You Asked! We Listened 🙂
Do Carbon Filters Eliminate Glyphosate?

Reader Kathryn L. asks whether carbon filters can eliminate glyphosate from her drinking water.  Good question!  This is what we found out…

As per the EPA, studies show that glyphosate is effectively removed with activated-carbon methods, as well as chlorine and ozone.  There are more than 750 glyphosate-based herbicides on the market, (Roundup being the most renowned), so this is a commonly used and ubiquitous herbicide.

How does glyphosate get into your water, Kathryn?  Run-off and erosion from farms, roadways and public spaces are one of the most common ways it gets into the soil, finding its way into the water supply. It’s water-soluble and in certain conditions can last up to 22 years!  The following map shows how much is being used state-to-state, from 2018:

What makes the issue difficult is that acceptable amounts of glyphosate (there are none!) vary from state-to-state under the Safe Drinking Water Act via the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.  The EPA established the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 700 ppb for glyphosate.  Hmmm.  Researchers found that levels of .1 ppb in rats caused fatty liver disease.  Maybe we should have another look at those levels?

But let’s get back to Kathryn’s question, and do a deeper dive into those carbon-based systems.  Carbon-based filters are an effective way to eliminate glyphosate as well as other unwanted chemicals.  The method of action is via the process of adsorption where toxicants bind to the surface of the carbon filter.  In order to expand the binding capacity of carbon, pores are created that increase the surface area, thus “activating” the carbon in the filter.  The sources of the carbon are from coconut, coal and activated carbon modified through the addition of iron hydroxide.

There are several factors that can affect the binding capacity including the amount of glyphosate present, the pH (ideal is between 4 and 5) and temperature of the water, the type of carbon being utilized as well as how long the water is in contact with the carbon.

The biggest obstacles are cost and the need to change the carbon filter on a regular basis.  While home units might be best, they are definitely higher in price.  Under the sink models and stand alone pitchers can also do the job!

When do you change the filter?  It depends on the usage, but approximately every 6 months to one year and/or when the carbon filter loses its adsorptive capacity.

Which ones should I buy?  Researching some of the filters out there, some of the leading pitcher-type filters include Clearly Filtered Water, Zero Water, and The Berkey.  This is an incomplete list, but will get you thinking about the need to filter your water so that it is clean and affordable.  A drink of pure water to your health, Kathryn, and to all of our readers!

GlyphoWHAT? The Daily Poisoning of Our Children

Our children are consuming a daily dose of poison. Parents are unaware of the great harm befallen our most vulnerable. And for those parents who attempt to thwart the daily dose of poison, children consume it at school.

If you are awake and aware of the harm of glyphosate, the declared main ingredient in Roundup, now a household word thanks to the dissemination of toxic seeds by Monsanto-now-Bayer, skip on down to the, “…So what do we do now?” section. If you need to be convinced, read on.

Monsanto’s product history includes DDT (think Rachel Carson and The Silent Spring), Agent Orange, GMOs, saccharin, PCBs, nuclear weapons, polystyrenes, aspartame, bovine growth hormone (rBGH), etc. Certainly healthy children did not make the Monsanto’s Who’s Who list.

Fun glyphosate facts:

•Nearly 1 lb of glyphosate for every person in the US is sprayed per year
•It’s water soluble, so our rain and groundwater are also contaminated
•It’s a patented antibiotic by Monsanto, killing off the beneficial microbes and promoting the growth of the pathogens
•It binds crucial biologically important metals, such as zinc, magnesium and manganese
•It’s used off-label as a crop desiccant (drying agent) which means at harvest, crops like oats, wheat and legumes take up whopping amounts of glyphosate
•Roundup-Ready crops are GMO and do not die when sprayed – that’s the only reason for the development of GMOs: They will not save the world 🙁
•Once farmers get on the Monsanto/Bayer hamster wheel, it is difficult to get off

What you may not know is how the GMOs and their associated pesticides show up other than on the dinner plate. Gauze pads? Sanitary products? Infant formula? Yes, yes, and yes.

Are Regulators Regulating?

The EPA says glyphosate is safe, yet the literature says otherwise. A study published in 2019 showed how glyphosate caused autism in lab animals. The offspring of moms exposed to ambient pesticides showed an increased rate of autism as well. The courts also disagree with the EPA. Bayer has had significant financial losses and payouts to the victims of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Do You Know Someone Who Doesn’t Have a Gut Problem? 

