When you get a bruise, your body heals it. When you get a cut on your skin, your body heals it. When you get a broken bone, your body heals it.
It’s all part of your body’s cycle of renewal ... where old cells die and new ones are born.
But what many people don’t realize is that this renewal process doesn’t just occur with cuts, bruises, and broken bones. The fact is, it occurs in practically every cell of the body.
For example ...
● You get a whole new stomach lining every 10 days.
● You get new skin every 30 days.
● You get a new liver every 6 weeks.
● You get new bone cells every 6 months.
● And you get new lungs, new arteries, and new blood cells every 3 months.
Well ... what would happen if you were able to speed up your body’s natural renewal process?
And what if people with clogged arteries could not only unclog their blood vessels but could also restore them so that they were as clear and as smooth as a baby’s?
What if people with arthritis were able to grow cartilage so fast that they could completely cure their arthritis in just a few weeks?
What if people with macular degeneration could regenerate their cells and restore their vision to what it was years ago?
What if people with osteoporosis were able to re-grow new bone faster than the old bone broke down?
Sounds too good to be true, right? Well, believe it or not, these things are not only possible, they’re happening right now!
Dr Shallenberger said this & I agree.
Ken Anderson
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Do Not Take A Swine Flu Vaccine!
http://www.rense.com/general85/vacc.htm
Do Not Take A
Swine Flu Vaccine!
From Patricia Doyle, PhD
4-25-9
Hello Jeff -
I am making a plea to everyone who reads this, please, please DO NOT TAKE ANY VACCINE THAT IS PURPORTED TO 'PREVENT' THIS FLU.
Remember 1976 and the so called Swine Flu outbreak that was purported to be a coming pandemic? It only infected recruits at Ft. Dix. Why? Because I believe that the so called Swine Flu virus infected the recruits due to the vaccines they were given. Whether the government developed the Swine Flu 1976 virus and infected the recruits as a means to test the public to see if people would comply with a call to take vaccination against Swine Flu, or the recruits became infected via contaminated vaccine they were given as part of the recruit regimen, that outbreak was as phony as they come. I was one of the people duped into taking a Swine Flu shot and it made me so sick. I was sick in bed for three months after taking the vaccine.
Do not take seasonal flu vaccine if you are told that it could help prevent this brand new Swine Flu variant. It won't do a thing to prevent this flu. What it will do is serve up new genetic material to the Swine Flu virus that I have dubbed Spanish Flu 2, the Sequel. The Spanish Flu variant will use the gene sequences in the vaccine in humans to develop more of the changes that make the virus more readily infect humans. We do not want to give this virus more human genetic material so that it will infect humans more readily person to person. This is what vaccinated individuals do for pandemic strains.
There is also a safety issue in any experimental vaccine, much like the one in 1976. Some people even feel that such a vaccine for pandemic strain might require more than one vaccination which could actually be a binary set up. The first shot might just add some genetic code that stays dormant in the body until one gets the second vaccine shot which then serves to only cause infection. It could trigger Guillain-barre syndrome, Typhus or some other condition.
An Influenza vaccine does not protect or prevent a person from contracting flu. It is purported to, maybe, prevent some complications of flu and maybe shorten duration. I am not even sure it does that. Personally, I feel the vaccine weakens our immune system and also sickens us due to contaminants in the vaccine. I feel that people can better protect themselves by washing hands often and thoroughly. People should also use protective gloves when out and about during epidemics. Don't be afraid of "looking odd." I would not be ashamed to use a mask and gloves. I see that the Mexicans are using them.
A big problem during a pandemic is that these simple supplies will become extremely scarce awfully quickly. Stock up now. Medical supplies. personal hygene supplies and don't forget fido, or any other pet. Once a pandemic hits, it will be too late to stock up. Water, too.
We may lose clean water and electric power, so be prepared.
So, please, people, DON'T TAKE ANY VACCINES OFFERED. THEY COULD KILL YOU BEFORE ANY VIRUS KILLS YOU.
Pat Doyle
Patricia A. Doyle DVM, PhD Bus Admin, Tropical Agricultural Economics Univ of West Indies Please visit my "Emerging Diseases" message board at: http://www.emergingdisease.org/phpbb/index.php
Also my new website: http://drpdoyle.tripod.com/
Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa Go with God and in Good Health
Do Not Take A
Swine Flu Vaccine!
From Patricia Doyle, PhD
4-25-9
Hello Jeff -
I am making a plea to everyone who reads this, please, please DO NOT TAKE ANY VACCINE THAT IS PURPORTED TO 'PREVENT' THIS FLU.
Remember 1976 and the so called Swine Flu outbreak that was purported to be a coming pandemic? It only infected recruits at Ft. Dix. Why? Because I believe that the so called Swine Flu virus infected the recruits due to the vaccines they were given. Whether the government developed the Swine Flu 1976 virus and infected the recruits as a means to test the public to see if people would comply with a call to take vaccination against Swine Flu, or the recruits became infected via contaminated vaccine they were given as part of the recruit regimen, that outbreak was as phony as they come. I was one of the people duped into taking a Swine Flu shot and it made me so sick. I was sick in bed for three months after taking the vaccine.
Do not take seasonal flu vaccine if you are told that it could help prevent this brand new Swine Flu variant. It won't do a thing to prevent this flu. What it will do is serve up new genetic material to the Swine Flu virus that I have dubbed Spanish Flu 2, the Sequel. The Spanish Flu variant will use the gene sequences in the vaccine in humans to develop more of the changes that make the virus more readily infect humans. We do not want to give this virus more human genetic material so that it will infect humans more readily person to person. This is what vaccinated individuals do for pandemic strains.
