Latest Update on Toxicity of Popular Weed Killer and Proposed Rule for Labeling of GMOs

By Dr. Mercola

In recent years, concerns over the health effects of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup and other weed killer formulations — has risen exponentially. Researchers have discovered it not only may be carcinogenic,1 but may also affect your body’s ability to produce fully functioning proteins, inhibit the shikimate pathway (found in gut bacteria) and interfere with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes (required for activation of vitamin D and the creation of nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate).

Glyphosate also chelates important minerals, disrupts sulfate synthesis and transport, interferes with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, resulting in folate and neurotransmitter shortages, disrupts your microbiome by acting as an antibiotic, impairs methylation pathways, and inhibits pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism.2,3

Now, government researchers warn the Roundup formula is far more toxic than glyphosate alone. As reported by investigative journalist Carey Gillam:4

“The tests5 are part of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) first-ever examination of herbicide formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate, but that also include other chemicals. While regulators have previously required extensive testing of glyphosate in isolation, government scientists have not fully examined the toxicity of the more complex products sold to consumers, farmers and others.”

Toxicology Testing Long Overdue

The NTP testing was done by request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassification of glyphosate as a Class 2A probable carcinogen three years ago.6 At the time, the IARC noted concerns about glyphosate formulations possibly having increased toxicity due to synergistic interactions.

As it turns out, that’s exactly what the NTP testing found. According to the NTP’s summary of the results, glyphosate formulations “significantly altered” the viability of human cells by disrupting the functionality of cell membranes. Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP Laboratory, told Gillam, “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it.”

While first-phase results do not indicate that weed killers like Roundup are carcinogenic, it does show that the formulations are more toxic than glyphosate in isolation (for which evidence of carcinogenic potential does exist), and that they have the ability to kill human cells.

Jennifer Sass, who works as a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, added, “This testing is important, because the EPA has only been looking at the active ingredient. But it’s the formulations that people are exposed to on their lawns and gardens, where they play and in their food.”

Despite public assurances that Roundup is harmless, internal documents from Monsanto, obtained through previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, reveal the company itself is unclear about the toxicity of Roundup as it has not been thoroughly studied. Internal discussions also reveal Monsanto employees have not been convinced the product is harmless. For example, in a 2002 email, Monsanto executive William Heydens said, “Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product … does the damage.”7

A 2003 company email8 from Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer, Ph.D., states, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”

Farmer also adds that, “We cannot support the statement about ‘no adverse effects whatsoever on flora, or fauna or on the human body.’ Adverse effects are seen on flora (glyphosate is meant to kill vegetation), adverse effects on fauna — in studies with laboratory animals — even death is seen (LDS0 studies for example) …” Yet another company email sent in 2010 said,9 “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on them directly.”

Despite such internal discussions and doubts, in its “Benefits and Safety of Glyphosate” report published last year,10 Monsanto continues to claim that “Glyphosate-based herbicides are supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health and environmental effects databases ever compiled for a pesticide product. Comprehensive toxicological and environmental fate studies conducted over the last 40 years have time and again demonstrated the strong safety profile of this widely used herbicide.”

Ramazzini Institute Seeking Donations for Global Safety Study

The highly respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy — which recently confirmed the link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors found by NTP researchers11,12,13 — is now raising funds14 to perform a comprehensive, global glyphosate study. Stage 1 would investigate the chemical’s carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity potential. The Institute explains its decision to look for public funding:

“Aiming to produce independent and solid scientific evidence, the Ramazzini Institute has decided not to accept any funding for the study from the industry that produces glyphosate-based herbicides or from the organic farming or food industry — to avoid all conflicts of interest.

Do you want to know if glyphosate is safe for you and your family? If you do, you can now help fund a study that you can trust. This is the most comprehensive independent study ever on the World’s most used herbicide, the study that you and your family deserve!”

Bt Soybean Plan Scrapped

In related news, Monsanto’s plan to release a new crop of Bt soybeans for the U.S. market has been scrapped. While the company claims plans were shelved due to low demand, entomologists have proposed it’s more likely due to the reality that insects are rapidly developing resistance to the pesticide-producing plants.

The first generation of Bt soybeans, Intacta RR2 PRO, contain a single Bt protein called Cry1Ac. The second-generation of this product, Intacta 2 Xtend, adds two other Bt proteins — Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 — plus dicamba tolerance. While Intacta 2 Xtend is still planned for release in South America in 2021, it will not be released in the U.S. According to a report by DTN/Progressive Farmer:15

“[T]he Bt proteins in Intacta 2 — Cry1Ac, Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 — have already been compromised by insect resistance in the U.S., where they are used extensively in Bt cotton and Bt corn. Texas A&M entomologist David Kerns and his colleagues have identified bollworm populations across the South with resistance to Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.

Resistance to Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 has also been found in corn earworm populations in Maryland. Moreover, Cry1A.105’s similar mode of action to other Cry1 proteins on the U.S. landscape spells trouble for the trait, Kerns noted.