Glyphosate destroys the gut by interference with the gut tight junctions. This disruption causes intestinal leakiness and is responsible for toxic substances entering into the bloodstream, causing inflammation and oxidative stress, and disrupting hormones. What happens in the gut doesn’t stay in the gut.  There is a two-way pathway called the gut-brain axis. Injury to the tight junction membrane in the brain by glyphosate can also disrupt the blood brain barrier and create neurologic mayhem.

However, as we end the glyphosate assault, the trick is not to let Big Ag introduce equally or more toxic substitutes, like 2,4-D. The combo of this one-two knock-out punch has been shown to have non-targeted effects on wildlife.

So What Do We Do?

1. Stop and Shop!
Stop our daily poison and shop organics! Avoid processed foods and stick to the outer aisles of the supermarket.

2. Go Italian!
Think onions and garlic and Include a rainbow of veggies, bone broth soup, apple cider vinegar and fermented foods in your diet.

3. Get dirty!

Get outside in nature and move away from the screens.

4. Grow your own!

Plant herbs, microgreens or veggies in your window or garden.

5. Filter your water!

Decrease the toxic tap water load and your body will thank you.

6. Shake the tech addiction!

Shut off the router when not in use.

Make Health Regeneration Your Health Hobby

Everywhere you turn, more folks are moving away from the Pharmacy to the Farmacy, which concurrently supports your local farmer! Be part of the movement where the regeneration of your health and your family’s health is your hobby.  Here are some links to help you get started:

https://regenerationinternational.org/regenerative-farm-map
https://neighborhoodfoodnetwork.com
https://nontoxicneighborhoods.org

 

Dr. Michelle Perro is the author of the acclaimed book, What’s Making our Children Sick?, Co-Founder and Executive Director of www.gmoscience.org, and Advisor to the popular website on regenerative health, www.rhi.bio

How Do We Read Scientific Studies?
With a Perspective on a Simulated Study on Genetic Engineering

There has never been a more important time than the present to understand not only genetically engineered organisms, but the research behind their propagation and promotion. The science of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetic engineering (GE) is rapidly evolving, and their introduction has altered and affects all aspects of our well-being, including:

•Our health and the environment
•Agriculture
•Food manufacturing
•Medical products

New applications of existing tools are constantly being developed, with access by professional and amateur scientists, both in the lab and in home garages. While still novel, claims of precision are unfounded and continue to prompt new questions about the environmental and health impacts.

To say that the understanding of GE technology is clear is arrogant. It is a complex challenge to understand the risks, performance, and costs of new developments, such as CRISPR. Market excitement, accompanied by profitable patents grab supersedes precaution and a thorough understanding of what is at stake is ignored or discarded. The argument of “safety” remains murky in the case of many GE crop technologies.

As physicians, scientists and farmers, we read health-oriented scientific studies every day, looking to gain a deeper understanding of the root causes of dis-ease, while attempting to uncover better ways to restore and preserve health. The content of our website, Regeneration Health International (www.rhi.bio), draws upon not only our boots-on-the-ground experiences, but our collective wisdom in interpreting science and how we help to understand and offer solutions on how to optimize health.

The Scientific Method and How Science Advances

The scientific method involves making a hypothesis and designing a study to test, support or contradict the hypothesis. For example, if a substance is given to test animals in a long-term feeding trial, and we find that their organs such as the liver and kidneys have normal weight and appearance by the end of the study period, all we can say is that under the conditions of this experiment, there was no evidence of an adverse or toxic impact on these vital organs.

However, a study that delves more carefully into liver and kidney function, and not just the appearance, may reach a conflicting conclusion. Therefore, the first step in any quality study is to carefully review research protocols, records, and analytical and statistical methods in order to identify why the study results differ. It usually takes additional studies to further comprehend what happened and why. In some cases, questions linger even after dozens of studies, investments, and time spent in specialized studies. More questions may be raised than answered.

In the case of the rat feeding trial prior to the launch of GMOs, Monsanto studied rats for a 3 month period, fed a GMO diet. A confounding factor not identified was the quality and sourcing of their diet. Abnormalities were found, for example, in blood chemistries. Rather than performing the recommendations noted above, the conclusion in their study was that the findings were “not of clinical significance”. Both scientists and non-scientists would agree that this is faulty logic. Despite this concerning finding, GMOs were released.

The consequence of any study that demonstrates unintended consequences should have been further studies to analyze the problems found and/or to have withdrawn the product completely.

Are Regulators Regulating?

