This is the unedited transcript of an interview that occurred on September 30th 2015 on Super Human Radio. The audio interview can be heard here in its entirety. The guest were Dr. Stephanie Seneff – MIT Researcher & Scientist and Dr. Anthony Samsel – Scientist at the Arthur D. Little Think Tank
Show Title: BREAKING NEWS: Monsanto's Sealed Documents On Roundup's Toxicology Dangers Revealed
Carl: We have two scientists coming on who have received documents that were previously sealed, discussing the real toxicology reports on Roundup that were covered up. You’re going to love this. Stay tuned.
Welcome back. We’re breaking some news here today. Monsanto sealed documents on Roundup toxicology dangers are going to be revealed on this show today. I have a returning guest, a friend of the show, Dr. Stephanie Seneff who I’ve reached out to the Pope and said should be canonized as the patron saint of keeping people healthy and avoiding Monsanto’s poison. How are you doing, Dr. Seneff?
Dr. Seneff: I’m doing great. How are you?
Carl: Wonderful, wonderful. And then of course we’re being joined by Dr. Anthony Samsel. How are you doing Dr. Samsel?
Dr. Samsel: I’m doing fine, Carl.
Carl: Okay, great. The first question we got to get out of the way – I have been told by my executive producer Alisa Profumo that you have obtained, I want to say 15,000 pages of previously sealed documents. Am I accurate on that number?
Dr. Samsel: Yes. Actually, it’s well in excess of 15,000 pages. It represents many, many sealed studies from the year 1970s up to around 1990 or so.
Carl: How were these obtained? Was it hard to obtain them?
Dr. Samsel: Yeah. It was pretty difficult. I had applied under the Freedom of Information Act and the EPA denied me. Then I asked my Senator’s Office if they could help push the process along. It wound up that the EPA had to send a letter to Monsanto for them to show the just cause why my eyes should not view the documents. I guess they had to give them like 30 days or something. At the end of that, EPA sent me a letter and said that they had decided to release the documents to me.
Carl: Wow! So how long did this all take? This is a very protractive process, I’m thinking?
Dr. Samsel: It was an excess of four months.
Carl: Okay.
Dr. Samsel: It wasn’t an easy process.
Carl: We’ve been praying for a whistle blower like Jeffrey Wigand was to the tobacco industry to come forth and talk openly about the real truth about glyphosate or Roundup. But it looks like we may not need that now. Is that right, Dr. Seneff?
Dr. Seneff: I’m hoping so. I’m hoping this could shortcut the process because we certainly need to get this product off the market. We need to have it disappear from the earth.
Carl: Now, before we get into the details of what you learned after reviewing over 15,000 pages, let’s go ahead and do something different. Let’s go ahead and talk about what do you think their spin doctors are going to say about this to try to weaken or detract the discussion that’s going to occur here.
Dr. Seneff: Do you have any thoughts on that?
Dr. Samsel: Yeah. Monsanto, after sending me the documents, they knew that we would be talking about them and writing about them. So they hired a think tank, not the one that I retired from, not Arthur D. Little but another global think tank. They hired them to go through all of the studies and to come up with a story to defend them and to defend this science. They are prepared to defend what they did.
However, the science doesn’t substantiate it because glyphosate is an endocrine disrupting chemical. You don’t view endocrine disrupting chemicals the same way in toxicology as you view other chemicals. And endocrine disruptors work at low doses. There are hormonal effects that occur with endocrine disrupting chemicals that don’t occur at higher doses and we show that clearly in our new paper.
Carl: Just to give you an idea that the interview that you’re following was with the scientists who just completed a study linking both 2,4-D and 2,5, whatever T which was Agent Orange to Monoclonal gammopathy which then leads to multiple myeloma. The reason I say this is because what we find out about these chemicals is that they’ve always covered things up and it’s only after people are dying and sick does the truth come out. It’s time for that to change.
I’m putting the onus on the Food and Drug Administration to stop allowing these chemical companies to poison the American population. This is full-scale murder, in my opinion. I’m saying this, not you. I don’t want to seem like a zealot, but it’s true. It’s true. It’s the truth. I’m not being a zealot. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. This is true.
Let’s talk about the research. So 15,000 pages takes a lot of time to go through, give me the hierarchy of what jumped out at you that helps support your opinions here.
