New study reveals how glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup inhibits natural detoxification in human cells

The modern age of industrial agriculture and manufacturing has dumped heavy metals, carninogens, plastics, and pesticides into the environment at alarming rates. These toxins are showing up in most human tissue cells today. One distinct chemical may be trapping these toxins in human cells, limiting the human body's ability to detoxify its own cells. In a new peer reviewed study, this sinister chemical, glyphosate, has been proven to inhibit the human cell's ability to detoxify altogether. Glyphosate, found in Monsanto's Roundup, is being deemed by publishers of the new study "one of the most dangerous chemicals" being unleashed into the environment today.

Download the PDF of the study here: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

How glyphosate destroys human cells

Glyphosate, most commonly found in conventional sugar, corn, soy and wheat products, throws off the cytochrome P450 gene pathway, inhibiting enzyme production in the body. CYP enzymes play a crucial role in detoxifying xenobiotics, which include drugs, carcinogens, and pesticides. By inhibiting this natural detoxification process, glyphosate systematically enhances the damaging effects of other environmental toxins that get in the body. This, in turn, disrupts homeostasis, increases inflammation, and leads to a slow deconstruction of the cellular system. Toxins build up in the gut over time and break down through the intestinal walls, infiltrating blood, and ultimately passing through the brain/blood barrier, damaging neurological function.

Important CYP enzymes that are affected include aromatase, the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen, 21-Hydroxylase, which creates stress hormone cortisol, and aldosterone, which regulates blood pressure.

Getting to the gut

Even as evidence mounts, Monsanto asserts that glyphosate is not harmful to humans, citing that its mechanism of action in plants (the disruption of the shikimate pathway), is not present in humans. This is not true.

The shikimate pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan, is present in human gut bacteria, which has a direct relationship with the human body, aiding in digestion, synthesizing vitamins, detoxifying carcinogens, and participating in immune system function.

By inhibiting the body's gut flora from performing its essential function in the human body, glyphosate heightens many health issues facing the Western world today.

These conditions include inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn's disease, obesity, and even dementia and depression. Also, by restricting gut bacteria from absorbing nutrients, glyphosate voids the body of essential life-giving vitamins.

Depletion of serum tryptophan and its link to obesity

Glysophate's damaging effects on gut bacteria lead to depleted sulfate supplies in the gut, resulting in inflammatory bowel disease. As more chemicals are absorbed from the environment, alterations in body chemistry actively promote weight gain by blocking nutrient absorption. By effecting CYP enzymes in the liver, obesity incidence is compounded, impairing the body's ability to detoxify synthetics chemicals. Since serotonin is derived from tryptophan and acts an appetite suppressant, the depletion of tryptophan encourages overeating in the brain, leading to obesity.

In need of urgent, massive awakening

Authors of the new review point out that "glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply and may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment." Monsanto is already lashing back at these claims, calling this peer reviewed study, "bad science" and "another bogus study." What Monsanto fails to is mention that most of the studies on glyphosate's "safety" are conducted by Monsanto themselves, which is bias to the core.

The authors of this new study instead call out for more independent research to be done to validate their findings. They are concerned with glyphosate's inhibition of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the body, which are hindering the body's natural detoxification ability.

There is certainly a need for more empowering education on chemicals like glyphosate. There needs to be a kind of public mass awakening that correlates Monsanto's Roundup with skull and crossbones. If anything, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced, engineered, and poisoned, and everyone should pitch in and stop using toxic glyphosate-laced Roundup at all costs.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/040482_glyphosate_Monsanto_detoxification.html#ixzz2UIv7nCrW

Does FDA approval mean that GMOs are safe?

The decisions made by the FDA concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been and continue to be based on politics and not science. The official FDA policy on GMOs was first written by Michael R. Taylor, currently the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA. This position was created in 2009 and filled by Taylor in 2010. At the time Taylor wrote what has since become the FDA policy on GMOs, he was working for the law firm King & Spalding. Among his clients were Monsanto and the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC). It was for the IFBC that he wrote the document that eventually, with some editing, became the official FDA policy. In 1991, Taylor left the law firm for the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the FDA. This was his second stint at the FDA. Between 1994 and 1996 he was the Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service at the USDA. Following that, he accepted the post of Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto before taking his current job at the FDA.