There is also a safety issue in any experimental vaccine, much like the one in 1976. Some people even feel that such a vaccine for pandemic strain might require more than one vaccination which could actually be a binary set up. The first shot might just add some genetic code that stays dormant in the body until one gets the second vaccine shot which then serves to only cause infection. It could trigger Guillain-barre syndrome, Typhus or some other condition.
An Influenza vaccine does not protect or prevent a person from contracting flu. It is purported to, maybe, prevent some complications of flu and maybe shorten duration. I am not even sure it does that. Personally, I feel the vaccine weakens our immune system and also sickens us due to contaminants in the vaccine. I feel that people can better protect themselves by washing hands often and thoroughly. People should also use protective gloves when out and about during epidemics. Don't be afraid of "looking odd." I would not be ashamed to use a mask and gloves. I see that the Mexicans are using them.
A big problem during a pandemic is that these simple supplies will become extremely scarce awfully quickly. Stock up now. Medical supplies. personal hygene supplies and don't forget fido, or any other pet. Once a pandemic hits, it will be too late to stock up. Water, too.
We may lose clean water and electric power, so be prepared.
So, please, people, DON'T TAKE ANY VACCINES OFFERED. THEY COULD KILL YOU BEFORE ANY VIRUS KILLS YOU.
Pat Doyle
Patricia A. Doyle DVM, PhD Bus Admin, Tropical Agricultural Economics Univ of West Indies Please visit my "Emerging Diseases" message board at: http://www.emergingdisease.org/phpbb/index.php
Also my new website: http://drpdoyle.tripod.com/
Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa Go with God and in Good Health
Flu, Prepare to die; it's been planned and has begun
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Prepare to die; it's been planned and has begun
You and your family are about to be killed. Prepare yourselves. It has all been pre-planned and the plan has now begun.
Every once in awhile, those of us who watch the big picture and report to you that government is planning something REALLY bad, are vindicated. Such is the case right now.
In October, 2007, the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit. Millions of illegal aliens and others who had lied about their ability to repay loans had defaulted and those defaults were taking out the banks.
Credit dried up, a number of banks failed. The economy began to tank and companies started taking losses and laying off workers. There were storm clouds on the financial horizon and everyone knew it.
What few considered was that our government is already saddled with so much debt they cannot hope to afford another Great Depression. They don't have the funds to pay unemployment, welfare, food stamps, free medical care through medicaid and and they have zero chance of borrowing the money to provide it. So, the decision has been made to "cull the herd."
They have no choice but to kill off a whole slew of "useless eaters, most of whom live in our major cities. They know that unless they kill them off, there will be so much social chaos that the government will fall or be overthrown and they definitely don't want that to happen.
They laid the groundwork already. Want proof?
Last year, the government started running commercials TELLING YOU a flu pandemic was coming. Commercials just like this:
If that doesn't clue you in, then maybe this will:
Your Coffins Were Ordered
In January, 2008, news broke that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had ordered one million plastic burial vaults that can hold 6 bodies each, and that an Alabama company - Polyguard Vaults - had begun manufacturing them. Folks laughed at guys like me when we reported such news. They called us "conspiracy nuts."
About six or seven months later, in July, 2008 news broke about 500,000 "burial vaults" sitting in an open field in Georgia. Folks heard about them HERE and got to see them via Google Satellite maps like this: (use the + inside the image to zoom-in)
View Larger Map
Still unconvinced, the skeptical then got to see actual video of the coffins as shown below:
We who were previously derided as Conspiracy Nuts were again berated as "wearing tin foil hats" worried about something that was "probably nothing worse than our government preparing for a disaster." Yea. Right.
Many of us knew something was up and whatever it was meant a lot of dead people.
Prepare to die; it's been planned and has begun
You and your family are about to be killed. Prepare yourselves. It has all been pre-planned and the plan has now begun.
Every once in awhile, those of us who watch the big picture and report to you that government is planning something REALLY bad, are vindicated. Such is the case right now.
In October, 2007, the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit. Millions of illegal aliens and others who had lied about their ability to repay loans had defaulted and those defaults were taking out the banks.
Credit dried up, a number of banks failed. The economy began to tank and companies started taking losses and laying off workers. There were storm clouds on the financial horizon and everyone knew it.
What few considered was that our government is already saddled with so much debt they cannot hope to afford another Great Depression. They don't have the funds to pay unemployment, welfare, food stamps, free medical care through medicaid and and they have zero chance of borrowing the money to provide it. So, the decision has been made to "cull the herd."
They have no choice but to kill off a whole slew of "useless eaters, most of whom live in our major cities. They know that unless they kill them off, there will be so much social chaos that the government will fall or be overthrown and they definitely don't want that to happen.
They laid the groundwork already. Want proof?
Last year, the government started running commercials TELLING YOU a flu pandemic was coming. Commercials just like this:
If that doesn't clue you in, then maybe this will:
Your Coffins Were Ordered
In January, 2008, news broke that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had ordered one million plastic burial vaults that can hold 6 bodies each, and that an Alabama company - Polyguard Vaults - had begun manufacturing them. Folks laughed at guys like me when we reported such news. They called us "conspiracy nuts."
About six or seven months later, in July, 2008 news broke about 500,000 "burial vaults" sitting in an open field in Georgia. Folks heard about them HERE and got to see them via Google Satellite maps like this: (use the + inside the image to zoom-in)
View Larger Map
Still unconvinced, the skeptical then got to see actual video of the coffins as shown below:
We who were previously derided as Conspiracy Nuts were again berated as "wearing tin foil hats" worried about something that was "probably nothing worse than our government preparing for a disaster." Yea. Right.