Dr. Samsel: What jumped out at me was the fact that glyphosate affected all glands and all organs, that there was data recorded in long-term animal studies of two plus years with mice and rats that show that glyphosate caused many types of adenomas and carcinomas.
Carl: So they knew this. They knew this in mouse and rats studies, right? This is no doubt.
Dr. Samsel: Yeah. But what they did was they used historical controls to mix the results.
Carl: Explain that, Dr. Samsel. How is that done? What do you mean by “historical controls”?
Dr. Samsel: Well, it’s a trick that’s used in product development sciences to create doubt that a particular compound might induce certain effects. And even if the data show a compound related trend, they can mix the results by taking unrelated historical controls where the control animals developed the same type of cancers or conditions. They will take anywhere from one to as many historical controls studies as they need to add them in and negate the results of what they’re viewing to create doubt.
Carl: So what you’re saying is they purposefully manipulated the science to cast doubt on whether or not there really was a link to these cancers from glyphosate?
Dr. Samsel: Yes.
Carl: Now we’re going to go down the list here. But when a company like Dow or Monsanto wants to release a chemical into the public domain for the purpose of, as an herbicide, so people can spray it on their lawns and kill the weeds, do they have to supply the Food and Drug Administration with science substantiating its safety?
Dr. Samsel: No. They don’t supply the Food and Drug Administration anything regarding agricultural chemicals. Those go through the Environmental Protection Agency. The Food and Drug Administration handles pharmaceuticals and other materials that would go into consumer products. When it comes to agricultural chemicals…
Carl: It’s the EPA.
Dr. Samsel: It’s the EPA.
Carl: Okay, thank you. Did they then supply the manipulated science or did they supply the raw science and did the EPA side with them in saying, “Oh yeah, it may not be from the glyphosate.”
Dr. Samsel: They submitted all of these studies to the EPA for EPA’s review. In several instances, the EPA said, “We see something here that we want you to take another look at that concerns us.” There are internal letters where Monsanto says that “We have a problem.”
Carl: It says that?
Dr. Samsel: Oh yeah. There are a couple of letters where they refer to it as a “problem” but they solved the problem through the use of historical controls.
Carl: Not by going out and doing new research. A reproducibility of research tends to be the hallmark of the rigors of science. So they didn’t say, “Hey, we need to do some more research.” They just said, “Well let’s see what we can find from these historical controls to pile on just to cast doubt that it’s actually the glyphosate that’s causing this problem.”
Dr. Samsel: That’s true but more particularly, they didn’t reproduce the results. They used higher concentrations and avoided the lower concentrations where they saw more hits. They saw that the lowest concentration they tested was 3 mg per kilogram of body weight of the animal, and in that early study they used approximately 3/10 in 30 mg doses. The studies that occurred after that, they stayed away from those low doses and they went even higher. And then in the study around 1990, that final study that EPA wanted them to redo the rat study, they went even higher.
Carl: Please, Dr. Seneff, jump in here at any time. I’m sorry. Does the EPA have a brain trust of scientists that review science or do they just rubber stamp stuff that these manufacturers provide to them and say, “Well as long as you say it’s safe, we’ll let you sell it”?
Dr. Samsel: They review the data and they approve things according to conventional toxicology where the dose makes the poison, and then they adjust the limits of residues to something that they consider acceptable. When they grant the registration, they grant it based on what the person applying for registration has told them. The EPA doesn’t do any studies themselves.
Carl: That’s what I want pointed out.
Dr. Samsel: They use consultants like me. When I was at Arthur D. Little, we had lots of EPA contracts.
Carl: So you understand the inner workings. Based on the way the EPA sized up the safety and toxicology of glyphosate, if the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms were to say, “Look, anyone that’s shot with a 22, that’s not murder. You got to kill somebody with something larger than a 22 for it to be murder.” This makes no sense to me because they have no way of controlling just how much is going to be used out there in the environment.
I want to talk about that when we come back. When we come back I want to talk more about the research that shows how dangerous Roundup really is and what they did to hide it. This is a groundbreaking discussion, folks. You need to pass this show. I’m going to excerpt this show commercial free and make sure that it hits the Internet tomorrow morning because this has to be passed around all over. There are people who have Roundup in their garages. They’re spraying it on the weeds in their driveway. Their kids are out there playing in the driveway. This is a wake-up call.
