Hygiene Hypothesis And Why Amish Kids Have Less Asthma
    By Hank Campbell | March 8th 2012 12:22 PM | 81 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    If you do not have your 11-year-old child in a car seat while driving and in a bicycle helmet while playing, you are putting them at severe risk.  We have to protect them.  Or not. While we expose kids to all kinds of harmful cultural stuff at earlier and earlier ages (sex, violence, political debates) we don't trust their physical competence or their judgment.

    Heck, the people behind the government health care plan think 25 should be the earliest age for adulthood.

    But as the pampered Generation X gave birth to their more pampered descendants, we discovered that a lot more kids have health problems.  All that antibacterial soap and hand washing and unwillingness to let kids get dirty is damaging the immune system in a way that anti-science kooks in Europe only dream could happen due to genetically modified potatoes.

    One demographic has escaped this issue, though; Amish kids.

    "In the general population as many as 50 percent will have evidence of allergic sensitivity," says Dr. Mark Holbreich, an allergist with Allergy and Asthma Consultants. In Amish kids?  7 percent.  About what I grew up with in the general population.  All kinds of kids have peanut allergies now, for example, but I did not know a single child with a peanut allergy, living in both metropolitan Florida and rural Pennsylvania.  It's called the hygiene hypothesis and it suggests city kids with the wealthiest, most caring parents are actually receiving some harm from being too clean.

    At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) in Orlando, Holbreich presented results from 29,000 questionnaires to Swiss families of children between the ages of 6 and 12 years old. They did allergy testing for a random sample and 138 Amish children were tested while 3,006 non-Amish farm kids were tested along with 10,912 non-farm children. Farm children had much lower rates of allergies than other kids (city, etc.) while the Amish were substantially lower even than farm children. Asthma instances followed the same pattern. 

    Nice people, and if you are ever in north central Pennsylvania, buy some butter from them. Wonderful stuff.  It turns out they also might be a stronger force in future evolution, because they get sick a lot less than other kids.  Photo: Shutterstock

    Eating a little dirt can be healthier than never doing anything at all. I've told the story before  about my last job working for someone else. My applications engineer in Taiwan took me on a walking tour of Hsinchu and bought me some delicious spiced chicken from a street vendor. He bought me two because he was a big guy and assumed I would want two also.

    I returned to my hotel room and the CEO, my boss and something of a semiconductor legend, had an email waiting for me with a wealth of information about the foundries there, Hsinchu in general, and then 300 words down, "Whatever you do, don't buy chicken out on the street." Hepatitis is everywhere and they're all immune to it, he noted, but Americans need vaccines, he wrote.

    Well, I didn't know a lot about hepatitis and I was eating that second chicken when I read his email. When I returned home a week later I went to a doctor who did a test and said I didn't get hepatitis nor would I, I was immune - at least not the kind you might from eating chicken on the street in Taiwan. I was curious why, since many Americans needed shots, and he asked if I ever lived on a farm. Well, I had and he explained that on a farm, around animals, etc., minor exposure to hepatitis happened so often (like due to animal poop) an immunity was built up early.

    No one is claiming you should become Amish or run out and drink raw milk.  In health, you can disregard the needlessly risky and pasteurization has proven its worth. Plus, it would take me forever to get to the baseball game in a horse and buggy.  But those antibacterial soaps and the triclosan in them have to go.  And let kids get dirty.  

    Citation: M. Holbreich, J. Genuneit, J. Weber, C. Braun-Fahrlander, et al., 'The Prevalence of Asthma, Hay Fever and Allergic Sensitization in Amish Children', Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Vol. 129, Issue 2, Supplement, Page AB130 doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.12.433




    As another anecdote:

    My mother used to tell me about when she was a little girl.  She was always getting sick.  However, one day, when her mother took her in to see the doctor, after the doctor examined my mother, and talked to her mother about some things, the doctor told her mother to "stop keeping this girl so clean!"  "Let her eat some dirt!"

    So, even back when my mother was a little girl, some doctors, at least, knew that keeping children too clean was detrimental to their health.

    Apparently, doctors today have yet to relearn that lesson.


    P.S.  I have retold this story, many times, to my children.  However, the pediatrician for my grandchildren insists that everyone around them must use hand sanitizer before even getting near them.  And letting them lay on, and scoot (they aren't crawling yet) on "dirty" carpet, let alone outside on the ground, is practically grounds for calling Child Protective Services.

    That last part is defensive medicine - hospitals and doctors are so worried about getting sued they prescribe medicines, run tests and implement recommendations they know are useless or even detrimental but they also know if they don't do it, a lawsuit happy culture will exploit it when something goes wrong.

    Obviously the 'if we can save even one child' mentality is why the age for car seats of California children keeps going up too.  We can't really claim we are saving anyone - we would eliminate cars if the intent was to stop kids from dying in car accidents - we just need the appearance of trying to save people.
    Gerhard Adam tests and implement recommendations they know are useless or even detrimental but they also know if they don't do it, a lawsuit happy culture will exploit it when something goes wrong.
    Yes, this is part of the common mythology, but it makes no sense.  After all, "if something goes wrong", then the doctor was wrong and he would be doubly wrong if he compounded his error with useless or detrimental tests.

    I'd be the first in line to sue his ass into oblivion.
    Mundus vult decipi
    You're welcome to believe doctors and hospitals and medicine are infallible if they just do something and if they prescribe antibiotics for every runny nose kids will be safe, but that doesn't make it so.
    Gerhard Adam
    Now you're changing the argument.  I never said that doctors were obligated to do anything.  Instead you specifically indicated that they WOULD do something to avoid being sued even if it was inappropriate.  I simply challenged that claim.

    I certainly don't believe doctors are infallible, yet that is the image that the medical profession still likes to present.  There are some great doctors out there, and I agree that there is often too much emphasis on lawsuits.  However, if you're going to blame anyone, let's blame the mal-practice insurance industry and hospital administrators for being far too willing to settle and drive costs up rather than to litigate to determine the merits of cases.

    I know the argument is that it is too expensive to litigate, but then that is a failing of a system that has chosen that method as the only means of resolving conflict.  So between being too expensive and the willingness to settle, then the problem has been created by the legal and medical communities.  There's no basis for blaming a "litigious public".  That's the way all these players want it handled.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Conveniently neglects to mention how many less people an average Amish person comes in contact with on a daily basis, but I do agree that while antibacterial soaps kill dangerous germs the beneficial ones are eliminated as well, I think that the myriad problems that we are facing with new improved illness are brought on more so by our pumping all of our meat with antibiotics at every turn in our industrialized process, another aspect of our society that the Amish would be unaffected by.

    My college roommate and I went out to eat and took her infant daughter. Michelle would throw her pacifier on the floor and Anita would pick it up, wipe it off, and give it back to her. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

    I finally said, "That floor is disgusting! Why are you giving it back to her?"

    Anita shrugged and said, "You have to build their immune system somehow."

    Michelle is now 21 years old and healthy. She has never had a major sickness.

    Sure, and 'the 5 second rule' is a cultural staple despite having no basis in science.  Yet we seem to throw it out the window when it comes to the current generation of children. 

    We don't want to get too crazy, though. On one side we have people who think they are pro-science because they listen to everything that issues forth from the Four Horsemen of the Alternative (Chopra, Oz, et al) and over-clean their kids and on the other we have people who are anti-science and think exposing their kids to Smallpox will make them stronger.  If you step on a rusty nail, it's better to get a shot.
    Oh oh - don't let the "respectful insolence" get hold of you; whats next, measles parties? ;-)
    the people behind the government health care plan think 25 should be the earliest age for adulthood.
    Could you explain what this refers to? Is that something to do with the connections to the pre-frontal cortex only being mature at age 25?

    Some of those
    kids that never play outside "for their safety" develop no protective reflexes when falling for example and thus get injured as adults when the distance between head and concrete floor is a lot taller. I am glad we still were allowed to climb trees, brake through thin ice, get the warm raw milk with the thick cream on top from the farm next door.
    I agree with all of this, including the witch hunt shrill progressives go into about - ironically, other progressives - being so hands off they let their kid get small pox.
    Could you explain what this refers to? Is that something to do with the connections to the pre-frontal cortex only being mature at age 25?
    A cornerstone of what was supposedly healthcare reform required companies to carry children up until age 26. It seems ridiculous that the government thinks 'children' are 25 years old yet will let these children vote.
    Wasn't the carrying of children up to age 26 more of a financial move than a health move? More specifically, it was to encourage young adults to continue with their education into graduate school without the fear of needing to get a job so that they could afford health care.