Many of us knew something was up and whatever it was meant a lot of dead people.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
An Honest Look at “Light” vs. “Heavy” Training
Ever heard this one in the gym? “I’m just going easy today; yesterday was my ‘heavy’ day.” Those few words point to a plethora of misconceptions and false premises that thwart maximum muscle growth and can even lead to a loss of both strength and muscle mass.
It’s not that “light” or “heavy” are the right or wrong ways to train. It’s that you need to know exactly what you are trying to get out of your training in order to choose the right workout.
Your body responds to exercise in a similar way it responds to any other stress. It makes an adaptation so future stresses are less, well, stressful. For example, if you go out into bright sunshine today your light skin is pushed to the limits of its ability to protect you. It will adapt by darkening into a tan, so tomorrow the same amount of sunlight is less stressful to your body.
Similarly, you make muscle building progress by pushing your muscles to the limits of their ability to work. They adapt by increasing in size and power so the identical workout is less stressful next time.
The Invisible Line
The trick is finding the “invisible line” between a workout that is stressful enough to trigger new muscle growth and a workout that is not. We all understand that a day spent in the shade is not going to deepen our suntan, but do we truly understand that a “light day” of weight lifting will not increase our muscle? Because I assure you, it won’t.
To help visualize this very important and fundamental concept, imagine that your level of strength could be measured on a scale of 1 to 100. The number 100 represents the absolute limit of how strong you could become if everything possible was done perfectly to build your muscles.
Let’s say today your strength scores 35 on that scale. Now let us suppose that if you work your muscles to within 5 points of your maximum you will generate 2 points worth of new lean, hard muscle.
Now, it’s all very simple and clear. If today’s workout pushes past “30” in intensity of work done, then your strength level will grow to 37. Wow! A productive workout! But in your next workout you will have to push past “32” (5 points from your new maximum) in order to trigger even more muscle growth. If you do that “30” workout again, or, God forbid, a “light” day of say “18”, you don’t have a prayer of generating new muscle. So, what would be the point of the workout?
"You Can’t Train Heavy All the Time"
This leads us to something else you might have heard in the gym. “You can’t train heavy all the time.” I hear that refrain every time I try to explain the concept in the last paragraph. But what people really mean when they say that is, “I love to lift weights 3 or 4 days a week and I can’t train heavy that often.” Yes, very true. And I can’t get my hair cut 3 times a week just because I like going to the barber.
Reality check: Do you want to lift weights or do you want to build muscle?
The fact is you can’t train heavy all the time, but you can train heavy every time. But because your body needs time to recover from heavy, productive, muscle building exercise you need to add more time off between workouts. Our man in the above example can do a workout that is a 37…then one that is a 40…then one that is a 41, if he takes enough time off between workouts. That’s the way you work your way up to 100. That’s the way everyone has to do it. It’s a physiological law.
There is a concept that can really help unlock the secret to all of this: Perceived Effort. Hypothetically, if your level of strength is “28” then a “26” workout feels extremely intense and demanding. But if your strength level is “88” and you perform an “86” workout the perceived effort is identical! As you get stronger your workout intensity increases, but your perceived effort stays the same! That’s great news because it means you don’t really have to psych yourself for more and more difficult workouts…just the same level of perceived effort every time.
One Real Benefit of Light Training
You can see that the guy performing a “light day” is pretty much wasting his time. There is no possibility whatsoever that his light workout can trigger new muscle growth. In fact, if his last workout was productive his body will be in recovery mode and will need to fully recover before the new muscle growth will manifest. And doing another workout the next day – even a light one – will only slow down recovery.
Personally, I think the main reason guys go to the gym for “light workouts” is just so they can watch that cute blonde on the Stairmaster. The gym, for many guys, is what the local bar is for others: a place to meet and socialize. People have taken their psychological need for visiting the gym and rationalized it into a training method of frequent “light days” without regard to the physiological facts of the matter.
But, all that said, there is one tangible and valid benefit of lighter training. Stress relief. Speaking for myself, I tend to carry stress in the muscles of my lower back and my neck and traps. If I do a few deadlifts and shrugs I get instant relief. I only need to use 30 or 40 percent of my maximum to get this stress relieving benefit. The best part is that if I keep the perceived effort very low I know I’m not slowing down my recovery too much. The stress relief and mild endorphin release makes it a pretty good bargain. But I don’t kid myself that I’m building muscle. I know that takes truly grueling effort.
So, do you want to get the best of both worlds? Plan your productive, muscle building workouts far enough apart to ensure a steady climb to that “100” that represents your full genetic potential. And when you really need some stress relief and a shot of endorphins, you can do a few lifts at about 30% of your capacity without slowing down your overall progress too much.
Train with your brain,
It’s not that “light” or “heavy” are the right or wrong ways to train. It’s that you need to know exactly what you are trying to get out of your training in order to choose the right workout.
Your body responds to exercise in a similar way it responds to any other stress. It makes an adaptation so future stresses are less, well, stressful. For example, if you go out into bright sunshine today your light skin is pushed to the limits of its ability to protect you. It will adapt by darkening into a tan, so tomorrow the same amount of sunlight is less stressful to your body.
Similarly, you make muscle building progress by pushing your muscles to the limits of their ability to work. They adapt by increasing in size and power so the identical workout is less stressful next time.
The Invisible Line
The trick is finding the “invisible line” between a workout that is stressful enough to trigger new muscle growth and a workout that is not. We all understand that a day spent in the shade is not going to deepen our suntan, but do we truly understand that a “light day” of weight lifting will not increase our muscle? Because I assure you, it won’t.