A federal law was written in 1958 banning chemical additives in food that are known carcinogens. In 1988, Taylor wrote a paper arguing that this law can be interpreted to allow carcinogenic chemicals in food so long as they are present in low amounts presenting minimal risk. FDA policy states that GMO crops are not considered additives, but instead they are “substantially equivalent” to conventional crops that need no separate category.

Before new drugs are approved by the FDA they must go through a series of rigorous animal testing. If adverse effects are not found in the animal tests, they must then proceed to a series of rigorous clinical trials with human beings. The chemical companies who have developed the genetically engineered (GE) seeds have made the claim to the FDA that their products do not qualify as a new drug because they are essentially identical to non-GMO crops and therefore do not require the same rigorous testing. The EPA agreed and as a result, the FDA’s GMO policy is that biotechnology companies can determine the safety of their own food products. There are no required safety studies. [See excerpts from the FDA Federal Register at the end of this article.]

FDA approval of GMOs depends on several factors (e.g. whether the modification can be considered an “additive” as in some yeasts). If it does require approval, the producer is required to perform the tests to ensure its safety. The tests that have been performed for FDA approval have all been performed and/or paid for by the petitioner and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review. Most of these studies were done on rats, none were undertaken for more than 90 days, and many for much less time; not nearly long enough for adverse effects to show. There have been no safety studies done by any federal agencies.

Excerpts from the Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

FDA Federal Register Volume 57 – Friday, May 29, 1992

“In most cases, the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification of a plant will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly
found in food,...”

“Finally, the principles discussed in this notice do not apply to "new drugs" as defined by section 201 (p) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(p)), "new animal drugs" as defined by section 201(w) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(w)), or to "pesticide chemicals" as defined by section 201(q) of the act. As discussed in section IX., EPA is responsible for pesticide chemicals, including those produced in plants as a result to genetic modification.”

[note “the act” is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ]
“Any genetic modification technique has the potential to alter the composition of food in a manner relevant to food safety, although, based on experience, the likelihood of a safety hazard is typically very low. The following paragraphs describe some potential changes in composition that may require evaluation to assure food safety.”

“Section 402(a)(1) of the act imposes a legal duty on those who introduce food into the market place, including food derived from new crop varieties, to ensure that the food satisfies the applicable safety standard.”

“In enacting the amendment [food additive amendment, 1958], Congress recognized that many substances intentionally added to food do not require a formal premarket review by FDA to assure their safety, either because their safety had been established by a long history of use in food or because the nature of the substance and the information generally available to scientists about the substance are such that the substance simply does not raise a safety concern worthy of premarket review by FDA. Congress thus adopted a two-step definition of "food additive." The first step broadly includes any substance the intended use of which results in its becoming a component of food. The second step, however, excludes from the definition of food additive substances that are GRAS [generally recognized as safe]. It is on the basis of the GRAS exception of the "food additive" definition that many ingredients derived from natural sources (such as salt, pepper, vinegar, vegetable oil, and thousands of spices and natural flavors), as well as a host of chemical additives (including some sweeteners, preservatives, and artificial flavors), are able to be lawfully marketed today without having been formally reviewed by FDA and without being the subject of a food additive regulation. The judgment of Congress was that subjecting every intentional additive to FDA premarket review was not necessary to protect public health and would impose an insurmountable burden on FDA and the food industry. It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement 
of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”

“With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.”

“Section VII. of this notice provides guidance to producers of new foods for conducting safety evaluations. This guidance is intended to assist producers in evaluating the safety of the food that they market, regardless of whether the food requires premarket approval by FDA. This guidance also includes criteria and analytical steps that producers can follow in determining whether their product is a candidate for food additive regulation and whether consultation with FDA should be pursued to determine the regulatory status of the product. Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/does-fda-approval-mean-that-gmos-are-safe

Are GMO Crops Producing Health-Compromising, Fake Hormones in Your Body?