    I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this was more at play than any type of argument that people were still "children" at 25 years old.

    If you can still be classified as a dependent child, you are a dependent child - whether the play was a social one or a mandate for graduate schools does not matter much.  The government is rationalizing this decision by ignoring the fact that so many 'uninsured' don't need the insurance at that age - and don't want to pay for it because they are in their younger earning years so every additional tax impacts them far more than it will later. And it is a tax, the Supreme Court justices ridiculed the Obama administration for trying to call it a penalty when it suited their argument and a tax when it did not. The government wants to make them pay because, supposedly these young people will get older and benefit from it.    

    The reason it is likely to die in the Supreme Court is the obvious one; instead of trying to force Americans to buy something they do not want with the belief that they will use it when they get older, the SC will simply say it shouldn't be there at all.   All of the Democrat-voting unions are magically exempted from this health care we supposedly all have to share. That alone would be enough for the SC to kick it but there are two other serious breaches of the constitution that may kill it before that.
    The hygiene hypothesis makes good sense, but it doesn't jive with my personal experience. When I was growing up in Canada in the 1970s my mother was a stickler for cleanliness and our house was immaculate -- and the same applied to all my friends, yet none of us had asthma or allegeries. Now I live in the the UK (where houses, schools etc tend to be untidier to begin with) and both my wife and I work and have little time to keep the house spotless -- as do most of our friends. However, our children have a much greater incidence of asthma and allergies.

    As a result I don't think hygiene is to blame. I wonder if it is linked to the plethora of chemicals found in household cleaners, soaps etc. I'm guessing the Amish would use just simple soap and water?

    There is a much different cleanliness in your home in the past and what people do today. I only give it brief mention but triclosan in antibacterial soaps and cleaners is going to end up being a larger part of the issue for many. You're right, the Amish don't buy hand sanitizers and soaps like that.  When you and I were younger, severe allergies were allergies and everything else was just life and so an 'allergy' can be what kids and parents make of it.  When my oldest daughter was young, an allergist said she was allergic to our cat.  Now she owns a cat. "Aren't you allergic?" I asked.  "I outgrew it," she said.  She probably did but it was unlikely to have happened if she was never around a cat.

    In general I think the principle is valid, but does not account for the very real differences in asthma rates based upon socioeconomic groups. It doesn't seem plausible to assert that lower class (often African American) children are raised in a "cleaner" environment than their middle class counterparts.

    You're contending poor people can't afford to have allergies. It's a good point - helicopter parents tend to be wealthier and better educated and fix a lot of problems that may not be problems, because they can.  It was also fashionable last decade to make try and anorexia a science issue but over time it became increasingly difficult to find a gene that only affected middle class white girls.
    Excellent article, and in ways far beyond "allergies". I love this sentance, "While we expose kids to all kinds of harmful cultural stuff at earlier and earlier ages (sex, violence, political debates) we don't trust their physical competence or their judgment." Yes! Yes!

    We have become a nation that is physically overprotective and emotionally brutal.

    I long for the days when I could send PB&J to school in my kids' lunches.

    While over zealous disinfections by parents may play some role, I don't think it tells the whole story. Perhaps wealthy parents with good insurance are more likely to take to their kids to allergists when they get the sniffles whereas other parents would do nothing thus skewing the results, although the amish study you mention seems to have controlled for that. I also wonder if epigenetics plays a role and compounds the allergy problem over generations of ultra-clean living. Fortunately, there is a ton of profit potential for companies that can solve this problem so I'm sure it won't be too long before the problem is solved.

    Without question economics plays a role.  I took my first grader to a dentist and was told he should have $9,000 in preventative work. As a poor kid in the country I went to a dentist maybe twice in my first 14 years of life and my son's teeth have to be better than mine were, so getting a bunch of stuff done so that he doesn't get problems he doesn't have is definitely a benefit not everyone has. Allergists are there to find allergies so they will find them if they try - but it may also be over-concerned parents misreading those results.  A 'sensitivity' is not an allergy but people will read it that way if the allergist is not level with them. Like any other endeavor, allergists have some good people and some bad people.
    Interesting hypothesis. I am also curious as to the breastfeeding rate in the Amish community. I would guess they do breastfeed and probably for longer than typical in other industrialized countries. Breast milk has been shown to reduce the incidence of both asthma and allergies. Along with the other ways to allow the immune system to mature more naturally, as mentioned in the article, probably a powerful duo.

    Physical fitness may also be a factor in asthma. Many of today's recreations are passive where play used to be so much more active. Not the whole answer by any means, certainly a factor in my own case. Being fit does not mean no asthma, but certainly means not so much of a problem.

    Another thing that has changed significantly is diet, so much highly refined food these days. So much sugar in all that we eat. The overload of sugar does have other adverse health effects. Or maybe some other now widely used additive.

    I had not thought abut breast feeding, but prolonged breast feeding does have other health advantages.

    Teasing out the actual answers could be problematic. Such a widespread problem so many bad health considerations that often run together, isolating the trigger could be difficult. Designing a study would be an interesting exercise.

    There is something to be said for the Amish lifestyle. Learning to become self sufficient at an early age and not be distracted by the technology of today is something we strive for but is a necessary part of Amish life. Children in modern society are only exposed to the clean surfaces of technology and most playgrounds no longer have any dirt on them.

    Thanks for writing this Hank.

    In this household we are rarely sick....hehehe

    It is common sense actually, I mean, if you know that in order to develop immunity you have to be exposed to the 'bad stuff', then there is only one natural conclusion: Get exposed! :-)

    When I see TV programs on how you can disinfect your kitchen, or the cultivation of bacteria someone picked up at somebody's very, very badly kept home, I just laugh. It is presented as the worst that could ever happen to you, a bit of dust and bacteria in your home.

    I would have been dead a million times if half of what they say had been true.

    I do not keep any disinfecting stuff in my home. I use shampoo when washing my hair though....:-)

    And do not get me started on the helmet thing....and climbing trees or constructions...and, and.
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Absolutely ridiculous hypothesis!! Here is the TRUTH!

    The Amish community have Less Asthma, Allergies, and virtually no cases of Autism because they do not vaccinate their children. This is the REAL reason and the biologists no it! The over all health of the Amish is further promoted by a much healthier diet! You are what you eat and you are what you inject in your blood stream... Or I should say, your children are what you give them to eat and they are what you and your doctor inject into their bloodstreams.!

    Start with the truth about the SALT ( polio) vaccine and learn the truth about the fraud that is killing your children! All vaccination are harmful and completely ineffective in fighting infectious disease. Vaccines create disease! Vaccine sterilize you. Do it for your innocent children who need you to protect them.

    Gerhard Adam
    What is it that seems to attract the morons?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Listen up Dipshit.
    I know more about everything that matters than your little cognitive challenged cowboy brain could even begin to comprehend. You fucking loaf of bread!

    Gerhard Adam
    LOL ... yep ... a total moron.  You know nothing, and your comprehend even less.  Yours is the worst sort of blather, so please spare us the ridiculous diatribes and just go away.
    Mundus vult decipi
    1st off the policy of this website is in error, there are no secure computers period so your privacy policy is a joke.
    2nd I find it absolutely frightening that so many have so masterly been brainwash and will not even except the possibility of the vaccine con.There is so much excellent scientific articles out there by top doctors that completely refute vaccines. I must assume the vast brainwashed either refuse to even study this matter or have been too massively frighten by their doctor gods that they can't even comprehend to read the real facts. The only thing positive is the survival of those who will learn and protect their precious child from medical abuse, the dumb braiwashed ones will blindly follow like sheep and they will die off. Answer me one question why do the majority of other counties vaccinate 2/3 less, could it be their smarter. You Americans can blindly be sold anything even death without question.
    3rd Again ignorant comments about raw milk. Raw milk is so superior to pasteurized milk which is a poison because of the heat induced damage. In fact the Mayo Clinic was originally founded using the raw milk cure because it was so powerful. Raw milk is banned for one reason to keep people sick and profitable. The person earlier was right the Amish are healthy because they don't vaccinate and eat wholesome food as we use all 200 years ago. Last September I lived just on 5 quarts per day for 30 days. My blood pressure dropped 25 points and my psoriasis cleared %50 and I had plenty of energy and no congestion. But at least I was willing to try and experiment unlike the brainwash sheep.