To help visualize this very important and fundamental concept, imagine that your level of strength could be measured on a scale of 1 to 100. The number 100 represents the absolute limit of how strong you could become if everything possible was done perfectly to build your muscles.
Let’s say today your strength scores 35 on that scale. Now let us suppose that if you work your muscles to within 5 points of your maximum you will generate 2 points worth of new lean, hard muscle.
Now, it’s all very simple and clear. If today’s workout pushes past “30” in intensity of work done, then your strength level will grow to 37. Wow! A productive workout! But in your next workout you will have to push past “32” (5 points from your new maximum) in order to trigger even more muscle growth. If you do that “30” workout again, or, God forbid, a “light” day of say “18”, you don’t have a prayer of generating new muscle. So, what would be the point of the workout?
"You Can’t Train Heavy All the Time"
This leads us to something else you might have heard in the gym. “You can’t train heavy all the time.” I hear that refrain every time I try to explain the concept in the last paragraph. But what people really mean when they say that is, “I love to lift weights 3 or 4 days a week and I can’t train heavy that often.” Yes, very true. And I can’t get my hair cut 3 times a week just because I like going to the barber.
Reality check: Do you want to lift weights or do you want to build muscle?
The fact is you can’t train heavy all the time, but you can train heavy every time. But because your body needs time to recover from heavy, productive, muscle building exercise you need to add more time off between workouts. Our man in the above example can do a workout that is a 37…then one that is a 40…then one that is a 41, if he takes enough time off between workouts. That’s the way you work your way up to 100. That’s the way everyone has to do it. It’s a physiological law.
There is a concept that can really help unlock the secret to all of this: Perceived Effort. Hypothetically, if your level of strength is “28” then a “26” workout feels extremely intense and demanding. But if your strength level is “88” and you perform an “86” workout the perceived effort is identical! As you get stronger your workout intensity increases, but your perceived effort stays the same! That’s great news because it means you don’t really have to psych yourself for more and more difficult workouts…just the same level of perceived effort every time.
One Real Benefit of Light Training
You can see that the guy performing a “light day” is pretty much wasting his time. There is no possibility whatsoever that his light workout can trigger new muscle growth. In fact, if his last workout was productive his body will be in recovery mode and will need to fully recover before the new muscle growth will manifest. And doing another workout the next day – even a light one – will only slow down recovery.
Personally, I think the main reason guys go to the gym for “light workouts” is just so they can watch that cute blonde on the Stairmaster. The gym, for many guys, is what the local bar is for others: a place to meet and socialize. People have taken their psychological need for visiting the gym and rationalized it into a training method of frequent “light days” without regard to the physiological facts of the matter.
But, all that said, there is one tangible and valid benefit of lighter training. Stress relief. Speaking for myself, I tend to carry stress in the muscles of my lower back and my neck and traps. If I do a few deadlifts and shrugs I get instant relief. I only need to use 30 or 40 percent of my maximum to get this stress relieving benefit. The best part is that if I keep the perceived effort very low I know I’m not slowing down my recovery too much. The stress relief and mild endorphin release makes it a pretty good bargain. But I don’t kid myself that I’m building muscle. I know that takes truly grueling effort.
So, do you want to get the best of both worlds? Plan your productive, muscle building workouts far enough apart to ensure a steady climb to that “100” that represents your full genetic potential. And when you really need some stress relief and a shot of endorphins, you can do a few lifts at about 30% of your capacity without slowing down your overall progress too much.
Train with your brain,
Friday, April 17, 2009
White House demands, cover a cross during a Presidential speech
Group Rejects White House 'Explanation' for Banning Faith at Georgetown Speech
WASHINGTON, April 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- Calling the Obama administration the most anti-religion administration in American history, the national advocacy group, In God We Trust, today rejected a public explanation from the White House about its demand that Georgetown University cover a cross and the Roman Catholic abbreviation for Jesus during a Presidential speech this week.
"The White House's claim that officials did not mean to cover up these important symbols during the speech at Georgetown is typical political baloney aimed at defusing a firestorm of criticism from Americans who are fed up with the President's hostility towards faith," says Bishop Council Nedd, In God We Trust's Chairman. "Barack Obama is the most anti-religious President in our nation's history."
Earlier this week White House officials demanded that a cross and the religious abbreviation "IHS" in Georgetown's Gaston Hall be covered up before the President delivered a speech on the economy. When questioned about the order, a White House spokesman yesterday said, "Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. "
"This excuse is ridiculous," adds Nedd. "This administration didn't want to offend its left-wing base by having the President appear and be photographed in front religious icons. President Obama is again pandering to anti-religious activists within his own party."
The scandal at Georgetown is just the latest attack on faith in American public life. The administration is the first in American history to include atheist activists in policy planning meetings. In January, the President picked Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to head the Democratic National Committee despite Kaine's policy of banning state police chaplains from invoking the name of Jesus in their prayers. More recently, the President nominated Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton is a steadfast opponent of prayer in public. Additionally the President appointed professional political activist and Catholic- basher Harry Knox, to his Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
In God We Trust has launched a $1 million grass- roots campaign to fight back against the Obama administration anti-religious policies and appointments.
In God We Trust is a national advocacy organization with over 70,000 supporters of various faiths. Council Nedd is a traditional Episcopal priest and serves as the Bishop of the Chesapeake and Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church. In God We Trust can be found on the Internet at www.InGodWeTrustUSA.org.
