Day: March 12, 2023

• In a March 5, 2023, memorandum, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic laid out evidence showing Dr. Anthony Fauci prompted the creation of a paper to “disprove” the lab leak theory, and that the authors of this paper skewed available evidence to achieve that goal

• According to the Subcommittee, while Dr. Jeremy Farrar — former head of the Wellcome Trust and now chief scientist for the World Health Organization — is not credited as having had any involvement with the fabricated paper, evidence suggests he actually led the drafting process, and “made direct edits” to the paper

• The Telegraph has reviewed more than 100,000 leaked WhatsApp messages sent between health officials, ministers and other government officials, showing the British government was intentionally deploying scare tactics to force compliance with lockdowns and other COVID measures

• Then-health secretary Matt Hancock said he wanted to “deploy” a new COVID variant to “frighten the pants off” the public. One of his media advisers, Damon Poole, agreed with the plan, saying “Yep that’s what will get proper behavior change”

• The messages show officials mocking travelers forced into quarantine and other deplorable behaviors. They also show decisions were made on the fly, for political reasons rather than scientific ones

In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released a batch of emails sent to and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH),

showing that scientists in the earliest days of the pandemic strongly suspected SARS-CoV-2 was a genetically engineered virus.

The correspondence also revealed that NIH leaders — Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-NIH chief Dr. Francis Collins — were nervous about the possibility that they’d funded the creation of this virus and were determined to suppress questions about its origin.

Fauci, Collins and at least 11 scientists convened for a conference call February 1, 2020, during which they discussed the evidence for genetic manipulation. Yet, no more than three days later, by February 4, four of the participants had already drafted a paper titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” in which they dismissed the possibility of a lab origin for the virus.

One of the authors of this paper, Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., a professor at Scripps Research, has so far insisted that Fauci did not attempt to influence the working group’s conclusions.

In a letter to Sens. James Comer and Jim Jordan, Scripps Research — answering questions on Andersen’s behalf — claimed that Andersen “objectively weighted all the evidence available to him.” In a March 5, 2023, memorandum,

the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic laid out evidence showing that this assertion is “demonstrably false.”

According to the Select Subcommittee, the evidence available clearly shows that Fauci did indeed prompt Andersen to write “Proximal Origin,” and for a specific reason, namely to “disprove” the lab leak theory. “The authors of this paper skewed available evidence to achieve that goal,” the Subcommittee writes.

As noted in the memorandum,

in a February 8, 2020, email, Andersen stated: “Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory …” Furthermore, in a February 12 email to the journal Nature, Andersen openly and clearly admitted Fauci’s and Collins’ influence:

“Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus.”

“This email directly contradicts Scripps’ earlier statement that Dr. Andersen ‘objectively’ weighed all the evidence regarding the origins of COVID-19. Instead, it appears that Dr. Andersen was given direction and sought to formulate a paper, regardless of available evidence, that would disprove a lab leak,” the Subcommittee writes.

The Subcommittee also highlights evidence showing that Andersen did not tell the truth when, in a July 2021 New York Times interview, he stated that features of SARS-CoV-2 that were initially thought to be unique were also found in coronaviruses in other species, such as pangolins, and that this was what convinced him the virus was zoonotic in origin.

Correspondence with the journal Nature proves Andersen actually found the pangolin data unconvincing. During the peer review of “Proximal Origin,” one reviewer asked the authors to comment on two recent reports about coronaviruses in pangolins. In reply, Andersen stated that “these additional pangolin CoV sequences do not further clarify the different scenarios discussed in our manuscript.” Another reviewer commented:

“The paper itself is interesting, but unnecessarily speculative. It’s not clear why the authors do not refute a hypothetical lab origin in their coming publication on the ancestors of SARS-CoV-2 in bats and pangolins …

Once the authors publish their new pangolin sequences, a lab origin will be extremely unlikely. It is not clear why the authors rush with a speculative perspective if their central hypothesis can be supported by their own data. Please explain.”

In his reply to the second reviewer, Andersen stressed that “Unfortunately, the newly available pangolin sequences do not elucidate the origin of SARS-CoV-2 or refute a lab origin. Hence the reviewer is incorrect on this point.” He also clarified that “There is no evidence on present data that the pangolin CoVs are directly related to the COVID-19 epidemic.”

So, while Andersen publicly claimed the pangolin data was a compelling piece of evidence for zoonotic in origin, in private, he did not believe this at all. “Based on this new evidence, the pangolin data was not the compelling factor; to this day, the only known intervening event was the February 1 conference call with Dr. Fauci,” the Subcommittee writes.

In addition to Fauci and Collins, Dr. Jeremy Farrar, then-director of the Wellcome Trust in the U.K., also appears to have played a prominent role in the creation of “Proximal Origin.” According to the Subcommittee memorandum:

“The evidence available … suggests Dr. Farrar, the former Director of the Wellcome Trust and current Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, was more involved in the drafting and publication of Proximal Origin than previously known.”

