertain the notion of a recession as little as seven months ago.

Now Paulson tells us that people “should be scared” and that the only solution is for taxpayers to foot the bill to the tune of $700 billion dollars - a number we now learn was simply pulled out of thin air by the Treasury - while the Federal Reserve swallows up all manner of new regulation powers.

It seems that almost overnight these three stooges have gone from behaving like sedated zombies to end-times doomsayers.

Furthermore, John McCain, the man who as recently as last week proclaimed that “the fundamentals of the economy are sound,” is now canceling presidential debates, and some fear greasing the skids for the postponement of the presidential election itself, by insisting he and Obama “return to Washington” in order to put their weight behind the bailout.

As the George Washington Blog notes, McCain is basically implying, “Vote for the bailout or I’ll pull out of the election”.

The financial terrorism being perpetrated by Bush, McCain, Bernanke, Paulson and the rest of these criminals in threatening Americans with unbridled chaos unless they acquiesce to political demands, and the coordinated ferocity with which it is being delivered, is necessary for the crooks because they are desperate to get the bailout passed before Congress really has a chance to digest exactly what it stands for.

This is what’s called the “shock doctrine,” the accelerated passage of what is essentially dictatorial legislation without proper scrutiny by means of exploiting a temporary state of fear.

This is not just about $700 billion of taxpayers’ money and the continued sacking of the dollar, it’s about the imposition of a giant new infrastructure of control and regulation on behalf of the private, run for profit, Federal Reserve.

Bush even alluded to it last night, stating that Paulson’s bailout would mean the “Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum.”

But this is merely scratching the surface. As Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said, “This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it’s un-American.” In fact properly defined, one could label it “national socialism,” otherwise known as fascism.

As professor of economics at New York University Nouriel Roubini framed it, welcome to the United Socialist States of America and “the most radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in decades”.

The plan was drawn up months ago, lying in wait for the right crisis to see it enacted, just as the Patriot Act was prepared well in advance of 9/11.

The Treasury’s fact sheet about the bailout states, “The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.”

This gives the government and the Federal Reserve carte blanche to do whatever they want to long as it is done in the name of stabilizing financial markets, they can nationalize any company or industry and use taxpayer money, above and beyond the initial $700 billion, for whatever purpose is deemed necessary, without any oversight. Paulson’s bailout plan is also unreviewable by any court, it will remain in perpetuity.

Paulson’s draft bailout plans says: “The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.”

As Chris Martenson writes, “This means that $700 billion is NOT the cost of this dangerous legislation, it is only the amount that can be outstanding at any one time. After, say, $100 billion of bad mortgages are disposed of, another $100 billion can be bought. In short, these four little words assure that there is NO LIMIT to the potential size of this bailout. This means that $700 billion is a rolling amount, not a ceiling.”

“The bill would bar courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority,” reports Bloomberg.

The Bush administration seeks “dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis,” said Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington. “We are taking a huge leap of faith.”

“It sounds like Paulson is asking to be a financial dictator, for a limited period of time,” said historian John Steele Gordon.

Reporter Larisa Alexandrovna calls it “the final stages of the coup,” noting, “This manufactured crisis is now to be remedied, if the fiscal fascists get their way, with the total transfer of Congressional powers (the few that still remain) to the Executive Branch and the total transfer of public funds into corporate (via government as intermediary) hands.”

The legislation would provide billions to foreign central banks in addition to private foreign banks.

The proposed move represents a total shift of U.S. taxpayers’ funds into the hands of powerful private interests, some of which do not even represent American companies.

The bailout bill represents the most fascist centralization of power in America since 9/11 and the Patriot Act - and many would argue that it even trumps that. The fiscal terrorists hope to ram through their agenda by appealing to people’s fears about the economy, their jobs, their houses and their pensions. But the temporary pain brought on by a Wall Street crash and a severe recession would be nothing compared to the long term death knell that the bailout bill would mean to the free market and economic liberty in America.

-End

Tags: Money Death Economy Bahamas New World Order Dollar God Banks

0 comments View Entry

Rick - Classroom talk

Question: Money seems to always be an issue for me. It doesn't matter if I have a little or a lot - there never seems to be enough for what I want to feel happy and secure. Money matters have been central to almost every important decision I've made in life. If I knew I'd have enough to provide for my family's needs, I wouldn't have to keep a job that I hate, I could get out of debt, and start thinking about something other than just surviving. How can I stop feeling like a slave to this never-ending concern? I know that money should not play such an important part in life!

Answer: It doesn't matter who you are, money is a problem for everyone. If you've got millions, money is a problem for you. If you've got nothing, money is a problem for you. How can something that is supposed to be a blessing be something that beats us up on a daily basis, and that steals from us everything that's vital and viable in life? This is a question we must ask ourselves, because everything about our lives is not only acquisition but ways to then show what we've acquired.

Money is only a problem for people because men and women today have falsely identified money as being the solution.

To what is money a solution for the mind? "I'm suffering, I'm in pain! Somebody treated me like this, I look out and I just know things aren't right. It's evident to me. I'm just not worthwhile enough somehow. I'm not valuable enough; I know I'm not." We live with someone that talks to us all the time, not just inside our heads -- turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, or look through a magazine, and you've got something chatting away, day in and day out inside of you, and it's telling you that you are only something as long as you possess something, that you are only something as long as someone else agrees that you're something. For all of your attempts to become something, you're a big nothing, because you're a slave to the idea that if you could get your hands on whatever it is that you're imagining will make you whole and happy, your pain will go away, and when your pain goes away, at last you'll be a human being who can do what's valuable, necessary, and righteous.

Money is a problem because we imagine it to be a solution, and then when we're incapable of acquiring what we have imagined as being the solution, and see ourselves incapable of achieving that, then we decide that there is no point in trying to do anything, because "I'll never be anything." Our whole premise is predicated upon the idea that we are only as valuable as the conditions that we walk around expressing.

There's a moment that comes in our life (if we're among the fortunate) when it begins to dawn on us that we have been carrying around with us a basket that was given to us at birth. At every moment as we mature, we gaze first into this basket and determine from what we see there what we must put in the basket to make up for what isn't there. From that mindset, a man or woman can spend an entire lifetime trying to do the impossible.

The basket represents social convention, the cultural conditioning that we are not just born into, but whose very thought structure sits at the foundation of part of the mind itself, so that we have almost no choice when we're born. Just as the cub of a wolf learns what wolf behavior is like by being around other wolves, we learn what we take to be proper human behavior by weighing ourselves against the world that is the source of our sustenance.