The challenge for policy makers is to specify the rules that govern what happens in the face of uncertain science and potential risks of severity, reach, and longevity.

With advances in analytical technologies and risk assessment tools, we can look at entirely different aspects and interactions between genetics and lifestyles, and between biology and health. These advances should be welcomed and are needed, and will allow public health scientists and regulators to do their jobs and avoid any uninvited surprised following the present rapid approval and release of GE crop and animal technology.

The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Risk Assessment

The top-shelf type of an experiment is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in a well-characterized human population. For example, if RHI wanted to assess the safety of a GE corn trait to be introduced into the market, the collective team would need to do the following:

•Assess a large number of people which gives the study “power”
•The people would be separated randomly into two groups
•A specific strain of GE corn grown under typical conditions would be studied
•One group of individuals in the study would consume a defined amount of the GE corn over a specified time period
•The other group would consume the same amount of corn, but from ears harvested from a field planted with the GE corn’s isoline, meaning the same background genetics, but without GE traits
•The control group would be comprised of corn uncontaminated with pesticides
•The two groups would be blinded as to which group they were enrolled and what they were consuming
•The teams conducting the trials would also be blinded as to which individuals were in the two assigned groups
•The team would designate which types of impacts from the ingestion of the corn that warrant tracking and perform comparisons between the groups
•Sample parameters might include changes in weight, metabolism, blood pressure, issues in the gastrointestinal tract, etc.
•Different tests could be utilized to look at organ function, changes in physiology and biopsies, or special tests (I.e., to assess the microbiome)
•When including laboratory tests, before and after studies are desirable for comparison

One of the most important aspects of a study is to avoid bias. Researchers on the teams examining any data or lab samples need to be unaware of which group the samples came from, and this is the second blinded aspect of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

The team would then analyze the data and perform the following:

•Compare impacts in the two study groups
•Assess treatment-oriented differences
•Record all findings which may or may not go against what they originally thought the results might reveal.

Human feeding studies are difficult, but are the gold standard. Straying from diet protocols dilutes what is called the statistical power of the study (I.e., the ability to detect differences in outcomes, if they indeed exist). For the best quality outcome, if one is doing a GE corn consumption study, the following would be need to be done:

•The setting is controlled, meaning in this case, the food is provided
•Intake is controlled and carefully measured
•Blinded researchers would be responsible for data collection during the study
•Study supervisors would require technical training

It is obvious the inherent difficulties and expenses one would encounter in trying to create they type of study needed to assess GE products. While the above type of study is desired as outlined-above, such studies have not been conducted on GE crop traits because who will be willing to pay for them? Without this evidence, assertions that foods derived from GE crops are safe are premature and inherently faulty. We have relied on rodent studies with many study shenanigans at play that manipulate data, such as using only a certain healthy population (i.e., juveniles), shortening the course of a feeding study, using contaminated feed in both groups which would diminish the impact of the findings and dismissing abnormal results, and the conflagration of absolute and relative risks. Sound familiar?

What Does Top-Tier Journalism Look Like?

Debate and re-examination of assumptions and accepted conclusions should be ongoing and active. Critical analysis of research methods is essential. However, even study types that appear powerful or invincible can have drawbacks, such as studies called meta-analyses which employ a statistical technique for aggregating data from multiple studies on a topic of interest. These types of studies are very important in healthcare settings because of their ability to weigh in on various degrees of evidence supporting different health strategies.

Conflicts of Interest

The more comprehensive the research the more expenses incurred. Bias can find its way into studies through many avenues, both inadvertent and intentional. That is why all reputable, high-impact journals utilize rigorous peer review and have conflict-of-interest as well as funding disclosure requirements. These mechanisms can serve to promote transparency and alert both study reviewers and readers to be on the lookout for the “devil in the details”.

While journals make efforts to combat bias and to disclose conflicts of interests, this does not make up for the lack of sufficient quality studies presently on GE crops. Often, the companies promoting the engineered foods are in charge of their own studies, injecting immediate bias. Neither the EPA nor FDA independently carry out risk assessment studies.

Teams of independent technology developers are necessary and industry-sponsored studies should be eliminated. The quality of studies conducted by GE technology developers has been uneven, with evidence of inappropriate methods, problematic data collection and fraud. A study is 2 to 5 times more likely to be favorable to a funder with a vested interest in a particular outcome, compared to a similar study on the same subject funded by a neutral source. Over time, the steady pressure of conflicts of interest has done much to skew the focus and quality of science supporting regulatory and public health decision-making, but this is far from what is should be for novel food products. Once they are released into the environment, recall is impossible.