Emails show Eddie Holmes, Ph.D., asked Farrar for permission to get Dr. Ian Lipkin involved. Lipkin, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, was not on the February 1 conference call and was not involved in the original drafting of Proximal Origin.

However, February 10, 2020, Holmes sent the Proximal Origin draft to Lipkin and asked him to review it, stating that the furin cleavage site was “still an issue” that needed to be explained. Lipkin replied that the paper, overall, provided “a plausible argument against genetic engineering,” but did “not eliminate the possibility of inadvertent release following adaptation through selection in culture at the Institute in Wuhan.”

Lipkin also noted that “Given the scale of the bat CoV research pursued there and the site of emergence of the first human cases we have a nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess.” Holmes wrote back, saying:

“I agree. Talking to Jeremy [Farrar] in a few minutes … It is indeed striking that this virus is so closely related to SARS yet is behaving so differently. Seems to have been pre-adapted for human spread since the get go. It’s the epidemiology that I find most worrying.”

According to the Subcommittee, while Farrar is not credited as having had any involvement with “Proximal Origin,” the evidence suggests he actually led the drafting process, and “made direct edits” to the paper. Two emails proving this were sent between Lipkin and Farrar on February 17, 2020. Lipkin thanked Farrar for “shepherding this paper,” and Farrar, in turn, confirmed that he would “push Nature” to publish it.

Considering Farrar’s involvement in the creation and publication of a “scientific” paper that had no other intention than misleading the public and cementing a false narrative into place, can he really be trusted as chief scientist for the WHO?

Worse, Farrar also played a central role in the Recovery and Solidarity trials, both of which killed patients by overdosing them on hydroxychloroquine in an apparent effort to prove the drug was dangerous and couldn’t be used against COVID.

As noted by British journalist and columnist Ian Birrell,

“The true COVID lab leak scandal is how easily our politicians and scientists dismissed it. That blanket dismissal of a lab leak as a dangerous conspiracy theory showed the dangers of partisanship …”

“… significant circumstantial evidence has emerged that strengthens the case for laboratory leakage during speculative research in Wuhan,” Birrell writes. “Such fears are intensified by Beijing’s shameful cover-up of early cases and blatant blocking of investigations in Wuhan, despite the desperate need to track down the source to prevent another deadly pandemic.

Behind this question lies a second issue of huge importance, one that reflects badly on the overlapping worlds of politics, journalism and science.

For a small group of prominent scientists, marshalled by the powerful chiefs of funding bodies in Britain and the United States, deliberately stifled this debate over birth of the biggest public health crisis for a century — despite their own concerns over research in Wuhan and the virus’s unusual properties.

They accused those asking valid questions of spreading conspiracy theories and used their immense influence to dismiss ‘any type of laboratory-based scenario’ as implausible.

Then they were aided by patsy politicians appeasing Beijing, supine journalists so in thrall to contacts that they failed to do their job, and world-famous specialist publications with such close ties to China that they have now ruined their reputations. This was the real COVID conspiracy that is now unravelling …”

Birrell, a self-proclaimed liberal, admits being skeptical of the lab leak theory in the beginning, but once he started looking into it, “It did not take long … to tap into the private concerns held by many scientists,” he says. He discovered China had covered up the initial outbreak and withheld details about transmission. He also reviewed the studies presenting cases for the lab leak theory, and found them credible. He adds:

“Science, like journalism, depends on fierce debate to test evidence and theories. Instead we saw the power of consensus and groupthink to stifle free thinking; capture of specialist journalists by their contacts to crush skepticism; the dubious role of technology giants to determine valid grounds for debate; and the risks of scientists and journals following funding sources rather than firm evidence.

Think again about COVID’s emergence — and lacking firm proof, how on earth did it take so long for the authorities to admit that it is possible the virus might have been linked to scientific research in secretive Wuhan labs?”

Well, based on what we know about Fauci’s involvement in the cover-up, one potential answer to Birrell’s question is that the NIH funded research that contributed to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, which could threaten the future of the entire agency — and the U.S. government. Another potential answer is that NIH feared even the suggestion of it being manmade because it might result in a global ban on the genetic engineering of viruses.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, The Telegraph

has reviewed more than 100,000 leaked WhatsApp messages sent between health officials, ministers and other government officials, showing the British government was intentionally deploying scare tactics to force compliance with lockdowns and other COVID measures.

“Then-health secretary Matt Hancock said he wanted to ‘deploy’ a new COVID variant to ‘frighten the pants off’ the public. One of his media advisers, Damon Poole, agreed, saying ‘Yep that’s what will get proper behaviour change.'”

