Why are all these shots even necessary. I was born after WWII and got whooping cough when I was about 9 months old. We were poor and lived in a back country where doctors weren't readily available or affordable so my folks treated me with sugar, pepperment extract and love until they could get me to a doctor. The doctor didn't have a better solution and said that the treatment I was getting was sufficient.
When I was 6 and 10 I had both kinds of measles. In my 10th year, we moved to a city and there was a vaccination program through the school. Because we didn't know any better at the time, I received a few shots of which I remember only the polio shot. After grade school, I never had any more shots for anything. I have a strong immune system still.
I hope that more research can be done and that it be directed more toward health rather than toward sickness and death.
As another old mother who has watched the horror of regulatory capture & deep political corruption for decades it's a familiar heartbreaking story that can be told ten thousand ways from the 25cent per unit safety plugs on gas cans that can prevent explosions to gmo food supply & partner chemicals that have NEVER had human health safety studies.
Covidian insanity paired with a still somewhat free Internet has shocked about a third of the global population into an alternate reality that still has folks spinning but for legions it has been an uplifting process of welcome to my world! <3
Fun fact - Dubbya Bush ended EPA collection of toxic release data in 2001 so the safe air at Ground Zero could take a decade to debunk & possible evidence of demolition never a risk. In 2020 UC Davis who hosted the public database pulled it offline w note "This project has ended."
Scorecard ~ Recognized Global Authority for Chemical Safety
Basic Testing to Identify Chemical Hazards
If an industrial chemical is allowed by law to be released into the environment, most people assume that it must have been tested and evaluated for its potential risks. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Keeping chemical hazards under control requires information about what kinds of hazards each chemical poses. If the basic tests to check on a chemical's toxicity haven't been conducted, or if the results aren't publicly available, current laws tend to treat that chemical as if it were perfectly safe.
Information Needed for Safety Assessment
Could government assess a chemical's safety or risk? For most of the important industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce, government lacks the information to draw any scientifically based conclusion about the degree of risk--or lack of risk--that a chemical may pose when used. For every chemical in the database, Scorecard tells you whether or not the information needed to assess chemical risk is available. If it isn't, no one can accurately claim the chemical is "safe."
Equally astounding even w 2009 update & references to studies nobody I know has ever seen the fact a random PhD can sign off on a nationwide feeding study with "Monsanto believes" for safety.
Biotechnology Consultation Memorandum of Conference BNF No. 000001
This meeting was intended to bring Monsanto's consultation with FDA on the food and feed safety of this product to closure. Monsanto had previously met with the agency on this subject (see memorandum of June 24, 1993 meeting in Subject File 1319 (SBJ 1319)).
Intended Effect and Food/Feed Use
The intended effect of this genetic modification is to render soybean (Glycine max) plants tolerant to commercially relevant levels of the non-selective herbicide glyphosate. Soybeans or processed products derived from soybeans are used for both human and animal food, with the large majority being used in animal feed.
Mechanism of Intended Effect
Glyphosate's herbicidal activity is conferred by its ability to potently inhibit the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which has an essential function in all plants, fungi, and bacteria in the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids. Monsanto has isolated a gene from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 which encodes an EPSPS (hereafter referred to as CP4 EPSPS) which is highly resistant to inhibition by glyphosate. Expression of relatively low levels of CP4 EPSPS renders soybeans tolerant of commercially relevant levels of glyphosate.
Compositional Analysis
Based on the nature of the genetic modification, it was not expected that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans would differ compositionally from other soybean varieties. To confirm this expectation, Monsanto carried out compositional analyses which focussed on analysis of whole beans but also included compositional analyses of major soy-derived products, including toasted soybean meal, soy oil, defatted soy flour, and soy protein isolate.
Based on their analysis of whole beans (and, for certain parameters, various soy products), Monsanto has concluded that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans are not significantly different from other soybean varieties in protein, fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrate, amino acid, fatty acid, trypsin inhibitor, lectin, isoflavone (genistein and daidzen), phospholipid (lecithin), phytate, stachyose, or raffinose content. Monsanto's analysis of some of these parameters in glyphosate-treated soybeans led them to similar conclusions.
In order to verify that glyphosate-tolerant varieties of soybeans express levels of soybean allergens no greater than traditional varieties, Monsanto carried out immunoblot analysis using pooled serum from individuals allergic to soybeans. Monsanto reported that there was no difference between glyphosate-tolerant and control lines of soybeans in the level of expression of immunoreactive material.
Wholesomeness Studies
Monsanto described the results of wholesomeness studies they carried out in rats, chickens, catfish, dairy cattle, and bobwhite quail. On the basis of their consideration of the totality of these studies, Monsanto has concluded that there is no significant difference in the wholesomeness of glyphosate-tolerant and traditional soybean varieties, as expected from their compositional analysis. These data are summarized on page 49 of Monsanto's September 2 submission.
Conclusions
Monsanto has concluded, in essence, that the glyphosate-tolerant soybean variety they have developed is not significantly altered within the meaning of 21 CFR 170.30(f)(2) when compared to soybean varieties with a history of safe use. At this time, based on Monsanto's description of its data and analysis, the agency considers Monsanto's consultation on this product to be complete.
EVERYONE needs to go here and listen to Denis Rancourt and JJ Couey....this is how it ends. ladies and gentlemen......but only if you want and can handle the truth..... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2050569254
I presume that you and your readers are familiar with the political term “corporatocracy”. That’s what was happening with immunity from liability for injuries from these poisonous injections.
Why are all these shots even necessary. I was born after WWII and got whooping cough when I was about 9 months old. We were poor and lived in a back country where doctors weren't readily available or affordable so my folks treated me with sugar, pepperment extract and love until they could get me to a doctor. The doctor didn't have a better solution and said that the treatment I was getting was sufficient.