It’s a vector stack — they’ve taken the active part of the toxin from several different Cry proteins — Cry1Ab, Cry1F and Cry1Ac — and put them into one … So cross resistance would be highly likely, and there is already established resistance to Cry1F in all bollworm populations. So I would suspect Cry1A.105 would not have much activity on our Helicoverpa zea [bollworm] populations.’”

Vaccines for Plants Are Next

As if genetically tinkering with plants to make them produce pesticide internally isn’t odd or unnatural enough, scientists are now working on plant vaccines. As explained by Regeneration International, RNA interference (RNAi) technology is being used “to develop biodegradable ‘vaccines’ intended to protect crops from pathogens.” The rationale for developing plant vaccines is to minimize the use of chemical pesticides.

While we certainly need to eliminate agrochemicals from food production, RNAi technology is risky business and could produce any number of unforeseen consequences. In a letter to the editors of Yale Environmental 360 in response to its April 18 article, “Can ‘Vaccines’ for Crops Help Cut Pesticide Use and Improve Yields?”17 Regeneration International founding member Judith Schwartz writes, in part:18

“As a journalist covering land management, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of skepticism demonstrated in this reporting. Any distinction between this and ‘chemical pesticides,’ or for that matter, ‘genetic engineering,’ is merely semantic; if gene editing is not considered genetic engineering that’s only because the companies say so. As we do not know if this technology is safe, how can we be sure that non-targeted genes are not deactivated? …

This could dangerously impact insect, plant and/or mammal species and ecological stabilities … There are a growing number of farmers who are working with nature by means of no-till, cover-cropping and other ecological practices, who are finding that the best means of managing problem insects is biodiversity: the other insects that prey on them.

Such farmers have been able to grow healthy crops while markedly reducing and often eliminating herbicides and pesticides. Independent research19 has shown that pesticide-treated croplands often have far more pests and impacts than untreated cropland. Aren’t problem pests a symptom of an out-of-balance ecology? Could not this RNAi experiment throw the ecology even further out of balance?

How would this address the underlying problem, rather than merely boost the sale of pesticides? … [W]e can already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people; the challenge is in distribution, nutrient density and affordability. Nor is this the job of industrial agriculture. More than 70 percent of the world’s food is grown by small-holder farmers in the developing world …

Given the limited research on RNAi technology that is not funded by entities that would benefit from its use, isn’t more critical analysis required? I would encourage your editorial staff to run an objective piece that goes into more details on the implications of RNAi technology and considers pest management alternatives.”

Proposed GMO Labeling Rules Likely to Confuse and Mislead Consumers

Another piece of related news: As recently reported by the Sierra Club20 and Modern Farmer,21 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its proposal22 for the labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) May 3, and it’s pretty bizarre, or to use the word of Sierra Club, “Orwellian.” There are a number of problems with the USDA’s proposed GMO labeling rule:

1. Perhaps most problematic is the fact that it’s not clear whether “highly refined foods” will be included in the labeling standard. Not only are a majority of foods sold in grocery stores highly refined, or contain highly refined ingredients, but these foods are also the most likely to contain GMOs. If highly refined foods will not require GMO labeling, the labeling requirement will be essentially useless, as very few whole foods are genetically engineered.

2. The phrases “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” are not included anywhere on the label. Nor are any versions thereof, or the now well-recognized household word, “GMO.” Instead of calling it what it is, and what people now are most likely to understand, the USDA is using the word “bioengineered” — a rather misleading phrase for the simple fact that it sounds far more natural than it is; closer to biodynamic than genetically modified.

3. The proposal also does not address whether foods produced using newer forms of genetic engineering, such as gene editing, CRISPR technology and synthetic biology, will need to be labeled, and/or whether they would require another type of label to distinguish them from in-vitro DNA techniques.

4. The logo itself: The word “be,” short for bioengineered, inside a yellow and green smiley-face sun. Again, this smacks of biotech promotion and misdirection. As stated by George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, “We would support a little circle that said ‘GE’ or ‘GMO’ — something neutral that’s not pro-biotech propaganda.”


5. Lack of standardized icon. Rather than mandating an easily recognizable icon or logo, companies would have the option of the smiley sun logo (above), two other “be” logos (see the proposed rule document23), simply adding a sentence along the lines of “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient,” or a simply including a QR code directing you to the company’s website for more information about the ingredients, the latter of which will require you to have a smartphone and reliable connection inside the store.

As noted by Kimbrell, “USDA’s own study found that QR codes are inherently discriminatory against the one-third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even more so against rural, low-income, and elderly populations, or those without access to the internet.”24

Take Action — Public Comments Open Until July 3

Sophia Kruszewski, senior policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition told Sierra Club, “I think there’s a question as to why … USDA is choosing to consider new terms, other than GMO or GE, and other forms of labeling. Especially since … many companies have responded to consumer desire for transparency and started voluntarily labeling their products. [GMO disclosure] doesn’t seem to pose an enormous challenge.”