As reported by The Telegraph:

“[Then-Health Secretary] Matt Hancock wanted to ‘deploy’ a new COVID variant to ‘frighten the pants off’ the public and ensure they complied with lockdown, leaked messages seen by The Telegraph have revealed …

In a WhatsApp conversation on Dec 13 … Damon Poole — one of Mr. Hancock’s media advisers — informed his boss that Tory MPs were ‘furious already about the prospect’ of stricter COVID measures and suggested ‘we can roll pitch with the new strain’ …

Mr. Hancock then replied: ‘We frighten the pants off everyone with the new strain.’ Mr Poole agreed, saying: ‘Yep that’s what will get proper behaviour change’ … ‘When do we deploy the new variant,’ asked Mr. Hancock …

The exchange was not the only time the former health secretary and other senior officials discussed tactics to frighten the public into compliance.

Six months earlier, in June 2020 — when the UK was coming out of its first COVID lockdown — Mr. Hancock and Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, appeared pleased that a study on the virus’s spread showing it going in a ‘positive direction’ had not received publicity, while a ‘gloomy’ survey had been picked up by the media.

‘If we want people to behave themselves maybe that’s no bad thing,’ said Mr. Hancock in a WhatsApp message. Sir Patrick appeared to agree, responding: ‘Suck up their miserable interpretation and over deliver’ …

Four months later, in Oct 2020, Mr. Poole suggested in a group chat that a decision to stop publishing a so-called watchlist of the areas with the highest prevalence of the virus would be helpful to the Government, because it would make every area of the country concerned about the spread of COVID in a second wave.

‘It helps the narrative that things are really bad if we don’t publish,’ messaged Mr. Poole. In Jan 2021, Mr. Case suggested that the ‘fear factor’ would be ‘vital’ in combatting the latest COVID wave during the third lockdown.”

The messages also show officials mocking and making fun of travelers forced into quarantine and other deplorable behaviors.

“Any idea how many people we locked up in hotels yesterday?” Case asked Hancock in a February 16, 2021, message. “None. But 149 chose to enter the country and are now in Quarantine Hotels due to their own free will!” Hancock replied. “Hilarious,” Case shot back.

Aside from revealing unsavory personality traits, the messages clearly prove that decisions were made on the fly, and for political reasons rather than scientific ones. For example, in June 2020, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided not to lift lockdowns based on public polling, which allegedly suggested the lockdown was too popular to mess with.

In another instance, Johnson’s decision to mandate mask wearing in secondary schools across the U.K. was made for no other reason than avoiding an argument with Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, where mask mandates for high schoolers were already planned. Meanwhile, his own chief medical officer, Hancock, told him there were “no very strong reasons” to mask students as the risk of infection was low.

In response to the leaked messages, Sir Charles Walker, a leading member of the COVID Recovery Group — an informal group of Conservative MPs that opposed and voted against lockdowns — told The Telegraph he was “distressed” by the conversations that have now been brought to light, adding:

“What makes me so angry is the evils and the psychological warfare we deployed against young people and the population, all those behavioral psychologists. And there needs to be a reckoning. We need to understand and fully appreciate the damage that those sorts of campaigns did.

Those voices that raised concerns were just othered. We were positioned as being anti-lockdown, Right-wing headbangers. And actually wanting to do the right thing isn’t Right-wing. We did terrible things to youngsters. We did terrible things to a large number of people. We need to make sure we never do those things again.”

Other COVID Recovery Group members voiced similar concerns and criticisms. Craig Mackinlay, Tory MP for South Thanet, told The Telegraph:

“An artificial climate of fear was created, which has led to all the corollary outcomes that many of us, particularly in the COVID Recovery Group, were concerned about. Ongoing negative health issues, education issues — and not least the destruction of our economy, as one crackpot idea after another found its way onto the statute book.”

Sir John Redwood, another COVID Recovery Group member agreed, saying the tactics employed “always backfire, they always mislead and they don’t lead to good government.”

Similarly, oncology specialist professor Karol Sikora told The Telegraph

he was “horrified” when reading the WhatsApp exchanges, in no small part because he has “no doubt” many cancer patients avoided seeking treatment due to COVID fears — fears that were actually unjustified but intentionally hyped.

Indeed, the revelations now flooding out in England and the U.S. paint a gross and unsavory picture of government officials intentionally lying to the public, and people have died and lives have been ruined as a result. On the upside, the call for accountability is finally starting to get louder, as people begin to realize what’s been done to them.

That said, most of these globalist technocrats are still protected by other cabal members in key positions, so whether any of them will ever pay the price for their crimes against humanity remains to be seen. Much of it will depend on the backbone of those in government who are not part of the globalist cabal.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Biotech industry promised genetically engineered foods would reduce pesticide use, increase the nutritional content of food, boost farmers’ profits and feed the world by increasing yields

• In reality, GM crops have turned glyphosate into one of the most widely and recklessly used herbicides in history and monoculture has led to a loss of biodiversity

• GM crops have also failed to live up to expected increases in crop yields and, nutritionally, GMOs primarily provide cheap, unhealthy ingredients for ultraprocessed ready meals, prepackaged foods and fast food restaurants

• More than 40,000 people in the U.S. have filed lawsuits alleging exposure to Roundup is the cause of their cancer. Once a rare cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma is now the seventh most common cancer in U.S. men and women

• The agricultural biotech industry continues to advance with a new suite of genetic engineering technologies known as gene editing, which includes techniques such as CRISPR as well as synthetic biology and gene drives

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published March 3, 2020.