[Commercial break]
Welcome back to the Super Human Radio. We’re talking to Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Dr. Anthony Samsel. We’re talking about documents that were previously not in the public domain, about the safety and toxicology of Roundup or glyphosate (depending on how you like to call it) and the truth about its potential danger and harm to humans.
Let’s go back. What other things jumped out at you when you started to review this data aside from this massaging of research to make things look differently?
Dr. Samsel: The fact that they showed in the long-term rat and mice studies that glyphosate caused interstitial damage of glands and organs, and when you damage the tissues of glands and organs, they don’t function correctly. It impedes their functionality.
One instance was in 1981 study that was done with Sprague-Dawley rats. They found that there were interstitial cell tumors of the male testes of those rats. It was statistically significant. They used multiple studies to negate the evidence. It was wiping out the testes of these animals.
In another study in 1990, the last long-term rat study that they did, they looked at pancreatic eyelet cell destruction of the pancreas and it was statistically significant.
Carl: Oh my God. This could be part of the diabetogenic nature of our population today. It could be contributing to that then.
Dr. Samsel: Most certainly.
Carl: Dr. Seneff, a German study we talked about on the show I think even when you were on one time show that they’re now finding a lot of glyphosate in just general population. People don’t even live near the agricultural centers, they’re finding it in urine. And then another study we talked about recently show glyphosate is showing up in mother’s breast milk.
Dr. Seneff: Right.
Carl: So this 3 mg per kilogram threshold, which is considered a low dose, do you think the average person is being exposed to anything near that?
Dr. Seneff: It might even be that lower doses in that over chronic periods of time can cause a buildup of toxicity. Anthony didn’t mention this but there was another study that Monsanto did that showed that glyphosate goes into the tissues and gets into the bone marrow and so you could easily have it accumulating from chronic exposure. I think a dose could be quite small and still over the long term every day, every time you eat a meal it would accumulate, and then eventually cause cancer.
Carl: There was a group in Germany that I actually had on the show that is doing a home glyphosate testing now here in the United States or maybe they were even in the Ukraine or maybe even Serbia. They were in Serbia. We talked about an experiment that they did where a family went completely organic and they ate nothing that was not organic.
Sugar is a big issue here as well as grains. As Dr. Seneff taught us on the show, one of the time she was on, that they synchronize the crop now even if it’s not Roundup ready. They use the Roundup to kill the weeds so that they can harvest it all at one time and have a more productive crop. So this tells us that bread products that are not organic are probably very, very high in glyphosate.
This group had a family eat organically for, I think, six weeks and they tested the blood and urine throughout. They did show the levels drop very low. But that just shows what’s in blood. That doesn’t tell you with the tissue, right?
Dr. Seneff: Right. That’s what worries me because we’ve been studying some of the databases that the U.S. government provides on health and we’re seeing a pattern of – what we are thinking happens and we’re working on a paper on this right now, is that the glyphosate attacks the pancreas and the pancreas releases enzymes that break down the vessel wall of the other arteries. This allows the blood to leave the blood vessels and go into the tissues, the plasma, and that includes the albumen. Anthony taught me and I’m really starting to believe this – the glyphosate binds the serum albumen.
So the albumen leaves the blood vessels and goes into the tissues with the glyphosate bound to it. This is actually I think a trick that the body uses to dump the glyphosate out of the blood to protect the kidneys from failure. But that means you’ve got glyphosate all over the tissues. Unless you can sweat it out or get it out through the saliva or even push it into the cerebral spinal fluid, get it into the brain, you can think of some nasty things that could happen following that.
Carl: Let’s talk more about what else you found. This is amazing. So we see that in low level and some of these rat’s testes and pancreatic damage. Anything else, Dr. Samsel?
Dr. Samsel: Glyphosate was found in all of the glands, tissues, in organs of the animals. Monsanto did another study with a radio labeled glyphosate with Carbon 14 and they fed seven groups of animals a 10 mg dose. There was one preconditioned group.
Carl: Just a single 10 mg dose?