    Gerhard Adam
    You're an idiot.  Prattling on about how everyone, except you, is brainwashed isn't science.  People like you see conspiracies everywhere, and your lack of knowledge and information simply makes you look ridiculous.
    Mundus vult decipi
    "pampered Generation X"? Better to research those dates than slam gen X out of ignorance. I don't recall any baby seat in the family car. I recall my fair share of stitches and band-aids - No helmets either - Seat belts were decoration, when I was a kid. I agree with the vaccination hypothesis - As a matter of fact, you might be surprised at how many doctors and scientists refuse to vaccinate their own children.

    Amish kids go barefoot a whole lot more than most other American kids now. There is a book called "The Barefoot Book" by Daniel Howell that talks about natural health benefits that result from going barefoot, both in and out of doors. That may well play a part in the overall better health of the Amish children as well.

    There is a correlation with the rise of allergies in the U.S. in the 1970s, as shoe production and cultural expectations for shoeing one's children began to rise. As far as I know, this has never been investigated, but
    for at least as far back as John Locke, there have been observers, doctors included, who have noted that with all other factors being equal (adequate nutrition, sanitation, etc.) children who go barefoot, even while playing outdoors, tend to be healthier than those who are always shod.

    More than likely, it is a synergystic combination of many factors, but the sole-to-earth contact early in life should at least be considered when looking at overall characteristics of the Amish vs. the general U.S. population.

    The dangers associated with vaccines are very real. But if laypersons report their unfortunate experiences with these drugs they are painted as "nutters/morons" and ignored. When credible health care professionals state the truth, they are immediately ostracized by their peers. This is a very protected area of traditional medicine (it's a damn religion) and it will never be defeated as long as Big Pharma is in control. Too much profit is created by these concoctions that assure an ever expanding disease market within the gene pool. Truth be told, vaccines are causing a lot more than asthma and autism. These medicinal toxins are responsible for destroying the human immune system and are also responsible for the long list of autoimmune disorders constantly plaguing humanity.

    There is absolutely no chance of getting the truth out to the masses as long as Big Pharma and the mainstream media outlets continue to support and endorse this gigantic fraud and other falsehoods associated with modern medicine.

    Gerhard Adam
    ...and yet somehow YOU have managed to arrive at the truth.  We are truly blessed.  Of course, there's no point in asking for credentials [no, please don't bother] or links to scientific papers since you are clearly a prophet and not a scientist.

    Your web link says it all:
    "For those people that aren’t brainwashed and are capable of understanding the significance of the evidence originally presented via (CLIB 1.5), there’s no longer a need to question whether or not the moon is inhabited by intelligent beings. Instead, the question that needs to be answered is what or who resides on the lunar surface?"

    Now go away.
    Mundus vult decipi
    What exactly is is your point? What have you proven by your reply? Big deal you can copy and paste an article that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I have no obligation to offer you a list of my qualifications. What would you do with them anyway? Call me a moron? Make fun of me because I wrote an article that stretches beyond the boundaries of what your finite, little mind can comprehend?

    You're not interested in the truth. You want to sell or embrace an understanding about health care that is so far removed from the truth it's incomprehensible. And as far as you commenting or attempting to understand concepts that are off world, I'd leave it alone. You haven't figured out the important stuff in this world.

    What great accomplishments have you handed to society other than an ability to parrot the same mainstream nonsense that appears in the so called "scientific journals" that have been disingenuously funded by petrochemical companies? You're nothing but a repeater!

    There is no proof whatsoever that the vaccinations currently being administered offer any benefit to recipients. There's a heck of a lot of proof that these products are destroying the health and well being of many people. The research that proves vaccines are dangerous is being written by many people within the medical profession. You should read some of the research, it's very convincing.


    Gerhard Adam
    Well, actually the cut and paste was to offer evidence [albeit limited] that I'm not just making up the notion that you're a conspiracy theorist.  As a result, you tend to run your mouth about how nobody knows anything except you, and the rest of us are foolish sheep that are being lead to the slaughter by our overlords.

    Of course, you have not a shred of evidence, and even your basic premises don't hold, but that doesn't stop such zealotry.

    To even claim that there is no proof of vaccine effectiveness indicates that you're either stupid or lying.  To claim that there is no benefit from the elimination of smallpox, the control of measles and polio is disingenuous at best and makes a mockery of all those that suffered seriously from these diseases before there were vaccines.
    Mundus vult decipi
    You don't believe there are conspiracies? Are you kidding me? I have to tell you that's a very funny comment. I'd expect more mental flexibility from a guy wearing a cowboy hat.

    Do you really believe, in the grand scheme of things, that it matters whether I happen to believe in conspiracies or not? What does that have to do with anything relating to this extremely controversial subject?

    The only reason this piece of propaganda was written, in the first place, was to address a public concern, that won't go away, about the serious dangers associated with vaccines. It's the medical doctors that are finally coming out of the woodwork and blowing the whistle on their own profession! And I congratulate them for having the guts to tell the truth.

    by Lawrence Wilson, MD

    Hey, it's a free country. If you want to embrace the vaccine myth, then go for it and get the shots for you and your loved ones. You will, unfortunately, pay the ultimate price when, God forbid, your health declines. (As a health care practitioner and a fellow human being, I honestly hope you or your loved ones don't get ill).

    And according to your logic, if a person disagrees with whatever research that has been printed by petrochemical companies that have funded various research studies, he or she is a conspiracy theorist. Friend, it doesn't matter whether you or I believe or disbelieve in a particular concept. It is what it is and no amount of believing or disbelieving will change the reality of the situation.

    Vaccines are destroying the health of this nation and ultimately driving up the profits for drug companies. It's been going on for a long time and it's not likely to stop anytime soon.

    ... I forgot to add one other thing:

    Now, you go away!

    Gerhard Adam
    How pathetic
    Mundus vult decipi
    Your response is pathetic!

    The Amish kids aren't vaccineated.
    End of story.

    The Amish also drink RAW milk. So they don't vaccinate and don't eat processed foods. Pasteurization removes any of the beneficial enzymes, and homogenization is even worse, as it breaks the fat into shards which are the REAL cause of artery clogging. I had a severe case of asthma into my late 20's until we started our own organic farm (raw goat milk), at which point I never needed an inhaler. I stopped taking the flu vaccine every year, and ate only the food that we grew or raised on the farm. I also had families come to me whose kids could not tolerate gluten, etc, and the raw milk was the only thing that helped them with behavioural issues. So vaccines and what we eat (essentially everything we put into our bodies) are what we really need to look at. After all, pasteurization was only meant for factory farms where hygiene was an issue. Nothing is healthier than GRASS fed raw milk - and tests have shown that introducing bacteria into a petri dish (IF the milk is grassfed) -- the enzymes in the milk will actually kill the bacteria anyway. So everyone worrying about the boogeyman in raw milk --- well, alot of people are not comparing apples to apples. Factory farmed MILK SHOULD be pasteurized; it is disgusting. Grassfed dairy is one of the healthiest things on the planet, yet we promote "tinkering" with nature to no ends, and think it will do something beneficial.

    Gerhard Adam

    Here are some common myths and proven facts about milk and pasteurization:

    • Pasteurizing milk DOES NOT cause lactose intolerance and allergic reations. Both raw milk and pasteurized milk can cause allergic reactions in people sensitive to milk proteins.
    • Raw milk DOES NOT kill dangerous pathogens by itself.
    • Pasteurization DOES NOT reduce milk's nutritional value.
    • Pasteurization DOES NOT mean that it is safe to leave milk out of the refrigerator for extended time, particularly after it has been opened.
    • Pasteurization DOES kill harmful bacteria.
    • Pasteurization DOES save lives.
    That's the problem with anecdotal information.  People think that because they have 'positive' experiences, that it translates into general usage.  More importantly, they regard every coincidence as evidence in support of questionable correlations.

    Would you be willing to give this advice to anyone else AND would you be willing to accept personal liability for any injury, disease, or problem that arises from taking your advice? 
    Mundus vult decipi

    I think you've been shoveling too much manure on the farm. Those stories were written with the same intent as this one was; to spread misinformation.

