I think this is one of the most important…(actually critical to human survival) videos I have seen on YT. Thank you for your continuing outstanding work. To find out these truths from this speaker and Dr Stephanie Seneff and others is imperative information for all humans today.
Thank you Dr. P and Jeffrey Smith. This conversation is even more important today and Jeffrey has been proven right in test after test and a court of law. Thank you sirs for all your hard work to protect the rest of us 🙏💕😊
So you think a GMO potato, GMO soy and GMO corn are equally evil? You're taking genetic/agriculture advice from someone who has a degree in neurology and has no idea how gmo works. It's even more important today you people start doing your own research and stop following fools like sheep.
Thank you for mentioning the problem of Roundup showing up in municipal drinking water. This is a critical problem due to the use of Roundup on golf courses, parks, schools, apartments, and roadside spraying by lawn care companies.
I doubt Roundup is used on golf fields, tees, fairways as it would kill everything. It’s normally used in areas where weeds grows, say in the concrete cracks or joints. The usual product that is used on the fairways etc is Kamba M, or it’s competition (knock offs). Would like to know if Kamba M is detrimental to our health. One thing to remember about RoundUp… it’s main active ingredient Glyphosate, there are other chemicals as well. These are not discussed and I wonder if these are also detrimental to our health.
"I marvel at how anti-ag “shockumentaries” never fall into that rut. You know, in the time-honored, inflammatory vein of “Food Inc.,” “Cowspiracy,” “Farmageddon,” etc. Through clever wordplays, provocative imagery, and anecdotes, they appeal to the everyman/woman in us all. The directors know how to press the right buttons - they have the pseudoscience down to a science. These glorified infomercials are entertaining (in a cringey way), just insufferably formulaic. They dredge up the same old tired, recycled arguments. They artfully embellish with alternative facts and ignore whatever doesn’t suit. It banks on shallow soundbytes taken at face value, rather than a critical analysis of content. In effect, predatory messaging for the masses. Thanks to Sound Speed PR, I recently had the opportunity to review a new entry to the shockumentary genre: “Secret Ingredients.” True to form, it’s an alphabet soup of common gripes, all rolled into a tidy package. Essentially, the duo of GMOs and Roundup are responsible for all our chronic health ills. The tabloid-esque assertions are so absurd, and the visuals so comically overblown (a butterfly fleeing in terror from a cropduster, and a Monsanto-branded tanker truck ferrying Roundup and Agent Orange on the road?) it seemingly borders on self-parody. But it’s deadly serious. The messaging relies too heavily on absurd reductionism. The core message is that all of our health ills can be attributed to just a couple of dubious actors. By withdrawing these players from our diets, we can experience a near instantaneous health renewal. These calls for a health renaissance are delectably simple and elegant - and also laughably wrong. It desperately needs a dose of narrative Pepto-Bismol. So where did it go astray? Let me count the ways. The brainchild of this opus is Jeffery Smith, of the Institute for Responsible Technology, with a special guest appearance by Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America, among others. You know you’re in for an epic pilgrimage into factual no-man’s land. At the title screen, “Secret Ingredients” wafts insidiously from a loaded dinner plate. It starts with a family beset with tragedy - all sorts of chronic conditions cropping up (21 in all), including autism. And these were self-described health nuts. So the mom embarks on an odyssey of discovery to connect the dots. After doing “research” (a common trope for those dissatisfied with modern science), the answer was obvious - ditch the GMOs and Roundup! We’re told that “independent” scientists disagree about the health consensus surrounding GMOs - implying that they have the moral scruples to resist pro-GMO payola. For their integrity, they’re the victims of a vicious industry response that punishes anyone who dares to question. There’s even mention of Bt insecticidal proteins made by select GMO crops - and how those proteins carve holes in the guts of insect pests, killing them. Imagine what it would do to us! Well, nothing actually. We lack the proper gut receptors to latch on to. We also don’t have alkaline guts, another prerequisite. No overdose of Tums is going to change that. There’s also the fact that Bt has been sprayed organically for 90 years. Live, formulated, chemical payloads. A pesticide. Spray it or give the plant the ability to make it in-house. There’s no meaningful difference, except in delivery. The most hate seems to be directed at Roundup. According to the film’s “esteemed” experts, Roundup and GMOs are two peas in a pod. It’s implicated in body burden (all the toxins that accrue in our systems and screw up the works). A pediatrician confidently states that we should go organic to avoid GMOs (generally true if you want to avoid them), and pesticides (I’d check your references). And when she wrote this “prescription,” the results were miraculous! When a child was tested for glyphosate, he had 8x higher levels than those in Europe (are we going to quibble about near-nil and closer to near-nil levels?) Are those levels biologically impactful? Not at all. More than 40 years to data can attest to that. And don’t forget the generic catch-all condition of “inflammation” and the clinically unrecognized “leaky gut”. Autism, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and brain fog, “Secret Ingredients” says they’re all singularly due to Roundup. Clinical mic drop! Futurist Carl Sagan claimed that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” “Secret Ingredients” takes the proverbial cake. From a coarse understanding of the scientific method, including a lack of reproducibility and corroborating evidence and cherry-picking, the empirical and ethical lapses are striking." agdaily dot com/technology/secret-ingredients-review-menu-of-deceit/
I've watches Seeds of Death and Genetic Roulette several times. I highly recommend both of them, and I look forward to seeing the new movie. When will it be released?