Christian Newswire
WASHINGTON, April 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- Calling the Obama administration the most anti-religion administration in American history, the national advocacy group, In God We Trust, today rejected a public explanation from the White House about its demand that Georgetown University cover a cross and the Roman Catholic abbreviation for Jesus during a Presidential speech this week.
"The White House's claim that officials did not mean to cover up these important symbols during the speech at Georgetown is typical political baloney aimed at defusing a firestorm of criticism from Americans who are fed up with the President's hostility towards faith," says Bishop Council Nedd, In God We Trust's Chairman. "Barack Obama is the most anti-religious President in our nation's history."
Earlier this week White House officials demanded that a cross and the religious abbreviation "IHS" in Georgetown's Gaston Hall be covered up before the President delivered a speech on the economy. When questioned about the order, a White House spokesman yesterday said, "Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. "
"This excuse is ridiculous," adds Nedd. "This administration didn't want to offend its left-wing base by having the President appear and be photographed in front religious icons. President Obama is again pandering to anti-religious activists within his own party."
The scandal at Georgetown is just the latest attack on faith in American public life. The administration is the first in American history to include atheist activists in policy planning meetings. In January, the President picked Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to head the Democratic National Committee despite Kaine's policy of banning state police chaplains from invoking the name of Jesus in their prayers. More recently, the President nominated Judge David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton is a steadfast opponent of prayer in public. Additionally the President appointed professional political activist and Catholic- basher Harry Knox, to his Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
In God We Trust has launched a $1 million grass- roots campaign to fight back against the Obama administration anti-religious policies and appointments.
In God We Trust is a national advocacy organization with over 70,000 supporters of various faiths. Council Nedd is a traditional Episcopal priest and serves as the Bishop of the Chesapeake and Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church. In God We Trust can be found on the Internet at www.InGodWeTrustUSA.org.
Christian Newswire
Friday, March 6, 2009
Harvard Med School: The Best Money Can Buy...
Drugs and money Managing Editor's Note: Students at the nation's most "esteemed" med school learn that many doctors are no longer healers - they are dealers. Remember though, vaccines don't count. A doctor can ride into the med school parking lot on a solid gold syringe with the Merck logo on the plunger and The Times will take no notice. No ethics issues there. Nope.
BOSTON — In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.
Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty, but a paid consultant to 10 drug companies, including five makers of cholesterol treatments.
“I felt really violated,” Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. “Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be.” Read the full article in The New York Times HERE http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html?ref=business
BOSTON — In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.
Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty, but a paid consultant to 10 drug companies, including five makers of cholesterol treatments.
“I felt really violated,” Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. “Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be.” Read the full article in The New York Times HERE http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html?ref=business
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
GM Food Animals Coming
Institute of Science in Society
Foods derived from genetically modified animals are likely to be contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators, and growth hormones, as well as nucleic acids, viruses, and bacteria that have the potential to create pathogens and to trigger cancer
Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Heritable versus non-heritable modifications
The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the United Nations is preparing guidelines for safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals [1], which is a sure sign that GM animal food is coming to our table.
Codex distinguishes between heritable and non-heritable genetic modification of food animals. Heritable genetic modification involves genetic changes that persist in sperm and egg while non-heritable modification involves the introduction of modified genes such as vaccines into the somatic tissue of animals. Codex asks: “Are there specific food safety questions (e.g. with regard to types of vectors) that should be considered relative to the assessment of safety of food from animals containing heritable versus non-heritable traits?”
We present an overview of heritable and non-heritable modifications, which are not as distinct as Codex thinks, and point to risks that have not been seriously considered. This article is base on a report we submitted to Codex [2], Genetically Modified Food Animals Coming , which contains all the detailed references.
Heritable modifications
Heritable alteration or genetic modification (GM) of food animals has been achieved since the early 1980s, mostly by injecting naked DNA. Between 1 and 20 million copies of the transgene (gene to be integrated into the animal genome) are injected into the embryo pronucleus (the nucleus before fertilization) or into the egg cytoplasm, with at most about one percent of injected embryos becoming transgenic animals. The transgenes integrate randomly, though rare instances of homologous recombination with host genes may occur.
A number of different vectors have been used to deliver transgenes in animals. Transposons (mobile genetic units capable of transferring genes) are not widely used in vertebrates. Lentivirus (lenti-, Latin for “slow”), a genus of slow viruses of the Retroviridae family characterized by a long incubation period, can deliver a significant amount of genetic information into the DNA of the host cell, and are among the most efficient gene delivery vectors. HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus), and FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) are all examples of lentiviruses that have been used successfully with farm animals such as chicken, pig and cow. They are about 50 times more efficient than DNA injection at producing transgenic animals. One problem encountered is that the long terminal repeats of the integration vector interfere with the inserted gene's promoter. Homologous recombination has been used to produce specific gene “knock outs” by replacing an active gene with an inactive one. “Knock in” refers to the integration of a foreign gene at a specific target, disrupting the target gene by inserting the transgene.
Transgenes are designed according to rules that result in gene expression in the host animal, such as the presence of at least one intron, exclusion of GC rich regions, particularly CpG rich motifs. Gene sequences called insulators are often included; these contain transcription enhancers and enhancer blockers to avoid cross talk with adjacent genes, and chromosome openers that modify histones to allow the transcription machinery to be expressed. Finally, RNAi may be used to inactivate specific genes either as heritable transgenes or as non-heritable gene treatments. A vector based on HIV dramatically increased the efficiency of producing transgenic animals, thereby greatly reducing cost. Foetal fibroblast cells can be modified and then cloned to produce transgenic animals.
