YouTube | July 22, 2015
Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD, Inventor of Email, Scientist and Engineer, spoke at a joint press conference that was held with the legendary rock star, Neil Young and Peter Shumlin, Governor of VT. The press conference addressed the dangers of GMO foods and the importance of the need to make GM labeling mandatory. Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai was invited to the press conference to explain how a new study, led by him and published in the peer-reviewed journal AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES applies modern computational systems biology methods to reveal that GMOs create significant disruption to the levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and glutathione, an important anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification. We bring to you a video clip of the press conference.
Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior-Scholar
Attend Truth Freedom Health® Thursday Open House
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT (Auto-Generated)
It’s a great honor for me to be here. And you know, the fund that we have to that we started, raise $450,000. You know, we had tremendous response from this audience coming to the show, and they all came in, in huge numbers.
And we’re donating $100,000 from our fee. This month, we would like to see, for 55, we would like to see some of the high rollers in Vermont who believe in and match that. Because if you’ve got to break it out, and for the for the folks who don’t have that much money, just contribute as much as you can.
And remember, this is a big multinational group of corporations working together to make sure that you don’t know what you have on your table. Make sure mothers don’t know what they’re feeding their children. Now, there’s a lot of science about this.
There’s a lot of science around it. There’s a lot of controversy about the science of GMOs, but most of the science and most of the information on the internet is paid for by big business, by Big Ag records from around the world. And it’s all slanted.
So we have the pleasure of having Dr. Shiva Doray here today to explain the latest developments in the field of science, independent of the companies independent of every kind of oversight and control by corporations, and verified by peers around the world in many, many countries. A huge study, and Dr.
Shiva, please want me now. Thank you so much. It’s great to be here.
You know, I was actually on my way to India, literally hours from now. But Daryl and I spoke, I thought it was important to be here to share. I think fortunately, coincidentally, some of the research we just published.
So I’m first gonna thank the Governor, thank you for his wonderful work, you know, Mark Zuckerman that farm a dedicated document in Africa for all the all the work he’s been doing. So look, here’s the background, when you look at this entire process, just like labeling is fundamentally a call for American democracy and transparency. Now, the flip side of the the other sister child of this is really the call for open standards and science, we’re basically talking about the scientific method.
So I don’t really have a horse in the race. But I can tell you, the scientific method is not being followed here at all. There’s been a complete subversion of the scientific method.
And as Neil eluded, the biggest institutions that biggest corporations have done that collusion and that corruption. So let me give you how it started with me, you know, I have a 33 year experience in and out of MIT four degrees, a PhD in systems biology. And by the way, systems biology, that term you may hear that is the modern biology and came out of the last 10 years, recognizing that you can’t look at complex organisms as individual parts, you have to look at the whole holistically.
So around 2000, when the Genome Project realized we had the same number of genes as a worm, that complexity is not a function of the number of genes, people woke up. And they said, We got to develop a whole new methodology. And that was systems biology.
That’s when I came back to MIT in 2003. And we built a whole new breakthrough approach of really looking at complexity. Now what happened out of that was we were able to publish as, as Neil said, significant papers we’ve been in cited in nature and sell to the most eminent journals on this approach of systems biology.
Now, what is systems biology? Systems Biology basically says that you look at not just one experiment done in one company like Monsanto, but you look at 1000s of experiments done all over the world, you aggregate them, you connect them together to find truth. That’s the purpose of systems by just a call it a system, the ankle bones connected to football. You can’t just look at one thing alone.
So what as I was finishing this up, we’ve made some major breakthroughs. Last year, the way I got into the GMO movement as the front page of MIT, another corporation, it says Buy Fresh Buy GMO. Okay, this is MIT’s Technology Review, which is like The Rolling Stones of science.
And when I looked at this, it really sort of caught me. Why would the number one technology institution in the world not be asking the question, Buy Fresh Buy GMO question mark, it was Buy Fresh Buy, GMO and declaration. So that led us to really start using systems biology, which came out of MIT, ironically, by the way.
And what did we do? We said, let’s really look at what’s going on in plants. Remember, Monsanto makes two claims and these are claims that that GMO is substantially the same as a non GMO so so the plant is the same. So you got a nice big piece of soybean looks great.
That GMO version, don’t worry, it’s the same as a non GMO, that’s one plant. The second claim is don’t worry, it’s not going to hurt you. Okay, so we took the first claim and said, Can we show is this ruling a substantial equivalence the same? Okay, so how do you compare the non GMO the GMO? Well, the rules that are used are what was developed in the 1970s by the Ford administration for comparing medical devices.