Out of this culturally conditioned life, we literally live our lives, day in and day out, punished -- without evening knowing it -- by a string of false purposes. The purposes that we are punished by are supported within us by a certain kind of pain that we believe is the conclusive evidence of the validity of these purposes. And don't believe for a second that because a person has possessions, or power, or authority that he or she does not suffer. From the man that drives the beaten-up Volvo to the man who owns the corporation that builds those cars... each and every one of them suffers. These false purposes are to be seen as "a man of means," "a woman of substance," a person who has their life "together," because the evidence of my physical existence speaks louder than my own ability. I won't go around and tell you what I am, but I'll show you what I am with all of the people and possessions that I command.

Coming into this world in a foot race as it were, the false purposes that we are possessed by give rise to false desires, because the belief is that somehow I haven't answered sufficiently these purposes that I am peppered with, and if I could just get this one last part together, then I would stop feeling this pain that I feel, and my life would go on the way I believe it's supposed to.

Out of those false desires then come false fears, because the more I acquire according to the desires that these purposes gave rise to, the more I recognize that I'm not getting any closer, and the more I have to compromise myself in order to obtain the things that have failed so far to give me the fulfillment that I'm looking for.

Out of that constant sense of fear comes greater dependency and greater attachments, and the more suffering rises in me because now the answer is part of the very aching I have, and I don't know how to mitigate it, how to make it all work out for me.

So we begin this viscious circle, because as the pain reaches a certain point, lo and behold new purposes appear inside of our mind that we believed were original impulses inside of us. They are not original impulses; they are impulses that belong to a culture that we're a part of, that we give wings to every time we go out and serve it the way we do.

We are pounded by false purposes. If we had the correct purpose in mind, if our hearts somehow got tired of being pushed around, we would recognize what the purpose of our lives is. For one thing, it's to no longer be dominated by desires. My desires have destroyed my relationships, they've destroyed my body, they've destroyed the world that I live in, and that's all they've ever done. They have brought me momentary pleasures for which I then end up the slave of in order to serve the conditions that I set out to find in order to free myself.

The circle becomes quite evident when the mind is clear, but our minds are not clear. Our minds are nothing but cloud after cloud after cloud, based on reactions to moments in which we feel a certain pain, and in that moment we run to the only solution we've ever known: comforting ourselves. How do we comfort ourselves? I have to have means. I have to be able to afford certain things, because if I can't afford those things, I won't know comfort, and God knows this world is full of pain so I have to be prepared for these moments so I have enough to comfort myself. Then we're owned by an idea that somehow we're going to serve a culture, a system that we believe we're an individual in, that if we could only get enough from it, then we would be freed from it. Everything that we have that gives us that sense of self is dependent upon the very system that we're trying to escape, and that's why we suffer.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can begin to wake up from this dream that we're in, this alternating series of losses and gains. Again, money is not a problem. Our idea about what money is and what it can do for us is the problem, because we've named it as a solution to our suffering. Money is not a solution to suffering. Money is something that you buy a little food with, but if you don't have enough money, you buy the food you need. If you don't have enough money, you don't drive a fine car; you drive a car that allows you to get to where you have to go in order to be able to do the work you need to do to be a different kind of human being.

Our egos, our runaway wish to see ourselves as someone special is our god, and that's why so many people don't have any money. A person will say, "I can't do this. I can't find a job." No. Here's what the person is saying: "I won't do that job. I only will do the job that will give me what I believe will satisfy the need I have to get rid of my pain through imagining myself to be someone because of my possessions." People are lazy liars, all the time saying: "I can only do the things that I want to do, because if I don't do what I want to do, then what am I?"

This is the point we discover that our wants are not our wants and they never have been. Is there anything wrong with wanting to be happy and whole? No, but there's a road that leads to those things and then there's a road that leads right to hell. Here's hell: Believing that I can do all that I have done to make myself happy -- that has yet to bring it to me -- and then accelerating that process. What's heaven? The beginning of understanding that God made me an individual within whom the Light posited a nature that needs nothing save the company of the very presence that created it. That nature can be happy and whole wherever it is and under whatever conditions are asked of it.

Tell me, what is the fear in making a simple living if that's what we have to do? There is nothing to fear with a simple life, because the only thing we fear now is the pain, pressure, emptiness, and the sense that we have that if we don't provide ourselves with something sensational, we won't have anything. If we look closely, we can see that what we have now is nothing other than the tail of a lion in our hand that alternatingly pulls us through the jungle and then turns on us and mauls us.

On the flip side, if we have enough money, why do we waste it? Just because we have money doesn't mean that we have to give ourselves everything. We could "save it for a rainy day," but we can't stop giving ourselves every last thing that we want (and hating life for not giving us enough to get more) because we want to have something by which we know ourselves.

So, the person who won't take a job because of an image they have that it's beneath them, and the person who never needs to work again because they have all that they ever will wish to have, are identical; they are not different at all. They are both pounded and punished by the same illusion, the same imagined life that believes that it's possible to use something that was intended to be nothing but a simple instrument of exchange for the purpose of allowing a person to give themselves a kind of life in which they use it for the purpose of discovering the truth of themselves. There is nothing wrong with a pleasure here and there, but when the pleasure becomes the purpose, when the fear of not being able to pleasure ourselves becomes the driving force, we're lost.

This is why so few people want the spiritual life: It isn't until a person starts to recognize that "I have sacrificed everything to get everything, and I look clearly and I see there is nothing there," then that man or woman has a chance to no longer be the slave of the idea of money. No one is a slave to money; they're a slave to the idea of what money can do for them. The idea is a cultural idea that has been ingrained, woven through us to the point where we believe that those images and ideas are one and the same with our own individuality. They are not.

Ask Truth to set you free. Ask Truth to show you where you have been wandering along, hoping that somehow through a stroke of good fortune or by selling your soul, that you will be able to give yourself a satisfaction that nothing can take away. You will never find it in the world. Never. You can find it in one place, and that begins by walking away from those parts of you that believe you can fulfill the purpose of yourself by answering what the world says is a plan for your happiness. See through this and be free.

- END

Tags: Government God Foods Bahamas Dollar Freedom

1 comments View Entry

By Stephen Lendman
 
This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in particular - Jeffrey Smith's "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." Detailed information from the book is featured below.
 
Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don't know what they're eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health.
 
Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Yet, the risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when we finally know it'll be too late to reverse the damage if it's proved conclusively that genetically engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers of independent experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to reverse the contamination already spread over two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading everywhere unless checked.
 
This is happening in spite of the risk because of what F. William Engdahl revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation." It's the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

 
Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing the potential health risks. In 2003, Jeffrey Smith explained them in his book titled "Seeds of Deception." He revealed that efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists - UC Berkeley's Ignacio Chapela and former Scotland Rowett Research Institute researcher and world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were vilified, hounded, and threatened for their research, and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job for doing it.
 
