How Glyphosate Cre­ates Bio-weapons in Your Body

Trillions - - Content -

Glyphosate is in most of our food and stud­ies have shown that al­most ev­ery per­son has glyphosate in their bod­ies at sig­nif­i­cant lev­els.

The chem­i­cal is con­cen­trated in the hu­man in­testines where it has the same ef­fect as in the soil — it causes ge­netic mu­ta­tions in the 1,000 dif­fer­ent types of bac­te­ria, fun­gus, virus in our gut called the mi­cro­biome.

The hu­man mi­cro­biome is an es­sen­tial part of the hu­man body and when it is al­tered it can cause long-term se­ri­ous health prob­lems and lead to pre­ma­ture death.

When glyphosate is com­bined with a diet of ge­net­i­cally mod­i­fied food, the po­ten­tial neg­a­tive im­pacts are greatly en­hanced. The ge­netic in­serts in ge­net­i­cally mod­i­fied or­gan­isms (GMOS) are un­sta­ble and can sep­a­rate dur­ing di­ges­tion. The genes can then be taken into the DNA of gut mi­crobes and al­ter their func­tion.

For ex­am­ple, the gene that causes a corn plant to pro­duce the Bt toxin to kill in­sects can trans­form bac­te­ria in in­testines to also pro­duce the Bt toxin and thus poi­son the body from the inside.

When mi­crobes are ge­net­i­cally com­pro­mised they can go from be­ing ben­e­fi­cial to harm­ful.

The neg­a­tive im­pacts of glyphosate and GMOS are well-known by reg­u­la­tors and many coun­tries have banned them, but in other coun­tries they are pro­tected due to cor­rup­tion.

con­trasts sig­nif­i­cantly with a sep­a­rate anal­y­sis made by Charles Li­man­dri of the Free­dom of Con­science De­fense Fund in Ran­cho Santa Fe. In his sur­veys, he found in­stead that dur­ing the 2015-2016 school year (the last full reg­u­lar year of record prior to the April 2017 anti-bul­ly­ing plan pas­sage), the San Diego Uni­fied School District re­ported “just two in­stances [of bul­ly­ing] re­lated to Mus­lim stu­dents” while it also recorded 11 in­ci­dents of anti-semitic bul­ly­ing.

As Li­man­dri said about San Diego Uni­fied’s de­ci­sion to mass the nar­rowly fo­cused Is­lamic ed­u­ca­tional pro­gram, “De­fen­dants have cho­sen to politi­cize the school­child­ren en­trusted to their care rather than cut ties with a no­to­ri­ous sec­tar­ian as­so­ci­a­tion. De­fen­dants in­sist, how­ever, that their ‘holis­tic’ cam­paign against the pur­ported ‘Is­lam­o­pho­bic’ chil­dren in district schools is sim­ply part of their ef­forts ‘to pro­tect all stu­dents from bul­ly­ing.’”in a le­gal memo pro­vided by Li­man­dri to the fed­eral court in this case, Li­man­dri said the pro­gram was rammed through de­spite the school district not hav­ing “any cred­i­ble ev­i­dence that a Mus­lim bul­ly­ing cri­sis even ex­isted.” In­stead, he said, “CAIR pri­or­i­tizes pub­lic school dis­tricts as ground zero to ad­vance its re­li­gious mis­sion. To that end, CAIR has en­gaged the district to se­cure ac­cess to schools to hold ‘anti-is­lam­o­pho­bia’ teacher work­shops, give lec­tures to stu­dents about ac­cept­ing Mus­lim stu­dents and Is­lam and dis­sem­i­nate pro­pa­ganda to teach­ers and stu­dents, in­clud­ing brochures about Is­lamic re­li­gious prac­tices and Mus­lim student ac­com­mo­da­tions.”

The memo writ­ten on be­half of the par­ents’ group says this vi­o­lates the “No Pref­er­ence” clause of the First Amend­ment of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion by pro­vid­ing spe­cial treat­ment for Mus­lim stu­dents that “ex­pressly sin­gles them out for pref­er­en­tial ben­e­fits.” Ex­am­ples of such ben­e­fits in­clude, it says, rec­og­niz­ing Mus­lim hol­i­days on district cal­en­dars and pro­vid­ing ed­u­ca­tional pro­grams for staff mem­bers and stu­dents, all with­out sim­i­lar pro­grams be­ing “avail­able on an equal ba­sis” for other re­li­gious groups.

As ev­i­dence of the pro­gram’s bias, the group pointed out in its memo that “there are no pro­grams pro­mot­ing ‘Jewish cul­ture.’ There are no lec­tures from priests on how to ac­com­mo­date Catholic stu­dents dur­ing Lent. And there are no part­ner­ships with evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tian ac­tivists.”

Cit­i­zens for Qual­ity Ed­u­ca­tion also at­tacked the pro­gram as be­ing a vi­o­la­tion of the “No Aid” clause. That rule blocks spend­ing pub­lic funds for re­li­gious groups.

The le­gal ac­tions in this case are cur­rently pend­ing in the Cal­i­for­nia courts.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.