A novel approach was to transfect germ cell tissue in neonatal testis by electroporation, which was then grafted onto the backs of nude mice (nude mice are immune deficient and tolerate grafts from mammalian tissues). The nude mice, previously castrated, produced mature transgenic sperm that functioned well in in vitro fertilization to produce transgenic farm animals. The technique has been used successfully in cattle, pigs and even humans (though without producing an actual human as yet). The technique is promoted for humans as a means of allowing men requiring irradiation cancer treatment to set aside viable sperm for in vitro fertilization .
‘Improving' the nutritional value and health benefits of livestock
Transgenic clones of cattle producing milk with higher levels of beta casein and kappa casein proteins were created to improve emulsion, processing and heat stability. Rare natural forms of the caseins were used to transform embryonic fibroblasts, with as many as 84 copies of the genes integrated randomly in the genome, no doubt causing huge disruption. The fibroblasts were then used to produce clones of the cattle. Nine cows expressing the transgenes produced milk with up to 20 percent increase in beta-casein and double the level of kappa-casein. The overall health of the transgenic cattle was not discussed, let alone the health impacts of the milk used as food.
This is just one example in a whole range of genetically modified ‘neutraceuticals', animals and animal products that are supposed to provide enhanced nutritional value.
Cloned transgenic pigs have been produced rich in beneficial omega-3 fatty acids normally obtained by eating fish. The transgene consisted of a synthetic n-3 fatty acid desaturase from the roundworm C. elegans driven by an aggressive cytomegalovirus enhancer and chicken beta-actin promoter, accompanied by a selection marker gene for neomycin resistance. Such constructs are typical in attempts to make the transgenic animals over-express the gene product. Pig foetal fibroblasts were transformed and then used to clone transgenic pigs. The transgenic pigs produced high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and a significantly reduced ratio of n-6/n-3 fatty acids. As before, the overall health of the cloned transgenic pigs was not extensively discussed, nor the health impacts of the transgenic pig used as food.
Recombinant human protein C was expressed in the milk of cloned transgenic pigs, also created by transforming foetal pig fibroblasts. Human protein C is an anti-coagulant found in the blood, and serves as a therapy for many disease states. The transgenic pigs produced the therapeutic protein, which protected the pigs against blood clot, but with a risk of pulmonary embolism.
Pigs expressing an E. coli salivary phytase produced low phosphorus manure. Phytase increases the availability of feed phosphorous and decreases its release in manure, thereby eliminating environmental pollution by phosphorus.
Transgenic chickens expressing bacterial beta-galactosidase hydrolyze lactose in the intestine, using it as an energy source, which would have caused diarrhoea to normal chickens. Early chicken embryos were transformed using the spleen necrosis retrovirus vector (SNTZ) . SNTZ is an avian immunosuppressive retrovirus that infects non-replicating cells, not only of birds but of some mammals as well. It has an extraordinarily high mutation rate, and that is not a defect in the replication-deficient vector.
Transgenic fish
Transgenic fish are poised for commercial release. These will either be produced in confined land-locked ponds, fish pens in confined fjords or sounds, or released to open seas or lakes. Landlocked ponds provide protection from environmental release while fish pens are notoriously unreliable and tend to harbour sea lice or other parasites and pathogens. It would seem most prudent to limit production of transgenic fish, if at all, to landlocked ponds, to avoid or reduce the potentially deleterious impact of transgenic fish on the general environment.
Fish genes are most frequently used in producing transgenic fish, but it would be a mistake to regard the transgenic fish “substantially equivalent” to the native fish, as even the Codex consultation document acknowledges that, “transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to structural variants possessing altered immunogenicity.”
AquaBounty Inc. first applied to the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in 1999 to release a transgenic Atlantic salmon. The transgenic Atlantic salmon contains a Chinook salmon growth hormone gene driven by the ocean pout antifreeze promoter, resulting in a dramatic increase in growth rate. AquaBounty announces that it is also developing fast growing strains of fin fish known as AquAdvantage™ fish, capable of reducing growth to maturity time by as much as 50 percent. It is expecting FDA approval in 2006 and c ommercial launch in 2009. Scientists have expressed concerns over the release of sexually reproducing transgenic fish; realistic models show that it can lead to the extinction of both the natural and the transgenic population . AquaBounty has produced triploid transgenic Atlantic salmon supposed to be 100 percent sterile; however, the sterility may be “leaky”, and indeed some fertile animals have been produced [3] ( Floating Transgenic Fish in a Leaky Triploid Craft ) .
Transgenic Coho salmon, carp, tilapia and mud loach are all in the pipelines. The transgenic mud loach grew 35 times faster than the wild type fish, resulting in giant mud loaches that were ready for market after only 30 days.
Transgenic zebra fish have been sold in United States pet shops since 2003 [4] ( Transgenic Fish Coming ). The transgenic zebra fish were projected to be capable of over-wintering in US southern and south-western waters. FDA allowed the release of the zebra fish because the animals did not fall into their jurisdiction. As the animals have been released, their presence in the natural environment should be monitored as a model for the release of transgenic food fish.
Non-heritable modifications
Non-heritable modifications of food animals include a number of applications such as DNA vaccination, transgenic probiotic bacteria as vector for vaccines and growth hormones, using RNAi (RNA interference) for epigenetic modifications, and stem cell chimeric animals whose somatic tissue but not the germ cells are transgenic. Non- heritable alterations are taking place or being implemented without full review of the impact on food and the environment, mainly because they do not fall under the rubric of genetic modification.