He believed in the promise of GM foods, was commissioned to study them, and conducted the first ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other researchers since, he was shocked by his findings. Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of testing, and they persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.
 
Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai learned, and Smith published information on them in his 2007 book called "Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." The book is encyclopedic in depth, an invaluable comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of the shocking data in it.
 
Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm
 
In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) policy statement on GM food safety without a shred of evidence to back it. It supported GHW Bush's Executive Order that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to ordinary seeds and crops and need no government regulation. The agency said it was "not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way." That single statement meant no safety studies are needed and "Ultimately, it is the food producer" that bears responsibility "for assuring safety." As a consequence, foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave new dangerous world.
 
FDA policy opened the floodgates, and Smith put it this way: It "set the stage for the rapid deployment of the new technology," allowed the seed industry to become "consolidated, millions of acres (to be) planted, hundreds of millions to be fed (these foods in spite of nations and consumers objecting, and) laws to be passed (to assure it)." The toll today is contaminated crops, billions of dollars lost, human health harmed, and it turns out the FDA lied.
 
The agency knew GM crops are "meaningfully different" because their technical experts told them so. As a result, they recommended long-term studies, including on humans, to test for possible allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. Instead, politics trumped science, the White House ordered the FDA to promote GM crops, and a former Monsanto vice-president went to FDA to assure it.

 
Today, the industry is unregulated, and when companies say their foods are safe, their views are unquestioned. Further, Smith noted that policy makers in other countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their assessments are valid. They're disproved when independent studies are matched against industry-run ones. The differences are startling. The former report adverse affects while the latter claim the opposite. It's no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing to interfere with profits, safety is off the table, and all negative information is quashed.
 
As a result, their studies are substandard, adverse findings are hidden, and they typically "fail to investigate the impacts of GM food on gut function, liver function, kidney function, the immune system, endocrine system, blood composition, allergic response, effects on the unborn, the potential to cause cancer, or impacts on gut bacteria." In addition, industry-funded studies creatively avoid finding problems or conceal any uncovered. They cook the books by using older instead of younger more sensitive animals, keep sample sizes too low for statistical significance, dilute the GM component of feeds used, limit the duration of feeding trials, ignore animal deaths and sickness, and engage in other unscientific practices. It's to assure people never learn of the potential harm from these foods, and Smith says they can do it because "They've got 'bad science' down to a science."
 
The real kinds show GMOs produce "massive changes in the natural functioning of (a) plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off or on....the inserted gene can become truncated, fragmented, mixed with other genes, inverted or multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have unintended characteristics" that may be harmful.
 
GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene functions in a new cell, it may produce different proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful, but there's no way to know without scientific testing. Even if the protein is exactly the same, there are still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered to produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers use it in spray form, and companies falsely claim it's harmless to humans. In fact, people exposed to the spray develop allergic-type symptoms, mice ingesting Bt had powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops.
 
Smith notes still another problem relating to inserted genes. Assuming they're destroyed by our digestive system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they may move from food into gut bacteria or internal organs, and consider the potential harm. If corn genes with Bt-toxin get into gut bacteria, our intestinal flora may become pesticide factories. There's been no research done to prove if it's true or false. Agribusiness giants aren't looking, neither is FDA, consumers are left to play "Genetic Roulette," and the few animal feeding studies done show the odds are against them.
 
Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at their results of animals fed GM foods. His results were cited above. Other independent studies showed stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, misshaped cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed organs, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher offspring mortality as well.
 
There's more. Two dozen farmers reported their pigs and cows fed GM corn became sterile, 71 shepherds said 25% of their sheep fed Bt cotton plants died, and other reports showed the same effects on cows, chickens, water buffaloes and horses. After GM soy was introduced in the UK, allergies from the product skyrocketed by 50%, and in the US in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed dozens and left five to ten thousand others sick or disabled.
 
Today, Monsanto is the world's largest seed producer, and Smith notes how the company deals with reports like these. In response to the US Public Health Service concerning adverse reactions from its toxic PCBs, the company claims its experience "has been singularly free of difficulties." That's in spite of lawsuit-obtained records showing "this was part of a cover-up and denial that lasted decades" by a company with a long history of irresponsible behavior that includes "extensive bribery, highjacking of regulatory agencies, suppressing negative information about its products" and threatening journalists and scientists who dare report them. The company long ago proved it can't be trusted with protecting human health. 
 
In his book, "Seeds of Destruction," Engdahl names four dominant agribusiness giants - Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca. Smith calls these companies Ag biotech and names a fifth - Germany-based Bayer CropScience AG (division of Bayer AG) with its Environmental Science and BioScience headquarters in France.
 
Their business is to do the impossible and practically overnight - change the laws of nature and do them one better for profit. So far they haven't independent because genetic engineering doesn't work like natural breeding. It may or may not be a lot of things, but it isn't sex, says Smith. Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains that genetic modification "technically and conceptually bears no resemblance to natural breeding." The reproduction process works by both parents contributing thousands of genes to the offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and plant breeders have successfully worked this way for thousands of years.
 
Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. It works by forcibly inserting a single gene from a species' DNA into another unnaturally. Smith puts it this way: "A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a tomato. But this is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa." The process transfers genes across natural barriers that "separated species over millions of years of evolution" and managed to work. The biotech industry now wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It's unproved, indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that's the problem.
 
Biologist David Schubert explains that industry claims are "not only scientifically incorrect but exceptionally deceptive....to make the GE process sound similar to conventional plant breeding." It a smoke screen to hide the fact that what happens in laboratories can't duplicate nature, at least not up to now. Genetic engineering involves combining genes that never before existed together, the process defies natural breeding proved safe over thousands of years, and there's no way to assure the result won't be a deadly unrecallable Andromeda Strain, no longer the world of science fiction.
 
The industry pooh-pooh's the suggestion of potential harm, and unscientifically claims millions of people in the US and worldwide have eaten GM food for a decade, and no one got sick. Smith's reply: How can we know as "GM foods might already be contributing to serious health problems, but since no one is monitoring for this, it could take decades" to find out. By then, it will be too late and some industry critics argue it already may be or dangerously close.
 
Today, most existing diseases have no effective surveillance systems in place. If GM foods create new ones, that potentially compounds the problem manyfold. Consider HIV/AIDS. It went unnoticed for decades and when identified, many thousands worldwide were infected or had died.
 
Then there's the problem of linkage. In the US and many countries, GM foods are unlabeled so it's impossible tracing illness and diseases to specific substances ingested even if thousands of people are affected. It can plausibly be blamed on anything, especially when governments and regulatory agencies support industry claims of reliability and safety.
 