Promises, promises, promises. The toxic world of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and industrial agriculture is built on false promises. For nearly 30 years we have been listening to the propaganda of the big biotech companies like Monsanto/Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont/Pioneer, BASF and others about how genetic engineering will transform farming and food production.

We’ve heard how it will reduce the environmental impact of farming by lowering pesticide use. We’ve been promised that it will increase the nutritional content of food. We’ve been told how it will boost farmers’ profits by increasing yields, and that those increased yields will help “feed the world.”

As the problem of man-made climate change has moved to the top of the global agenda, new promises have emerged about how GMOs will fight climate change and how genetic engineering will make plants more resilient to drought and flooding. The huckster promises keep on coming, but what has the biotech industry actually delivered over nearly three decades?

First and foremost, GMO crops were sold as a way of reducing on-farm pesticide use. But since GM crops were introduced, there has been a dramatic increase in pesticide use on those crops worldwide.

Most GM crops fall into one of two types. Pesticide “resisters,” or “Roundup Ready” crops, mostly corn and soya, are genetically engineered to withstand the spraying of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate. Most recently, pesticide resisters have also been engineered to resist other highly toxic pesticides like dicamba and 2,4-D.

GM crops have turned glyphosate into one of the most widely and recklessly used herbicides in history. According to the USDA,

more than 90% of the soybeans harvested on U.S. farms are genetically engineered to withstand herbicides like Roundup.

Pesticide “producers,” or Bt plants, which include corn and soya but also cotton, produce their own insecticides. When an agricultural pest eats the crop, in theory, it will be poisoned and die.

But weeds and insects rapidly evolve

to be immune to these poisons. Most agricultural weeds have become resistant to Roundup, causing farmers to spray more each year. The heavier use of herbicides creates ever more “superweeds” and even higher herbicide use.

The increase was first seen in pesticide resisters. A 2012 study

out of Washington State University found that planting GM crops quickly resulted in herbicide-resistant “superweeds” and, as a result, increased herbicide use.

By 2016, research from University of Virginia confirmed that glyphosate-resistant weeds have led to a 28% hike in herbicide use on GM soybeans

compared with non-GM. This rise has also been reported in other countries such as Canada,

Brazil

and Argentina.

More recently, insects have begun to become resistant

to the insecticides bred into pesticide products, causing farmers to use even more and more dangerous mixtures of pesticides to try and keep them under control.

Right now, more than ever, we need a healthy, biodiverse and functioning ecosystem — one that depends on a rich diversity of plants, animals and insects.

Agricultural land that is biodiverse is more productive and more able to cope with unexpected changes, for instance, in climate or cyclical levels of plant diseases or invasive species. Studies show that healthy soil can absorb and hold more CO2

than damaged soil.

But today’s modern industrial farming involves often-large tracts of land devoted to a single crop, known as monocultures. In monocultures diversity is discouraged by the use of pesticides which keep every living thing, except the valuable crop, off the land.

In the U.S., land converted to soy production has typically been pre-existing agricultural land

and so is not linked to deforestation, as it is in South America.

But, increasing demand for soy is destroying American prairies and analysis of satellite data has shown that between 2006 and 2011, farmers in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska had converted 1.3 million acres of grassland into soybean

and corn production. Research by the USDA’s Economic Research Service

echoes this finding.

These monocultures are bad news for wildlife, reducing habitats for a wide range of wild creatures, from ground-nesting birds to pollinators like bees and butterflies. They also are bad for farmers.

An in-depth investigation by The New York Times

in 2016 revealed that, in addition to increasing pesticide use, genetic modification in the U.S. and Canada has failed to bring the expected increases in crop yields.

This resonates with the findings of a 2016 National Academy of Sciences report that found “there was little evidence”

that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

Most recently, U.S. farmers have been suffering from a glut of soy,

linked to ongoing trade disputes with China, which have resulted in low prices and farm bankruptcies.

Equally important is the fact that GMOs have failed to feed the world. The main by-products of GMOs are fats and sugars. GMOs, when they’re not being turned into biofuels, are being turned into corn, soya and even cottonseed oil and sugars such as high-fructose corn syrup and beet sugar.

In other words, what GMOs have most successfully done is provide cheap, unhealthy ingredients for ultraprocessed “ready” meals, prepackaged foods and fast food restaurants.

All those monoculture crops and all that spraying, especially with glyphosate, have consequences for the food we eat. GMO crop monocultures lead to “monodiets.”