If you’ve been following NaturalSociety, then you’re probably aware of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors. While we naturally produce hormones, there are various chemicals and agents that disrupt this production. Unfortunately, lurking in many of our food crops is something called a xenoestrogen (foreign estrogen) which mimics the real deal in our bodies, affecting our endocrine systems negatively. This type of xenohormone can cause all kinds of problems, including increased risk of various cancers, hampered fertility, lower sperm count, thyroid disorders, diabetes, endometriosis, and early onset puberty.

Xenoestrogens interfere with the natural estrogen in our body, as well as the natural balance of estrogen and progesterone. Phytoestrogens can do the same thing, but most of us don’t eat so many mushrooms (a primary source of phytoestrogens) that there would be a big problem.

Xenoestrogens, however, come from over 70,000 different chemicals that have a known affect on our hormonal systems. DDT is a big culprit as are numerous fertilizers, herbicides and fungicides used by the non-organic farmers of the world. GMO crops are a huge problem, because they require larger and more pervasive use of these pesticides. Corn, soy, sugar beets, cottonseed oil, zucchini, alfalfa, and Hawaiian papaya are all predominantly grown using genetically modified seed.

The liver is one of the biggest routes for threats like xenoestrogens to leave the body, primarily through the blood and bile. You can support the liver by eating only organic foods and increasing your intake of liver-cleansing foods like parsley, lemon, turmeric, green tea extract, and avocado. Additionally, avoid BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) in food, which causes an elevation in xenoesteogens. Stop using plastics that leak xenoestrogens. It’s best to avoid plastic, but if that just isn’t an option, look for the plastic recycling symbols/numbers 2, 4, and 5.

Further, stop consuming meat full of hormones, which also causes a disruption in the endocrine system, and yes, makes more xenoestrogens. Don’t use everyday products like cosmetics, oils and lotions that contain chemicals like parabens. Finally, avoid PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) that are in paints and oils whenever possible.

While many of these toxins are unavoidable, we can support the eliminative and detoxifying organs to help our bodies get rid of foreign hormones we really don’t need.

Source: http://naturalsociety.com/xenoestrogens-fake-hormone-health-hazard-body/#ixzz2U8m1ZAF3

Over 800 world scientists agree: GM crops are nothing short of a bio-war on our food

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why genetically modified foods are dangerous, but if you look closely, you may just find the name of one listed among the names of more than 800 scientists from around the globe who have joined forces in an open letter to all world governments, outlining their detailed concerns over the alarming potential threat of biotech's unauthorized, worldwide GM foods experiment.

In a country whose government and media appear only too eager to conjure up fear of "bioterrorism" and "biological weapons," it's shocking (albeit obviously deliberate) to what extent the GMO issue remains omitted from mainstream discussion. Consider that the message from these scientists seems to be that the whole planet is already under attack by the persistent and largely unchecked, reckless behavior of greedy, unruly U.S. corporations - corporations whose activities appear to be sponsored by the federal government. And whether you know it yet or not, your body is the battleground.

The letter, as posted by the Institute of Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php), is a collective call for the immediate suspension of any and all releases of GM crops and products into the environment for at least five years, in order to allow for more thorough testing. The scientists further demand that all patents on life-forms and living processes - including seeds, cell lines and genes - be revoked and banned "for a comprehensive public inquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all."

Life is a discovery, they say, not an innovation, and patents on life-forms and living processes "sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals." Furthermore, they argue that GM crops provide no identifiable benefits either to farmers or consumers; instead, they offer only very significant risks to all living things.

GMOs are just bad news, followed by more bad news

Any consumption of GMO products is basically a smorgasbord of disaster, say these global scientists. In their thorough and fully cited open letter, they take biotechnology to task - making clear, undeniable connections between GM food crops and other products (like milk from cows injected with genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone) and health problems for mammals in general. At the same time the GM crops themselves actually contribute to lower yields, increased use of herbicides/insecticides, unpredictable performance, poor economic returns, and a progressive monopoly on food by big corporations, they also encourage herbicide-tolerant weeds and pesticide-resistant superbugs, making their purported goal of "feeding the world" appear just as it is - clearly out of the reach of biotech industry. Scientists propose, instead, that these large food corporations are actually more the cause of world hunger currently, than they are the solution to it.