    You, my little farmer, are the true idiot!

    Gerhard Adam
    Of course ... and thus we demonstrate that no one but you ever tells the truth or is to be believed.

    Again ... spoken like a true prophet.
    Mundus vult decipi

    by Lawrence Wilson, MD

    Gerhard Adam
    Yeah, yeah, yeah .... this is just more of the "vaccines cause autism";  "the Amish don't vaccinate";  this is all due to Big Pharma ... the government wants to kill your children, etc. etc, etc.

    Don't you ever get tired of listening to your own bullshit?
    Mundus vult decipi
    "Don't you ever get tired of listening to your own bulls**t?"

    I believe we're finally discussing a subject that you are qualified to write about! You've certainly been shoveling enough of it on this forum!

    Hey Cowboy,
    You are arguing with at least three different people, This can be confirmed by the different ISPs. Do you realize that? I am the original person how brought up the topic of vaccines, the one you called a moron. When you've read at least 6 books on the subject and when you've personally interviewed dozens of biologists, MDs and other experts in the field. When you've read the original Salt vaccine DATA directly from the CDC.. Then you are allowed to have an opinion. It amazes me how the most ignorant people have the strongest opinions about which they know least.

    Here is a quote that describes your situation perfectly but before you read it consider this... Resist the urge to respond emotionally and call us more names. Instead do some reading and learn about the subject and get back to us and prove that you were simply ignorant and not stupid.

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
    ― Harlan Ellison

    Gerhard Adam
    You are arguing with at least three different people, This can be confirmed by the different ISPs
    ... and this matters why?  However, before you pat yourself on the back for how wonderfully clever you are, you should be aware of the fact that in the past week, I also have posted from three separate ISP's on the same computer.  Hmmm ... wonder how that could happen?

    Of course, reading 6 books must make you an expert.  I don't suppose you can be bothered to actually post links for your allegation or would that be too much of an imposition.

    I couldn't care less how many people you've interviewed since that doesn't ensure that you are knowledgeable, so invoking that kind of "argument from authority" doesn't do it for me. 
    It amazes me how the most ignorant people have the strongest opinions about which they know least.
    Ain't it the truth [see above].

    However, since you brought it up, then by all means ... let's hear about the "experts in the field", the CDC data, etc.  Post links ... if the data is there, then let's make it public. 

    I certainly hope that I don't hear lame excuses about how I should do the research for myself, etc.  You're the one that leveled accusations about trying to kill children, so if that's even remotely true, then I would think you'd want the information spread as far and wide as possible.  Of course, if no such information exists, then I look forward to the cop-out.

    If there's even the slightest possibility that you could be right, I'd be happy to issue a full apology and help disseminate the information.  However, if you're wrong ....

    BTW, I would love to see your CDC links.
    Aluminum adjuvant containing vaccines have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. Of note, the most common source of exposure to aluminum is from eating food or drinking water.
    If researchers find a vaccine may be causing a side effect, the CDC and FDA will initiate appropriate action that may include the changing of vaccine labels or packaging, distributing safety alerts, inspecting manufacturers' facilities and records, withdrawing recommendations for the use of the vaccine, or revoking the vaccine's license.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Sounds fair to me.

    In the old days I would reference books for you to read, I could still do this but I image you are looking for something more immediate. I could link to articles and websites if that's what you like.. However, I think the best way to start off is with a couple of video's. The fact is that I can provide the links, and I'm happy to do so.. but you have to do the research. I can't watch the videos and read the articles and visit the websites for you.

    Below are just two videos. I don't expect these videos to change your mind but I hope they will plant a seed.. There are literally hundreds of different videos of this sort with countless scientists/doctors saying the same thing. All you have to do is search for them on youtube.

    The first video is with Neurosurgeon Dr. Blaylock ,

    I actually think this 2nd video gets to the matter very quickly and is in interview style .Dr Jeff Hockings and Tedd Koren. This interview mentions the Amish.

    I also include a link to an excellent data base.. There are dozens of doctors commenting on vaccines. Just pick one of them... and keep in mind that it was Jonas Salk himself who testified before a Senate subcommittee that all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine.

    I can't resist getting you stated with a few quotes. All form medical doctors..

    "There is no evidence whatsoever of the ability of vaccines to prevent any diseases. To the contrary, there is a great wealth of evidence that they cause serious side effects." -- Dr. Viera Scheibner

    "My data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general. This question can only be determined by proper studies which have never been performed. The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long term follow up and chronic toxicity was not looked at. The American Society of Microbiology has promoted my research...and thus acknowledges the need for proper studies." --John B.Classen, M.D., M.B.A.

    "The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are changing our genetic code through vaccination." --Guylaine Lanctot M.D. Canadian author of the best-seller 'Medical Mafia'.

    "Crib death" was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood. --Harris L.Coulter, PhD.

    "Vaccination is not necessary, not useful, does not protect. There are twice as many casualties from vaccination as from AIDS." --Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, West Germany, specialist of internal diseases and participant in about 150 trials of vaccination victims.

    Dr. Michael Odent has written a letter in the JAMA (1994) where his figures show a five times higher rate of asthma in pertussis immunized children compared to non-immunized children. He is also quoted in the International Vaccination Newsletter (Sept. 1994): "Immunized children have more ear infections and spend more days in hospital."

    "The public is surely entitled to convincing proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, that artificial immunization is in fact a safe and effective procedure, in no way injurious to health, and that the threat of the corresponding natural diseases remain sufficiently clear and urgent to warrant mass inoculation of everyone, even against their will if necessary. Unfortunately, such proof has never been given." --Richard Moskowitz, M.D., Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, March 1983 (76:7)

    Gerhard Adam
    You're joking, right?  Chiropractic and homeopathic "doctors" and then selected quotes?  That's your idea of evidence?

    I'm NOT interested in opinions.  Evidence involves studies and papers.  You linked to a video show as evidence? 

    Shows routines contain psychics and ghost hunters too.  Am I to conclude that these are also scientific?

    You also link to a conspiracy site for evidence []. 

    Then you have comments by someone like Dr. Gerhard Buchwald who authored a letter entitled "Smallpox vaccination: more harm than benefit" and yet if this opinion were true, then were are the smallpox outbreaks today?  There were certainly many ethical issues raised with the smallpox eradication program worldwide, but they didn't relate to the effectiveness of the vaccine.

    It seems like you're cherry-picking what you consider evidence and you've done a poor job at this point of demonstrating anything other than your ability to find selected quotes and questionable links in support of a bias you already hold.  This is NOT evidence.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I read the first line in your response and not another word.

    Dr Blaylock is a BRAIN SURGEON you idiot! The quotes I quickly selected are from MDs, and the vast majority of the quotes I linked you to are from MDs. I read the very first sentence in your response and stopped. You're a complete moron. I hope you don't have kids, we need far less stupid DNA on this planet.

    My advice to you is load up on all the vaccines you can. Watch all the TV you can and search for foods with modified ingredients .. Oh and consider forming a posse to try and locate all the hidden "alCIAda" cells in America, Your stupidity disgusts me.

    Gerhard Adam
    Yes, of course ... I must be the idiot. 

    You're not just a fool, but you're actually despicable.  You think that you can come onto a site and tell people that their children are being killed, making all manner of allegations that are criminal to everyone involved in research and trying to maintain public health.

    You are obviously an individual without scruples or conscience.  Instead you simply want to get your crackpot ideas out, without any evidence and without providing a modicum of data that would actually help people [if your stupid ideas actually had merit].

    That's what I find so offensive.  It isn't that you simply disagree with the science, you charge conspiracies, accuse all manner of people in being actively engaged in trying to kill other people and their children and then think you can toss off moral outrage?

    If you actually had any real data, you'd be trying to actually convey useful information to people instead of fear-mongering.  Instead, it's easy to see that it's your ego that is driving this and certainly no sense of moral obligation.  In truth, it is YOU that wishes to harm others because you think people should just take your word for it, and follow your advice despite the fact that you take no responsibility for your opinions.  The truly hypocritical part about it, is that YOU've gained the benefit of being vaccinated, while you go about giving advice to others that YOU haven't actually followed. 

    You're a poor excuse for a human being.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard Adam
    BTW.  Even if I accepted Dr. Blaylock as the sole authority on vaccines, his own statements refute your claims.
    "The medical industry is making a fortune promoting and requiring unnecessary vaccinations," Dr. Russell Blaylock warns.
    So, unless Blaylock is also a complete idiot, then this statement itself indicates that he believes some vaccines are necessary.