Today just a handful of crops now dominant diets around the world.

This new monodiet has more calories and less nutrition. It’s a dietary disaster that is accelerating the worldwide rise in noncommunicable diseases such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

That global diet is also more poisoned than ever before. Glyphosate (Roundup), is sprayed liberally on GM crops. It is also regularly sprayed on non-GMO crops, such wheat, oats, maize and barley but also soya, rapeseed, sunflower seeds and chick peas, as a desiccant, to dry them out, before harvest.

There is also evidence that glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA (α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid) accumulates in foods like GM soy.

Laboratory tests in both the U.S.

and Europe

have found it in the popular ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s, likely due to its cookie, cake and other cereal ingredients. It is also a contaminant in honey

and in popular oat-based cereals and multiple other foods,

especially those containing soy.

A recent laboratory analysis by Moms Across America found glyphosate residues in the new recipe Impossible Burger. The levels of glyphosate and AMPA

were low (11ppb) but evidence from animal feed studies indicates that just 0.1 ppb of glyphosate can destroy gut bacteria.

Hardly surprising, then, that tests show 93% of Americans tested were positive for glyphosate.

Worryingly high levels have been found in the breastmilk and urine

of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water.

Passed on to babies through breastmilk or the water used to make formula, this could impact infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter.

Other studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate show worrying trends including damage to vital organs

like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities and even tumors.

In March 2015, when glyphosate was classified by the World Health Organization as “probably carcinogenic to humans,”

not many could have been surprised.

Agrichemical companies continue to claim that glyphosate is safe. But juries across the U.S. say otherwise. Currently more than 40,000 people in the U.S. have filed lawsuits

alleging exposure to Roundup is the cause of their cancer and in particular, lymphomas. Once a rare cancer, the most common type of lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, is now the seventh most common cancer in U.S. men and women.

The first three cases to go to trial resulted in a combined $2.424 billion in jury verdicts

(though this was subsequently reduced by judges). The science supports these verdicts.

A recent study showed convincing evidence

of a link between glyphosate-based herbicides and endocrine disruption and genetic alterations commonly associated with the development of lymphomas.

One shocking fallout from the first glyphosate case to go to trial, that of Dewayne Johnson,

was the unsealing of several previously classified documents.

The documents detailed Monsanto’s efforts to collude with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to cover up glyphosate’s cancer risks.

Out of 14 glyphosate studies reviewed by the EPA, which looked specifically at cancer in animals, eight found elevated cancer rates in at least one organ or tissue. Yet the EPA chose to dismiss these findings, and conclude that glyphosate is “unlikely to cause cancer.”

Most recently another Monsanto legacy pesticide, dicamba, has hit the headlines. In 2017-18, “dicamba drift” was responsible for damage to an estimated 5 million acres of non-GM soybeans

in 24 states, and numerous specialty crops and wild plants.

In February 2020, in the first U.S. dicamba trial, a Missouri jury awarded $265 million in damages

to peach producers Bader Farms when drift from a nearby GM soybean field killed their trees. All these trials point to a health and environmental emergency and, yet, action at the federal level to curb the use of these toxic chemicals is sorely lacking.

Taking matters into their own hands, some states and local communities are beginning to ban or restrict the use of chemicals like glyphosate. In 2018, both Portland

and the city of Austin

banned it. In 2019 Miami

and Los Angeles County

approved their own bans on city property, while Seattle

agreed to restrict its use.

Beyond U.S. borders, more than two dozen countries

including Canada, Argentina, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and the U.K. have put bans and/or restrictions in place.

Ever since the first genetically modified (GMO) foods and animal drugs, the Flavr Savr tomato

and recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), came onto the U.S. market in 1994, the biotech industry has been waging a public relations war to get the public to accept genetically engineered food.

But studies continue to show that the public doesn’t buy it, and doesn’t want to eat it. Most are concerned about health,

and rightly so. Others are worried about the damage these crops cause to the environment. These are legitimate concerns, as are those about corporate control of our food.

In fact, in the past few years some big and consequential mergers have taken place in the agri-biotech sector. With these mergers the “Big Six” (Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, Dow and DuPont) became the Big Four

(Bayer-Monsanto, DowDuPont/Corteva, ChemChina-Syngenta, BASF) further concentrating the majority of the power and profits of the seed and GM technology market into even fewer hands.

Media response to the proposed mergers has turned up a few surprises. For instance, the normally ultraconservative and financially focused Bloomberg online news channel focused more on the dubious histories of Bayer and Monsanto,

than on any benefits of the deal.

A more sober article in the Wall St Journal

suggested this might be a good time to reconsider the path we are on, agriculturally speaking. In the face of superweeds, higher seed prices and dropping yields, it argued, the GMO crop “boom” could well be over.

