Anti-GMO But Pro-Vaccine?
Posted on:
Sunday, July 19th 2015 at 1:45 pm
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2015
Visit our Re-post guidelines
Visit our Re-post guidelines
The truth is that the GMO and vaccine agendas are the same; only, activists appear to think there is a difference.
Few things are as disturbing to me as the divide that exists between the GMO and vaccine awareness movements. If you look closely you'll see the exact same concerns: the violation of informed consent, the neglect of the precautionary principle, predominance of industry propaganda over actual science, the revolving door between government regulators and legislators and industry, and the undermining of the fundamental right of bodily self-possession, the keystone of health freedom. And yet, these two groups behave as if they are fighting their own separate battles, with the end result that they usually are.
Non-GMO Blindspot
There are numerous examples of how these movements are lost without one another. For instance, the non-GMOs movement adamantly supports organic production methods, correct? But if you look at big players, such as Organic Valley and Horizon Organic, both openly utilize vaccines in their veterinary care practices, some of which either contain genetically modified components, adventitious retroviruses that alter host DNA sequences and/or expression, or utilize pathogens which have been genetically altered in a way that may result in altered genetic expression in the vaccinated animal and/or those who consume these animal products. These obviously non-organic practices and/or consequences to the consumer are perfectly legal: the USDA Organic standards not only permit vaccination, but consider it the only pharmaceutical product that should be administered to cows in the absence of obvious disease. Clearly, what is legal is not always right. Many companies are perfectly happy milking the muti-billion dollar organic market at the expense of haplessly loyal consumers who buy "organic-washed" products.
Even the Non-GMO Project, which while performing a valuable service of independently certifying foods as non-GMO, also generates a false sense of consumer security because many of these non-GMO foods still contain pesticides, and in the case of "non-GMO" oats, agrochemicals like glyphosate (Roundup). This is because non-GMO certification is radically different from USDA organic certification. And what really needs to happen is that non-GMO products must also be verified to be clear of common GM agrochemicals like glyphosate and its metabolite byproducts (AMPA).
The goal is to be assured we aren't being poisoned by our food, is it not?
If so, the non-GMO movement needs to shift its focus to a deeper appreciation and criticism of the institutional/systemic problems that subtend the relatively myopic fixation on GMO labeling initiatives to broader concerns with environmental destruction and widespread toxicant exposures that come with modern food production methods.
GMOs in Vaccines?
And then there is a topic few on the non-GMO side seem to want to tackle head on: the present-day vaccine schedule contains a wide range of genetically modified ingredients that are being injected directly into the most vulnerable infants and children in our population. The HPV vaccine, for instance, which is comprised of a genetically modified form of yeast containing HPV-like antigens, has the worst adverse reports events (some lethal) on record. Mind you, it has never once been proven to prevent a single case of cervical cancer because proxy markers for efficacy and not clinical proof were all the FDA required for its approval. Where is the non-GMO uproar about this? How do the most vulnerable and victimized populations benefit from the non-GMO and non-vaccine movements turning away from one another, or claiming that the explosion of autism diagnoses is only caused by either GMO foods or vaccines, not both, which is the more obvious likelihood?
Even the rage against Monsanto, widely considered "the world's most evil corporation," may constitute a diversionary tactic against the increasing number of activists in need of a suitable, socially sanctioned object of catharsis. Millions marched against Monsanto, but how many were aware that Monsanto is owned by an even larger corporation, Pfizer, who has been expanding its vaccine portfolio and influence on vaccine legislation while the public eye has been largely focused on labeling GMOs. [1]:
Former Monsanto is today known as Pharmacia LLC. Pharmacia is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., which operates the Pharmaceutical business." [Source: Monsanto: Who We Are]
But you can't just blame one or two companies for the increasingly bleak picture. The direction of technological science, unguided by internal ethical principles or external regulatory controls, is towards the complete convergence of the vaccine and GMO agendas in a way that precludes informed consent and any vestige of consumer/patient choice. This abstract provides insight into what I mean:
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
No comments:
Post a Comment