    More importantly though, if you want to cite him as an authority, then please point to research and papers that he has published.  Even the abstracts would be adequate. 

    Ooohhh .. there aren't any, are there?  Only his "Blaylock Wellness Report".
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard Adam
    When you've read the original Salt vaccine DATA directly from the CDC.

    I have to ask ... do you mean Salk vaccine data?  Since there's no such thing as "Salt vaccine data" except as it pertains to adjuvants.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Yes, Salk,
    I have to tell you that the foundation of all vaccines rests on the Salk vaccine and the Salk vaccine was a complete failure.. Salk admitted it. The CDC made it appear that it was effective by changing both the definitions and symptoms associated with the disease as well as the the way in which they counted the cases. It was all accounting tricks.

    I can't attempt to tell the story here in a paragraph or two so I'll leave it up to you to research it further if you so choose.

    Gerhard Adam
    Oh yes, that definitely improves your credibility, when you get the name wrong.  You're doing exactly as I expected.  Engaging in subterfuge and conspiracies.

    Again, why not provide links?  Surely the story must be readily available and well-known if you're aware of it.  I certainly hope you can do better than this, otherwise you'll find that my original comments were the epitome of kindness.
    Mundus vult decipi
    In 2012 when all the information you can image in a click or two away and you want me to do the work for you? Amazing! You are a complete ignoramus.. My intellect is insulted by your lack of congitive abilities. Don't bother responding. I'm not going to read it. I'll never visit this blog again.

    Gerhard Adam
    I'll never visit this blog again.
    Well, then at least something positive came out of this.

    However, you should be aware that the "information" that you think is just a click away doesn't support your position.  That's why I gave you the opportunity to respond.  Since you've elected not to, you are obviously one of those people that thinks you can just make random arbitrary claims and then ask others to do the work of confirming your opinion.

    I was definitely being kind when I called you a moron.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Pretty good article, but you fail to take into account two other aspects of Amish life that would also skew the data you refer to, the Amish on average come into contact with less people than those who live in urban areas during the course of their day, second, the amount of antibiotics we pump into our processed industrialized food is downright astounding.

    There may be merit to this story but kids today roll around and get into as much dirt as the next kid. Farm kids are out door more and therefore get more sunshine and in turn Vitamin D. I would still suggest that a chart showing the meteoric rise in vaccine injections is the true reason for asthma, diabetes, add, adhd, and autism. Go ahead and plot if from 1970 to present. Watch the curve. Talk to old retired teachers, they were on the front lines when this crap was being injected into each new class. They can tell you all about it.

    LOVE this article! I was Amish for the first 30 years of my life and we NEVER used antibacterial soaps or worried about picking up germs. We went everywhere barefoot and knew next to nothing about sex but everything about having good clean fun. :)

    Oh I forgot to mention that some Amish DO get vaccinations. We actually did have most of our shots as kids.

    I have this real life story:

    I grew up in Greece, and back in the 1950s a greek family came to Athens from Egypt, where the two boys, about the age of my brothers, had been born and grown. When we went to visit, and the boys went out to play in the garden, my mother was flabbergasted to see the two boys of her new friend playing with mud and the fertilized earth around the plants.

    She got this story:

    The lady was married from her small town very young to her merchant husband, just 16 years old. A majestic woman who towered a head over her husband, because when he chose her she had not reached her full growth. He took her to Cairo in Egypt where his business interests were.

    She was really disgusted with the dirt and general level of hygiene in the city. She had two boys in a row , which she nurtured like flowers in a hothouse, never letting them mix with the dirty world outside. When these kids reached school age, they both died from a simple children's infection. The doctors explained to her that it was because she had raised them in a hot house.

    She then had another two boys, the ones playing in the mud with my brothers. She said that she had learned her lesson and had let them grow wallowing in all the dirt and unhygienic conditions of Cairo.

    It's obvious to me its the amish DIET that prevents the disease in their children. The Western modern processed diet causes the increase in asthma. Now, all you small scientists, figure out WHY!

    Gerhard Adam
    Now, all you small scientists, figure out WHY!
    LOL ... you don't want to know why.  Like most people, you aren't likely to want to give up your potato chips, soda, french fries, and fast foods.  It doesn't take a college education to know what good food is, nor what generally healthy food is.

    Certainly there's too much processing, too much sugar, too much junk ... but it is no secret that there are plenty of foods that don't contain that.  It is also no secret that you know pretty much what those foods are, and it's also no secret that they are your choice to eat or not.

    So, what is it you expect from scientists?  That they should do your shopping for you, or that they should wave a magic wand and make all your junk food healthy?

    As with so many things today, people don't want to know why.  They already know why.  They just want science to figure out how they can keep making bad decisions and experience no consequences from those choices.
    Mundus vult decipi
    It doesn't take a college education to know what good food is,

    Gerhard does this mean that the change from organic soya the staple diet of vegetarians to GMO soya is better food than before?

    Or aspartame is better than sugar?

    China has not used aspartame in the past and reports of some cancers there are five times lower than in Europe and America.

    I think people even those you disparage are entitled to good food.

    Here in France there are areas where raw milk is a respected food simply because of tracability.

    France does not permit GMO grown for food but is obliged to import million of tons of GMO products which directly or indirectly go into out food.

    And for whatever reason cancers and other ailments rise in line.

    No proofs to cause but when health catstrophes strike it is time to take stock.

    And there are no easy answers so even the people you love to disparage could prove just as sensible in the long term to those who insist GMO is the same as non GMO which is clearly a lie.

    BT176 corn and deaths to cows 12 years ago not in farm communities but those of respected GMO developers which the company chose not forget about.

    Gerhard Adam
    I think people even those you disparage are entitled to good food.
    When was any other position mentioned?
    Here in France there are areas where raw milk is a respected food simply because of tracability.
    Great.  There's nothing wrong with raw milk as long as you understand the intrinsic risks.  If you were to simply accept raw milk from unknown sources, then you'd be playing Russian Roulette with your health. 
    And for whatever reason cancers and other ailments rise in line.
    Yes, and so does the price of gasoline.  Correlation is not causation.
    No proofs to cause but when health catstrophes strike it is time to take stock.
    Yes, and if anyone had bothered doing so, they would have raised far more concerns over the way food is being produced today, especially with respect to animal antibiotics, steroids, etc.  Instead, everyone gets all excited about some hyped "threat" to human health, when they've been busily consuming all manner of health-risky foods, it's just that no one paid attention.  [...and No, organic is not a solution].
    And there are no easy answers so even the people you love to disparage could prove just as sensible in the long term to those who insist GMO is the same as non GMO which is clearly a lie.
    Yeah, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.  If it is "clearly a lie", then provide some evidence.  I'm not interesting in pursuing websites that have an agenda, and can't be bothered to provide support for their claims.
    BT176 corn and deaths to cows 12 years ago not in farm communities but those of respected GMO developers which the company chose not forget about.
    Your argument about cows has not but substantiated, and the case has not been adjudicated.  So, you're basing a conclusion on an article you read and not a shred of court evidence.  They may well be guilty and there may be problems, but they aren't going to be addressed by people telling half-truths, and playing fast and loose with the information.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hi Gerhard thanks for your reoply. What is your job. I was a chemistry teacher but am now retired. Retirement gives you an opportunity to reflect on issues you previously accepted the governments views on as you had no time to devote to the subject and less desire to be removed from post for dissenting views.

    GMO technology is 40 years old and began with work by people like Paul Berg Nobel Prize winner. My interest goes back to the beginning on this topic.

    The health problems of altering the DNA of plants and animals has been the subject of serious scientific investigation ever since, including an almost complete halt due to doubts about safety. The only work done in this period was that of the USA chemical, bioological and nuclear warfare group at Fort Detrick. Professor Pollack being the first I know to complain that using safe viruses and bacteria etc might change them into pathogenic forms.

    In 2012 we still are unaware of long term health effects of GMO altered food. But along the way have been a litter of hotly denied health issues from GMO research none more hotly denied than the true origin of AIDS.