"It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier," scientists say. "Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide... Mergers and acquisitions are continuing." Seed patent policies currently in place at biotech companies prevent farmers from saving and replanting seeds, an activity the scientists acknowledge, is one enjoyed even by third world farmers.

As promised; however, it only gets worse. Scientists agree that GMOs actually harm the delicate biodiversity necessary to the balance and maintenance of life on this planet. GM products, they say, "decimate wild plant species indiscriminately," cause birth defects in mammals, kill insects essential to pollination like bees, lacewings, monarch butterflies, and pose other very serious threats related to horizontal gene transfer - for example, the "spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infections diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer."

Multiple hazards to both animal and human health have already been identified by sources around the world, resulting either in bans on GM products or the adoption of strict labeling laws by many countries. Here in the U.S.; however, secret memoranda from inside the FDA have revealed its history of disregarding the warnings of its own scientists. Still, with a separate but similar mass appeal to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in 2009 failing to make a rippled, lasting impact, one can only hope that eventually the science on GMOs - and the growing number of people who know about it - will simply be too loud to ignore.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/040447_GMO_biowar_food.html#ixzz2U7W8L7qy

Could GM alfalfa take down the entire Canadian organic farming industry?

Organic farmers throughout the Canadian province of Ontario are counting the days until they officially lose their organic certifications as a result of potential commercial plantings of genetically-modified (GM) alfalfa. Like in the U.S., government officials in Canada recently approved plantings of GM alfalfa, even though the crop is wholly unnecessary, and will forever taint the integrity of non-GM and organic varieties of alfalfa, as well as other crops.

As reported by Global Toronto, an upcoming meeting between conventional farmers and seed growers in Canada is set to iron out the details for how GM alfalfa will be implemented into the food supply commercially. And in the process, many organic farmers who rely on clean, non-GM alfalfa are having their valid concerns ignored by both the factory farming industry and government officials who are more interested in satisfying the demands of Monsanto than protecting the integrity of alfalfa.

"The consensus among food scientists is that once it's out there, it inevitably will contaminate the entire seed supply," says Ted Zettel from the Canadian Organic Federation about GM alfalfa. "What that means is that we won't be able to grow the quality of feed for our cattle that we need to grow in order to meet the standard that's been established worldwide for organic food."

As we reported on previously, natural alfalfa already grows quite well without the need for herbicides or pesticides, which makes Monsanto's chemical-resistant GM variety completely pointless. Alfalfa is also a highly volatile plant because it is a perennial, which makes the likelihood of widespread contamination with GM traits from the GM variety much more than just a possibility -- it is an absolute given in the long term.

But rather than protect the organic industry, as well as the integrity of the entire food supply, from irreversible genetic corruption, industry forces are pushing to actually redefine organics to legally include small traces of GMOs. This would mean that "organic" food could legally be defiled with a certain percentage of GM pollution and still be considered organic, an incredible deception that will inevitably lead to drastic repercussions for the world's supply of untainted food.

"So many other countries have banned [GMOs] in their food system. Once our alfalfa is contaminated, there are very few countries in the world that are going to want an export of ours," says Sarah Dobec from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network's "Stop GM Alfalfa" campaign. Canada currently exports roughly $29 million worth of alfalfa every year, an amount that could eventually plummet to $0, should the nation's alfalfa supply be taken over by mutant GM varieties.

Source:  http://www.naturalnews.com/037730_GM_alfalfa_organic_farming_Canada.html#ixzz2U7RWS7fO

China destroys three shipments of GM corn from US

1. Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City destroyed two shipments of imported GM foods
2. Harbin intercepted a total of 115 kgs of GM corn seeds, which will be destroyed

NOTE: The news items below report that in May, the Chinese government destroyed three shipments of GM corn from the US. The shipments were illegal under China’s GMO biosafety law.

