Monsanto’s New Global Health Hazard

An article on the web Waking Times puts us on the track of the latest public health hazard created by Monsanto and spoken relatively little, although it takes a while among us. This is the RNA herbicides.

 

Who else who least know the bitter controversy surrounding the main component of the flagship product from Monsanto herbicide, glyphosate, contained in commercial herbicide RoundUp, which has been named as the most widely used herbicide in history.

 

 

People more or less informed and know the criticisms of glyphosate, a carcinogen and potentially toxic, giant agro-technology expands the planet without anyone gets stop him, although even the World Health Organization as classified as "possibly carcinogenic".

 

 

Well, while activists continue obsessed combat the use of glyphosate, Monsanto's genetically modified using other atrocities, such as RNA pesticides.

Recall that basically RNA (ribonucleic acid) is used by cells to transfer vital information during protein synthesis (production of proteins needed by the cell for its activities and its development).

Well, as Monsanto explained, this new type of pesticide use what is called "RNA interference":

RNA interference (RNAi) is a natural process that cells use to reject or suppress the activity of specific genes. This is done through the natural ability of the cell to read the instructions of RNA within the cell and then "decide" whether to process the instructions or not.
As a result, the process can reject or stop production of a specific protein, similar to like a light switch is operated.

This cellular process was discovered in the 1990s and further research in this area led to Drs. Fire and Mello to win a Nobel Prize for his work in 2006.
His award-winning work, and countless other scientists, has opened up many new areas of research in human, animal and plant health.

Well, that's how we sell Monsanto: a wonderful technology, which automatically related to "advances in the area of ​​research" and the "Nobel prize" for anyone who dares to criticize the health hazards of this procedure remains as backward and ignorant superstitious taciturn.

But if we look closely at the exhibition of Monsanto, what it does it is tell us which is the "RNA interference", but in any case we expose the effects of the application of technology using this cellular process.

 

 

Of course, technology is used to silence genes in insects that feed on crops, but as is customary in the practices of agribusiness, they provide no proof to show that the RNA pesticides will not silence the recipient unwanted genes, like other components of wildlife or humans themselves.

In fact, Professor at the University of Canterbury, Jack Heinemann, published the results of a genetic research conducted in transgenic wheat from Monsanto, which showed no "no doubt" that molecules created in wheat, which aim to silence genes to change their carbohydrate content, it can affect human genes and potentially silence.

 

Jack Heinemann

 

According analysis Heinemann, RNA silencing caused by these pesticides RNA, are altering the nutritional characteristics of crops, and can lead to significant changes in how the glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body , causing potentially lethal results.

Heinemann said its investigation revealed more than 770 pages of possible matches between two transgenic genes in wheat and the human genome. More than a dozen matches were "sufficient to cause gene silencing in experimental systems , " he said.

 

Multiple scientific studies and warn of the potential dangers of these techniques and the need to increase scientific studies before marketing these products based on RNA interference products.

 

One of these studies, concludes that the risks of interfering RNA used in these new genetic pesticides, known as Micro entails RNA (miRNA).

 

 

MicroRNA basically consists of small RNA fragments that interact with genes, essentially causing the suspension of certain genes that are not expressed. This Micro RNA can be found naturally in human body fluids.

However, the microRNAs also exist in plants, and research has shown that eating the wrong plant can transfer microRNA plants to humans, with potentially devastating consequences.

 

A study published in 2011, found that microRNA cooked plant foods such as rice, wheat and potatoes, can accumulate in the blood and tissues, leading to a number of possible health problems.

 

The study also revealed that microRNAs not only remains completely stable after the vegetables are cooked, but after the whole process of digestion.

 

Most importantly, the researchers found a significant amount of microRNAs in the human body, concluding that:

 

"... Micro RNA fragments of plants are purchased mainly orally through food intake"

 

It has been widely shown that alters MicroRNA many critical biological processes including apoptosis (programmed process DNA fragmentation and cell death). As a result, the deregulation of microRNAs has been linked to cancer and other diseases.

 

Furthermore, the plant microRNA, interferes with the human microRNA by mimicking and receptor binding and also, potentially, through alterations in gene expression.

 

 

Back then, we face the same problem: technologies are developed and applied directly, without studying thoroughly the possible negative (or even devastating) effects, which these technologies can have not only on other living beings or the environment but on the health of humans.

So Monsanto already has a new poison against humanity to add to his arsenal and increasingly used more intensively.