    Bt176 corn or maize is just one of thousands of GMO altered foods and each one needs to be evaluated for safety just as much as a new chemical drug. Worse, we can choose whether or not to try a new wonder drug for our ills but with maize or corn now at over 90 per cent one form or other GMO we have only the choice to avoid eating corn or maize or its derived products. Also the amount of a drug will be tiny compared to the huge amount of food needed to nourish humans.

    For the rich avoiding GMO is still an easy option but for poor people or those incarcererated for crimes there is normally no choice of the food you eat.

    Many powerful institutions both political and industrial prohibit the use of GMO in their canteens going against their own stand on this issue.

    GMO advances are in the nature of science unstoppable but we have the right to expect safe food and for food there is no proper reason to replace safe food by GMO food safe or not and since the widespread growth of GMO food yields in general have gone down, use of herbicides have risen and prices have in some areas gone up five fold in as many years.

    My own food bill rises as I try to avoid foods with maize or corn. France has an embargo on growing GMO food for eating but what is not appreciated here or abroad is the importation of GMO foods which the government does not want but cannot afford the bill for refusing them.

    I have studied the issue fur et mesure from the beginning and seen the good and the bad of the technology.

    No GMO food today has been properly tested on humans. No GMO foods have been properly tested for safety on animals. No government regulators have actually done tests themselves. Today the capitulation is almost total with the GMO makers officially permitted to do their own policing. The past offerings of these companies is crystal clear. We make the GMO food but absolve ourselves of any responsibility for safety. These are facts and not allegations.

    We are in some kind of Alice in Wonderland world. More aptly described as a Frankenstein type of world where unbridled changes are being made and anything remotely dangerous in some third world country or remote corner of first world countries.

    We have officially no idea why many are suffering chronic diseases in ever increasing numbers. Diabetes rising, Alzheimers disease, epilepsy numbers rising etc etc.

    The reference to deaths to many cattle after eating Bt176 corn was not the ongoing saga of German farmers now more than ten years in the courtroom but the revelation by a CIBA researcher, this month June 2012 that cattle died from Bt176 corn research more than a decade ago and the company now changed to yet another name merely dumped the experiment and pretended it was never done until this months bombshell.

    Why cover up a bad event if it is just a coincidence? If not true why not deny the rumour as a lie?

    Why did the USA after giving it approval based on company data that didn't include this aborted research refuse to relicence it just a few years later and now it is not produced for more than a decade in the USA and various other countries.

    In my own circle of friends I see rising chronic illness I have never seen before with comments from hospitals that they are seeing these new illness in ever increasing numbers and the illness is becoming common.

    Bt technology was introduced because it worked. It killed the insects eating the foodstuff and produced the food. Apart from worries over safety we now see after many years the inevitable super insects that don't now die or worse new insects replacing those that are weakened.

    Why is it the food kills all bad insects but not good ones? And what makes it that a toxic food is non toxic to humans while lethal to all bad organisms. This smacks of arrogance coupled with ignorance. The insect nervous system is very similar to humans albeit ours is bigger and more robust to small amounts of toxins.

    Some illnesses in the past have excaped detection for a hundred years and when the health issue discovered have taken another fifty years to find the cause.

    Is GMO food in this same cycle? At present nobody admits it is harmful far less seeking to find which GMO foods are safe and which are not.

    Critics and researchers who find fault have meteoric falls to their career none better exemplified than Dr Pustzai who went public on his concerns on Monday and was out of his 35 year career by Wednesday AFTER being gratulated by his boss for his performance on national TV on the Tuesday morning after his monday night programme.

    We are not on a level playing field in the research and openness on GMO foods for human consumption.

    As a person in the third generation this is not too much of a prioblem for me but may already be taking its toll on the next generations.

    GMO is not the only serious problem todays world is facing but honesty, openness and proper discussion is vital for our future on whatever topic. The immediate refusal to listen or share in knowledge by the regulators shows the concerns above are real. How can they say they want to know why animals in farms are dying while allowing GMO firms to hide similar deaths in the name of commercial confidentiality?

    French researchers have not been totally muffled on GMO safety and the reason for this is partly due to the completely different system for researchers here who cant be hired and fired at will such as happened in the UK.

    Note: GMO Safety testing is done but amounts to 90 days tests. How does this equate to humans that live many hundreds of times longer than this or if not they used to. This is not Safety testing but merely propaganda. And for CIBA now Syngenta amounts to fraud by omission.

    Gerhard Adam
    I'm not in favor of GMO foods, but I oppose them primarily for economic/political reasons.

    I'm sorry, but your claims aren't based on anything scientific.  Talking about the safety of GMO foods without comparison to current farming practices regarding pesticides, antibiotics, steroids, herbicides, etc. is simply misleading and wrong.

    These are also real risks that we are currently exposed to even if GMO's were never part of the dialogue.  I find it disturbing that people are so quick to dismiss this reality in their zeal to paint GMO's as so unsafe.

    I have seen or read of NO evidence to suggest that super-organisms of either plant or insect have occurred, although that is clearly a distinct possibility downstream.  Of course, there are many factors that will influence this, but it is a legitimate concern [in my view].
    Why cover up a bad event if it is just a coincidence? If not true why not deny the rumour as a lie?
    We're talking about politics, lawyers, and business executives.  There doesn't have to be a rational reason for these decisions other than that they may want to downplay it because of its economic affects.  That doesn't render it true.  Businesses often take such foolish positions because they are more concerned in managing investors than they are in managing public perception.  This is precisely why many companies will settle a lawsuit, even if they aren't guilty or don't believe they are.  Often the protracted exposure of being in court does more harm, than simply settling without admitting guilt.
    In my own circle of friends I see rising chronic illness I have never seen before with comments from hospitals that they are seeing these new illness in ever increasing numbers and the illness is becoming common.
    Again .. sorry, but hospitals are among the worst sources of new illnesses and infections.  However, let me state, that if this were true, then the medical "professionals" should all be locked up as criminals.  To possess knowledge of new and rising illnesses and NOT sound an alarm, is simply evil. 
    We have officially no idea why many are suffering chronic diseases in ever increasing numbers. Diabetes rising, Alzheimers disease, epilepsy numbers rising etc etc.
    True enough, but that's also no basis on picking the handiest target around.  That's no different than people that want to blame vaccines for autism.  Correlation is not causation.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerard, thanks for your input.

    I was surprised you are against GMO food on political and economic grounds but by implication you assume all GMO is 100 percent safe to eat?

    With thousands of different GMO foods out in the wild now and with DNA from the early foods being incorporated in every plant and animal this is in itself an amazing stance if true. Sadly regulators allow normal hybridisation to past GMO plants to render them exempt from any laws over GMO foods while still permitting the patenting of the food. A bizarre situation.

    I have no argument with general, medical and forensic GMO technology of which Europe is at the forefront. But for GMO foods, a few only venture into their production. Spain and Germany growing GMO crops and France also, even though officially or at least in public minds it denies doing it. The growth of GMO technology is actually going on everywhere and is now even in schools. The importation of millions of tons of GMO foods is again a political action that for me was deliberate and Europe and France sadly fell for it. It is illegal to veto food imports and so France who ban GMO foods for growing in its country is forced to import millions of tons for consumption by the public. Most in France are ignorant of the politics and the situation is fait accompli here.

    The recent news this month, June 2012, that deaths to large animals (cattle) occurred in the trial of Bt foods (Bt176 maize or corn) and that this was kept a confidential commercial secret for more than a decade is alarming to me and I would imagine any unbiased person concerned with the health of the future generations. This could well be one of the foods imported to France.

    The current situation is that USA embraced the then CIBA Bt foodstuff for farming and feeding the USA population but banned it at its first renewal application five years later. No reasons for this astonishing change is known to me. But were the regulators aware of cattle deaths even then?

    The mad cow debacle in England has been explained as a DNA change to the cattle involved and DNA changes occur from eating GMO foods. First denied and now generally accepted knowledge. The nearest exposure would not be Bt maize as it was not known then. However, Monsanto genetically engineered products were correlated with the growth of BSE cases. Medicaments to increase the milk yield in the doomed cattle. Here we can be sure today correlation and causation are not related. But plausibility is a feature that is intriguing.

    The British and European governments have been secretly investigating mysterious deaths to cattle and other beasts of burden for many years and only in the very recent past has this search for cause become public knowledge. As of June 2012 they are still clueless as to causation.