It's rare that problems like the L-Tryptophan epidemic of the late 1980s are identified, but when it was thousands were already harmed. L-Tryptophan is a natural amino acid constituent of most proteins and for years was produced by many companies including Showa Denko in Japan. The company then got greedy, saw a way to increase profits from a product designed to induce sleep naturally, and gene-spliced a bacterium into the natural product to do it. The result was many dozens dead, over 1500 crippled, and up to 10,000 afflicted with a blood disorder from a new incurable disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome or EMS.
 
It's a painful, multi-system disease that causes permanent scarring and fibrosis to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and a permanent change in a person's immune system. It cost the company two billion dollars to settle claims. Hundreds have since died, in all likelihood from contracting EMS.
 
This is the known toll from a single product. Consider the potential harm with Ag biotech wanting all foods to be unlabeled GMOs worldwide and governments unable to balk because WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) rules deny them. They're also prevented under WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states that national laws banning GMO products are "unfair trade practices" even when they endanger human health. Other WTO rules also apply - called "Technical Barriers to Trade." They prohibit GMO labeling so consumers don't know what they're eating and can't avoid these potentially hazardous foods.
 
The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to prevent this problem, and it should be in place to do it. Public safety, however, was ambushed by Washington, the FDA and the agribusiness lobby. It sabotaged talks and insisted biosafety measures be subordinate to WTO trade rules that apply regardless of other considerations, including public health and safety. The path is thus cleared for the unrestricted spread of GMO seeds and foods worldwide unless a way is found to stop it.
 
Independent Animal Studies Showing GMO Harm
 
Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr tomatoes (developed to look fresh for weeks) for 28 days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven died and were replaced in the study.
 
Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer, anemia and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells, livers and kidneys showed significant changes indicative of disease.
 
Mice fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce Bt- toxin or natural potatoes containing the toxin had intestinal damage. Both varieties created abnormal and excessive cell growth in the lower intestine. The equivalent human damage might cause incontinence or flu-like symptoms and could be pre-cancerous. The study disproved the contention that digestion destroys Bt-toxin and is not biologically active in mammals.
 
Workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking, loading, weighing and separating the fiber from seeds developed allergies. They began with "mild to severe itching," then redness and swelling, followed by skin eruptions. These symptoms affected their skin, eyes (got red and swollen with excessive tearing) and upper respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and sneezing. In some cases, hospitalization was required. At one cotton gin factory, workers take antihistamines daily.
 
Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed "unusual systems" before dying "mysteriously." Reports from four Indian villages revealed 25% of them died within a week. Post mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health for people who eat meat from animals fed GM cotton. It's crucial to understand that what animals eat, so do people.
 
Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.
 
Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from 80% to 20% among sows (female pigs) fed GM corn. Most animals also had false pregnancies, some delivered bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male pigs were also affected as well as cows and bulls. They became sterile and all were fed GM corn.
 
German farmer Gottfried Glockner grew GM corn and fed it to his cows. Twelve subsequently died from the Bt 176 variety, and other cows had to be destroyed due to a "mysterious" illness. The corn plots were field trials for Ag biotech giant Syngenta that later took the product off the market with no admission of fault.
 
Mice fed Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans developed significant liver cell changes indicating a dramatic general metabolism increase. Symptoms included irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, and an increased number of nuclear pores and other changes. It's thought this resulted from exposure to a toxin, and most symptoms disappeared when Roundup Ready was removed from the diet.
 
Mice fed Roundup Ready had pancreas problems, heavier livers and unexplained testicular cell changes. The Monsanto product also produced cell metabolism changes in rabbit organs, and most offspring of rats on this diet died within three weeks.
 
The death rate for chickens fed GM Liberty Link corn for 42 days doubled. They also experienced less weight gain, and their food intake was erratic.
 
In the mid-1990s, Australian scientists discovered that GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice in contrast to the natural protein that had no adverse effect. Commercialization of the product was cancelled because of fear humans might have the same reaction.
 
When given a choice, animals avoid GM foods. This was learned by observing a flock of geese that annually visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops, the geese ate only from the non-GMO side. Another observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from one field but shunned the GMO kind across the road. The same thing happened with GM corn.
 
Inserting foreign or transgenes is called insertional mutagenesis or insertion mutation. When done, it usually disrupts DNA at the insertion site and affects gene functioning overall by scrambling, deleting or relocating the genetic code near the insertion site.
 
The process of creating a GM plant requires scientists first to isolate and grow plant cells in the laboratory using a tissue culture process. The problem is when it's done it can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations throughout the genome. Changing a single base pair may be harmful. However, widespread genome changes compound the potential problem manyfold.
 
Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on the foreign gene. When done, the process may accidently switch on other natural plant genes permanently. The result may be to overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen, antinutrient, enzymes that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that silences genes, or changes that affect fetal development. They may also produce regulators that block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus that may cause great harm. In addition, evidence suggests the promoter may create genetic instability and mutations that can result in the breakup and recombination of the gene sequence.
 
Plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to enhance health and protect against disease. However, changing plant protein may alter these chemicals, increase plant toxins and/or reduce its phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show genetic modification produces unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule metabolism products.
 
To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred inserted a Brazil nut gene. By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests confirmed this, the project was cancelled. GM proteins in other crops like corn and papaya may also be allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops like Bt corn, and evidence shows allergies skyrocketed after GM crops were introduced.
 
Another study of Monsanto's high-lysine corn showed it contained toxins and other potentially harmful substances that may retard growth. If consumed in large amounts, it may also adversely affect human health. In addition, when this product is cooked, it may produce toxins associated with Alzheimer's, diabetes, allergies, kidney disease, cancer and aging symptoms.
 
Disease-resistant crops like zucchini, squash and Hawaiian papaya may promote human viruses and other diseases, and eating these products may suppress the body's natural defense against viral infections.
 
Protein structural aspects in GM crops may be altered in unforeseen ways. They may be misfolded or have added molecules. During insertion, transgenes may become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with other DNA pieces with unknown harmful effects. Transgenes may also be unstable and spontaneously rearrange over time, again with unpredictable consequences. In addition, they may create more than one protein from a process called alternative splicing. Environmental factors, weather, natural and man-made substances and genetic disposition of a plant further complicate things and pose risks. They're introduced as well because genetic engineering disrupts complex DNA relationships.
 
Contrary to industry claims, studies show transgenes aren't destroyed digestively in humans or animals. Foreign DNA can wander, survive in the gastro-intestinal tract, and be transported by blood to internal organs. This raises the risk that transgenes may transfer to gut bacteria, proliferate over time, and get into cells DNA, possibly causing chronic diseases. A single human feeding study confirmed that genes, in fact, transferred from GM soy into the DNA gut bacteria of three of seven test subjects.
 