I saw this clip years ago...But what has changed? In the small nature conservation world things gotten worse and people continue to kill native wildlife which has lead to a worldwide massive decline published in science magazines... Yes of course there are several more reasons in which humans are responsible to kill native wildlife-but that's not the point here and any comment is just ridiculous as we talk about one of the many major reasons hi.ans are killing the natural wildlife, biodiversity and therefore ecosystems.). I talk/ed to people and groups for decades and who told me straight into my face that they agree with me and understand the consequences..Only to find the majority of individuals at some future point flaunting what they have said and using glyphosate in their living area...I have been observing insects and birds for several years in one area and discovered a decline of over 80% of insects and birds after one public area had been heavily soaked with round-up in order to remove a grass area and then to plant wildflowers...right in the highlight of bird breeding season... While efforts towards the council resulted in saying that they will stop using it- they withheld that they will only stop using it until they have used what they had bought cheaply inn the first place in order to save money (I know this because I am friends with some park keepers and council workers.). So....According to science and many years of study it will end very soon because the human species wasn't intelligent enough to protect the Insects which make the basis of all living on earth. Yes, a small minority eats more healthy but keeps destroying the planet or killing the insects in other ways for their own selfishness.So no matter what- people should (not must -because it's too late) wake up for their own good.
I love this channel and listen to it all the time! My family has been on a ketogenic diet for 2 years now and have recently switched to organic foods. I'm a little disheartened, though, as I've seen some material talking about how organic foods don't necessarily have fewer levels of pesticides and that in fact, some natural pesticides have a worse effect on human health than some laboratory engineered pesticides. So is the takeaway here to just focus on eating organic for the non-gmo/natural properties of the foods? What do we do about the pesticides still being used on USDA Organic foods? This is one of the sources I'm referencing when talking about the organic vs. conventional: th-cam.com/video/8PmM6SUn7Es/w-d-xo.html
Something to consider: avoid the dirty dozen, and stick to the clean fifteen. www.foodsafetymagazine.com/news/2018-dirty-dozen-and-clean-fifteen-lists-rank-produce-items-by-pesticide-level/
Oh no Dr Perlmutter, having non GMO foods in your pantry and fridge etc is not “trendy”…actually…it’s the GMO that is the new kid on the block and it needs to go immediately.
That is a very ignorant claim not based on any legit science. GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies "Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10]. This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here. The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11). In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops." geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/
Only if you are science illiterate enough to fall for all the activist lies pushed by the organic foods industry. *GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies* "Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10]. This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here. The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11). In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops." geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/
I think this is one of the most important…(actually critical to human survival) videos I have seen on YT.
Thank you for your continuing outstanding work.
To find out these truths from this speaker and Dr Stephanie Seneff and others is imperative information for all humans today.
Thank you Dr. P and Jeffrey Smith.
This conversation is even more important today and Jeffrey has been proven right in test after test and a court of law.