Indeed, it seems the USDA is unnecessarily complicating matters, and the only reason I can come up with for this is they’re trying to help the biotech industry by making the labeling as obscure as possible. Considering the time it has taken to raise awareness about GMOs and GE food, suddenly calling GMOs “bioengineered” seems like a very deliberate attempt to mislead people who have now grown accustomed to looking for “non-GMO” labels.

The USDA is accepting public comments on its proposal through July 3, 2018. The final rule is expected to be delivered July 29. You can read through the proposed rulemaking for the national bioengineered food disclosure standard here. If you agree that it largely fails to label GMOs in any meaningful and easy-to-understand way, please take a moment to submitting your comment on the federal eRulemaking portal.

Comments may also be mailed to: Docket Clerk, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Room 4543-South, Washington, DC 20250, or faxed to 202-690-0338. Make sure you properly identify the docket ID for your comment if sending by mail or fax, which in this case would be AMS-TM-17-0050 (The Agricultural Marketing Service Proposed Rule for the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard).

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Air Pollution and Cold Days Spike Cardiac Events

By Dr. Mercola

There is an epidemic of heart disease in the U.S. and conventional treatments are not proving to be as effective as hoped. Some of the factors associated with an increased risk of heart disease are obesity, high blood pressure, smoking and diabetes. These factors may lead to a heart attack, during which part of the heart is deprived of oxygen, slowly killing the muscle.

In the case of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), the heart experiences an electrical event causing it to suddenly and unexpectedly stop beating. The individual suddenly loses consciousness as the brain is deprived of oxygen. Without immediate medical attention the individual may die within minutes, in which case it would be deemed a sudden cardiac death (SCD).1

Just as there are physiological differences between a heart attack and SCA, there are also different factors triggering each event. While heart attacks are caused by mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired microcirculation to your heart and chronically suppressed parasympathetic nervous system activity, SCA is triggered by an arrhythmia affecting the electrical system of the heart. Researchers have now discovered an association between exposure to cool air and air pollution, and an increased risk of SCD.2

Prevalence of Sudden Cardiac Death Remains High

While the number of deaths attributed to heart disease has steadily declined over the past two decades,3 falling more than 25 percent from 2004 to 2014,4 the prevalence of SCD has remained steady.5 SCD accounts for greater than 50 percent of all deaths related to heart disease and nearly 20 percent of overall deaths. The incidence of SCD in the U.S. ranges between 180,000 and 450,000 cases annually.

The estimates vary widely as the definitions and surveillance for SCD are difficult to ascertain.6 For the most part, SCD refers to an unexpected death related to a cardiovascular event in a person with or without pre-existing heart disease. Despite improvements in resuscitation and post resuscitation care, survival to hospital discharge after an SCA is estimated at only 7.9 percent.7 Additionally, many of these events occur at home where they are unwitnessed.

Reducing the number of individuals succumbing to SCD requires an in-depth understanding of the epidemiology, reducing risk potential and applying interventions many in the population may easily access. The American Heart Association estimates there are more than 356,000 out-of-hospital SCAs annually and over 90 percent are fatal.8

In contrast, there are about 790,000 people who have a heart attack each year and 114,000 die from the event, or 14.4 percent.9 SCA is the leading medical cause of death in athletes. A comprehensive literature search and review found rates could vary between 1 in 917,000 and 1 in 3,000 athletes. Those who have a higher risk appear to be black, male basketball players.10

Small Particulate Matter and Cold Weather May Trigger Cardiac Arrest

In research from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, researchers studied 112,000 women between 1999 and 2011 who were enrolled in the Nurse’s Health Study, an ongoing study beginning in 1976.11 During the study period researchers found 221 SCDs associated with lower temperatures and higher levels of particulate matter.

Particulate matter (PM), also known as particulate pollution, is a mix of small particles and liquid droplets in the air. Researchers were interested in particles less than 2.5 microns in size. PM2.5 is so tiny the particles can get deep into your lungs and even pass into your bloodstream,12 as they are 30 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.

The researchers evaluated both the amount of particulate matter in the air and the temperature on the day SCD occurred. They found increasing levels of PM 2.5 were associated with a 22 percent higher risk of SCD. When the temperature dropped below 55 degrees Fahrenheit (F), the odds increased 2.6 times higher than over 55 degrees F.13 Interestingly, once the temperature dropped below 39 degrees F., the risk also leveled off. There was no increase risk in temperatures above 55 degrees.

