In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (source) It was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.
There is great news to report however, as this major GMO study has now been republished following its controversial retraction (under strong commercial pressure), with even more up to date information and a response to previous criticisms. You can read more about that here.
The study has now been published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)
The chronic toxicity study examined the health impacts on rats of eating commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, alongside Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.
The study found severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances in rats fed with GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. Results also indicated high rates of large tumors and mortality in most treatment groups.
“We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science, thus, we republish our paper.” – Seralini
“Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.” – Seralini
This study has now successfully passed through multiple rounds of rigorous peer review. Again, the study shows that Roundup-treated GM corn as well as the herbicide used on it increases cancer in rats. There are a number of studies that demonstrate the potential health risks of GM plants, this one in particular drew heavy criticism from industry scientists.
“The major criticisms of the Seralini manuscript were that the proper strain of rats was not used and their numbers were too small. Neither criticism is valid. The strain of rat is that which is required by the FDA for drug toxicology, and the toxic effects were unambiguously significant. In fact, Monsanto published a similar study in the same journal eight years before using the same number and strain of rats. Their study was for 90 days and claimed no harm. In contrast, the Seralini study was for two years and did not see any tumors until after nine months. Therefore, it is clear that the short 90-day feeding paradigm is not sufficiently long to detect the carcinogenic effects of GM products. It takes a long time before low-level exposure to environmental toxins affect health. For example, a recent associated press report documented the dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade. Given these facts, what was the justification of the editorial decision to retract the Seralini Manuscript?” (source)
Other Studies Regarding GMOs and Herbicides
There is a reason that multiple countries all over the world have been banning GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. More information is emerging everyday from scientists and researchers all over the world that clearly points to the fact that we just don’t know enough about GM’s to deem them totally safe for human consumption.
By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki (source)
Below is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote. For more information on this subject you can use the search bar on our website to find what you are looking for.
1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.
“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)
The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.
2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)
In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.
“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.” (2)
This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.
3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:
- Intestinal permeability
- Imbalanced gut bacteria
- Immune activation and allergic response
- Impaired digestion
- Damage to the intestinal wall
The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.
4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)
It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.
This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.
It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.
The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.
GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use
5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)
Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)
Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.
6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects. (7) (link might not work for some, if not you can access that report HERE)
Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report (7)
Here is a summary of the report:
- Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
- Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980′s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
- Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
- The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
- The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
- The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate
Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)
The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)
7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)
8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)
To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers. (10)
9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.
The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.
10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)
Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.
The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)
“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.” (12) (15)
(All other sources not listen here are highlighted throughout the article)
(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324
(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.
Anti-GMO scientist wins court order after attack.
French researcher Professor Giles-Eric Seralini and his team from the University of Caan made some startling discoveries when testing the long-term dangers of GMO’s.
They intended to look at the long term effects of eating genetically modified corn, that had been saturated with Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup.
Although there were primarily looking for evidence of toxicity in the lab rats they used in the study, another very apparent side effect made itself known.
The rats all started to develop huge tumors, and pictures of the unfortunate rats were shared many times in the media, due to how shocking the pictures appeared.
The power and influence of pro-GMO companies and, of course, Monsanto who won’t hear a bad word against genetically modified crops or their chemical pesticides soon got hold of the pictures, and they were not about to let Seralini ruin the GMO name.
A highly publicized media attack was launched on Seralini, led by former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman.
Hayes tried to explain the decision by saying that it was not ‘fraudulent or inaccurate’ but that it had been ‘inconclusive’, nothing to do with the fact that is was highly damaging to the GMO industry who had power and influence over him.
Thankfully, Seralini believed in his paper enough to fight back, and formed the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.
Unhappy that he had been mostly attacked over the pictures of the tumors, which he had never intended to be the create the media sensation that it did, he wanted people to focus on what he originally intended to look at – the toxicity of GMO’s and pesticides.
The team successfully sued Marianne Magazine and it’s feature journalist Jean-Claude Jaillet for his piece in which he claimed Seralini was guilty of “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce predetermined results”.
The lawsuit highlighted that it had been Henry Miller working on behalf of pro-GMO Forbes Magazine who had instigated the libelous claims and justice was served.
Sad though it is that Prof. Seralini had to take such drastic measure to simply be believed in the science world, it shows to what lengths the pro-GMO brigade are prepared to go to in order to continue their agenda.
Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today.
In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.
Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.
Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.
When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.
The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.
“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.”
– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.
Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification
Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”
This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.
Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.”
There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.
Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based
Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.
In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.”
Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”
Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.
How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?
These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”
Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”
Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.
Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.
How can a scientist make such a statement?