Thank you sirs for all your hard work to protect the rest of us 🙏💕😊
So you think a GMO potato, GMO soy and GMO corn are equally evil? You're taking genetic/agriculture advice from someone who has a degree in neurology and has no idea how gmo works.
It's even more important today you people start doing your own research and stop following fools like sheep.
Great info and great people
Keep up the good work Jeffrey! Thank you so much:)
😩I live near a farming area in NJ . I worry with water wells
Thank you for mentioning the problem of Roundup showing up in municipal drinking water. This is a critical problem due to the use of Roundup on golf courses, parks, schools, apartments, and roadside spraying by lawn care companies.
Sorry, not that I know of.
+Bradlee Mannyng so fear monger against one of the safest lowest toxicity pesticides ever
I doubt Roundup is used on golf fields, tees, fairways as it would kill everything.
It’s normally used in areas where weeds grows, say in the concrete cracks or joints.
The usual product that is used on the fairways etc is Kamba M, or it’s competition (knock offs).
Would like to know if Kamba M is detrimental to our health.
One thing to remember about RoundUp… it’s main active ingredient Glyphosate, there are other chemicals as well. These are not discussed and I wonder if these are also detrimental to our health.
"I marvel at how anti-ag “shockumentaries” never fall into that rut. You know, in the time-honored, inflammatory vein of “Food Inc.,” “Cowspiracy,” “Farmageddon,” etc. Through clever wordplays, provocative imagery, and anecdotes, they appeal to the everyman/woman in us all. The directors know how to press the right buttons - they have the pseudoscience down to a science.
These glorified infomercials are entertaining (in a cringey way), just insufferably formulaic. They dredge up the same old tired, recycled arguments. They artfully embellish with alternative facts and ignore whatever doesn’t suit. It banks on shallow soundbytes taken at face value, rather than a critical analysis of content. In effect, predatory messaging for the masses.
Thanks to Sound Speed PR, I recently had the opportunity to review a new entry to the shockumentary genre: “Secret Ingredients.” True to form, it’s an alphabet soup of common gripes, all rolled into a tidy package. Essentially, the duo of GMOs and Roundup are responsible for all our chronic health ills. The tabloid-esque assertions are so absurd, and the visuals so comically overblown (a butterfly fleeing in terror from a cropduster, and a Monsanto-branded tanker truck ferrying Roundup and Agent Orange on the road?) it seemingly borders on self-parody. But it’s deadly serious.
The messaging relies too heavily on absurd reductionism. The core message is that all of our health ills can be attributed to just a couple of dubious actors. By withdrawing these players from our diets, we can experience a near instantaneous health renewal. These calls for a health renaissance are delectably simple and elegant - and also laughably wrong. It desperately needs a dose of narrative Pepto-Bismol. So where did it go astray? Let me count the ways.
The brainchild of this opus is Jeffery Smith, of the Institute for Responsible Technology, with a special guest appearance by Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America, among others. You know you’re in for an epic pilgrimage into factual no-man’s land. At the title screen, “Secret Ingredients” wafts insidiously from a loaded dinner plate. It starts with a family beset with tragedy - all sorts of chronic conditions cropping up (21 in all), including autism. And these were self-described health nuts. So the mom embarks on an odyssey of discovery to connect the dots. After doing “research” (a common trope for those dissatisfied with modern science), the answer was obvious - ditch the GMOs and Roundup!
We’re told that “independent” scientists disagree about the health consensus surrounding GMOs - implying that they have the moral scruples to resist pro-GMO payola. For their integrity, they’re the victims of a vicious industry response that punishes anyone who dares to question. There’s even mention of Bt insecticidal proteins made by select GMO crops - and how those proteins carve holes in the guts of insect pests, killing them. Imagine what it would do to us! Well, nothing actually. We lack the proper gut receptors to latch on to. We also don’t have alkaline guts, another prerequisite. No overdose of Tums is going to change that. There’s also the fact that Bt has been sprayed organically for 90 years. Live, formulated, chemical payloads. A pesticide. Spray it or give the plant the ability to make it in-house. There’s no meaningful difference, except in delivery.