The women who suffered SCD during the study had no underlying heart disease the researchers could determine. The researchers also found that other risk factors for heart disease, including age, weight and smoking, did not appear to affect the risk of SCD. Hart commented,14 “The risk of this outcome is extremely low for an individual woman. It’s on a population level where we’re concerned.” The researchers also noted that while the participants in the study were all women, they would expect similar results in men.15

Even a small amount of air pollution on colder days could increase your risk of experiencing cardiac arrest. Dr. Kevin Marzo, chief of cardiology at New York University Winthrop Hospital was not involved in the study. However, after having reviewed the results, he commented the presence of cold weather and air pollution may produce a perfect storm, increasing inflammation and constricting blood supply to the heart so even healthy women had an increased risk of sudden death.16

How Air Pollution Affects Your Heart

Nearly 92 percent of the world population breathe polluted air.17 Often, both your indoor and outdoor air is polluted, but with different toxins. According to a study from the International Energy Agency, 6.5 million people worldwide die each year due to exposure to air pollution.18 Past research found a link between air pollution and cardiovascular disease, and more recently researchers have found how microscopic particles enter the bloodstream and affect the heart.19

Using both human and mouse models, researchers determined microparticles access the bloodstream through the lungs, some having an affinity for accumulating in damaged or inflamed areas of your vascular system.20 Some of the particles were detected in the urine of the subjects nearly three months after testing had been completed.

In another study,21 researchers worked with participants who were scheduled for removal of damaged blood vessels, which put them at high risk for a heart attack or stroke. On the day prior to surgery, the participants inhaled gold nanoparticles. Once the vessels were removed and analyzed, the researchers found that within 24 hours the vessels had accumulated the gold nanoparticles in the damaged areas.22

It has become clear that air pollution damages your lung and vascular tissues. Major components of outdoor air pollution include carbon monoxide, phytochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead.23 Chemicals include inorganic and organic compounds, ranging from those large enough to be seen by the naked eye to nanoparticles that may easily slip into your bloodstream.24

Cold Weather May Trigger a Heart Attack or SCD

Cold air is a secondary risk factor for heart attack and SCD. According to the American Heart Association,25 nearly every 40 seconds someone in America has a heart attack. In cold weather, especially during rapid changes in weather, it’s more likely your blood vessels will constrict.

If you already suffer from narrowing of the blood vessels related to underlying heart disease, this additional restriction to vital organs can lead to minimizing blood flow to the heart, chest pain and potentially a subsequent heart attack.26 Additionally, cold weather puts a strain on your circulatory system, increasing your risk of loss of oxygen to your heart muscle. Increasing physical activity, such as shoveling snow in cold weather, can place additional stress on your heart.

Although researchers are unsure of the exact physiological reason, they know the risk of SCD increases during cold weather. A recent study published in the BMJ27 evaluated over 3,500 autopsy-verified cases of SCD in Finland.

They concluded there was an association between cold spells and SCD, strongest during the autumn months. Another study performed in Minnesota28 came to a similar conclusion after evaluating the incidence of heart attacks and SCDs from 1979 to 2002. Their data suggested a peak in SCD during the winter months was accounted for by the cooler weather.

Evaluating short-term exposure to the cold in middle-aged hypertensive men,29 researchers found an alteration in cardiac repolarization and regulation resulting in changes to the participants’ EKG readings. Exposure to dry air and lower temperatures was also associated with the onset of atrial fibrillation in patients who had known cardiac disease.30 Atrial fibrillation is an arrhythmia, or abnormal heartbeat.

In an analysis of 48 trials,31 researchers found SCD was the most common cause of death in patients who had atrial fibrillation. SCD accounted for greater than 20 percent of all deaths in the patient population, representing a 2.5 increased risk over those who did not have atrial fibrillation. Another meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant increased risk of SCD in those who also suffer with atrial fibrillation in the general population.32

Changing EPA Standards May Increase Air Pollution in the US

Based on the results from Hart’s study, which occurred under the current EPA standards for air pollution, the standards are protective enough, and Hart expressed concern that the Trump administration will increase health risks if they’re successful in rolling back regulations.33

Vice president of the Health Effects Institute, Bob O’Keefe, believes the gap between the most polluted air and the least polluted air is striking, as developed countries have made moves to clean air pollution and developing countries have fallen further behind while concentrating on economic growth.34 A report by the Institute reinforces data demonstrating air pollution is contributing toward a rising number of deaths.35 As air pollution does not respect country boundaries, it is vital every country seeks to reduce pollution.

Data from satellites and ground monitoring reveal health risks are rising from breathing dirty air. However, while many consumer protection advocacy programs are fighting to clean the air you breathe, it appears efforts led by the Trump administration could lead to worse air quality in America.36

The American Lung Association (ALA) called out Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency in their State of the Air report for six threats to the nation’s air quality, including steps being taken by the administration to weaken enforcement of key safeguards required in the Clean Air Act.37

Current legislation to weaken the Clean Air Act includes repealing plans to reduce carbon pollution from power plants and removing limits on emissions from oil and gas operations, each contributing to increasing particulate air pollution and raising your health risks.38  ALA national president and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said in a press release:39

“The Clean Air Act has saved lives and improved lung health for nearly 50 years. Congress and the EPA are tasked with protecting Americans — including protecting the right to breathe air that doesn’t make people sick or die prematurely. We call on President Trump, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and members of Congress to fully fund, implement and enforce the Clean Air Act for all pollutants — including those that drive climate change and make it harder to achieve healthy air for all.”