What do we have as a result? As Druker says:
Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.
Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):
By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.
This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “
Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.
A portion of the letter reads as following:
We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.
In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”
In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.
Druker says in response:
Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.
According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”
When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life. Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,” a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.
As Druker explains:
This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.
He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.
Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.
Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:
This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However, although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.
This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.
Druker goes on:
Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.
This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.
As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:
The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal (source)
“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False is an article that provides more examples when it comes to the truth about peer-reviewed research. That doesn’t mean it’s not legit, obviously a lot of it is. It’s no different with food science. Big food corporations have been putting out information that completely contradict a lot of other science that’s been published.
Here’s a great quote from the CDC Spider (CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). More than a dozen scientists came together a couple of years ago emphasizing the manipulation in the industry, although you probably never heard about it. It’s a problem in all areas of science.
“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have witnesses across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.”
You can read the rest of the letter here addressed to Carmen S. Villar, the Chief of Staff of the CDC at the time.
There are loads of examples; the approval of high fructose corn syrup (sugar), processed meats, and packaging that is full of hormone disrupting chemicals. Artificial sweeteners being another. These, and more, are linked to a variety of diseases and surrounded in controversy for the simple reason that the science speaks for itself, and the science used by the big food corporations and their close relationship with government is precisely why they are so commonly used. We’ve been made to think that these things are ok, when in reality, a large portion of the academic, health and science community continue to do their best to emphasize that they’re not.
It is, however, proving to be more difficult in learning of this information as big corporations and their close relationship with government and mainstream media makes sure we don’t come across this type of information. In fact, when questioning certain things, they make you feel like you are stupid to do so. We never hear of the narratives the corporate world does not want us to know, we have to dig for it, and that’s because they have tremendous amounts of power and influence to sway the public perception when it comes to certain developments, like Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
One thing that makes this even more evident is the relationships that big corporations, like Monsanto, have with the US government.
GMOs have come under scrutiny, but no matter who creates awareness of this and provides ample evidence of it, there is always a harsh reaction assuming that their questions and concerns are illegitimate. It’s similar to vaccine safety, and all of the science that’s emerged over the years showing cause for concern, the mainstream still makes those who question vaccine safety feel inferior and out of place for even asking questions.
It’s not right, and the day science stops asking questions is the day we’ve drifted far from real science.
There are countless examples of concerns raised with genetically modified organisms, and why they should not be deemed completely safe for human consumption. The common narrative is that the overall scientific consensus/majority agree that GMOs are safe, but this simply isn’t true. There are hundreds of scientists sharing their concerns, and it just seems as though all we see are GMO safety campaigns and efforts constantly sharing the idea and overall consensus that they are safe, but that doesn’t seem to be true..
If they were safe, there wouldn’t be so many concerns. Let’s take a look at one study that caused a lot of controversy, the Séralini study.
The Séralini Study
In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University (source). It was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.
There are no long term studies examining GMOs, Séralini’s study is the first and only of its kind.
In the study, 100 female and 100 male rats were used . In both sets, some rats were fed NK603, some the GM maize sprayed with Roundup, and the third group was given drinking water with the lowest permissible limit of Roundup. A fourth, control group was fed a standard diet of the closest variety of non-GM maize.
According to the peer-reviewed paper published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal from the reputed Elsevier stable, rats that fed on NK603 or given water containing Roundup died much earlier than the rats in the control group and developed hormonal and sex-related effects. Females developed significant mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems, while males died mostly from severe kidney failure. Up to 50 per cent of the male rats and 70 per cent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 per cent and 20 per cent in the control group.
This would, and should, basically mark the end of GMOs, along with all of the other studies that have raised other concerns and have seen strong correlations between GMOs and multiple diseases. Here is one of multiple examples.
The study was then re-published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)
After the study was retracted, there were more than a hundred notable scientists who came forward to oppose the retraction, calling it an industry retraction. We’ll touch more on that below.
Again, as illustrated above, manipulation of science isn’t new. Just take a look at the recent resignation of the CDC director, as well as the 16 scientists from the CDC who came forward saying that the corporate and political influence of science has gotten out of hand.
It’s all there for us to see, and when discussing science, fraud is rarely brought up and needs to be factored into the equation as one of multiple reasons why GMOs, and other substances, are highly questionable.
Another concerning fact about this study is that, if we look at urine samples, most of us are urinating out Glyphosate. We are eating these GMOs, combined with numerous numbers of pesticides within our blood stream.
There are countless amounts of harmful substances that can lead to cancer, this could be one of many factors in that equation and to help explain why cancer rates keep rising.