Antibiotic Resister Marker (ARM) genes are attached to transgenes prior to insertion and allow cells to survive antibiotic applications. If ARM genes transfer to pathogenic gut or mouth bacteria, they potentially can cause antibiotic-resistant super-diseases. The proliferation of GM crops increases the possibility. The CaMV promoter in nearly all GMOs can also transfer and may switch on random genes or viruses that produce toxins, allergens or carcinogens as well as create genetic instability.
 
GM crops interact with their environment and are part of a complex ecosystem that includes our food. These crops may increase environmental and other toxins that may accumulate throughout the food chain. Crops genetically engineered to be glufosinate (herbicide)resistant may produce intestinal herbicide with known toxic effects. If transference to gut bacteria occurs, greater problems may result.
 
Repeated use of seeds like Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans results in vicious new super-weeds that need far greater amounts of stronger herbicides to combat. Their toxic residues remain in crops that humans and animals then eat. Even small amounts of these toxins may be endocrine disruptors that can affect human reproduction adversely. Evidence exists that GM crops accumulate toxins or concentrate them in milk or animals fed GM feed. Disease-resistant crops may also produce new plant viruses that affect humans.
 
All type GM foods, not just crops, carry these risks. Milk, for example, from cows injected with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (rbGH), has much higher levels of the hormone IGF-1 that risks breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers. The milk also has lower nutritional value. GM food additives also pose health risks, and their use has proliferated in processed foods.

 
Potential harm to adults is magnified for children. Another concern is that pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal fetal development and altering gene expression that's then passed to future generations. Children are also more endangered than adults, especially those drinking substantial amounts of rbGH-treated milk.
 
Conclusion
 
The above information is largely drawn from Smith's "Genetic Roulette." The data is startling and confirms a clear conclusion. The proliferation of untested, unregulated GM foods in the span of a decade is more a leap of faith than reliable science. Microbiologist Richard Lacey captures the risk stating: "it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of (GM) foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Other scientists worldwide agree that GM foods entered the market long before science could evaluate their safety and benefits. They want a halt to this dangerous experiment that needs decades of rigorous research and testing before we can know.
 
Unchecked and unregulated, human health and safety are at risk because once GMOs enter the food chain, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. Thankfully, resistance is growing worldwide, many millions are opposed, but reversing the tide won't be easy. Washington and Ag biotech are on a roll with big unstated aims - total control of our food, making it all genetically engineered, and scheming to use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.
 
Smith is hopeful that people will prevail over profits. Hopefully he's right because human health and safety must never be compromised. Resistance already halted the introduction of new crop varieties, and Smith believes that with enough momentum existing ones may end up withdrawn. He cites an example he calls a "Shift away from GM foods in the United States" in 2007. Leading it is an initiative launched last spring to remove GM ingredients from the entire natural food sector. It's led by a coalition of natural food products producers, distributors and retailers along with the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). It's called the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, and its aims are big - to educate consumers about GM food risks and promote healthy alternatives through shopping guides.
 
A Pew survey reported that 29% of Americans, representing 87 million people, strongly oppose these foods and believe they're unsafe. That's a respectable start if backed up with efforts to avoid them, and more information how is at ResponsibleTechnology.org. Jeffrey Smith founded IRT in 2003 "to promote the responsible use of technology and stop GM foods and crops through both grassroots and national strategies." It seeks safe alternatives and aims to "ban the genetic engineering of our food supply and all outdoor releases of (GM) organisms, at least until (or unless scientific opinion) believes such products are safe and appropriate based on independent and reliable data."
 
IRT urges consumers to become educated about the risks, mobilize to combat them and act in our mutual self-interest. It's beginning to happen, and Smith believes "there is an excellent chance that food manufacturers will abandon GM foods in the near future" if a public groundswell demands it. He ends his book saying: "Although GMOs present one of the greatest dangers, with informed, motivated people, it is one of the easiest global issues to solve." Hopefully he's right.
 
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
 
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions of world and national topics with distinguished guests.

Tags: Dangers Genetically Engineered Foods Bahamas Markets God

0 comments View Entry

Withering Economy Evidence Is Everywhere

Tags: Money Death Economy Bahamas New World Order Dollar God Banks

0 comments View Entry

Kaayla T. Daniel, Ph.D. Exposes the Whole Soy Story

by Chris Shugart

 

If you listen to the popular press and most "health food" makers, then you probably think that soy is a revolutionary food that every woman should be consuming. But now the scientific community is starting to take a closer look at this so-called miracle food. What they're finding is very, very disturbing.

MuscleWithAttitude.com sat down to talk with Dr. Kaayla Daniel about this subject. Dr. Daniel has written an explosive book about soy called The Whole Soy Story. Here's what she had to say about this increasingly controversial food.

Muscle With Attitude: First off, why write a book on soy?

Dr. Kayla Daniel: I decided to write this book because I saw so many clients and friends suffering while on vegetarian and near-vegetarian diets. Most often the chief culprit was soy. The Whole Soy Story is based on my dissertation so there never was any question that I'd have to base every claim on hard science.

MWA: Let's back up and talk about what soy is and where it comes from.

Dr. Daniel: Soybeans are beans that grow in fuzzy green pods. Soybeans come in many colors but most are a yellowish tan color and marked with a single, distinctive black eye — nature's way perhaps of giving us a warning!
Traditionally, Asia soybean plants weren't grown to be eaten but to be used as "green manure" — as a cover crop designed to be plowed under to enrich the soil between plantings of the crops that would be used for food. It wasn't until the Chiang Dynasty (1134-246 BC) that the Chinese came up with the fermentation methods needed to tame the soybean's undesirable elements and make it into a food.

The soybean paste known as miso came first, followed by soy sauce, which was discovered as part of the miso-making process. Other soy foods such as tofu, tempeh, and natto came much later, around 1000 AD.

In the West, the soybean has mostly been used for its soy oil, which is what you get in most products labeled vegetable oil, margarine, or shortening. Soy here is a product of the industrial revolution, an opportunity for technologists to develop cheap meat substitutes, to find clever ways to hide soy in familiar food products, to formulate soy-based pharmaceuticals, and to develop a plant-based renewable resource that could replace petroleum-based plastics and fuels.
MWA: So how did soy become known as such a "health" food?

Dr. Daniel: For years, the soy protein left over from soy oil extraction went exclusively to animals, poultry, and more recently fish farms. The problem is that only so much soy can be used in the feeds before the animals start developing serious reproductive and other health problems. So the soy industry still had a lot left over and decided to start marketing it as a "people feed."

MWA: I remember first seeing soy as an ingredient in cheap dog foods. How did it go from dog food to people food?