Protect Your Health and Home From Air Pollution

Marzo recommends reducing your exposure to air pollution and cold air by limiting your outdoor workouts on days when pollution levels are high, and especially when the temperatures are below 55 degrees F.40 Strategies that will help reduce your exposure to indoor air pollution can be found in my previous article, “The Air We Breathe Is More Polluted Than You Know.”

Lastly, while you don’t have any control over outdoor air pollution, there are dietary measures that can help buffer the effects. Overall, seek to eat a diet of whole foods, rich in anti-inflammatory vegetables and healthy fats. Among the most important dietary interventions to consider are:41

Animal-based omega-3 fats

In a study of 29 middle-aged people, animal-based omega-3 supplementation reduced some of the adverse effects to heart health and lipid levels, including triglycerides, occurring with exposure to air pollution (olive oil did not have the same effect).42

Broccoli sprouts

Broccoli sprout extract was shown to prevent the allergic nasal response occurring upon exposure to particles in diesel exhaust, leading the researchers to suggest broccoli or broccoli sprouts could protect against air pollution’s effect on allergic disease and asthma.43 A broccoli sprout beverage also enhanced detoxification of some airborne pollutants in residents of a highly polluted region in China.44

Vitamins C and E

Among children with asthma, antioxidant supplementation including vitamins C and E helped to buffer the impact of ozone exposure on their airways.45

B vitamins

A small-scale human trial found high doses of vitamins B6, B9 and B12 in combination completely offset damage caused by very fine particulate matter in air pollution.46 Four weeks of high-dose supplementation reduced genetic damage in 10 gene locations by 28 to 76 percent, protected mitochondrial DNA from the harmful effects of pollution, and even helped repair some of the genetic damage.

What Is Thirdhand Smoke?

By Dr. Mercola

Despite decades of education and warnings by the U.S. Surgeon General,1 smoking continues to be the “single largest preventable cause of cancer and disease in the United States.”2 Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 people in the U.S. each year, contributing to $300 billion in direct medical care and lost productivity.

Health risks from smoking combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes are not limited to your lungs. Some of the effects are immediate and others are clinically evident after several months or years of smoking. Nearly 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S. are related to smoking and 80 percent of all lung cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking cigarettes.3

Many of these health conditions are the result of exposure to the 7,000 different chemicals found in combustible cigarettes, including nicotine, benzene and tar. Researchers recently found an alarming number of chemicals deposited from cigarette smoke in unexpected areas, increasing your risk of exposure to the same toxins responsible for cancers and diseases from cigarette smoking,4 even when you think you’re in a smoke-free environment.

First-, Second- and Thirdhand Smoke

Prior to being smoked, an individual cigarette has nearly 600 ingredients.5 However, once burned, the combustion creates more than 7,000 chemicals, at least 70 of which are known to cause cancer and more that are poisonous.6 Smokers are exposed to primary or firsthand smoke as they inhale. Bystanders are exposed to secondhand smoke, the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the exhalation from the smoker.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),7 nearly 2.5 million adults have died from breathing secondhand smoke since 1964. In other words, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Health effects in children include middle ear infections, lower respiratory infections and sudden infant death syndrome. Adults exposed to secondhand smoke are at higher risk for stroke, coronary heart disease and reproductive problems.

Breathing secondhand smoke interferes with the normal functioning of your heart, blood and vascular system, which may increase your risk of having a heart attack.8 Even brief exposure may damage the endothelium and lining of the blood vessels, and trigger your platelets to become sticky. These changes may lead to a heart attack or stroke.

Thirdhand smoke is the combination of secondhand smoke sticking to surfaces and persisting in the environment long after the smoker has left,9 and includes nicotine.10 These tobacco-related gases and particles may become embedded in carpet, furniture, toys and blankets.

Unfortunately, the chemicals may also undergo transformation and accumulate before being released back into the air. While many are aware of the consequences of smoking cigarettes, and even exposure to secondhand smoke, the idea of exposure long after the smoker has left the room is relatively new, but gaining ground in the research community.

Thirdhand Smoke Exposes You to Hazardous Residue

Research into the potential dangers of thirdhand smoke has received coverage in the international media11 and scientific press, and court cases are appearing in which plaintiffs are citing dangers from exposure to thirdhand smoke.12 Cleveland Clinic pulmonologist Dr. Humberto Choi commented on the increasing number of lung cancer cases not directly related to first- or secondhand smoke, saying13 “we’re looking at other causes for cancer aside from direct exposure.” 

One study found exposure to thirdhand smoke may be causing damage to human DNA, increasing your risk of diseases.14 Airborne chemicals in a room or car may react with nitrous acid in the air, forming carcinogens. According to Choi,15 “It hasn’t been proven that thirdhand smoke is correlated with any other conditions. And that will be very difficult to prove because we are all exposed to it no matter how hard we try to avoid it.”