Hundreds of Notable Scientists Came Forward To Oppose The Retraction
Despite the fact that the news of the retraction and slandering of the study hit almost every single mainstream media news outlet, shaping the mass perception of it, a number of scientists, who I believe are in the majority, have supported Séralini’s work.
Professor Séralini was also honoured with the 2015 Whistleblower Award by the Federation of German Scientists and the German Section
“Prof Séralini received the award in recognition of his research demonstrating the toxic effects of Roundup herbicide on rats when administered at a low environmentally relevant dose over a long-term period. After the research was published, Prof Séralini was attacked in what the VDW and IALANA call “a vehement campaign by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry” as well as from the UK Science Media Centre. This smear campaign led to the retraction of his team’s paper by the first journal that published it. But Prof Séralini and his team fought back, countering the scientific arguments raised against their research and republishing their paper in another journal.”
Again, many international scientists and experts have expressed support for Séralini’s study and for open scientific debate based on the peer-reviewed publication system, but you won’t see a debate, because there is no sound argument from the opposing side.
A statement opposing the attacks, “Science et conscience”, signed by 140 French scientists, was published in the newspaper Le Monde.
“Such attacks on scientists who highlight risks of GM plants are normal. It’s always the same industry-linked GM proponents who immediately try to defame the critical studies and their authors in a concerted campaign. This is about money.” – Dr Angelika Hilbeck, a biologist at the ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), who said in a media interview that she takes Séralini’s findings “seriously”. Hilbeck was subjected to attacks similar to those leveled at Séralini after her team published research showing that GM maize harmed beneficial insects. (Battaglia D. Kritische Gentech-Forschung: “Hier geht es um viel Geld” [Crucial GM research: “This is about large sums of money”]. Tages Woche. 2 November 2012. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14451)
Hundreds of scientists and academics from around the world signed an open letter that supports Séralini’s research and sheds light on the way in which the GM approval process is rigged, which is backed up by the suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest. The letter states that an “honest, rational or scientific debate” is being made impossible.
Below are links to individual letters from 160 scientists, which were sent to the journal that published the original paper. These letters have been made public by Séralini’s research institute CRIIGEN:
Monsanto’s Secret Documents Show Massive Attack on Séralini’s Study
When the original study was retracted , it was done so by the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes. It was also coincidentally done after the appointment of a former Monsanto scientist, Richard E. Goodman, to the editorial board. Again the study was republished with all the criticisms addressed, but this only happened after the studies reputation was damaged due to the corporation, Monsanto.
Fast forward a few years later and secret internal Monsanto documents were released in 2017 by legal firms in the United States. In these documents, it was quite clear how Monsanto pressured Wallace Hayes, Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, to retract the study.
You can access those documents here.
10 Things You Need To Know About The Séralini Study
1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.
2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. See here: Why is this study important?
3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency of cancer increases with age.
5. Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.
6. If we argue that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe.
7. Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.
8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GM foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, and premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.
9. Long-term tests on GM foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.
10. GM foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in a number of studies.
Concluding Comments & Book Recommendation
Ask yourself: why are dozens upon dozens of countries across the world completely banning the import or growth of genetically modified foods in their countries? Several of them have already cited numerous environmental and human health concerns, and others have simply stated that they’d like to do more research.
Again, the corporate and political influence is huge. What we have here is fraud, not science, and clearly, the “majority,” as mainstream media would have you believe, and have most academics believe, are not “pro” GMO.
Another great example regarding the politicization of this issue comes from Wikileak documents, showing that the United States was threatening other countries to accept them.
Read more about it from The WikiLeaks Files: The World According To U.S. Empire
In 1996, Steven M. Druker did something very few Americans were doing then — learn the facts about the massive venture to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply. The problem of unawareness still exists today, but it’s getting much better thanks to activists like Druker.
Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.
He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit (2015). In the book, Druker provides details of his experience, and he’s also released the documents on his website showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws that the FDA made in its policy.
The book has some very impressive reviews. For example, David Schubert, Ph.D., molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies said that this “incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read.”
Stephen Naylor, Ph.D., CEO and Chariman of Mai Health Inc., an individual who spent 10 years as a Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and Pharmacology and the Mayo Clinic stated that Druker’s “meticulously documented, well crafted, and spell binding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us.”
The entire universe is made of energy, which vibrates at a certain frequency, and the vibration of that frequency determines its form. Although this is a well-known fact, the question is: How can you apply it to create more beauty and wellbeing in your life, and accelerate your personal evolution?
My answer is DNA activation, a method based on the fundamentals of vibration.