    The deaths involve mysterious bleeding from the animals that ultimately causes in some death. Bt technology when introduced worked because it worked. It killed insects feeding on the food with Bt genes introduced by genetic engineering. Today we know that bleeding to death is one action of food from this technology. Plausiblity is high for a link of some sort.

    But from plausibility to linkage between cattle and other deaths and the recent introduction of GMO foods cannot be proved or disproved.

    The commercial confidences of humans and animals dying or becoming ill after various new technologies going haywire does not give confidence in the ability of industry or regulators to monitor and protect our health.

    Correlation and causation are not inextricably linked but by finding the real cause for the deaths to the animals at Ciba or the ten year battle over what killed the cattle in court cases or over Europe in a new disease never seen before would put our mind at rest that GMO food is as safe as you appear to claim. Botulism has been put down as the reason for the cattle deaths to the farmer but botulism is in itself very rare and how does it spread in the way found? Most human cases are very isolated and do not normally involve foodstuffs met with by cattle?

    The whistle blowing episode of cattle deaths after Ciba Bt176 trials are not easy to find on the net and I for one would like further information as to the verity of this accusation.

    It would be good for the top scientists around the world to find why cattle and other animals are bleeding to death in a way never seen before in animal husbandry and why top scientists do not need input from amateurs or other people with scientific expertise.

    The amateur doctor who solved the mystery of eosinophilia causation while the same malady had defeated every expert professionally in the same field for fifty years shows that every input however bizarre may provide vital clues.

    The history of GMO technolgy is now 40 years old and does not at present compete with the advances made in the past from alterations naturally occurring and harvested by ancient man.

    Organic varieties of maize are now increasingly polluted with GMO DNA contamination up to 2 per cent. Harm if it is to come from GMO food designed to kill living creatures will be a slow, sinister and almost impossible to trace back to source process if past history is taken as a guide.

    At present we do not recognise harm is possible from GMO foods. So further progress is strangled at birth.

    Secret deaths from GMO food trials are political but also to me a basis for criminal actions as you say.

    The mysterious illness apparently rising and of unknown origin involves sudden death to fully grown men and women but still at ages a generation behind my own. It involves a sharks fin shaped heart beat when measured electrically. Nothing much is known about this disease which can claim victims at any time. My friend who has this illness is female, 32 and has already had a five hour operation to alleviate the condition. The alternative is to put in a rather large device to deliver electric shocks if the heart begines to fail. I fear this illness will in time become as well known as Alzheimer Disease et al that in my childhood most people did not know existed.

    Whatever the advantages of GMO food are to the governments, industry or farmers the benefits to humans that eat them are unknown to me.

    The refusal by the same governments and industry to provide its workers with GMO food in their canteens is troublesome.

    The avoidance of GMO foods is possible but does increase food costs over and above the two to fivefold increases seen in as many years as GMO foods take off on farmlands around the world.

    The slow rise of GMO genes in organic food is something that may affect future generations to come.

    The pollution seen from ordinary industrial waste products has caused swimming in rivers to be hazardous as well as eating the fish that survive there. The harm from GMO food is still denied officially but must surely give rise to an analogous situation to conventional pollutants and the contamination of organic food is a point that is undeniable whether it improves or not the products.

    The new age scenario that we are to regard food as something that is ultimately dangerous for our health is frightening to me. Past follies from the use of mercury on the farm to organophosphate treamtents to food storage etc etc are outputs from the very same companies that now tell us to eat GMO food.

    An organic venture where I live was stopped by whatever forces after merely two years where the food was produced in abundance at very low cost. The effect on my health from good food was not noticeably different from that before showing the difficulty in showing whether foods of a particular type are good or bad and worthy therefore of more than 90 day trials for safety.

    When you do research on any issue you find there are many sides.

    The people who love to object to everything.

    Those that support the establishment.

    Honesty is absolutely vital.

    We all make mistakes and some can be absolute howlers.

    GMO is politically the work of USA scientists supported by their establishment.

    No safety checks of substance have ever been done.

    Animals and humans are in some gigantic mix of guinea pigs with no one much interested in anything except when it hits there profits.

    GMO makers make GMO and give nothing for safety.

    Government take their share and tell the public the food is safe.

    Its like a bubble that will burst.

    But from past experience it takes up to a century to find the problem.

    Another half century to find the cause.

    So today with dangerous technologies galore even honest people and scientists are totally lost.

    But when a commodity is bad it KEEPS collecting bad news which needs HANDLING.

    Today came the publicity of one farmers experiences with GMO and his new experience with GMO free technolgy.

    He must be the biggest LIAR in the world according to those who SUPPORT GMO.

    For me it is one more CRY that will be lost to mankind.

    Danish Farmer Reverses Illnesses in pigs by reverting to a GM-free diet for his
    animals, which is yet further evidence for the toxicity of glyphosate tolerant
    GM crops.

    I hope someone with power and authority acts not before its too late but to stop a tragedy becoming a catastrophe.

    I note that in line with my experience the cost of GMO free diets is HIGHER than GMO diets making this a perfect weapon to use against the POOR.

    And making one claim of GMO producers not just CYNICAL but tantamount to GENOCIDE.

    A 1972 - 3 start to GMO and still 40 years later proving NATURE trumps ALBIOLOGY.

    How can GMO producers and government claim SAFETY has been checked when this farmer gets dramatic health IMPROVEMENTS two days after REMOVING GMO food from feedstuff?

    I am happy to go with science.

    I just hope the supporters will do the decent thing when this comes as the millionth and one WARNING SIGN.

    How can GMO producers and government claim SAFETY has been checked when this farmer gets dramatic health IMPROVEMENTS two days after REMOVING GMO food from feedstuff?
    This is anecdotal, Rachel Carson-ish 'I heard someone used DDT and immediately got cancer and DIED' nonsense. Unfortunately, a lot of people bought her rubbish book so now all activists think hysteria is the way to make a point.
    Gerhard Adam
    How can GMO producers and government claim SAFETY has been checked when this farmer gets dramatic health IMPROVEMENTS two days after REMOVING GMO food from feedstuff?
    In my opinion, that anecdote is completely made up.  As someone that has dealt around cattle, as well as having many people that maintain cattle, it would be totally implausible to believe that someone would feed something [i.e. like the alleged GMO foods] and NOT notice a deterioration in the herd or individual animals.  You don't switch out any animal's food without watching to see what kinds of effects might occur. 

    There were never be "improvements two days after removing GMO", because it would never have stayed in the animals feed long enough to become an issue.

    Also I don't approve of words like "improvements" when making a point because they are too nebulous and vague to mean anything in this context.  In this case, (1) what was supposedly wrong? and (2) what was observed to have been "corrected"? 

    Mundus vult decipi
    Adam, did you ever see this documentary: The World According to Monsanto

    I must admit I never did bother with looking into details about GMO. I have noticed that there is a debate, but I assumed that there were extreme on both sides - as usual. I have nothing against the principle of GMO (the genetics in it), but after the video I about Monsanto I grew skeptical to the economics of it, the business model doesn't look healthy to me or all us non-Monsantos. :-)

    The question of owning the right to genetic IPR is also tricky. Instinctively I would say that is not in the interest of mankind...

    However, there must be GMO products that will be both healthy / safe and at the same time increase our food production to meet the needs of the population. The revolving doors practice between Monsanto and US authorities didn't seem all that sound though... the question then is whether it is possible to trust any GMOs then.

    There was a section about milk production in the video - did you hear about that - cowboy? :-) You would have first hand expertise on cow things I understand. :-)

    I actually watched the whole video (I never watch long videos on my computer), so I guess one could say that the documentary is well done. - A French production.

    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Gerhard Adam
    I haven't seen the documentary, but I take your point.  You may have seen in other comments that my opposition to GMO's is primarily on the economic/political levels, whereas the science is a little less certain.  While there are some concerns, I don't believe that is the driving force of where the problems will originate from.

    While I understand this is specifically about Monsanto, I don't trust corporations [in general].  It's not that corporations are evil, but rather we have them legally constructed in such a way that their interests are almost always going to be diametrically opposed to outsiders.  Their first, final, and only responsibility is to make money.  That is also the legal responsibility of the executives and officers of the corporation.  There is NOTHING else worth discussing about corporations, because it would all be secondary to that objective.