George Matt, psychology professor at San Diego State University, believes even in the absence of hard evidence thirdhand smoke may have long-term health effects. Nonsmokers and former smokers are already changing behavior by asking for nonsmoker rooms, apartments and cars, while real estate agents understand smoking negatively affects property values.16

Tobacco giant Philip Morris demonstrated their knowledge of the potential risks associated with thirdhand smoke in 1998 when they worked to change the public focus from potential health problems by designing answers to questions at their annual shareholder meeting using a marketing consultant and legally protected language, treating thirdhand smoke risks as merely rumor and blaming smoking restrictions on cigarette butt litter.17

Nonsmoking Is Not Necessarily Smoke-Free

While manufacturers would like you to believe dangers from thirdhand smoke are only rumors, animal studies suggest there may be an increased risk of lung cancer,18 immune damage,19 liver damage and diabetes.20 In the latest study, published in the journal Science Advances, researchers happened upon their findings by accident. Atmospheric chemist Peter DeCarlo, Ph.D., at Drexel University in Philadelphia, led a team intent on studying how indoor and outdoor air interact.

The researchers collected data from a college classroom off limits to smokers for years. The room contained 25 student desks, painted brick walls and a tile floor where chemical deposits were collected.21 The classroom received heating, ventilation and air conditioning from outdoor air. DeCarlo and colleagues compared the air inside the room to the air outside the building and found most of the aerosolized chemicals detected in the classroom originated from outside.22

In many cases, the concentrations of chemicals in the room were positively affected by the HVAC filtration system, and were lower in the indoor air. However, among four different organic aerosols identified by mass spectrometry, one was found mainly in the classroom at higher levels. This aerosol contained the residue of cigarette smoke, called thirdhand smoke. These results surprised the researchers who were testing areas off limits to smokers for decades, suggesting toxins are still present.23

The researchers collecting the data were interested in the movement of particles from outside to indoors. After careful examination and testing, they found 29 percent of the entire indoor aerosol mass contained thirdhand smoke chemicals.24 Subsequently, the team found these chemicals could attach to aerosolized particles and get back into the air, ultimately being transported into environments considered smoke-free. Michael Waring, Ph.D., coauthor of the study, commented:25

“While many public areas have restriction on smoking, including distance from doorways, non-smoking buildings and even full smoking bans on campus for some universities, these smoking limitations often only serve to protect non-smoking populations from exposure to secondhand smoke. This study shows that thirdhand smoke, which we are realizing can be harmful to health as with secondhand smoke, is much more difficult to avoid.”

Another study26 evaluated the presence of smoking chemicals, including nicotine, in a casino that banned smoking. The researchers found long-term smoking created deep thirdhand smoke reservoirs, persisting for months after the ban was instituted. While the ban improved air quality and reduced exposure to secondhand smoke, the reservoir of toxins continued to expose customers to low levels of toxic chemicals.

Children May Be at Greatest Risk

Unfortunately, children may suffer the greatest health hazard risks to thirdhand smoke and other environmental toxins. Childhood is a time of rapid growth, accompanied by changes in metabolic abilities and organ system functioning.27 These can dramatically modify the effects of exposure to environmental toxins. Their increased risk is the result of their increased exposure and vulnerability related to their physiological needs.28

Children’s exposure to environmental toxins is insidious as they covertly enter the child’s body through ingestion of household dust and mouthing areas of their environment, such as toys and furniture, where toxins may have been deposited. Children also consume more food and water per unit kilogram body weight and breathe more air. Immature organs are sensitive to external stimuli and their rapid growth increases the long-term accumulation of chemicals.29

Becoming Airborne Again

Researchers from Drexel began digging into the mechanism allowing thirdhand smoke to get indoors and become airborne again. Previous research had demonstrated as chemicals transition out of gas form they settle on any surface.30 However, they can concentrate in particles when the chemicals are in gas form and exposed to an acidic, liquid aerosol. This means they may be carried into smoke-free environments while waiting for the right conditions to transition into gas.

The researchers discovered a combination of conditions necessary for the particles to become aerosolized is actually pretty common indoors. They suggested the chemicals could return to a gas phase when exposed to specific chemicals often commonly found in buildings, such as ammonia. In fact, HVAC systems provide the necessary factors to spread toxic chemicals and the factors needed to become airborne again. The researchers wrote:

“The HVAC system not only serves to condition the aerosols to wet or dry states, but also to move air through a building zone. HVAC systems recirculate and disperse air throughout the multiple rooms of the zone served by the system. For this reason, a room located near a smoking area with smoke penetration or a room occupied by a smoker can effectively expose the other occupants served by the same HVAC system to third-hand smoke, even if they do not share space directly.”

Research from Drexel only evaluated ventilated spaces, such as office buildings and classrooms. Waring explained31 concentrations are likely higher in residences, hotel rooms and rental cars where people had smoked and where there is less ventilation.

The researchers suggest the gravity of the situation indicated by the data raises important questions for further research about how you can limit exposure. It might be easy to recognize the presence of pollutants if you can see them or smell them, but this data is a reminder of how many odorless chemicals are in the environment.