From its state of wholeness, the universe split into billions of galaxies, asteroids, and planets. In the human body, we call them cells, molecules and atoms, but the patterns of evolution and expansion are the same. The single cell goes from being one to two, then four, eight and so on, until the amazing ‘universe’ of the human body exists, where everything vibrates at a certain frequency, holding different expressions of form and structure within the unified whole.
There are certain laws within which these vibrations work, for example, Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, or the Law of Octaves, the functioning of energy within octaves of frequency. Since the entire universe is made of energy, including ourselves, our being also vibrates within octaves of frequency.
Your energy body is similar to a musical instrument, and what you’re doing is learning to master that instrument. As you become really good at playing those notes, as your life and your consciousness expands, you learn to access more octaves, and you can choose to play notes within a whole new set of octaves, or all of them. Like a musical instrument, the more notes and chords we know and use, the greater our potential to create.
Within the body system is a full octave of glands and organs that resonate on a certain frequency. When the white light of consciousness enters the body, it refracts and travels through seven different organs and glands with seven different frequencies. Each frequency regulates the characteristics and color of light emitted. For example, when the consciousness light enters the pineal gland, the energy emitted is violet due to the specific vibration of the gland. By that standard, our ‘bliss frequency’ – what we call The LumenOctave – is the light of consciousness experienced through the full octave of frequencies in the body: the seven frequencies plus the origin of the octave (the high ‘C’).
When your instrument is tuned to the “correct” frequency, amazing things happen. This is the state where we are most blissful, most beautiful, most thriving and most divine.
The Bliss Instinct
The guide that is going to take you to a journey of learning how to play this instrument is a very specific frequency within your body – your unique bliss frequency. Our bliss reflects our true beauty, true intelligence and evolutionary path, and drives us to be the most upgraded version of ourselves we can be.
Just the rays of the sunlight are broken down into multiple different colours, it’s the same with the bliss frequency. It’s a master frequency and certain glands within our body resonate a certain tone of that frequency. It’s important to understand this because when we are trying to heal our body, everything that we do ever has got to do with frequency, energy in some way, shape or form.
When you find yourself ill and you take a medicine or remedy, that medicine is a combination of certain things that remind your body of something that is missing. You’re giving your body a kind of frequency. Whether you turn to conventional medicine, homeopathic medicine, Chinese medicine, acupuncture or herbs, what you’re doing is trying to relate to the universe in a way that helps you find the antidote to your condition – the frequency that you need.
When you feel whole, it feels a certain way; everything is healthy, healed and harmonized. That frequency of the wholeness I believe is the frequency of love; the frequency of our bliss. It guides you to what supports your being, and what needs to be healed. So, when you acknowledge that something needs healing or you have a problem of some sort, what you’re doing is recognizing that something has been taken away from the blissful whole. You can then embark on the journey to find what is the missing piece and how you could fulfil it.
Healing the Emotional, Spiritual and Physical Body
A lot of Western reductionist medicine has been criticized for seeking only temporary solutions for symptoms, not causes. Nevertheless, Western medicine has its value; it is very good at diagnostics and emergency care, among many other things. However, it overlooks a very important spiritual element, the emotional factors that determine why the body functions the way it does, and why the mind functions the way it does.
Intrinsically, deep within, you are that whole, that love, that god frequency. As science has recently begun to acknowledge, the thoughts and feelings that make up your emotional body have a direct effect on the physical body and the expression of DNA. If we do not heal our spiritual body, it manifests as dis-ease in the physical body. For this reason, many of the issues we have in our lives cannot be resolved only with Western medicine, because even though symptoms may be physical, the solution is not only medical or physical, it is also spiritual and emotional.
Remember, it’s all interconnected, because we are holistic beings.
If you start believing that you are not that god frequency, your body feels the separation from its natural state of blissful being and sends out alarm bells about that false belief. As a result, something will invariably either go wrong physically in your body, or this detachment from the bliss instinct leads you to situations that perpetuate this detachment, such as a car accident, or a falling out with somebody that you love in your life. Our physical reality reflects back to us the frequency of our emotional and spiritual vibration.
Generally, you can track the root of any physical ailment back to what consciousness – life – is trying to teach you about where your focus and attention needs to go, to help you return to your natural state of bliss; to the truth that you are whole, healthy, healed and harmonized; that you are that blissful god frequency, always wanting to return to that place.
Vibrations: Bringing It All Together
From conception, our cells split into two during mitosis – representing the black and the white. That state of growth is only enough for a certain while, as we have only two colours to play with, painting black, white and grey. As consciousness embodied, we get bored, just like we did with black and white films, and our nature is to continue expanding and growing. A more complex body is the result.