Naked DNA vaccines
It has been shown since the 1990s that ingested foreign DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice. Since then, naked DNA has found many applications, especially as DNA vaccines. DNA vaccines can be applied by a variety of routes including intradermal, intravenous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, subcutaneous, sublinqual, intravaginal, intrarectal, via internasal inhalation, intranasal instillation, ocular and biolistic delivery. Gene vaccines are becoming commonplace and have the advantage of raising antibodies to a target antigen specifically. However, DNA immunization can stimulate florid local inflammation. DNA vaccines are commonly delivered in polyethyenimine complexes, where the plasmid DNA remains active in cells at least 12 days after injection.
DNA vaccines are used in both farm animals and fish, and there has been no study on whether there is any carry over of the vaccine DNA into food prepared from vaccinated animals.
DNA vaccines have been created against pork tapeworms in pigs, bovine herpes virus 1 in cattle, and mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in cows.
A recombinant plasmid DNA vaccine was made to control infectious bursal disease of young chickens characterized by immunosuppression and mortality generally at 3 to 6 weeks of age..
A recombinant plasmid DNA vaccine was prepared to control viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a systemic infection of various salmonid and a few non-salmonid fishes caused by a rhabdovirus (a single stranded RNA virus). A DNA vaccine was made to protect against Mycobacterium marinum that causes tuberculosis in fish and shellfish and cutaneous lesions in humans.
Foods derived from genetically modified animals are likely to be contaminated by potent vaccines, immune regulators, and growth hormones, as well as nucleic acids, viruses, and bacteria that have the potential to create pathogens and to trigger cancer
Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Heritable versus non-heritable modifications
The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the United Nations is preparing guidelines for safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals [1], which is a sure sign that GM animal food is coming to our table.
Codex distinguishes between heritable and non-heritable genetic modification of food animals. Heritable genetic modification involves genetic changes that persist in sperm and egg while non-heritable modification involves the introduction of modified genes such as vaccines into the somatic tissue of animals. Codex asks: “Are there specific food safety questions (e.g. with regard to types of vectors) that should be considered relative to the assessment of safety of food from animals containing heritable versus non-heritable traits?”
We present an overview of heritable and non-heritable modifications, which are not as distinct as Codex thinks, and point to risks that have not been seriously considered. This article is base on a report we submitted to Codex [2], Genetically Modified Food Animals Coming , which contains all the detailed references.
Heritable modifications
Heritable alteration or genetic modification (GM) of food animals has been achieved since the early 1980s, mostly by injecting naked DNA. Between 1 and 20 million copies of the transgene (gene to be integrated into the animal genome) are injected into the embryo pronucleus (the nucleus before fertilization) or into the egg cytoplasm, with at most about one percent of injected embryos becoming transgenic animals. The transgenes integrate randomly, though rare instances of homologous recombination with host genes may occur.
A number of different vectors have been used to deliver transgenes in animals. Transposons (mobile genetic units capable of transferring genes) are not widely used in vertebrates. Lentivirus (lenti-, Latin for “slow”), a genus of slow viruses of the Retroviridae family characterized by a long incubation period, can deliver a significant amount of genetic information into the DNA of the host cell, and are among the most efficient gene delivery vectors. HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus), and FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) are all examples of lentiviruses that have been used successfully with farm animals such as chicken, pig and cow. They are about 50 times more efficient than DNA injection at producing transgenic animals. One problem encountered is that the long terminal repeats of the integration vector interfere with the inserted gene's promoter. Homologous recombination has been used to produce specific gene “knock outs” by replacing an active gene with an inactive one. “Knock in” refers to the integration of a foreign gene at a specific target, disrupting the target gene by inserting the transgene.
Transgenes are designed according to rules that result in gene expression in the host animal, such as the presence of at least one intron, exclusion of GC rich regions, particularly CpG rich motifs. Gene sequences called insulators are often included; these contain transcription enhancers and enhancer blockers to avoid cross talk with adjacent genes, and chromosome openers that modify histones to allow the transcription machinery to be expressed. Finally, RNAi may be used to inactivate specific genes either as heritable transgenes or as non-heritable gene treatments. A vector based on HIV dramatically increased the efficiency of producing transgenic animals, thereby greatly reducing cost. Foetal fibroblast cells can be modified and then cloned to produce transgenic animals.
A novel approach was to transfect germ cell tissue in neonatal testis by electroporation, which was then grafted onto the backs of nude mice (nude mice are immune deficient and tolerate grafts from mammalian tissues). The nude mice, previously castrated, produced mature transgenic sperm that functioned well in in vitro fertilization to produce transgenic farm animals. The technique has been used successfully in cattle, pigs and even humans (though without producing an actual human as yet). The technique is promoted for humans as a means of allowing men requiring irradiation cancer treatment to set aside viable sperm for in vitro fertilization .
‘Improving' the nutritional value and health benefits of livestock
Transgenic clones of cattle producing milk with higher levels of beta casein and kappa casein proteins were created to improve emulsion, processing and heat stability. Rare natural forms of the caseins were used to transform embryonic fibroblasts, with as many as 84 copies of the genes integrated randomly in the genome, no doubt causing huge disruption. The fibroblasts were then used to produce clones of the cattle. Nine cows expressing the transgenes produced milk with up to 20 percent increase in beta-casein and double the level of kappa-casein. The overall health of the transgenic cattle was not discussed, let alone the health impacts of the milk used as food.
This is just one example in a whole range of genetically modified ‘neutraceuticals', animals and animal products that are supposed to provide enhanced nutritional value.