    Again ... this isn't to say that such an objective is bad or evil, but it also is quite specific in its purpose.  The one thing you don't see is anything about feeding the world's hungry or improving agriculture or improving the lot of humanity.  If we maintain that perspective then we have a better chance of understanding how to view Monsanto against the backdrop of GMO's.
    However, there must be GMO products that will be both healthy / safe and at the same time increase our food production to meet the needs of the population.
    That's the part I find troublesome.  While there are many parts of the world suffering from food problems, I don't recall California being on that list.  Therefore, my problem is why are the people that don't need the food being marketed to so heavily? 

    While I don't have direct evidence of it, it sounds like purely a marketing issue.  GMO foods are "desirable" from a corporate perspective because it can reduce production costs and thereby increase profits.  Companies like Monsanto benefit even more because they license the fields.  It's a steady revenue stream that isn't dependent on crop yield (except to the farmers) nor weather, etc.  In short, it's simply a sales pitch for people that already have plenty of food to shift over to something for no reason other than because it's more profitable for the people selling it to you.

    In many respects it doesn't even look like it does particularly well with other more recent, readily accepted solutions, so it doesn't sound like a particularly promising technology to begin with.  This is especially true when we consider that there may be significantly more complications downstream if we find careless use promotes herbicide resistant weeds and pesticide resistant insects.  These don't necessarily have to be the target species, but any of them could be problems. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hi Both of you:

    We need to stand behind science and not opposing views that we dont like.

    There is a clear theoretical risk from all kinds of engineering of DNA by man born out by anecdote or true experiences in the field.

    You plug on Rachel Carson is below the belt.

    She did work on DDT and organophosphates and did die very early from cancer.

    In fact she was years ahead of her time and today most agencies ACCEPT that DDT is a cancer risk and for half a dozen different kinds of cancer.

    The same agencies also claim that many cancers are not fairly laid at the door of DDT.

    Nothing in life is certain but to expose yourself needlessly to DDT is plain stupid.

    Talking of anecdotes both my father and brother suffered illness immediately after clearing a shed of garden chemicals. The timing always made the cause suspicious but even for a person like me interested in chemicals and safety it took more than five years to decide it was suspicious;

    My father died in less than 24 hours and my brother suffered a heart attack so serious he was airlifted to a major centre and on intensive care for a week. Suddenly his heart attack subsided and tests showed his heart was in A1 condition. all of this perfectly in line with our knowledge of the effects of organophosphates as developed but not used by Hitler because they were too dangerous. The allies tested them after the war and claimed they were over rated. After the report they had to rethink and rewrite as the toxic effects took over AFTER publication.

    Deaths in less than an hour have been recorded in government testing of non lethal doses of OP's.

    Just to say we need to be VIGILANT.

    Looking at the political angle of Gerard there were two camps at the beginning of GMO foods 1991 on and the political claim of substantial equivalence has been known to be false by all involved. POLITICS.

    I would listen to anecdotes of GMO safety but can't think of any of these?

    higher yields

    less pesticides


    All for the most part deniable with certainty

    Gerhard Adam
    We need to stand behind science and not opposing views that we dont like.
    I'll make it even simpler.  I don't have a problem with the science of any of this, regardless of people's viewpoints.  However when I walk into a store and go to the counter to purchase something and have to spend my money we have left science far behind and are in the middle of sales and marketing.

    Therefore the question is simply, why does any corporation feel they have the right to sell me something for which they don't have to acknowledge that they've changed/modified it from what I may think they're selling me.  It's deceptive, no matter how one views it.  Regardless of whether something thinks GMO's are harmful or not, it is simply a lie to say they are IDENTICAL.  Equivalence isn't identical.  So, if they aren't identical, then as the person being sold the goods I reserve the right to know what I'm purchasing.

    You can argue the science, the benefits, the risks, whatever you like ... but I'm the guy with the cash and it is mine to spend as I choose, not how others would choose for me.

    After all my question regarding GMOs may have nothing to do with safety or science.  It could be as simple as a differing taste, or wondering why if it's so much cheaper to make, how come it isn't cheaper to buy?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hi Gerhard

    We seem to have found SOME common ground. You may not agree or may agree?

    GMO food could be safe but clearly from recorded data collecting there are types that are simply dangerous and NEVER should have been in the food chain. The various findings over 20 years clearly shows particular types which damage the health of a small percent of animals and therefore almost certainly more or less percent of humans.

    Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF et al do not stand behind safety but simply produce patentable food. This is in itself contrary to logical, natural and oral law. Further the agencies are not capable of checking the GMO food is safe. Thousands of types are coming through. Stacked food developments (natural and not GMO) allow any already weak legislation to be circumvented.

    The health of the American citizen has arguably declined over the past 20 years coincident but not necessarily due to GMO food increasing. With all toxins there are always those that seem impervious to harm!

    VIOXX was lampooned by the common public and observant doctors for more than 5 years before it was determined there was a problem. The size of these problem is always underrrated. I know of people who took VIOXX and are now dead at an unacceptable early age. Death to heart attack or death suddenly is put down to bad luck, genes or simply he died. In millions of cases we dont know, probably make bad guesses and the real cause just gets missed. My own estimate is 95 per cent of such cases are MISSED.

    The covering up on confidential commercial grounds of deaths to large animals for 20 years for a GMO food still in the food chain (Bt176 corn or maize) is CRIMINAL and should be punishable. What effect has this had on humans that ate the same food that coincidently killed these cattle? And are in June 2012 eating this food.

    I avoid GMO according to my capacity and knowledge tempered by monetary considerations and liking of food. Many corn products I used to eat daily are now prescribed. How does this help businesses? If every one thought the same that the food is possibly harmful and definitely not checked for safety the companies would go bust.

    90 per cent of corn is now GMO but not all the same. The finding also this month from European farmers who studied their animals find some types are definitely to them HARMFUL. Others appear to do no harm. We are in a fix but something must be done NOW.

    We have a series of warning signs much stronger than that of VIOXX.

    Europe contrary to what everyone thinks is eating large amounts of GMO corn. It is impossible not to with millions of tons coming in for example to Lorient in Brittany France on cargo ships every Monday. France PROHIBITS the growing of GMO for food but is a world leader in GMO technology.

    We need to listen to the signs and not ignore them. We are in a situation where those in authority need to use and not abuse their power. My position is powerless but I do reckon I have unique knowledge that seems to be missing from governments and regulators around the world.

    Past health and chemical/food events ALWAYS shows that the ordinary person, farmer or housewife gets the message first on what is happening while governments, experts, industry use a committee system and cost benefit analysis that simply DOES NOT WORK.

    Labelling is boycotted for evident reasons. The stuff would rot on the shelves.

    But that is missing the point.

    Why is KILLER food on the shelves?

    The first missed warning came from CIBA when dead cows were buried and experiments just FORGOTTEN.

    I just hope that somewhere someone as said will realise the importance of such happenings and take action.

    Frances Kelsey if I remember did the same for USA and was recognised by JFK but for whatever reason the demise of JFK (and the demonising of Rachel Carsen) came coincidentally at the same time?

    Half of the food on a French supermarket shelf is likely to contain GMO food and therefore POORLY tested for long term safety. If France BANS growing GMO food this means our health here is driven by ALL powerful forces from the USA. The fifth biggest country at the mercy of the most powerful nation and its allegedly killer GMO foods (some but not all) with not a single GMO food EVER having a proper safety check as per the standard demanded by people like Frances Kelsey (still alive to my knowledge) or that wanted by ex presidents such as John Kennedy.

    Politics does come into the equation and the political figures that pushed through GMO food without safety checking are well known. (Mr Rumsford for one). And we know the FDA people who also passed dangerous foods on us (Mr Hines).

    Finally the truth over particular GMO foods must come from looking at the past and taking note of what peoples findings are TODAY and tomorrow.

    But TIME is of the ESSENCE!

    What are the current long teram health problems to the new USA generation. One in three or one in six with permanent health problems! Is this correct? Is this normal? And are we we going to sit back and accept this for all time? Maybe even let it get worse?

    Gerhard Adam
    Why is KILLER food on the shelves?
    Sorry, but statements like that are no basis for common ground.
    What are the current long term health problems to the new USA generation. One in three or one in six with permanent health problems! Is this correct? Is this normal?
    Sorry, but the first question should be ... Is this true?  Regardless of whether concerns are legitimate or not, there is nothing gained by scare-mongering. 
    Mundus vult decipi