As our growth continues, the single cell goes from being one to two, then four, eight and so on.We start recognizing that we want to incorporate more colours into the energy spectrum, splitting the black and white into an octave of colours – the eight different frequencies that comprise it. Different areas of the body begin to resonate and emanate these eight frequencies.
If we can master how to use those frequencies, we add colours to our pallet.
Why? Because we want to be better creators, better painters and musicians. We want to create vibrant realities, which are more interesting, more fun, more loving and more divine — worthy of a god or a goddess.
The activation of the body’s energy centers is not just for the purposes of healing, it is also for the purposes of evolution. Once you have the tools to paint, you aren’t just limited to using that paint to cover up a little dent or a spot on the wall, you can use that paint to create beautiful pictures; to expand, and grow, and evolve. You heal first, but then you can use the tools to play with those frequencies, and create realities with it.
I started this process by recognizing that light, sound, sensations are all interrelated, and that there are various other vibrational patterns that play by the same rules of the octave.
If you take each gland that is responsible for emanating specific frequency and present it with a reminder (vibrations, sounds, specific foods, medicines etc.) of what its true natural vibrational frequency is, this jogs its memory and helps it return to its natural state, the state in which it is the most healthy and most vibrant. As you provide the gland with the ‘antidote’ – the frequency that you need – and it starts functioning in its super-state.
For example, if you take a heart that doesn’t know how to experience love (most of us know what incredible energies this organ generates) and you give it love from all different directions, it is reminded what its natural frequency is and (as science has proven) the body responds by releasing dis-ease and returning to its natural state.
But evolution doesn’t stop there; with the proper support, your body’s evolution will keep evolving past its superstate. Remember, the same frequencies also exist on different sections of the scale, just like a piano. The vibration of the Middle C on a piano is repeated as High C and Low C within the other octaves, each producing a tone that resonates that C vibration. Once you have explored the range of frequencies (notes) within the ‘middle’ octave, there are plenty more octaves to explore.
The more pure, strong and ready your body is, the more frequencies your body can absorb to activate your LumenOctave to its full potential. And then the game of life gets even more interesting.
When we experience ‘bliss’, we are tuning into the state of consciousness that is experienced through the full activation of frequencies in the body. When we are aligned with our bliss instinct, we feel good. Some people associate bliss with a sexual feeling; to me it is much more – it is the expression of the language of the soul. It is a heightened state of sensation, when there is fullness in presence, completeness in being, and (more than anything) less thinking and more feeling.
And that’s really the goal of holistic living; to get to a place where that sensation of happiness and bliss is at the core of your life, and everything else (blissful or otherwise) revolves around its center. However, we can all testify that this is not how we live our lives and it is not how we have been taught to live our lives. For this reason, it is important to our spiritual development that we start questioning our limiting beliefs and consciously decide if they are the best ones for our overall growth and happiness.
To help you tune into your bliss frequency, I’m going to ask you to do a very simple exercise because a lot of the things about our happiness and bliss start with absolute simplicity. Rate your bliss level now, from a scale 1 to 10.
And now tune into a time, when you felt very blissful. It could be a time when you graduated or met someone that you love, had a baby, got a promotion in a career that you really cherish – whatever it may be. Go to that moment. I’m not asking you what you think, I’m asking you to remember how it felt. Can you tap into that feeling?
Now go deeper into a state of extreme bliss – it could be something unimaginable, or something that is not even in the realm of possibility. It could be that you are flying, or going on a space mission – something that is really ‘far out’, that you feel you would love to do, but not something that you are pursuing right now. Tune into that experience and feel the feeling. Now rate your bliss again.
Now feel into a moment where you were very sad, or when you felt numb or depressed, or energetically very dense; when you felt stuck, like things weren’t working for you. Now tune into how your body feels, and rate your bliss.
You get the idea? There is a very distinct connection between the body and bliss. Can you see this connection?
The body is the very vehicle that enables us to experience the sensation of bliss. We feel it in our physicality. This body/bliss connection is a vital element of our being to tune into and hone if we want to feel blissful and live blissful lives.
Bliss or bust?
One of the most common ways people seek to increasing their happiness is through psychotherapy, which involves going back and looking at all the different programs in your life. You look at everything that has happened in the past; how you were hurt, how your family, your schoolmates, your colleagues and your friends treated you. It centers on revisiting trauma and pain.
This reflective kind of process has its value, but the problem is that our minds do not distinguish between our thoughts and our actual experience. When we start paging through the chapters in our life trying to look for the things that veered us from the path of bliss, we dwell in those experiences and further embed the negative vibration in our bodies. It can also seem to take an equal amount of time to reassess the life that you have lived as it actually took you to live it! So if you are going back through 30 years of pain and programming at the age of thirty, you are going to be almost 60 years old before you have been able to examine every moment of programming and pain that brought you to that point.