After developing the PCB, DDT, Agent Orange and Roundup (glyphosate) can now cause damage to our genes with pesticides RNA, to further grow his empire of 47,000 million dollars in detriment of the environment and health of all ...

Via:WalkingTimes

CELEBRITIES

Article by freethinker

"Celebrities". This is how it was called a section of the humor Muchachada Nui, which was broadcast on Spanish TV 2, in which the actor Joaquin Reyes parodied a famous person. And I chose this title because the world toward which we are moving is precisely a kind of mass tabloid in which, as in the skit Celebrities, each of us will be only a caricature a grotesque, ridiculous vestige of what someday we become.

 

Undoubtedly soweth have been presumptuous people and desire to appear, but in recent years are reaching a level never known before. And this is due to our use of social networks, rather than to connect with family and friends, we are using as a personal showcase: Who looks better, who has more fun, who travels to the most remote sites or exotic and even competitions to see who goes untie the funniest photo of your baby just a few months old.

 

This brutal exposure of private life is not only stupid but can even be dangerous: an offender with the right skills will not cost much know when you go to vacacaciones leaving your empty house, or what time should I wait with bad intentions on leaving the place where you work, where you study or where you are dancing buzzing Tuesday afternoon.

 

But instead of alerting us of this, the system invites us to go further and build a digital identity.

 

In other words, it invites us to become small-scale celebrities with our personal website, our gallery silly pictures on all social networks and our small army of followers-viewers that not one of our vital developments are not lost.

 

Stress the importance of, typing our name, thousands of strangers can meet on the first page of Google results, calling us "failed" if we do not have the sufficient number of fans or followers. And if you refuse to play that game, the system will broached what that "if you do not show on the Internet, you do not exist" and will place the label "failed" or "antisocial" dumping all the blame on you if you're unemployed, can not find a partner or not receive the recognition you deserve for your work.

 

It tells us that, as we have an identity in the real world, we have another identity in the digital world and both have the same character and are equally important.

 

But at the same time, systematically it ignores the fundamental difference between the two.

 

The real identity is composed of the image we project to the outside, yes, but also a rich and complex inner world that do not share with anyone, or shared with a few people. Our real identity domain hosts an intimate, secret, formed by thoughts, ideas and memories that live in the farthest outposts of our mind. This is very valuable and that belongs only to ourselves.

 

Digital identity, however, consists only of the image we project to the outside, of what others want them to know us. The digital identity is a simple set, a mere facade, a character representing his audience that role expected of him.

 

Building a digital identity is not a bad thing in itself: it is nice to have your corner on the Internet if you like writing your thoughts and share them with others, or sell something and you want your potential customers find you.

 

The concern is the process by which the system only leads us to embrace the digital identity of people like the authentic, true, ignoring and obscuring real identity that we have in the off-line world.

 

The concern is, in other words, we spend more time taking pictures to teach our life on Facebook that living the same life, perceiving the world through our senses, immersing ourselves in the solitude of our own conscience, or by establishing real links with other souls more beyond the button 'I like'.

 

And consequently, is breaking that barrier in our mind that separates the concepts of "being" and "seeming" to identify both with the same thing for us to abandon this dark private world that others can not see and we Let's turn in acclaimed and well-known celebrities, in a kind of voyeurism projected to ourselves.

 

It is a gradual process and we are assimilating unconsciously, without giving enough importance, although it is attacking something as vital as our true identity. But there is good reason for this: our inner world, our thoughts, as has been said several times in this blog, is our last bastion of freedom, where the power still can not penetrate and spy. And what is intended by this process is to minimize and simplify the most of that inner world, to finally take control over it through brain technologies.

 

Can someone tell me I 'm exaggerating, that in the world today is very important to have your own "personal brand" or that of "me I do not like this of social networks, but must be sold."

 

But does anyone realize what we are really accepting to make such statements? "Brand", "sell" are concepts from the commercial sphere, and what we do is neither more nor less, say loud and clear that we are products or mere means of production, objects without a transcendent value, without life without a story, in short, no one (real) identity.

 

And, indeed, if we do something to change the world, to transform reality often unjust and horrible around us, it is urgent to eliminate this idea that we are objects and restore the role of active subjects with a level of consciousness beyond its image abroad. Just stop being characters to be people again, and combining our diverse, unique and distinct identities is possible to defend the most precious thing we want to snatch.

Via:ElrobotPescador