Dr. Daniel: Well, for this to succeed, they had to improve soy's image from that of a poverty food or hippie food. Back in 1975 a top-gun marketer hired by the soy industry recommended that the fastest way to get poor and middle class people to accept a product was to have it consumed on its own merit — not just because it was "cheap" — by people who were affluent enough to buy any foods that they wanted. Accordingly, soy is aggressively marketed as an upscale "health food."

The United Soybean Board has targeted key influences such as food manufacturers, chefs, dietitians, editors, writers etc., has aggressively lobbied in Washington and has invested millions in medical research. They spent more than a million dollars on establishing the FDA's spurious cholesterol lowering heart claim alone. The campaign has been nothing less than brilliant.

MWA: Generally speaking, why are you suggesting that everyone avoid soy?

Dr. Daniel: Most of us don't need to avoid it completely — and a good thing too since it's in just about everything these days — Bumblebee canned tuna, Hershey's chocolate, readymade spaghetti sauces, muffins... Soy can be found in more than 60 percent of the goods sold in supermarkets. Anyone who's eating processed, packed or canned foods is probably getting some hidden soy. It's even been called the "stealth ingredient."

The people who need to avoid soy completely are people with soy allergies. These people can experience adverse reactions from even a trace of soy.

For the rest of us, the goal would be to avoid modern soy products like readymade foods such as energy bars, veggie burgers, "low-carb" pastas, chilis, and other things containing soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, texturized vegetable protein, or other industrial-age soy products.

The soy industry has convinced a lot of people that anything with soy in it must be super healthy. The truth is these are highly processed junk foods. I also recommend against soy milk and other soy dairy products. The problem goes beyond soy. Take a good look at the ingredient list of soy milk or soy ice cream. Lotta sugar!

MWA: Is one type of soy worse than the other?

Dr. Daniel: Yes. Old fashioned soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto, and shoyu or tamari soy sauce are fine when eaten occasionally. The fermentation process deactivates some of the anti-nutrients in soy that causes digestive distress and mineral loss. Most of the better brands of these products are also made with organic soybeans.

Tofu isn't fermented and so is not so good for us, but a little once in a while isn't a problem. The worst products are the modern soy foods manufactured using high tech processes. These products have been subjected to very high heat, pressure, and chemicals. There's nothing "natural" about them.

MWA: Let's talk about how soy affects men and women. Let's start with men. Why should they avoid soy?

Dr. Daniel: Soy lowers Testosterone levels! Just about all soy products on the market contain the phytoestrogens (plant estrogens) known as isoflavones. Plant estrogens have lowered Testosterone levels in rats, monkeys, and other animals as well as humans. For grown men, this usually leads to decreased libido and lower sperm count. There's an old wives tale that Japanese women punish their straying husbands by feeding them a lot of tofu!

We can joke about that but not about the effect on baby boys fed soy formula. Pediatricians are reporting more and more cases of emasculated boys reaching puberty with breasts and tiny penises. Undescended testicles are also far more common than they were in the past.

Remember too that soy estrogens damage far more than the reproductive system. The thyroid is usually hurt first, leading to loss of energy, weight gain, depression, lethargy and a host of other symptoms.

MWA: That's frightening! Although you'd never hear this in the popular press, soy isn't good for women either, is it?

Dr. Daniel: Many men have avoided soy because they've had the idea — rightly as it turns out — that "real men don't eat tofu." Women, on the other hand, have been sold on the idea that soy will fix anything that ails them.

I've worked with a lot of female clients who've been purposefully adding large doses of soy to their diets. A lot of them chug soy milk morning and evening and eat energy bars on the run. When they come to me, they complain of fatigue, depression, hair loss, poor skin, and diminished sex drive. When I encourage them to go to their doctors to have their thyroids tested, they almost always are diagnosed with low thyroids — hypothyroidism.

Women who eat a lot of soy are also more likely to have reproductive system problems — heavier menstrual flow, increased cramping, infertility, as well as the loss of sex drive mentioned earlier. There are increasing reports of a painful urinary tract condition known as interstitial cystitis and a painful condition called vulvodynia or vulvardynia. This last refers to pain of the external female genitals — excruciating pain that's often so severe that sex is impossible.

Finally, we're getting more and more reports of vegan mothers giving birth to sons with hypospadias.

MWA: I hate to ask, but what is that?

Dr. Daniel: That's an estrogen-induced birth defect in which the opening of the penis is on the underside, located anywhere from near the tip of the penis to right up at the crotch. These cases are tragic. Although estrogens in the environment have also been implicated, it's prudent for pregnant women to avoid ingesting soy estrogens.

MWA: What about soy in infant formulas?

Dr. Daniel: Infants on soy formula are extremely vulnerable. Remember that soy formula constitutes most if not all of their diets. Based on figures from the Swiss Federal Health Service, some of my colleagues have calculated that an infant on soy formula is getting the hormonal equivalent of the estrogen found in three to five birth control pills every day!

That's a lot of estrogen, and this amount is especially dangerous for infants whose very development requires the right hormones in the right place at the right time.

Studies on rats, sheep, monkeys and other animals suggest that the estrogens in soy infant formula can irreversibly harm the baby's later sexual development. And this is exactly what we're hearing from both parents and pediatricians.

Did you know that baby boys are supposed to experience a Testosterone surge during the first few months of life and in the large amounts you'd expect from a grown man? Most people don't, but all that Testosterone is needed to program the boy for puberty, the time when his sex organs should develop and he should grow facial and pubic hair and start speaking with a deep voice. If receptor sites intended for the hormone Testosterone are occupied by soy estrogens, however, appropriate development may be delayed or never take place.

For girls, soy formula has the opposite effect. It's likely to accelerate puberty and may cause reproductive difficulties later in life. The studies which supposedly prove that infants on soy formula develop normally consider only height, weight and other measurements of growth as measured in infancy and early childhood. Many of the negative effects don't become obvious until puberty.

MWA: Let me play devil's advocate a minute. One of the arguments for soy out there always brings up the apparent health and longevity of soy-eating Asian cultures. What do you say to that?

Dr. Daniel: First of all, Asia is a huge continent. It includes people of very different cultures with widely varying dietary customs and health records.

If we look at the statistics for cancer and other diseases, we discover that certain types of cancer are more prevalent in the United States than in, say, China, and vice versa. Though the soy industry likes to take credit for the good news, it consistently neglects to mention the bad. And for all anyone knows, the good news could be attributed to other dietary or lifestyle influences. Claims that soybeans have been a major part of the Asian diet for more than 3000 years, or from "time immemorial" as we sometimes hear, are also simply not true.

The main point I want to make is that Asians don't actually eat very much soy. Peter Golbitz, of Soyatech Inc, a soy-industry information center based in Maine, reports that the average consumption per year in China, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan ranges from 9.3 grams to 36 grams per day. Compare that to a single cup of tofu that weighs in at 252 grams and think about the people you know who are eating soy every day, several times a day.