It takes a lot of time and energy to approach the healing process as a purely mental exercise, re-living every event that may have taken you away from your bliss and inner power. And as our emotions and our physical experience of bliss are so intimately connected, for many, the process of psychotherapy is never actually complete.
The other way we can approach this kind of healing is to look at every reason that we have to be grateful, and to focus on what makes us blissful today. When we focus less on all the things that we are unhappy with and focus more on the things that make us feel grateful, we train ourselves to be happy with what we have and to find the bliss in the current moment — instead of dwelling in the pain of our past. There are many exercises like affirmations, meditations, mindfulness, gratitude and contentment exercises, as well as energetic healing modalities that can help us get back to our place of feeling better and re-aligning our mind and body to our bliss instinct (remember, it’s all connected).
Healing is all about getting to a place where we are feeling better, not worse, and where you focus your energy plays an enormous part in this.
At the end of the day, regardless of what you are pursuing, you are trying to get to a place where you feel fulfilled and happy. And certainly, if you don’t think that that’s the truth for you, it’s something worth looking at.
What else are you seeking besides bliss? If you aren’t seeking bliss, isn’t there something missing?
What is missing is the body.
Cleaning the lens
Since the body is the lens through which we are experiencing life, if we are not seeking bliss in our choices, we are blocking the light of our soul and our spirit to come through the body. When the lens of the body is dirty, the projection of our reality is clouded and dense. It is not pleasurable or blissful, and we experience feelings of depression, and things being ‘off’. We do not feel aligned, happy, joyful or ‘in the flow’, and we do not feel powerful. We become irritated. We feel like we don’t have enough time, or enough freedom, and all sort of frustrations settle in.
There are countless ways in which the body, the vessel that holds the consciousness of your bliss, becomes blocked. The feelings and emotions that you have picked up from past programming and experiences in your past are all stored within the DNA of your body. And this blocked energy within the physical body can start manifesting in all different areas in our lives.
This understanding is very important because not only provides us a clear view of the problem, it also provides us the remedy.
There is a universal intelligence within you that can reveal to you what is the ‘false code’ of experiential programming, and what is supportive of your bliss. There is also a way to press the ‘purge’ or ‘reset’ button, instead of having to go through all the different lines of code embedded in your DNA (or decades of psychotherapy!)
So if you were able to purge the physical body of that which is not working for you, wouldn’t you do it?
Working directly with the DNA and the body’s emotional intelligence is the most the efficient way to get rid of the emotional vibrations that are not effective in your life. When you start going deeper into the functioning of bliss on a physical level – the neuro-anatomy of bliss – there are hormones in the body that generate sensations. These hormones generate sexual sensations, and sensation of love and bliss. There are hormones that tell us to care for our child, and there are hormones that tell us to eat when we are hungry.
Through these hormonal sensations, our body is constantly communicating to us what we need to make ourselves balanced and blissful.
Upgrade your sensory reality
The key is in merging with your physical body, which means you’re going to have to upgrade your sensory reality. The sensations that are coming out from the glands have to be in their natural state and not a programmed state. We have to re-learn the programs that are true to our nature so we can return back to what it feels like in our activated, fully vibrant state.
The body is simply an instrument through which the soul expresses itself, so the better we get at using it the greater the possibilities we enable. Like a musical instrument, the more notes and chords we know and use, the greater our potential to create.
Within the body is a full octave of glands and organs that resonate on a certain frequency. When the white light of consciousness enters the body, it refracts and travels through seven different organs and glands with seven different frequencies. Each frequency regulates the characteristics and color of light emitted. For example, when the consciousness light enters the pineal gland, the energy emitted is violet due to the specific vibration of the gland. By that standard, our ‘bliss frequency’ – what we call The LumenOctave – is the light of consciousness experienced through the full octave of frequencies in the body: the seven frequencies plus the origin of the octave (the high ‘c’).
When the instrument is tuned to the “correct” frequency, amazing things happen. This is the state where we are most blissful, most beautiful, most thriving and most divine. It is a deeply felt, tactile sensation that is released in the physical body when we follow our own unique energetic path. Even simple changes can help us cultivate and live in the Bliss frequency, if we learn to feel not just our emotional responses but our body’s tactile responses as well. Tuning into your body’s feelings will guide the way and never steer you wrong.