When I was 6 and 10 I had both kinds of measles. In my 10th year, we moved to a city and there was a vaccination program through the school. Because we didn't know any better at the time, I received a few shots of which I remember only the polio shot. After grade school, I never had any more shots for anything. I have a strong immune system still.
I hope that more research can be done and that it be directed more toward health rather than toward sickness and death.
As another old mother who has watched the horror of regulatory capture & deep political corruption for decades it's a familiar heartbreaking story that can be told ten thousand ways from the 25cent per unit safety plugs on gas cans that can prevent explosions to gmo food supply & partner chemicals that have NEVER had human health safety studies.
Covidian insanity paired with a still somewhat free Internet has shocked about a third of the global population into an alternate reality that still has folks spinning but for legions it has been an uplifting process of welcome to my world! <3
Fun fact - Dubbya Bush ended EPA collection of toxic release data in 2001 so the safe air at Ground Zero could take a decade to debunk & possible evidence of demolition never a risk. In 2020 UC Davis who hosted the public database pulled it offline w note "This project has ended."
Scorecard ~ Recognized Global Authority for Chemical Safety
Basic Testing to Identify Chemical Hazards
If an industrial chemical is allowed by law to be released into the environment, most people assume that it must have been tested and evaluated for its potential risks. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Keeping chemical hazards under control requires information about what kinds of hazards each chemical poses. If the basic tests to check on a chemical's toxicity haven't been conducted, or if the results aren't publicly available, current laws tend to treat that chemical as if it were perfectly safe.
Information Needed for Safety Assessment
Could government assess a chemical's safety or risk? For most of the important industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce, government lacks the information to draw any scientifically based conclusion about the degree of risk--or lack of risk--that a chemical may pose when used. For every chemical in the database, Scorecard tells you whether or not the information needed to assess chemical risk is available. If it isn't, no one can accurately claim the chemical is "safe."
https://web.archive.org/web/20120917041002/http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/chems-profile-descriptions.tcl#basic_testing
Equally astounding even w 2009 update & references to studies nobody I know has ever seen the fact a random PhD can sign off on a nationwide feeding study with "Monsanto believes" for safety.
Biotechnology Consultation Memorandum of Conference BNF No. 000001
September 19, 1994
Subject: Glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.
Keywords: Soybean; glyphosate (herbicide) tolerance; EPSPS from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS).
This meeting was intended to bring Monsanto's consultation with FDA on the food and feed safety of this product to closure. Monsanto had previously met with the agency on this subject (see memorandum of June 24, 1993 meeting in Subject File 1319 (SBJ 1319)).
Intended Effect and Food/Feed Use
The intended effect of this genetic modification is to render soybean (Glycine max) plants tolerant to commercially relevant levels of the non-selective herbicide glyphosate. Soybeans or processed products derived from soybeans are used for both human and animal food, with the large majority being used in animal feed.
Mechanism of Intended Effect
Glyphosate's herbicidal activity is conferred by its ability to potently inhibit the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which has an essential function in all plants, fungi, and bacteria in the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids. Monsanto has isolated a gene from the soil bacterium Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 which encodes an EPSPS (hereafter referred to as CP4 EPSPS) which is highly resistant to inhibition by glyphosate. Expression of relatively low levels of CP4 EPSPS renders soybeans tolerant of commercially relevant levels of glyphosate.
Compositional Analysis
Based on the nature of the genetic modification, it was not expected that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans would differ compositionally from other soybean varieties. To confirm this expectation, Monsanto carried out compositional analyses which focussed on analysis of whole beans but also included compositional analyses of major soy-derived products, including toasted soybean meal, soy oil, defatted soy flour, and soy protein isolate.
Based on their analysis of whole beans (and, for certain parameters, various soy products), Monsanto has concluded that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans are not significantly different from other soybean varieties in protein, fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrate, amino acid, fatty acid, trypsin inhibitor, lectin, isoflavone (genistein and daidzen), phospholipid (lecithin), phytate, stachyose, or raffinose content. Monsanto's analysis of some of these parameters in glyphosate-treated soybeans led them to similar conclusions.
In order to verify that glyphosate-tolerant varieties of soybeans express levels of soybean allergens no greater than traditional varieties, Monsanto carried out immunoblot analysis using pooled serum from individuals allergic to soybeans. Monsanto reported that there was no difference between glyphosate-tolerant and control lines of soybeans in the level of expression of immunoreactive material.
Wholesomeness Studies
Monsanto described the results of wholesomeness studies they carried out in rats, chickens, catfish, dairy cattle, and bobwhite quail. On the basis of their consideration of the totality of these studies, Monsanto has concluded that there is no significant difference in the wholesomeness of glyphosate-tolerant and traditional soybean varieties, as expected from their compositional analysis. These data are summarized on page 49 of Monsanto's September 2 submission.
Conclusions
Monsanto has concluded, in essence, that the glyphosate-tolerant soybean variety they have developed is not significantly altered within the meaning of 21 CFR 170.30(f)(2) when compared to soybean varieties with a history of safe use. At this time, based on Monsanto's description of its data and analysis, the agency considers Monsanto's consultation on this product to be complete.
F. Owen Fields, Ph.D.
Page Last Updated: 06/18/2009
http://web.archive.org/web/20101122021318/www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161130.htm
EVERYONE needs to go here and listen to Denis Rancourt and JJ Couey....this is how it ends. ladies and gentlemen......but only if you want and can handle the truth..... https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2050569254
I presume that you and your readers are familiar with the political term “corporatocracy”. That’s what was happening with immunity from liability for injuries from these poisonous injections.