But the boom isn’t over yet and independent testing which reveals how much glyphosate is in our bodies and in our foods has become widespread. Likewise, the Non-GMO Verified

label is now as important as the organic label for consumers wanting to avoid GMOs in their foods. It’s a testimony to the vehemence of public rejection, and the shameful inaction of government, that the importance of these independent backstops has grown.

In spite of all this, the agricultural biotech industry continues to advance with a new suite of genetic engineering technologies known as gene editing, which includes techniques such as CRISPR as well as synthetic biology and gene drives.

What makes these GMO 2.0

technologies different is they can create genetically engineered organisms more cheaply and more quickly than ever before.

Fronting up to critics and the farmers who are abandoning the GMO lie,

proponents of synthetic biology claim we no longer need farmers to produce food.

By creating novel food products, including meat substitutes, from genetically engineered microbes in big vats in anonymous warehouses, we can improve the efficiency and sustainability of food production.

For anyone who believes that food should come from a living and connected ecosystem this is the grimmest of grim promises — a world without farmers and without farm animals, where the land is used for … what, exactly?

This grim vision of food production has been given the nickname, the “dark food chain,”

because it doesn’t need sunlight. Further alarm bells are ringing as the biotech industry moves into other areas of the natural world.

A recent and alarming report

from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) suggests that gene drives and synthetic biology could be used to revive declining or even extinct species,

eradicate invasive species, improve soil

by re-engineering soil microbes and therefore improve plant health and biodiversity.

It could engineer trees to absorb more carbon

or to be resistant to diseases, such as the invasive fungus that plagues the American chestnut tree,

and re-engineer insects

for pest management.

Farming is part of the much larger, connected web of nature. What happens “out there” directly and indirectly affects what happens on the farm, which is why we need to challenge this troubling direction of travel for GMOs.

Strong regulation is there to protect us all — or it should be. But new methods and proposed uses for GMOs have brought greater complexity to the regulatory sphere.

In some cases, as with the new gene-edited Calyno soybean oil,

which can be sold without labeling, regulators have given in. In others, such as with proposed gene-edited farm animals, regulators really don’t know what to do.

USDA’s vague and confusing ‘bioengineered’ labeling scheme

is a yet another case in point.

Biotech companies argue there is no point in regulating GMO 2.0 anyway since its products are so close to “natural” they no longer need to be tested or labeled as GMO.

This new “naturalness,” they claim, makes it impossible to tell gene-edited products from conventionally produced ones anyway. This is absolutely not true.

When genetic engineers create new GMOs, they must also create the processes to identify them — if only to monitor and verify their work.

Anyone can use these processes. That’s just what happened in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration study,

originally published in 2016 and republished in February 2020, which found numerous off-target effects in gene-edited “hornless” cattle, including a strand of bacterial DNA which could pass on antibiotic resistance.

It concluded “that both scientists and regulators need to be alert to the potential for such unintended alterations to take place.” A frank accompanying editorial

explained further why regulation was important.

Following on from this, Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., developer of the Flavr Savr tomato, noted

that the GMO cow developers had the tools to find these mistakes for themselves, but incompetently failed to use them.

“Such big mistakes made during the development of these ‘poster children’ GMOs,” she wrote, “make one wonder how carefully other, more run-of-the-mill GMOs have been developed over the last 25 years as well.”

Marteau went on to say that the data justify, in her mind, “FDA’s intention to carry out mandatory premarket review of all gene-edited livestock and thereby regulate these GE products based on the fact that they were created using genetic engineering,” adding “I also think FDA should require premarket review of all GE crops as well.”

If, to coin a phrase, “a promise is a debt unpaid” then the biotech companies are racking up some serious ethical, moral and environmental IOUs to society.

Out of their failure, however, has emerged the regenerative organic agriculture movement, a response to the growing awareness of the connection between agriculture and health, environmental destruction and climate change. Regenerative agriculture

refers to farming and grazing practices such as:

• Reduction/elimination of tillage and use of synthetic chemicals

• The use of cover crops, crop rotations, compost and animal manures

• Integrating animals with perennial and annual plants to create a biologically diverse ecosystem on the farm

• Grazing and pasturing animals on grass and, more specifically, using a planned multi-paddock rotation system

• Raising animals in conditions that mimic their natural habitat

It’s what every diligent farmer should be doing anyway and, formalized into a growing movement, these practices can improve biodiversity on the farm, enhance productivity, and even help tackle climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and improving both carbon drawdown and improved water infiltration and storage in soils.

The truth is that conventional (i.e., chemical and GMO-based) farming needs to change. The problems farmers face now — failing soils, lower yields, toxic working environments — can’t be “magicked” away with genetic engineering. In fact, GMOs just drive farming deeper into a failing, exploitative, chemically-dependent, industrial model.