Once we tune into our body’s subtle responses, and let them guide our experiences, our body begins to returns to its healthy natural state. The organs and systems receive healing bliss vibrations, which takes organs from trying to “get by” to “healed” to “thriving”. As our body begins to function according to its innate intelligence, we find ourselves living in alignment with our ‘bliss instinct’ – and our body responds by producing oxytocin, the bliss hormone.
Oxytocin: the bliss hormone
Oxytocin, the bliss hormone, is also known as the love hormone or the bonding hormone. It plays an important role in our social bonding, our happiness and sense of wellbeing. It helps to create an holistic and sustainable sense of goodness and wholeness; the special kind of happiness that you feel when you are safe and you are loved, when you are surrounded by people that care for you, when you know that you are secure and well fed, and you know that everything in life is in it’s ‘right place’.
Editor’s note: This article refers to oxytocin, a natural hormone produced by the human body. Oxytocin should not be confused with OxyContin/Oxycodone, a pharmaceutical opioid with similar effects to morphine.
Oxytocin directly affects behaviors like social recognition, pair bonding, orgasms, and is a major hormonal component of the maternal instinct that helps mothers to bond with their babies, triggering all kinds of hormonal, emotional and behavioral interaction between mother and child.
The interesting thing about the oxytocin hormone is that it is released by the hypothalamus, which is the ‘master’ gland that in turn triggers the production of other hormones in the body. When we activate the hypothalamus, it then activates the pituitary gland, which then sends signals to other glands within the body – the adrenals, the thyroid, and the gonads – which in turn, are also connected via hormonal feedback loops. These hormones work with one another to make sure that your body is well regulated and functioning at its peak — and it all starts at the hypothalamus with the release of oxytocin, the love hormone.
In this way, love can be seen as literally the regulating force in our lives. So, why not use that sensation of love and bliss (or absence of it) to teach us what we need to do to get our body back into shape, back into energetic balance.
The key to returning our body to its natural state is coded within the bliss frequency. We all inherently have this code within us, it’s just a matter of learning to access it and use it to our advantage. Like our DNA, our consciousness plays an active role in determining when and how our glandular system works. When we learn to sense these feelings in our body, we can begin to activate the glands, the hormones and the sensations, and bring the frequency of love in our physical being.
The natural state
What is the natural state? What are the things that are stopping these natural functions from happening? What is the real ‘junk in your trunk’?
The natural state of our being is a balanced state of homeostasis. It’s the state where the body’s ecosystem is functioning at its fullest, all the glands and organs are working at their best potential, all processes are being triggered in perfect compliment. In this state, the endocrine (hormone) system triggers the lymphatic system, the digestive system, the reproductive system, and everything is working at a perfect harmony like a well oiled machine (only better!)
From a mind/body perspective, it is firstly beneficial to recognize that the natural state is the neutral state, and align your thoughts and actions toward getting your body back to that state.
To achieve this balanced state, we will want to make sure there are no parasites in the body, intercepting the body’s hormones (parasites love to feed on hormones, affecting organ and gland functions) and depleting the body’s energy. We will also want to make sure that there are no physical blockages or toxins impeding the path of our blood and our lymphatic fluids; this ensures a clear channel for hormones and thus the sensations they create to move through the body.
Firstly, we must consider the effects of toxins on the body. Toxins include anything from heavy metals to synthetic pharmaceuticals to chemicals and plastics, that bind with your body’s fat deposits, creating cellulite and coagulated crud within the body. Visual signs are noticeable in people who have a disposition to “problem areas”; in these cases, the fat is binding with toxins within the body, and no amounts of exercise or working out seems to get rid of it. This is because it’s not just pure organic fats and oils that your body is struggling to deal with, it is trying to process fat mixed with plastics, for example, or heavy metals.
Today, toxins are also commonly found in our water supply, are ingested through processed foods and produce treated with agricultural chemicals. We also absorb toxins through our largest organ – the skin – from cleaning products, as well as our increasingly poisoned natural environment. Toxic chemicals like fluoride form a calcified layer around the pineal gland, which regulates your inner clock and sleep cycles, works with your adrenal glands to handle stress, feeds the thymus gland, and communicates with the rest of the endocrine system. All other glands in the body (thyroid, adrenals, prostate etc.) are also severely under attack by radiation, as well as vaccinations (which contain heavy metals and other toxic elements) and toxins inherent in GMO agriculture.
Some of other things that are also detrimental to the healthy functioning of your body is parasites, which feed off your physical ecosystem. Your energy feeds them, they have babies, create nests — they have their own agendas and purposes. Often times parasites start mimicking your own consciousness, and because they becomes so merged with our own ecosystem, we tend to feel and think that their consciousness is our consciousness, and their cravings are our cravings. Therefore, removing parasites from the body is something that is really beneficial – even necessary – to returning to your natural state. After all, you are not going to have a healthy flourishing inner garden while there are pests draining your ecosystem. By eliminating parasites from your body, you feed your self and nourish the blissful state being that you are rather, than feeding the parasites that are living within you and encroaching on your consciousness.