Others too have reported that Asians eat very little soy. When T. Colin Campbell of Cornell University traveled around China to survey the dietary habits of 6,500 adults in 130 rural villages, he reported that they ate an average of 12 grams of legumes per day. Probably only about one third of this amount is soy. For some inexplicable reason he never got the figures on soy alone.

Finally, keep in mind that the type of food Asians eat is very different from the soy that's appearing on the American table. Think small amounts of old-fashioned whole soy products like miso and tempeh, not soy sausages, soy burgers, chicken-like soy patties, TVP chili, tofu cheesecake, packaged soymilk or any other of the ingenious new soy products that have infiltrated the American marketplace.

MWA: Since soy is getting hard to avoid, is there a minimum intake you'd suggest? How many grams per day is okay?

Dr. Daniel: Total grams can be hard to calculate because of all the hidden soy in packaged and restaurant and deli foods. This type of soy can be avoided by preparing fresh, whole foods from scratch.

I'd say that people who are healthy can safely eat several small servings of soy foods per week, preferably the old-fashioned foods such as miso, tempeh, and natto. They can also safely use shoyu or tamari soy sauce as a condiment. Those are found at health food stores and are far superior to the soy sauces sold at supermarkets.

I wouldn't exceed an average of 36 grams per day — an amount equivalent to what's ordinarily eaten in Japan, which is the country with the highest soy consumption in Asia.

MWA: Have you experienced any backlash because of your views on soy?

Dr. Daniel: My news really upsets some vegans, but even some of the vegan websites are getting wise to soy. Chet Day's site is one that dares to tell the truth.

In my experience, most non-vegetarians are enormously relieved when they learn that they don't need to eat soy. These people loathe the "beany" taste of soy products and the side effects such as cramps and flatulence. People who've harmed their thyroids or experienced other serious health problems because of soy can get very angry, but not at me. The backlash is against the soy industry.

MWA: Understandable. Now, it seems soy took on a new role when everyone went low carb. Why exactly are so many low-carb foods being stuffed with soy?

Dr. Daniel: Soybeans have a lower carbohydrate content than other beans, but the main reason is that the food industry has lots of soy protein left over from soy oil manufacture. Soy protein is cheap!

The soy industry has convinced the public that it's "healthy" and desirable. The low carb fad has made it possible for the soy industry to stop trying to hide the soy that goes into pastas, breads, chips, cereals, etc., increase the content and brag about it!

MWA: In your book, you write about "hidden soy" and "undeclared soy content" and "aliases." Sounds scary. What is all that exactly?

Dr. Daniel: It's very scary, at least for people with soy allergies. As I mentioned before, there's at least trace amounts of soy in the majority of supermarket and health food store products. People who are allergic must avoid all soy and can experience terrible allergic reactions from even a trace of it.

MWA: But are a lot of people allergic to soy?

Dr. Daniel: Soy is now one of the top eight allergens and some experts put it as low as in the top four. People with the highest risk are children who are allergic to peanuts and have asthma. There have been fatalities because of hidden soy.

By "hidden soy" I mean soy where you wouldn't expect it. For example, the soy protein found in Bumblebee canned tuna, in a fast-food burger, whipped cream, or in a loaf of bread.

By "undeclared soy" I mean soy that's not listed on food labels. For a variety of reasons, labels aren't always accurate. Manufacturers can be careless and neglect to mention soy. Perhaps the recipe was changed and the label hasn't caught up. Undeclared soy is also a possibility from cross-contamination caused by soy used in other products produced at the same facility.

For people with soy allergies, soy dust in the air from the bulk bins at health food stores can be a problem. So can a trace amount of soy that has rubbed off from cardboard packaging in which soy protein isolate has been used as a bonding ingredient.

By "aliases" I mean commonly used ingredients that people don't recognize as soy. Some good examples would be "textured vegetable protein "or "boullion" or "vegetable oil." These may or may not contain soy — usually they do.

MWA: What do you think about this: certain soy products can now sport a heart-healthy label from the US Food and Drug Administration. The new claim says something like "25 grams of soy protein a day, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease."

Dr. Daniel: I think 25 grams a day will harm your thyroid! That's a proven risk supported by dozens of well-designed studies. Furthermore, thyroid disease is itself a risk factor for heart disease. Cholesterol level has never been an accurate marker of heart disease risk. Homocysteine levels, c-reactive protein, lipoprotein (a) are all more telling.

As for saturated fats, it's the artificially saturated fats — the hydrogenated fats full of trans fatty acids — that are dangerous to heart health. These come from vegetable oils, mostly soy oil, notfrom animal products.

Now about that FDA heart health claim... The FDA bills itself as "The Nation's Foremost Consumer Protection Agency" and its mission statement ends with the phrase "Helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health." Yet the handling of this dubious claim suggests nothing so much as an unholy alliance with big business.

MWA: "Unholy alliance?" That's a big claim.

Dr. Daniel: The original petition submitted by Protein Technologies International requested that the health claim be made for the soy isoflavones, the plant estrogens found abundantly in soybeans. Provided with only weak and conflicting proofs that isoflavones lower cholesterol and besieged by strong evidence of toxicity and hormone disruption, the FDA should have thrown out the PTI petition. It had a duty to do so.

Instead, the agency took the unprecedented step of rewriting PTI's petition and substituting a claim for soy protein. This step violated the industry's own regulations. Then the FDA speeded the decision-making process by reducing the time in which members of the public could protest to only 30 days.

In doing so, they disregarded the testimony of top scientists at the FDA's own National Center of Toxicological Research, British government researchers and other qualified experts providing strong evidence of danger from allergens, protease, inhibitors, and other soy components as well as the plant hormones.

It's all the more shocking because the FDA never had good evidence of soy's cholesterol lowering effect to begin with! It relied almost entirely on just one study — a 1995 meta analysis of 29 studies by James W. Anderson that was sponsored by Protein Technologies International.

MWA: This is starting to sound like a big "soy conspiracy." I can't help but think all this positive press and food makers' use of mega amounts of soy isn't padding someone's pockets. Is there a "Big Soy" out there to go along with "Big Tobacco?"

Dr. Daniel: The little soybean is big business. Soy foods are one of the fastest growing sectors in the food industry with retail sales growing from $0.852 billion to $3.2 billion during the decade from 1992 to 2002. In order to accomplish this, the soy industry had to convince a lot of people that soy is good for them. To do that they've had to cover up and suppress a lot of evidence to the contrary.

MWA: Very interesting. How can MWA readers find out more and get their paws on your book?

Dr. Daniel: I'd like to welcome MWA readers to my website: http://www.wholesoystory.com/. The site includes several free chapters from the book, questions and answers, and other good information.