In contrast, many see regenerative organic farming as the next evolving stage of organic farming, free-range livestock grazing and eco-system restoration. Rather than promising future benefits, regenerative farming can be put into practice and deliver measurable benefits right now. For the future’s sake, this is the path we need to take.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Skullcap (Scutellaria barbata) is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) plant known in China as banzhilian

• Researchers used DNA sequencing to uncover how skullcap produces one of its primary anticancer compounds, a clerodane diterpenoid known as scutebarbatine A

• The team uncovered skullcap’s genomic sequence, revealing clues about how it produces anticancer compounds

• Scutellaria barbata, known as barbed skullcap, is used in TCM cancer treatments, particularly for advanced metastatic cancers

• There are multiple types of skullcap, and though the names are often used interchangeably, they’re different plants with unique health benefits

Skullcap (Scutellaria barbata) is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) plant known in China as banzhilian. The Scutellaria genus belongs to the mint family, and while there are 50 Scutellaria species used in TCM, Scutellaria barbata is particularly notable for its anticancer properties.

Now, researchers with the Centre of Excellence for Plant and Microbial Science (CEPAMS), which is a collaboration between the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the John Innes Centre (JIC), used DNA sequencing to uncover how skullcap produces one of its primary anticancer compounds, a clerodane diterpenoid known as scutebarbatine A.

The team uncovered skullcap’s genomic sequence, revealing clues about how it produces anticancer compounds. Study author Cathie Martin with JIC explained, “We have found that the primary metabolite has activity against cancer cells but not non-cancer cells, which is especially important for an anticancer metabolite. Now we are looking to develop synthetic methods for producing more of the lead compound.”

While the team is hoping to create synthetic versions of the compound using a host such as yeast, skullcap has a long history of medicinal use. Scutellaria barbata, known as barbed skullcap, is used in TCM cancer treatments, particularly for advanced metastatic cancers.

“The efficacy of S. barbata extracts at reducing cancer progression as well as the absence of harmful side effects has resulted in renewed interest in using this TCM prescription as a therapy complementary to modern chemotherapies,” the study notes.

Barbed skullcap, a perennial herb, is widely used in China and Korea, traditionally for its anti-inflammatory and antitumor properties. It contains alkaloids, flavones, polysaccharides, organic acids and neoclerodane diterpenoids,

each with unique active effects.

Scutebarbatine A from skullcap has been found to induce apoptosis, or cell death, in human colon cancer cells. “Scutebarbatine A promotes apoptosis specifically in cancer cells by reducing the abundance of the inhibitors of apoptosis proteins,” according to the CEPAMS team.

The leaves, stems and flowers of Scutellaria barbata are particularly rich in clerodanes like scutebarbatine A, and more than half of clerodanes known in nature have come from species of the mint family.

Further, scutebarbatine A (SBT-A) from skullcap’s root has also been found to inhibit the proliferation of liver cancer cells while triggering their apoptosis. “SBT-A is a potential agent for the treatment of HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma],” researchers wrote in the Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology.

Skullcap may even help prevent cancer, as research suggests it significantly reduces the risk of liver cancer in patients with chronic hepatitis B, a major risk factor for liver cancer.

Polysaccharides from skullcap significantly inhibit invasion and metastasis of certain human lung cancer cell lines, while SBT-A had anticancer effects in non-small cell lung cancer lines.

Further, SBT-A was so effective at inhibiting growth of lung carcinoma epithelial cells that researchers suggested, “SBT-A is worthy of development for cancer medical treatment in the future.”

Barbed skullcap has also been found to be effective for treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), and two of its active compounds — baicalein and wogonin — inhibited the proliferation of and induced apoptosis in NPC cells.

There are multiple types of skullcap, and though the names are often used interchangeably, they’re different plants with unique benefits. Compared to Scutellaria barbata, for instance, Chinese skullcap (Scutellaria baicalensis) has medicinal properties attributed to 4′-deoxy-flavones from the roots.

As noted by the CEPAMS team, “Consequently, although the two Scutellaria plants are medicinally important, their therapeutic properties are based largely on different bioactive compounds.”

Chinese skullcap is native to China and has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years, most notably in the treatment of diarrhea, dysentery, high blood pressure, hemorrhaging, insomnia, inflammation and respiratory infections.

Flavones in Chinese skullcap include baicalin, wogonoside and their aglycones baicalein wogonin, which are known to have anticancer, antibacterial, antiviral, antioxidant, anticonvulsant, liver protective and neuroprotective effects. When Chinese skullcap is prepared using its roots, it’s known as Huang-Qin.

It may also have antiallergy potential, including helping to alleviate food allergy symptoms by regulating systemic immune responses of T helper (TH) cells. “These results indicate that skullcap may be a potential candidate as a preventive agent for food allergy,” according to researchers.

While American skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora) also belongs to the mint family, it’s a different plant from Scutellaria baicalensis and Scutellaria barbata. During the 1800s and 1900s, American skullcap was sometimes prescribed for nervousness or related symptoms, particularly muscle spasms, irritability, sleeplessness, tremors and restlessness.