Dr. Samsel: A single 10 mg dose. One of the groups they preconditioned for a week with 10 mg per day, but all the other groups just had a single radio labeled dose. A couple was done intravenously. The rest of the groups were oral. What they found was that glyphosate was well retained by the animals. Between 30 and 35% of the dose was retained by the animals. The beta half-life of glyphosate was between say 7 and 14 days. That means that glyphosate could essentially stay circulating and present in your body from just one feeding alone, one exposure for as much as a month.
Now, where they found it major bio accumulation was in the bone and in the bone marrow. They found that through this one dose that – I think it was 30 ppm (parts per million) were found in the bone and 4 ppm (parts per million) were found in the bone marrow. Now that’s really significant that highest concentration was in the bone marrow because that’s where our helper cells, our T-cells are born. Those helper cells travel to the thymus and the tonsils to mature and then they were ever on the ready to defend us as an immune response. That was very, very significant that they found that.
They also found that glyphosate affected the lungs. I believe that one of the major causes of interstitial lung disease today – you see the increase in COPD and asthma is directly related to that herbicide in our food supply. Why do I say this? Because they not only found tumors of the lung, reticulum cells, sacromas, malignant lymphomas, adenocarcinomas, carcinomas, they also found that glyphosate was metabolized in the lung and the carbon dioxide exhaled had the radio labeled Carbon 14.
Carl: Oh man.
Dr. Samsel: So there was metabolism happening in the lung itself.
Dr. Seneff: And I should add that the study in Denmark – there was a study published that looked at cows’ tissues and the retention of glyphosate and they found the highest levels in the lungs of the cows which is another indicator that glyphosate is going to the lungs. And I think that has to do with the pushing out of the toxins out of the blood into the tissues and it gets into the pleural cavity and makes its way into the lungs.
Carl: I’m listening to you and I’m thinking to myself, this sounds like the research that would be done by a group who is trying to expose the dangers of glyphosate. But this is the research that was done by Monsanto and provided to the EPA before its release on the population.
Dr. Seneff: I know. It’s discouraging.
Carl: It’s so discouraging. I mean there are thousands of lives being shortened because of this chemical being in our environment.
Dr. Seneff: I say a lot more than thousand.
Carl: I’m trying to be conservative.
Dr. Seneff: I know you’re trying to be conservative from my point of view.
Dr. Samsel: I just like to interject here that that radio label study that was done on the rats, they found between 1% to 3% bio accumulated in the animals over the course of the study. And because only 1% to 3% bio accumulated, they used that fact to minimilalize the bio accumulation of glyphosate as relatively harmless as non-existent. They glazed over.
Carl: Wait, wait. Let me make sure I understand. So they’re saying that because you expire it through your lungs, it’s not accumulating in your body?
Dr. Samsel: Well, they are saying that only 1% to 3% was retained after the end of the study.
Dr. Seneff: I would actually interject here because I think this is not fair to just do one test of exposure and see what happens. Whereas, in fact, with the human case is you’re chronically exposed and what chronically exposure causes is kidney failure, and with kidney failure the blood gets pushed into the tissues. The body actually protects the kidney by trying not to expose it to more toxins. That means that the chemical that’s in the blood is going to end up being retained in much larger amounts with people who have kidney failure, which is what glyphosate causes.
Carl: We’re seeing this exact phenomenon in countries where sugar cane crops are grown because what they do is they spray the crop a couple of days before harvesting it to kill all of the leaves because the workers are less prone to hack their hand off with the machete because the leaves get in the way. So they spray the crops like they do with weed, Dr. Seneff. They spray the crops right before harvesting them so that the leaves all wilt and die. Then these poor guys go in and they're hacking these crops and they're all losing their kidneys. They're all dying of kidney failure.
Do you know what Monsanto is saying the reason for this? Another thing that they do is they set fire to the crops to continue to defoliate it and they're saying, “Glyphosate was never designed to be burned.” It’s obviously a metabolite of the burned glyphosate. But that’s not what it is. It’s the glyphosate itself that’s causing these poor guys to lose their kidneys.
Dr. Seneff: Even if it is, that is pretty foolish. Monsanto is going to say, “It’s not our fault because you burned the crop.” Come on.
Dr. Samsel: I reviewed that Nicaraguan study prior to publication for the Cuban government.
Carl: What do you think of it?