 

MWA: Thank you very much for chatting with us today, Dr. Daniel.

Dr. Daniel: My pleasure. Thank you, Chris.

 

- END

Tags: Soy Conspiracy Vegetable Soy Milk Food City Market Bahamas

0 comments View Entry

How Much Did The Fed Really Know?

By Mike Whitney

The Commodity Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) is investigating trading in oil futures to determine whether the surge in prices to record levels is the result of manipulation or fraud. They might want to take a look at wheat, rice and corn futures while they're at it. The whole thing is a hoax cooked up by the investment banks and hedge funds who are trying to dig their way out of the trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities (MBS) mess that they created by turning garbage loans into securities. That scam blew up in their face last August and left them scrounging for handouts from the Federal Reserve. Now the billions of dollars they're getting from the Fed is being diverted into commodities which is destabilizing the world economy; driving gas prices to the moon and triggering food riots across the planet.
For months we've been told that the soaring price of oil has been the result of Peak Oil, fighting in Iraq, attacks on oil facilities in Nigeria, labor problems in Norway, and (the all-time favorite)growth in China. It's all baloney. Just like Goldman Sachs prediction of $200 per barrel oil is baloney. If oil is about to skyrocket then why has G-Sax kept a neutral rating on some of its oil holdings like Exxon Mobile? Could it be that they know that oil is just another mega-inflated equity bubble---like housing, corporate bonds and dot.com stocks-that is about to crash to earth as soon as the big players grab a parachute?
There are three things that are driving up the price of oil: the falling dollar, speculation and buying on margin.

The dollar is tanking because of the Federal Reserve's low interest monetary policies have kept interest rates below the rate of inflation for most of the last decade. Add that to the $700 billion current account deficit and a National Debt that has increased from $5.8 trillion when Bush first took office to over $9 trillion today and it's a wonder the dollar hasn't gone "Poof" already.

According to a January 4 editorial in the Wall Street Journal: "If the dollar had remained 'as good as gold' since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 per barrel, not $99. (today $126 per barrel) The decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a US monetary that is supplying too many dollars." Wall Street Journal 1-4-08
The price of oil has more than quadrupled since 2001, from roughly $30 per barrel to $126, WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIONS TO SUPPLY. There's no shortage; it's just gibberish.
As far as "buying on margin" consider this summary from author William Engdahl:
"A conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today's $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme "leverage" of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population."
So the investment banks and their trading partners at the hedge funds can game the system for a mere 8 bucks per barrel or 16 to 1 leverage. Not bad, eh?

Is it possible that gambling on oil futures might be a temptation for banks that are already underwater from a trillion dollars worth of mortgage-related deals that have "gone south" leaving the banking system essentially bankrupt?
And if the banks and hedgies are not playing this game, then where is the money coming from? I have compiled charts and graphs that show that nearly two-thirds of the big investment banks' revenue came from the securitization of commercial and residential real estate loans. That market is frozen. Besides, this is not just a matter of "loan delinquencies" or MBS that have to be written off. The banks are "revenue starved". How are they filling the coffers? They're either neck-deep in interest rate swaps, derivatives trading, or gaming the futures market. Which is it?
Of course, there is one other possibility, but if that possibility turned out to be right than it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire financial system. In fact, it would prove that the system is being rigged from the top-down by our friends at the Banking Politburo, the Federal Reserve. Here goes:
What if the investment banks are trading their worthless MBS and CDOs at the Fed's auction facilities and using the money ($400 billion) to drive up the price of raw materials like rice, corn, wheat, and oil?
Could it be? Could the Fed really be looking the other way so it can bail out its banking buddies while they drive prices skyward?
If it is true; (and I suspect it is) it hasn't done much good. As the Associated Press reported yesterday:
"The Federal Reserve announced Thursday that it will make a fresh batch of short-term cash loans available to squeezed banks as part of an ongoing effort to ease stressed credit markets. The Fed said it will conduct three auctions in June, with each one making $75 billion available in short-term cash loans. Banks can bid for a slice of the available funds. It would mark the latest round in a program that the Fed launched in December to help banks overcome credit problems so they will keep lending to customers."
Another $225 billion for the bankers and not a dime for the struggling homeowner! The Fed is bankrupting the country with their permanent rotating loans to keep reckless speculators from going under. So much for moral hazard.
As far as speculation, there is ample evidence that the system is being manipulated. According to MarketWatch:
"Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown "enormously" over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. It pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold -- to $260 billion from $13 billion."
And here's a revealing clip from the testimony of Michael W. Masters of Masters Capital Management, LLC, who addressed the issue of "Commodities Speculation" before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs this week:
"Today, Index Speculators are pouring billions of dollars into the commodities futures
markets, speculating that commodity prices will increase. ...In the popular press the explanation given most often for rising oil prices is the increased demand for oil from China. According to the DOE, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels.8 Over the same five-year period, Index Speculators' demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels. THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM INDEX SPECULATORS IS ALMOST EQUAL TO THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM CHINA.

Index Speculators have now stockpiled, via the futures market, the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of petroleum, effectively adding eight times as much oil to their own stockpile as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the last five years.

Today, in many commodities futures markets, they are the single largest force.15 The huge growth in their demand has gone virtually undetected by classically-trained economists who almost never analyze demand in futures markets.

As money pours into the markets, two things happen concurrently: the markets expand and prices rise. One particularly troubling aspect of Index Speculator demand is that it actually increases the more prices increase. This explains the accelerating rate at which commodity futures prices (and actual commodity prices) are increasing. The CFTC has taken deliberate steps to allow CERTAIN SPECULATORS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE COMMODITIES FUTURES MARKETS. The CFTC has granted Wall Street banks an exemption from speculative position limits when these banks hedge over-the-counter swaps transactions. This has effectively opened a loophole for unlimited speculation. When Index Speculators enter into commodity index swaps, which 85-90% of them do, they face no speculative position limits.... The result is a gross distortion in data that effectively hides the full impact of Index Speculation." (Thanks to Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis; the one "indispensable" financial blog on the Internet)
Masters adds that the CFTC is pressing to make "Index Speculators exempt from all position limits" so they can make "unlimited" bets on the futures which are wreaking havoc on the global economy and pushing millions towards starvation. Of course, these things pale in comparison to the higher priority of fatting the bottom line of the parasitic investor class.
Brimming oil tankers are presently sitting off the coasts of Iran and Louisiana. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been filled. Demand is flat. The world's biggest consumer of energy (guess who?) is cutting back . As CNN reports:
"At a time when gas prices are at an all-time high, Americans have curtailed their driving at a historic rate. The Department of Transportation said figures from March show the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded. Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less -- that's 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT's Federal Highway