It is a very important to make sure these invaders are dealt with in a proper way – the natural way. Putting more chemicals into the body to kill parasite is really not an ideal way to address them. It’s no different from spraying Roundup on a food crop to get rid of pests – you just trade one toxin for another.
The solution to creating an environment that is not welcoming for parasites is to neutralize the body’s pH. When we consume meat, sugar, alcohol and many other “normal” things in our diet, we ingest a heavy acidic component. When we do this regularly, our body’s pH goes far into the acidic spectrum, causing functional imbalances in the body which then spiral the body further into the acidic spectrum. It’s a vicious cycle that creates more cravings for acidic foods while also feeding the damaging microorganisms in your gut that really thrive an acidic environment. Reducing or eliminating foods such as sugar, meat and alcohol from your diet is the best way to support your body’s natural pH level.
Detox rituals for the Utopian body
There are so many pollutants that we are exposed to on a daily basis that we have to actively and consciously make decisions that support our body, and our natural state of bliss. If we want to maintain a lifestyle where new pollutants and parasites are not allowed in, there simply has to be a lifestyle change. There is a whole other way of living life that we were not taught but it’s something that we are having to re-learn so that our protective ‘shield’ remains strong and we can live in homeostatic balance every single day.
First, purify, cleanse and detoxify your body. Learning how to ritualize detox is the key to your success. We often want the quick fix solution like buying a detox kit and hope it will sort all of our health issues. However, the key is in learning how to make a lifestyle change, and it doesn’t take that much to make it.
My journey to health was a long and arduous one with lots of disappointments. I looked searched the entire planet for solutions to returning my body to its natural, fit, healthy, detoxified state.Many things over-promised and under-delivered. But through perseverance and intensive research, I was able to finally crack the code.
Once you begin navigating your life and your body from from a blissful state, it becomes a lot simpler to notice when you are about to fall out of balance, and can take steps to correct it. It is certainly easier than to trying to correct an imbalance months or even years down the track. I am a true testimony to this this fact.
The benefit is that everyday you’ll feel good and send a message to your subconscious mind that you love yourself, care about yourself and you to do something good for yourself. If we know how to actively cultivate a sense of wellness and love that is hardwired within our bodies, we’ll inevitably thrive. We make choices that are from a place of security and happiness, and safety, and we gravitate towards the things that make us feel more love, make us feel more beautiful, more healthy, more satisfied, more abundant — more bliss.
Dermatologists should take ownership of screening patients for mental health concerns associated with their skin condition, according to the authors of a Viewpoint article in JAMA Dermatology.
Skin conditions can lead to psychiatric disorders in 30% of patients, particularly adolescents; patients being treated for facial lesions and scars; patients suffering from insomnia; and patients with severe or recalcitrant skin disease, said Mohammad Jafferany, MD, of Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, and colleagues.
“When the psychiatric concern is related to skin disease, dermatologists are in a unique position to identify the problem and help patients seek treatment.”
In dermatology, associated psychiatric conditions can fall into one of two categories, the authors said: primary or secondary. Primary skin conditions include disorders of self-induced skin lesions due to an underlying emotional disturbance, such as acne excoriee. Secondary psychiatric disorders, such as depression, usually arise as a result of a primary health condition, such as severe psoriasis.
“When these dermatologic-specific risk factors are paired with additional high-risk features, depression and suicidal ideation screening become increasingly necessary.”
Symptoms should be tracked and documented, the authors suggested. “We recommend that dermatologists maintain an appropriate index of suspicion for psychiatric disease, apply brief standardized mental health questionnaires, and refer patients to appropriate services when needed.”
Dermatologists do not always follow-up appropriately when they do identify mental health problems in a patient consultation, the Viewpoint authors said. “It is unclear if this is owing to lack of clear guidelines, lack of time in busy clinics, or the perception that secondary psychiatric disorders fall outside of the dermatology domain.”
Some dermatologists may have difficulty perceiving a patient’s psychological distress, and may feel uncertain regarding psychiatric diagnoses, particularly in patients who may not volunteer mental health information in a dermatology visit.
The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) is a recommended resource that may help identify patients, the authors noted. Questions include:
- Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by (a) little interest or pleasure in doing things; or (b) feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?
- To gauge whether an immediate follow-up is necessary, “Do you ever think about ending your own life? If so, do you currently have a plan to commit suicide?”