Dr. Samsel: I wrote the author’s after it was published and told him that glyphosate was responsible for the kidney disease. Based on the fact that Monsanto’s document showed that glyphosate destroys the foundation of the kidney cells, the very foundation of the kidney cells. They showed statistically significant destruction of the kidneys by glyphosate.
Carl: This is shocking. I don’t know what to say. I have never been speechless in my life. If you ask my mother, she’ll tell you that about six years old, I took a deep breath and I haven’t stopped talking since. I’m speechless. I’m sitting here shaking my head thinking if they can do this out in the open under the protection of the EPA and our government, if they could poison populations here and abroad and get away with it, then what help is there for us to change any of this?
[Commercial break]
Carl: Welcome back to Super Human Radio. I’m texting with Alisa Profumo. My executive producer Alisa Profumo texted me and said, “This is awful. What do we do?” and I said, “Stay away from anything that potentially has glyphosate on it as a starting point.” I want to talk about that in just a second. What can people do?
Have you published these findings yet?
Dr. Seneff: It’s pending. We have gotten it accepted. We’re waiting for it to be approved. We keep thinking the email will arrive any day now but so far, not yet.
Carl: So you're breaking the news on my show, really, worldwide right now.
Dr. Seneff: Yeah. It hasn’t come out yet, so yes.
Carl: I instinctively asked you what could potentially be pointed at by Monsanto to refute your findings. Obviously, they're going to spend lots of money trying to refute those findings. But more importantly, what Monsanto is very good at is causing complete media blackouts where no one in the mainstream media will pick this up. This is what I found as one of their great strong suits.
Dr. Seneff: I agree.
Carl: We’re going to take this interview and excerpt the commercials out of it later today and I’m going to send it out to everybody I know. In fact, I just had one of your colleagues on the show earlier in the week, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai talking about the genetic modifications of soy. Once again, his findings have been pretty much muffled, as well. We’re going to get this interview out there.
When you publish this paper and it starts to get out there, what do you expect the effect to be? Do you think that the EPA will now go and take a second look? Do you think that anyone will care? They’ve been so used to operating in plain sight and hurting people that this won’t change anything.
Dr. Seneff: It’s a bit discouraging. I feel like it’s so obvious that glyphosate is causing a huge mess in this country already. Some of the evidence is already there, and yet the government is going about their business as if there’s nothing wrong. I find this extremely frustrating. I don’t know whether they’ll just do the same thing with this as well. What does it take? What does it take to get them to be convinced that there’s a problem? I don’t know.
Dr. Samsel: Based on a letter that I sent about a year ago now through my U.S. Senator to the EPA, telling the EPA that glyphosate works at the molecular level and that they need to do something about it. It’s one of many letters that I sent to EPA. The response from Jim J. Jones at the EPA was – he told my Senator that glyphosate doesn’t work at the molecular level. He told my Senator that it was not an antibiotic as I claimed because even though Monsanto had patented it as an antibiotic, they’d never registered it with the FDA. So therefore, it is not an antibiotic.
Carl: In over 100 patents that I’ve looked at, they start out by saying that glyphosate is an antimicrobial antibiotic in it and they have one patent combining with amoxicillin to treat human disease.
Dr. Samsel: Yeah.
Dr. Seneff: Right. I saw one that had this huge list that it also this and also that. It went on for like a whole page of small print of all the list of microbes that glyphosate kills. It is unbelievable. They enumerated them and it was amazing how many they put down.
Carl: Just for the record, since the guy’s name is Jim Jones, we shouldn’t take anything he said. The next thing you know, he’s going to want us to drink some Kool-Aid with glyphosate in it.
Dr. Seneff: That’s a good point.
Carl: So your representative took that and said, “Okay. I’m satisfied with his response over yours.”
Dr. Samsel: That’s when I requested the Monsanto’s documents. So now I have to follow-up with a letter to my Senator and the EPA with my findings and that will include the paper that Stephanie and I have written together, which also talks about metabolites of glyphosate that are even more toxic than glyphosate itself.
Carl: Like what?
Dr. Samsel: Like N-nitroso glyphosate. N-nitroso glyphosate is a contaminant in all glyphosate products from the manufacturing process. N-nitroso glyphosate is a carcinogen. It causes all kinds of cancers like nitrosamines do.
Interesting is that in the radiological study that I mentioned in the last segment of our program, when they measured the metabolites in the urine and feces, they found N-nitroso glyphosate in greater quantities than it was administered to the animals.