RHI recognized that the restoration of integrity in the assessment and regulation of agricultural biotechnology is a complex and difficult mission, but vital if we are to prevent unintended consequences. Understanding study basics is a key part of this recognition. Our intention is to promote solutions-based platforms to regenerate health.

First, Do No Harm – Primum Non Nocere

An endeared principle to physicians is, “First, do no harm”. Thus, when doctors read scientific studies, they look hard for evidence of potential harm.

If a study does point to possible harm, obvious next questions include:

•Was there a follow up study that looked at the issues
•Did that study resolve or reinforce concerns over risk
•Is there any biological plausibility to a link between certain health problems and the consumption of GE foods and/or their pesticide components
•Can doctors extract from the published literature insights regarding who might be at risk (population cohorts) or who might be most responsive to an intervention

In order to be recommended by a physician, a substance must demonstrate evidence of benefit that clearly outweighs its potential for harm.

While we are presently referring to an invented GE study, one can extrapolate how this type of analysis is relevant to any population threat.

When less harmful alternatives with similar benefits exist, the choice is simple. This should be the basis of all FDA new drug approvals, but is rarely discussed in the context of GE crops and its oversight agency, the EPA. Whether the regulatory agencies are adhering to their own protocols is questionable.

Pressing Recognition of the Need for Excellent, Non-compromised Science

Different global agencies and medical institutions have stated that there are inadequate studies that show that GE foods are unequivocally safe. The scope and kind of studies necessary to support definitive safety findings are not required by the FDA or the EPA and have not been conducted on a single GE trait or crop. The GE plant-based Impossible Burger, now being consumed across the world especially in vegetarian communities, is based on one faulty study showing harm to the scanty number of rats studied, dismissed as inconsequential. We deserve and must demand better. Understanding the science is a key component in determining food policy. The goal of the RHI team is to provide readers, eaters and policy makers regarding what good science tastes like.

This study was originally published by GMOScience, a website with the guiding principle of ensuring that GE crops “does no harm” to people and the health of the environment.

The New MDS: Moms, Doctors, and Scientists — Episode #2

Zen Honeycutt (MAA) and RHI Advisors, Stephanie Seneff and Michelle Perro, continue in their conversation with Alexis Baden-Mayer (listen here to Episode 1) regarding the newly published studies by Moms Across America focusing on the undeclared heavy metals and pharmaceuticals found in children’s lunches.

The podcast can be listened to here.

A summary of the study can be read here.

The entire study can be found here.

Making our Children Well with Children’s Health Defense TV

RHI Advisor, Dr. Michelle Perro, in conversation with Children’s Health Defense TV, featuring Polly Tommey.   Dr. Perro reveals the precipitants causing ill health in our children offering pragmatic, affordable solutions.  A focus on applying the principles of health derived from the kitchen, this is an excellent demonstration between examining the links and benefits of regenerative, organic farming from our food to the family dinner table.

What’s Making the Amish Children Sick?

RHI Advisor, Michelle Perro, MD, had a privileged visit with the Amish community, to help educate families and farmers what may be causing some of the health issues in their own children.  A summary of her findings can be found here:

•A recent visit and conference with members of the Amish community in central Pennsylvania revealed surprising health challenges facing Amish children

•I spent time researching and discussing issues regarding Amish children’s health directly on the farm with their community

•Although faring better than their age-matched American counterparts, Amish children still displayed evidence of gut issues, neurocognitive dysfunction and prominent dental problems

•Dependence on chemical farming as well as the consumption of ultra processed foods were largely responsible for the disappointing health report card

•The culprit can be traced back to food contamination, GMOs and their associated pesticides, due to the fact that Amish children are largely protected from the other typical environmental hazards experienced by their American counterparts

CONTINUE READING THE FULL ARTICLE ON GMO SCIENCE

The New MDS: Moms, Doctors, and Scientists

Zen Honeycutt and RHI Advisors, Stephanie Seneff and Michelle Perro, join together in conversation with Alexis Baden-Mayer regarding the newly published study by moms on the toxic ingredients lurking in our children’s school lunches.

The podcast can be listened to here.

A summary of the study can be read here.

The entire study can be found here.