Named for the close-fitting metal skull caps worn during medieval periods, which resembled the plant’s flowers, this calming herb has continued to receive praise for its stress- and anxiety-relieving effects, which it’s said to exert without some of the side effects, like drowsiness, that other relaxing herbs may cause.

Known as a nervine herb, which is one that acts on the nervous system, American skullcap has such strong relaxant effects that it’s sometimes used to treat barbiturate and tranquilizer withdrawal symptoms.

Phenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids, are believed to be responsible for many of American skullcap’s beneficial effects.

In addition to its uses for anxiety, skullcap has shown promise as an anticonvulsant and has been shown to be effective in rodents with acute seizures.

Another compound in American skullcap, scutellarein, may have anticancer potential. The compound was even found to stop the development and spread of fibrosarcoma, an aggressive cancer of connective tissue.

Traditionally, the herb was used by Native Americans for a variety of anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory and antimicrobial purposes, including to treat:

• Hypertension

• Hysteria

• Epilepsy

• Diarrhea

• Headaches

• Nervous exhaustion

• Nervous disorders of the digestive system

• Heartburn

• Fever

• Snake and insect bites

Skullcap supplements have a history of adulteration, so be sure any supplements you take come from a high-quality source. In particular, American germander, sometimes called wild germander, wood sage and wild basil, which is potentially toxic, has been found to contaminate skullcap supplements since the 1980s, as revealed by the late botanist Steven Foster.

In one study of 13 skullcap-containing dietary supplements, four were found to contain American germander, three contained very low skullcap concentrations and one contained Chinese skullcap instead of American skullcap.

It’s unknown whether the adulteration was intentional or a case of mistaken identity. According to Natural Products Insider:

“There are those who believe that skullcap and germander can look similar because they are both members of the mint family (Lamiaceae or Labiatae). Foster, and various herbal experts, believe that their physical characteristics are distinct enough to warrant an accurate identification with the naked eye, i.e., in the field …

[but] according to an extensive quality control and therapeutic monograph on skullcap … produced by the nonprofit American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), the relatively comparable appearances of skullcap and other herbs can lead to accidental adulteration.”

Skullcap is just one example of an herbal remedy with powerful anticancer effects. There are many others, with similarly promising properties. One paper reviewed the therapeutic potential of compounds isolated from herbs used in Chinese medicine, including flavonoids, terpenes and quinones. One of the terpenes, artemisinin, which is derived from sweet wormwood, was found to have excellent anticancer potential.

Emodin, a compound found in Chinese rhubarb (Rheum palmatum), is another example. It may help prevent colon cancer,

confirming one of its ancient uses as an anticancer remedy in China. As a revered medicinal herb in TCM, Chinese rhubarb, also known as rhei or dahuang,

has long been prized for its antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties.

Emodin is a natural anthraquinone with demonstrated antitumorigenic properties. Past studies in mice have shown that emodin safely reduced mammary tumorigenesis and was beneficial for colorectal cancer.

New research also found that emodin may be an “effective primary therapy against the onset of genetic and chemically induced sporadic colorectal cancer.”

A 2016 review of emodin also broke down its anticancer activities, noting:

• Emodin induces apoptosis and significantly inhibited the cell growth of four bladder cancer cell lines

• Emodin is anti-metastasis and has inhibited the proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells when administered in combination with curcumin

• Emodin may reverse multidrug resistance, which is a significant obstacle to cancer treatment, and “inhibits cell growth in several types of cancer cells and regulates genes and proteins related to the control of cell apoptosis, cell invasion, metastasis and cell cycle arrest”

To gain the most benefits from TCM and other medicinal herbs, work with a holistic health care practitioner or herbalist, especially for complex conditions like cancer and other chronic diseases.

One of the benefits of herbal remedies is that you can often grow them at home for your personal use in teas and tinctures. Skullcap is a perennial herb, which means if you plant it correctly, it will keep coming back year after year. American skullcap prefers partial shade to full sun,

and typically blooms from July to October in USDA zones 3 to 9.

Meanwhile, Chinese skullcap flourishes in sunny areas and is known to thrive in sandy and dry soils, especially in mountains. In the U.S., Chinese skullcap may do best planted as part of a rock garden.

Many skullcap varieties require stratifying seeds before you put them in the ground.

To do so, put the seeds in a sealed plastic bag with moistened sand (about three times as much sand as seeds) or a damp paper towel, then place them in the refrigerator for at least a week.

The seeds can then be started indoors (germination will take about two weeks) and moved outdoors as seedlings, after the threat of frost has disappeared.

Seedlings can be planted one-inch deep into compost-amended soil. Keep them well watered and continue after the plant grows larger; they do best in moist soil. Skullcap can also be grown from cuttings or divided roots, which can be taken from a healthy, mature plant. Mature skullcap can grow to reach one to three feet tall. Once the plant blooms, it’s ready to harvest and can be used fresh or dried.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.