Carl: In other words, it’s actually metabolizing once it’s in vivo.
Dr. Seneff: You got it.
Dr. Samsel: It’s not metabolizing; it’s reacting.
Dr. Seneff: It’s producing the product in the body.
Dr. Samsel: It’s creating the product. It’s a reaction product and not a metabolite, and there are several of those. There were actually like 11 metabolites and/or reaction products identified by Monsanto but Monsanto and the EPA only note the metabolite AMPA which is aminomethylphosphonic acid as the only metabolite. But that’s not true. There’s aminomethylphosphonic acid. There’s N-acetyl glyphosate. There’s methyl glyphosate. There’s methylphosphonic acid. There’s N-nitroso glyphosate. There’s informal glyphosate. There are many metabolites and reaction products. But because they were so low, they ignored them. There was even a compound called compound #11. They didn’t even identify what it was. And if they don’t know what it is, and they don’t know what it does to our biology, why would you bring that product to market?
Getting back to the N-nitroso glyphosate, what’s the significance? It’s a reaction product when glyphosate goes free in our biology. Monsanto thought it reacted with nitrite, which is NO2 in our colon and urine producing N-nitroso glyphosate. I’ve taken that one step further and I say that in cellular metabolism, we have the production of nitrous acid, which is NHO2. Nitrous acid reacts immediately with free glyphosate to form N-nitroso glyphosate.
What does that mean in our skin or in our organs? It means that it’s going to cause some kind of adenocarcinoma – skin cancer.
Dr. Seneff: And I should say that the skin would respond to the sunlight by producing nitric oxide, which can then become this nitrous acid and react with the glyphosate in the skin which could easily be there because it has been flushed out of the blood into the tissues and make its way into the sweat. So you could have glyphosate in the skin, exposed to sunlight, producing a carcinogenic product that could explain the fact that skin cancer is going up dramatically despite dramatically use of sunscreen over the past 20 years.
Dr. Samsel: I might add to Stephanie’s comment that no sunscreen in the world will protect you from N-nitroso glyphosate formation in your skin, giving you skin cancer. Squamous cell carcinomas – they found them in the lab animals.
Carl: I’m just shaking my head here. I have nothing to contribute. I’m in shock because I’m listening to this and I’m selfishly thinking about my own life and my own welfare as you're talking. This is shocking.
I hope those of you who are listening to this podcast are mad. You should be angry. You should be angry at Monsanto. You should be angry at the EPA. It’s time that sovereign immunity stops protecting these robber barons, these thieves of our lives, these people who are killing us and making money at it. And the government just sits by and allows it to happen. It has got to stop.
[Commercial break]
Carl: Let us in to what you were talking about.
Dr. Seneff: Do you want to say anything, Anthony? We were discussing our future papers.
Dr. Samsel: We were discussing future papers and we were discussing my field experiments with genetically engineered corn and non-genetically engineered corn. I have 57 varieties growing from Dows, Syngenta, on Monsanto, and DuPont, comparing them to ancient Incan varieties and some of the heirloom varieties. I’m looking at the differences in mineral content, the differences in fatty acids, vitamin isomers, and there are significant differences.
Carl: This is the other thing. Substantially similar. We’re finding out that these crops are non-substantially similar to the non-genetic modified variants. This has all been foisted on our population. What I said was true. We need politicians to go to jail for standing by and not protecting the American population. We need people at the EPA to go to jail. Until those things happen…
Dr. Samsel: We need to question the Clinton Foundation and Hilary Clinton for her role in promoting these products that kill people around the globe. As the Secretary of State, she promoted glyphosate and Monsanto’s barrage of products. And she benefitted through the Clinton Foundation.
Carl: Yes. In fact, I remember reading somewhere last month that someone high up in her campaign is a Monsanto lobbyist or something like that.
Dr. Samsel: I wouldn’t be surprised.
Dr. Seneff: Yeah, I read something like that, too. I don’t know if it’s a rumor.
Carl: See, this is my point. If you or I do something wrong, we go to jail. But when these people do something wrong, they're protected by sovereign immunity. They don’t go to jail. They just go on.