The summary of the study, testing 43 school lunch samples, showed the following:

•95.3% of the school lunch items contained carcinogenic, endocrine disrupting, and liver disease-causing glyphosate.
•74% of the samples contained at least one of 29 harmful pesticides.
•4 Veterinary drugs and hormones were found in 9 school lunches samples at levels up to 130.76 ng/g.
•100% of the school lunch samples contained heavy metals at levels up to 6,293 X higher than the EPA’s maximum levels allowed in drinking water.
•The majority of the samples were abysmally low in nutrients.

TNT Radio: Dr Michelle Perro on What’s Making Our Children Sick?

RHI Advisor, Dr. Michelle Perro, in conversation with John O’Sullivan and TNT radio.  States Perro:

Although foods derived from GE crops have gone from non-existent in 1994 to ubiquitous in nearly 3 decades, not a single study has compared humans who eat them to those who don’t. It is clearly in the public interest to enable science-based decisions about foods and food-like ingredients derived from GE crops and animals in our diets. Research on the untoward effects of GE crops on human and animal health, as well as their effects on the environment, should be undertaken.

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW ON PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL

7 ways to instill healthier eating habits in your kids—and why it matters

(originally published on DrHoffman.com)

Poor childhood nutrition is one of the most critical problems that threatens the health, productivity, and even national security of America.

Time was, during the mobilization of young men that accompanied World Wars I and II, a high percentage of recruits were underweight and undernourished; they had to be fattened up on military fare to meet the basic physical requirements of combat-readiness.

Now, the armed forces face the opposite problem: too many volunteers are overweight and can’t pass increasingly lenient tests of endurance and stamina. The term “hunger” has been supplanted by “food insecurity”, which means that too many impoverished American families aren’t starving, but don’t have consistent access to good quality food.

The result: “Rates of new diagnosed cases of type 1 and type 2 diabetes are increasing among youth in the United States, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine (Incidence Trends of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes among Youths, 2002-2012). Type 2 diabetes increased at the rate of 7% annually, and the rate was especially high among non-white Hispanics, Blacks and Native Americans.

Nor is the problem restricted to less affluent or minority precincts. Junk food consumption abounds across all demographics. Even if it doesn’t produce overweight, it sets the stage for a myriad of inflammatory, allergic, and cardiovascular diseases, even childhood cancers. And it may impair the cognitive development of kids, resulting in an unprecedented rise in behavioral and developmental conditions like autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and childhood depression and anxiety. One study reveals that higher fruit and vegetable intake is linked to better mental health in secondary schoolchildren.

While some surveys suggest that Americans’ embrace of junk food peaked in the early 2000s and is now declining, a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition finds the opposite. While, indeed, there were significant decreases in particular junk food categories (e.g. candy, cakes, and pies), they were offset by increases in other categories, especially snack and meal bars. This parallels a trend toward supplanting sugary soda with “energy drinks”, juice beverages, and diet soda.

Cereal bars and nutrition bars marketed as replacements for real food are endowed with a false “health halo” when labeled as “natural”, “organic”, “keto” or “high-protein”. I eat bars maybe 2 or 3 times a year when I need muscle glycogen for an endurance event like a triathlon. They are ill-suited to “tiding you over” when you’re too busy to sit down to eat real food.

CONTINUE READING ON DRHOFFMAN.COM

Well Being: Organic Food

(originally published on ‘Who is Robert Malone’)

I used to be somewhat skeptical on the importance of eating organic foods. Then in 2018, an important paper in JAMA came out. That study showed that eating a higher proportion of organic food is inversely associated with the overall risk of cancer (P for trend = .001). Inversely associated in this case means that the more organic foods in the diet, the less cancer.

Since then, numerous other peer reviewed papers have been published documenting the benefits of eating organic food. Recently, some important studies have been done that show very strong correlations between pesticide and herbicide use and various diseases. There are many reasons to eat organic, but reducing the residues of Roundup (glyphosate) and other chemicals on foods is a big one.

Today, I am going to list the issues with commercially grown food and then simply present some of the peer reviewed papers that show the importance of eating organic foods. Some of these articles are scientifically complex. However, the bulleted points should be clear enough -for those that don’t feel like diving into the science.

If one can’t afford to eat organically, the other big message is to read food labels for “country of origin.” These days, that can be difficult to determine – due to the issuance of the USDA “Cool rules.” Under these guidelines, processed foods do not need to require a country of origin labelling, if they are assembled or combined in the USA. But even still, read those food labels – they matter!

CONTINUE READING ON ‘WHO IS ROBERT MALONE’