Cleaning Residue Is Difficult

As chemicals and toxins from thirdhand smoke builds over time, it may remain for weeks, months or even years. This buildup is resistant to normal cleaning methods. Additionally, the toxins cannot air out of a room or car with fans or cleaned with vacuums.32 Unfortunately, the only solution is often to replace your carpet and thoroughly clean the walls before repainting them. Ventilation systems often need to be cleaned and furniture replaced.

It’s expensive to completely eliminate thirdhand smoke from a room and eliminate exposure to future residents. The best way to manage the danger is to stop smoking. Your home represents a large portion of your exposure to risk related to the amount of time spent at home. If you’re able to improve air quality in your own home, you go a long way toward reducing your potential risk over time.

Consider methods of improving air quality at home using some of the strategies outlined in my previous article, “The Air You Breathe Is More Polluted Than You Know.” Researchers who studied the pollution effects of a smoking ban in a casino over time33 say you can accelerate positive health effects by remediating thirdhand smoke reservoirs, which include intensive cleaning and replacement of carpet, furniture and other materials.

Well, if you’re looking for Jordan Sather’s YouTube page… Ain’t there no more!

He’s been “banned” again. Too much Light for YouTube I presume. From Jordan’s FB page:

In today’s news,

YouTube issued me a Community Guidelines strike for my last video, removed it, then deleted my channel (again). Now it is “suspended”, and I’m unable to log into any of my YouTube accounts.

1984 in action. We’ll see where we go from here.

He also has a BitChute channel. I do see that his most recent video is also uploaded there.

Masters of Deceit

By Anna Von Reitz

Rod is behind — as in not caught up — with me in some areas, but, he is ahead of us in some areas of investigation, too, and he has taken on some of the toughest interfaces to investigate. Who else do you know who has taken the issue of gun rights down the throat of the Municipal Government?  Hmm?   I admire him for that and for his dogged strength and determination to get to the bottom of the particular “piles” he has chosen to work on.  I need about a million others just like him taking up their part of the work and chewing on their part of the Elephant in the Middle of the Room.  

Remember always that these people we are dealing with specialize in telling half-truths and misrepresentations and distractions.  They have bags of tricks that they use to discredit people and confuse issues.  They are professionals at this — some could even be called “artists of deception”.  They come along behind people like me and Rod and Deborah and William Cooper and Jean Keating and they do everything possible to discredit what we are saying because when the American people wake up and start really looking into the dark corners — their whole hegemony and gravy train will come to a screeching halt.  There’s a good movie about this called “The Masters of Deceit” and although it focuses more on product campaigns and lobbyist activities, it shows you how these vermin operate. 

They have something to GAIN by trying to discredit people like me and Rod and Deborah, but what do we have to gain by telling you what we have dug out of public records and earned by hard experience?   Nothing at all.  We may be wrong or right about our interpretations, but the point that we’ve found it in the public record or experienced it directly, should be a clue to the rest of humanity that yes, indeed, something is wrong and not only in Denmark.  

When I first started this, people wanted me to “prove” everything to them, but I am not so green and foolish as all that.  Nobody ever proves anything to anyone else.  People have to be curious enough to look and learn for themselves and in effect, use their own reasoning and things the that they directly see and observe for themselves before they know the truth and therefore own the truth and prove it to themselves.  So keep and open mind and open ears and keep your Shinola Sensors turned on “High” and sift and winnow everything to discern the truth for yourself.  I think that when you do, you will realize that a lot of what you are hearing that initially sounds “far fetched” or “incredible” will fall neatly into a pattern verified by history and public records that can’t be denied. 

See this article and over 1000 others on Anna’s website here:
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Postal Fraud and Breach of Trust

By Anna Von Reitz

One of the most frustrating parts of the current situation is that Americans continue to respect and trust the very people that have betrayed them.  

This is what makes “breach of trust” such a difficult and reprehensible crime — difficult in that the victims often resist those who are trying to help them and deny that their beloved “Trustees” would ever cheat or harm them, and reprehensible in that the guilty parties have knowingly traded upon this trust placed in them and in the positions of power entrusted to them to implement the crime. 

If the members of Congress had done their actual jobs, if former Presidents had acted with Honor, none of the evils infesting our monetary and political and court systems would exist.  And we, ourselves, had we done our job and been less trusting and more vigilant— this situation wouldn’t exist, either.  

One of those who has done his best to truly represent the people who placed their trust in him, New Hampshire Representative Richard Marple, has recently raised the issue of postal fraud and the misuse and abuse of the postal service to deliver bogus court documents and bills–essentially promoting a scam– so a group of us have been discussing and I share my comments below: 

It IS both grammar fraud– they know that when they address anything to RICHARD MARPLE they are addressing a public trust that they set up and named after you without your knowledge or consent– and postal fraud. 

The use of all capital letters is known as “DOG LATIN”.  In this country it has been used as “American Sign Language.” 
If you look it up in Black’s Fourth or in the Chicago Manual of Style you will get an eye-full.  Friends in Australia have tracked its use and misuse all the way back to the Emperor Justinian.  They have an entire WordPress site dedicated to the subject– The Justinian Deception.  It is very well documented. 