Cloned transgenic pigs have been produced rich in beneficial omega-3 fatty acids normally obtained by eating fish. The transgene consisted of a synthetic n-3 fatty acid desaturase from the roundworm C. elegans driven by an aggressive cytomegalovirus enhancer and chicken beta-actin promoter, accompanied by a selection marker gene for neomycin resistance. Such constructs are typical in attempts to make the transgenic animals over-express the gene product. Pig foetal fibroblasts were transformed and then used to clone transgenic pigs. The transgenic pigs produced high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and a significantly reduced ratio of n-6/n-3 fatty acids. As before, the overall health of the cloned transgenic pigs was not extensively discussed, nor the health impacts of the transgenic pig used as food.
Recombinant human protein C was expressed in the milk of cloned transgenic pigs, also created by transforming foetal pig fibroblasts. Human protein C is an anti-coagulant found in the blood, and serves as a therapy for many disease states. The transgenic pigs produced the therapeutic protein, which protected the pigs against blood clot, but with a risk of pulmonary embolism.
Pigs expressing an E. coli salivary phytase produced low phosphorus manure. Phytase increases the availability of feed phosphorous and decreases its release in manure, thereby eliminating environmental pollution by phosphorus.
Transgenic chickens expressing bacterial beta-galactosidase hydrolyze lactose in the intestine, using it as an energy source, which would have caused diarrhoea to normal chickens. Early chicken embryos were transformed using the spleen necrosis retrovirus vector (SNTZ) . SNTZ is an avian immunosuppressive retrovirus that infects non-replicating cells, not only of birds but of some mammals as well. It has an extraordinarily high mutation rate, and that is not a defect in the replication-deficient vector.
Transgenic fish
Transgenic fish are poised for commercial release. These will either be produced in confined land-locked ponds, fish pens in confined fjords or sounds, or released to open seas or lakes. Landlocked ponds provide protection from environmental release while fish pens are notoriously unreliable and tend to harbour sea lice or other parasites and pathogens. It would seem most prudent to limit production of transgenic fish, if at all, to landlocked ponds, to avoid or reduce the potentially deleterious impact of transgenic fish on the general environment.
Fish genes are most frequently used in producing transgenic fish, but it would be a mistake to regard the transgenic fish “substantially equivalent” to the native fish, as even the Codex consultation document acknowledges that, “transgenic expression of non-native proteins in plants may lead to structural variants possessing altered immunogenicity.”
AquaBounty Inc. first applied to the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in 1999 to release a transgenic Atlantic salmon. The transgenic Atlantic salmon contains a Chinook salmon growth hormone gene driven by the ocean pout antifreeze promoter, resulting in a dramatic increase in growth rate. AquaBounty announces that it is also developing fast growing strains of fin fish known as AquAdvantage™ fish, capable of reducing growth to maturity time by as much as 50 percent. It is expecting FDA approval in 2006 and c ommercial launch in 2009. Scientists have expressed concerns over the release of sexually reproducing transgenic fish; realistic models show that it can lead to the extinction of both the natural and the transgenic population . AquaBounty has produced triploid transgenic Atlantic salmon supposed to be 100 percent sterile; however, the sterility may be “leaky”, and indeed some fertile animals have been produced [3] ( Floating Transgenic Fish in a Leaky Triploid Craft ) .
Transgenic Coho salmon, carp, tilapia and mud loach are all in the pipelines. The transgenic mud loach grew 35 times faster than the wild type fish, resulting in giant mud loaches that were ready for market after only 30 days.
Transgenic zebra fish have been sold in United States pet shops since 2003 [4] ( Transgenic Fish Coming ). The transgenic zebra fish were projected to be capable of over-wintering in US southern and south-western waters. FDA allowed the release of the zebra fish because the animals did not fall into their jurisdiction. As the animals have been released, their presence in the natural environment should be monitored as a model for the release of transgenic food fish.
Non-heritable modifications
Non-heritable modifications of food animals include a number of applications such as DNA vaccination, transgenic probiotic bacteria as vector for vaccines and growth hormones, using RNAi (RNA interference) for epigenetic modifications, and stem cell chimeric animals whose somatic tissue but not the germ cells are transgenic. Non- heritable alterations are taking place or being implemented without full review of the impact on food and the environment, mainly because they do not fall under the rubric of genetic modification.
Naked DNA vaccines
It has been shown since the 1990s that ingested foreign DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice. Since then, naked DNA has found many applications, especially as DNA vaccines. DNA vaccines can be applied by a variety of routes including intradermal, intravenous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, subcutaneous, sublinqual, intravaginal, intrarectal, via internasal inhalation, intranasal instillation, ocular and biolistic delivery. Gene vaccines are becoming commonplace and have the advantage of raising antibodies to a target antigen specifically. However, DNA immunization can stimulate florid local inflammation. DNA vaccines are commonly delivered in polyethyenimine complexes, where the plasmid DNA remains active in cells at least 12 days after injection.
DNA vaccines are used in both farm animals and fish, and there has been no study on whether there is any carry over of the vaccine DNA into food prepared from vaccinated animals.
DNA vaccines have been created against pork tapeworms in pigs, bovine herpes virus 1 in cattle, and mastitis caused by Staphylococcus aureus in cows.
A recombinant plasmid DNA vaccine was made to control infectious bursal disease of young chickens characterized by immunosuppression and mortality generally at 3 to 6 weeks of age..
A recombinant plasmid DNA vaccine was prepared to control viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a systemic infection of various salmonid and a few non-salmonid fishes caused by a rhabdovirus (a single stranded RNA virus). A DNA vaccine was made to protect against Mycobacterium marinum that causes tuberculosis in fish and shellfish and cutaneous lesions in humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