So let’s say the governor here developed a medical device couple of years later, you develop another version, you want to get it fast track if it’s substantially the same. So that was a rule that they used. So what we did was we had heard some Inklings that GMOs were generating formaldehyde.
Right? So we said, let’s apply the scientific method. So what we did was, we looked at that 11,500 papers, as Neil said, across 6427, scientific experiments done over eight 184 institutions across 23 countries. So this is not just looking at Monsanto’s data or MIT’s data, but this is looking across the board.
Basic science, we took that data, organized it, which is the second process of the scientific method, we then aggregated the information. And that was published in our first journal article about three months ago in a peer reviewed journal for agricultural scientists. And the next thing we did was we organized those molecular pathways.
And what I’m referring to is every plant, every fungi, every bacteria in the world follows this metabolic pathway. And we took these molecular pathways, and we modeled them, which means modeling and not just doing mathematical calculation, but actually using the scientific experiments. And what did we discover in a normal plant plants do generate formaldehyde just like you do.
But in the normal plant, they create it, and they beautifully detoxify it, and they use it another important chemical called glutathione. If you Google it, you’ll find that glutathione is one of the most important antioxidants. So you have formaldehyde is beautifully detoxify.
Yes, there’s a background level. So some of the people on the internet say, oh, everything has formaldehyde. Of course it does.
But it’s also detoxified. And it’s varying levels. But you also have glutathione, which is beautifully maintained, important antioxidant.
That was the next paper we published. The third paper we said was okay, what happens when print plants get stressed out, like a drought takes place, or pollution occurs. And what you find out in those conditions which occur in nature, like a drought, the plant actually uses up its glutathione.
Right, because it’s an oxidative environment, it’s stressed out, just like you get stressed out, your body will use it as glutathione. And then the plant accumulates formaldehyde. Got it.
So that was the third paper. Now, when it came to GMOs, it’s a very hard thing. It’s kind of there’s very little information out there, because so much of it is hidden.
So much of it is secret, and it’s fascinating science and the most important thing in our food supply, you can’t find a lot of this, we got very lucky. In the literature, we found a set of papers, in vitro experiments, it’s not mathematical modeling, that showed that when they did the insertion of the gene, the CP for gene by the witches for Roundup Ready soy, which is the most, you know, the highest most prevalent GMO in the United States 94% when they did that gene insertion, that for five different molecules got disturbed. Okay, five different molecules got disturbed.
We took that information. And now we put it to the systematic analysis of the first three papers. And what do we find? We find out that the plant goes into oxidative stress, just like it thinks it’s under a drought but far worse, four times more prevalent.
Formaldehyde accumulate glutathione deplete. Now, here’s the point when you do this substantial equivalence, when you’re comparing criteria, where did the FDA come up with their criteria, while they look at smell, look, taste, or maybe some other parameters, but that wasn’t decided by the Open scientific community, it was decided in backrooms in secrecy. By and large, when you do a systems analysis, you find out there are important variables that were never included.
And we’re not saying there could not be others. But this system analysis, clearly living reveals glutathione, and form of formaldehyde are critical. So of course, in the scientific method, now you want to measure it, you want to test it? Well, the problem is, you can’t do any testing, because who controls the sources of the transgenic? Right, the non GMO and the GMO? Well, the powers that be.
So the conclusion of our paper is saying, Look, we need open standards, we need the ability for both parties to meet together. And let’s define those open standards because you can’t have science without open standards. So as Neil and a governor alluded to, we literally have a situation now just like the attack against labeling, the secrecy in science, including institutions like MIT is very disturbing.
And it’s disturbing to the point that GMO issues not just about GMOs, but it’s about a fundamental failure that’s taking place in science, that American democracy. So we got to get the push not only for labeling, but the sister child that that has demand open standards. And the call that I want to end with is, you know, if you want scientific discourse, let the chief scientist of Monsanto let let them bring their lawyers.
Let’s sit around a table and review the results. That’s what scientific discourse is about. So I want to end by saying, Look, genetic engineering, like the splitting of the atom, is a phenomenal discovery.
But when that occurred, the safety assessment technologies lagging behind them, we’re using 40 year old technologies when modern technology exists, and we need to admit them on catch up and we need to have discourse. Thank you very much.