So when they create a public trust named after you without your knowledge or consent they are creating an “unconscionable” contract.  You are literally not conscious of any of this. 

Right out of the box any such contract in any jurisdiction of the law is null and void the moment you object to it, but how are you going to object if you don’t know that any such THING exists? 

The one contract that you can’t break is the one you are not aware of. 

They know the scam they have set up, but you don’t.  So they send you mail addressed to their PUBLIC TRUST as if you were the Trustee responsible for this, and you mistakenly think it is addressed to you and answer the summons or whatever else without objection so— gotcha!  They shirk off their responsibility for their creation and hang it around your neck instead. 

Now, they are committing fraud against average Americans when they set up this whole system and start using a foreign language–DOG LATIN — to secretively mis-address us.  They are committing mail fraud by sending their solicitations through the mail to us “as if” we were the Trustees responsible for IT.  

And the only way they get away with this is by pretending that this is all “voluntary” and we are knowingly and willingly allowing them to do this. 

It is criminal and may not be excused in terms of private contracts.  An illegal private contract is still illegal.  Slavery and involuntary servitude have both been outlawed worldwide since 1926.   Any contract voluntary of involuntary yielding that result is also null and void.  

But we have to object to being bonded and we have to object to any presumption of Trusteeship related to IT and we have to object to the Mail fraud and so on—and how are The People going to do that if (1) they don’t know this ugly foreign system exists and (2) they don’t know they have been targeted and included in this foreign system by these scam artists and (3) they trust and respect the vermin doing this to them and think you are a crackpot when you try to warn them? 


A Purgatory Oath is an Ecclesiastical/Canon Law Oath that has no place in a Commercial Court.  Just like Writs don’t work in a Commercial or Administrative Court. 

You have three different systems — air, land, and sea — and they all have different conventions — different means of expression, different forms to fill out, different courts to invoke.  

A lot of the confusion in the courts comes about because people think they are in one kind of court when in fact they are in another kind of court.  It is necessary to nail them down as to what the declared and actual jurisdiction of the court is before you make ANY reply to them at all, and once they commit to a jurisdiction you have to watch them to make sure they stay in that jurisdiction.  If, after declaring jurisdiction, the judge makes an excuse and gets up and leaves the room and then comes back in, you have to repeat the demand for him to declare the actual jurisdiction of the court again.  They use this as a trick to switch jurisdictions when the court appears to be in continuous session. 

All these courts that the Bar Attorney (shipping clerks) operate are commercial courts and the Judges won’t budge from that jurisdiction absent action on your part forcing them to move from Maritime to Admiralty to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  Maritime deals with trusts and contracts that are implied, Admiralty deals with actual factual contracts and trusts that are written and present as evidence, Ecclesiastical Courts deal with moral issues and contracts we have with God —- and no judge wants to enter there. 

Maritime is the easiest jurisdiction for these yahoos to fudge around in, so that is where they dearly like to stay.  In Admiralty they have to hear the facts, which are often detrimental to the Court’s advantage.  In Ecclesiastical Law the Judge is put at risk and anything up to and including his life can be forfeit, so they avoid going into the realm unless they are utterly desperate and have no choice. 

And the moment you enter upon the land and soil jurisdiction of this country they have to vacate — simply dismiss and run — because they have no jurisdiction related to the land and soil at all and are obligated to obey the Law of the Land while on our shores, and they have often abundantly violated the Law of the Land, so best not to even discuss it from their standpoint. 

I have had so many of these courts return fees, release bonds and dismiss charges by now that this is set in cement and completely reliable and predictable.  They will not engage any issue on the land and soil jurisdiction nor can they operate any Court in the land and soil jurisdiction, because the Territorial United States has no such jurisdiction delegated to it.  

They can only succeed in their objective — which is to traffick you into their jurisdiction and fleece you — if you let them, which means you have to learn how to effectively shut them down and recognize all the tricks they use to weasel you into admitting, accepting, submitting, etc.


Along with re-affirming the land and soil jurisdiction courts owed to this country and populating those courts with properly trained Counselors-at-Law, and properly informed Jury Pools that are aware of and ready to use their nullification powers, we have to re-educate and discipline the Territorial Courts and the members of the Bar Associations. 

They do have a job to perform, but unfortunately, they have been usurping and presuming upon the American people and their assets, and have been subjecting millions of innocent people to unconscionable contracts under color of law. 

This has to stop and right about now.  It is nothing more or less than a venal international crime spree and if it means confiscating pensions, arresting judges, outlawing the Bar Associations on our shores — whatever it takes, must be done.

See this article and over 1000 others on Anna’s website here:
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website. 

Breast cancer drug lapatinib ACCELERATES cancer cell growth, concludes new study

(Natural News) A shocking new report has revealed a sordid truth about yet another one of Big Pharma’s cancer “treatment” concoctions: Lapatinib, used in breast cancer treatment to shrink tumors, actually makes cancer grow faster. There is no shortage of cancer drugs that makes people sicker, instead of healthier, it seems. Lapatanib is typically used…