The most hate seems to be directed at Roundup. According to the film’s “esteemed” experts, Roundup and GMOs are two peas in a pod. It’s implicated in body burden (all the toxins that accrue in our systems and screw up the works). A pediatrician confidently states that we should go organic to avoid GMOs (generally true if you want to avoid them), and pesticides (I’d check your references). And when she wrote this “prescription,” the results were miraculous!
When a child was tested for glyphosate, he had 8x higher levels than those in Europe (are we going to quibble about near-nil and closer to near-nil levels?) Are those levels biologically impactful? Not at all. More than 40 years to data can attest to that.
And don’t forget the generic catch-all condition of “inflammation” and the clinically unrecognized “leaky gut”. Autism, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and brain fog, “Secret Ingredients” says they’re all singularly due to Roundup. Clinical mic drop! Futurist Carl Sagan claimed that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” “Secret Ingredients” takes the proverbial cake. From a coarse understanding of the scientific method, including a lack of reproducibility and corroborating evidence and cherry-picking, the empirical and ethical lapses are striking."
agdaily dot com/technology/secret-ingredients-review-menu-of-deceit/
I've watches Seeds of Death and Genetic Roulette several times. I highly recommend both of them, and I look forward to seeing the new movie. When will it be released?
That's your opinion based on what?
I saw this clip years ago...But what has changed? In the small nature conservation world things gotten worse and people continue to kill native wildlife which has lead to a worldwide massive decline published in science magazines...
Yes of course there are several more reasons in which humans are responsible to kill native wildlife-but that's not the point here and any comment is just ridiculous as we talk about one of the many major reasons hi.ans are killing the natural wildlife, biodiversity and therefore ecosystems.).
I talk/ed to people and groups for decades and who told me straight into my face that they agree with me and understand the consequences..Only to find the majority of individuals at some future point flaunting what they have said and using glyphosate in their living area...I have been observing insects and birds for several years in one area and discovered a decline of over 80% of insects and birds after one public area had been heavily soaked with round-up in order to remove a grass area and then to plant wildflowers...right in the highlight of bird breeding season...
While efforts towards the council resulted in saying that they will stop using it- they withheld that they will only stop using it until they have used what they had bought cheaply inn the first place in order to save money (I know this because I am friends with some park keepers and council workers.).
So....According to science and many years of study it will end very soon because the human species wasn't intelligent enough to protect the Insects which make the basis of all living on earth.
Yes, a small minority eats more healthy but keeps destroying the planet or killing the insects in other ways for their own selfishness.So no matter what- people should (not must -because it's too late) wake up for their own good.
Tthe deer are eating the corn & getting cwd.
I love this channel and listen to it all the time! My family has been on a ketogenic diet for 2 years now and have recently switched to organic foods. I'm a little disheartened, though, as I've seen some material talking about how organic foods don't necessarily have fewer levels of pesticides and that in fact, some natural pesticides have a worse effect on human health than some laboratory engineered pesticides. So is the takeaway here to just focus on eating organic for the non-gmo/natural properties of the foods? What do we do about the pesticides still being used on USDA Organic foods?
This is one of the sources I'm referencing when talking about the organic vs. conventional: th-cam.com/video/8PmM6SUn7Es/w-d-xo.html
Something to consider: avoid the dirty dozen, and stick to the clean fifteen. www.foodsafetymagazine.com/news/2018-dirty-dozen-and-clean-fifteen-lists-rank-produce-items-by-pesticide-level/
Don`t kill the weeds; eat them.
Try making tortillas and bread from weeds.
Oh no Dr Perlmutter, having non GMO foods in your pantry and fridge etc is not “trendy”…actually…it’s the GMO that is the new kid on the block and it needs to go immediately.
That is a very ignorant claim not based on any legit science. GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies
"Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10].
This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here.
The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11).
In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops."
geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/
No wonder GMO “foods” are called Frankenfoods
Only if you are science illiterate enough to fall for all the activist lies pushed by the organic foods industry.
*GMO 20-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies*
"Currently, there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops. However, in the scientific community, there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these crops. To date, more than 3,000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case-by-case from regulatory agencies around the world have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.
In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in two decades of commercialization [9,10].
This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions - the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here.
The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11).
In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops."
geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/19/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/