Dr. Samsel: I wrote the Environmental Protection Agency, the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA, and in that letter that I sent through my U.S. Senator, I said that we need to stop funding the U.S. State Department to do Monsanto’s bidding. They did not like that.
Carl: I talked about that on the show. Why are our politicians strong arming other countries and trying to force them to buy Monsanto’s corn, soy, and glyphosate that has nothing to do with the politics of countries?
Dr. Samsel: It’s like a national security because it’s part of the economic engine.
Carl: I understand that. We’ve talked about that on the show for years. You who control the food controls the world. You don’t have to go to war. That’s why Monsanto is so popular because they're saying, “If they have to buy their seeds from us and they have to buy their chemicals from us to grow their food, we’ve got them now.” So I can see why the government wants this but it has got to stop.
Dr. Seneff: They're fighting it certainly in Europe, especially Russia. Many European countries are banning GMOs. There’s quite a movement right now. I’m excited about that.
Dr. Samsel: I think there are nine European countries now that have banned it.
Dr. Seneff: It’s really great to see. Europe is so much more on top of things than the United States.
Carl: What do you hope comes from this, Dr. Samsel and Dr. Seneff? What do you hope comes from with this paper once it’s released?
Dr. Samsel: I hope that it influences public policy. Not just with glyphosate but with all agricultural chemicals. There should be no herbicides whatsoever in our food supply. No herbicides.
Glyphosate is just a model. It’s the most pervasive of the herbicides used and the most prevalent in our food supply. If you go substituting it with 2,4-D or with glufosinate or what have you, you're going to still have health problems because you're going to be killing off beneficial bacteria that have biological functions.
Carl: The scary part is now they're going to start spraying a duo, which is glyphosate plus 2,4-D.
Dr. Seneff: I know.
Carl: And we know that it was the combination of 2,4-D and the other ingredient that was in Agent Orange that caused dioxins. Look how they hide the metabolites. We don’t know what’s going to come of the mixture of 2,4-D and glyphosate.
Dr. Seneff: It’s scary, yeah.
Dr. Samsel: It’s synergistic. Glyphosate is synergistic with virtually everything that it’s put with, whatever the compound. There are numerous patents of glyphosate used with the various fungicides, herbicides, marine anti-fouling agents. Numerous patents. They all show that glyphosate produces synergy for the product.
Carl: This is scary. I hope that when the paper is published, we can make this interview go viral after I excerpt all the commercials out and just put the importance of content in it, I hope that people get wise, and I hope that there’s a groundswell. Throw the Roundup. If you have Roundup in your garage, throw it away now. Don’t use that.
Dr. Seneff: Yeah. Even you wonder where it’s going to end up when you throw it away. There’s so much of it produced already. That’s just getting into interesting places and causing harm all over. It’s destroying the soil. It’s destroying the insect, the bats, the bees, the starfish. It’s amazing.
Carl: This is really scary stuff. I want to thank you for coming on the show and talking about that. I want to thank you for having the courage to do this research. I really think that the American people need to wake up. I think that some politicians and people who are at agencies like the EPA that have allowed this to happen need to go to jail. That’s the only way you will change the direction of this. Otherwise, they're just going to replace this with that.
Dr. Seneff: I tell you, anybody who’s listening needs to start buying only organic food.
Carl: Yeah, that’s what we do now.
Dr. Seneff: You got to buy only organic. We buy organic beer, organic wine, organic spices. Everything is organic in our household. Luckily, that’s available in the United States, which is a good thing that certified organic exists.
Dr. Samsel: We, as Americans, also need to pay attention to what the USDA is doing regarding the organic labeling and organic food in general under the Organic Safety Board. They're trying to change and water down a lot of the regulations.
Carl: Yeah, for the big producers. Because the big producers are in there.
Dr. Samsel: That’s not a good thing.
Carl: No. Oh my God. Where do you start? Where do you start? Where do you start?
Thank you so much for being on the show today, Dr. Seneff and Dr. Samsel.
Dr. Samsel: Thank you, Carl.
Dr. Seneff: Thank you for having us.
Carl: Take care. I’m afraid for us. I’m afraid for this population. I really am. I’m not just saying that. I’m afraid for myself and my children. This is scary stuff. The EPA is doing nothing about it. They're sitting still and letting these chemical companies poison us. They don’t care. They don’t care.
That’s it for today’s show. We’ll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