The law says that the Ministry of Agriculture must require environmental and food safety tests to be carried out by Chinese institutions, in order to verify data provided by the seed developer. All these documents must be reviewed by the National Biosafety Committee before the MOA can issue a safety certificate.
http://bit.ly/10jvwaa
Yet these shipments of US corn did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents, according to the news reports below.

A Chinese citizen, whom we call Mr Li, calls the new government’s decisive move to destroy the illegal GMOs “progressive, encouraging, and satisfying”. He regards it as a sign that it is keeping its promise to work for the people and the nation.

Mr Li said: “The deeply pro-GMO old government would not have made such a thing public. It would have secretly returned the shipments, or in most cases it would not even have inspected shipments that could contain GM ingredients.”

The Ministry of Agriculture of the previous government raised the anger of citizens when it failed to require any independent experiments to test the safety of Monsanto's GM soybeans, in violation of Chinese law:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/micro-reading/dzh/2012-06-12/content_6157498.html (bilingual article over 3 pages)

However, Mr Li says the new government still has a long way to go to eliminate the GMOs that he and others believe are being grown across the country and to impose a ban on domestically grown and imported GMOs.

The news of the new Chinese government’s actions comes shortly after China told a delegation of Brazilian soy producers that the better-off part of its population wants non-GM soy, even if they have to pay more:
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14778
---
---
1. Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City destroyed two shipments of imported GM foods
Zhuhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, 7 May 2013

http://www.zhciq.gov.cn/showInfo.do?infoId=26648
(translated from the Chinese by Mr Li)



Recently, during inspection and quarantine of imported food from USA by a certain company, the Wanzai Office of Zhuhai Inspection and Quarantine Bureau (in Guangdong Province in the south of China) detected two shipments containing GM corn products, which are not in compliance with China's "Entry and Exit of Genetically Modified Products Inspection and Quarantine Management Approach". The Office destroyed the two shipments of corn according to the provisions.

2. Harbin intercepted a total of 115 kgs of GM corn seeds, which will be destroyed
news.china.com.cn, 19 May 2013
http://news.china.com.cn/politics/2013-05/19/content_28867193.htm
(translated from the Chinese by Mr Li)

Recently, the Harbin Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau intercepted inbound mail of 21 cartons of corn seeds from USA, totaling 115 kgs, which were detected as GM seeds. This is the first time that the Heilongjiang Provincial Inspection and Quarantine System has intercepted inbound corn seeds containing GM ingredients. These corn seeds will be destroyed.

Because the USA is a corn bacterial wilt infected area, China has banned import of US corn seeds. The above-mentioned corn seeds were shipped from the same US company to two seed companies in Heilongjiang Province. According to China's relevant provisions, all agricultural GMOs imported from abroad should be cleared with the relevant departments in advance. However, this shipment of corn seed did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents.



According to the relevant person in charge of the inspection and quarantine, if an import contains GM ingredients without risk assessment and approval, there is a great possibility that pests will sneak in at the same time. If not strictly controlled, this could pose a significant threat to agricultural production and public health.

Source: http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14853:china-destroys-three-shipments-of-gm-corn-from-us

Amazing news! GMO Labeling Bill Passed CT Senate and Portland, OR says no to Fluoride!

MAY 21

Senate Backs Bill To Label Genetically Modified Foods

HARTFORD — A bill that would require food made with genetically modified organisms to carry labels cleared the state Senate late Tuesday night.

The Senate's approval, on a 35-1 vote, gives new energy to a measure that had strong grassroots backing but appeared stalled at the Capitol this year. But its prospects in the House of Representatives are murkier.

"I'm concerned about our state going out on its own on this and the potential economic disadvantage that could cause,'' House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said. "I would like to see us be part of a compact with some other states, which would hopefully include one of the bigger states such as New York."

Sharkey said he is taking a vote count to see if there is sufficient backing for the bill in his chamber.

Even if the bill passes the House and is signed into law by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, it would not take effect until at least three other states pass similar legislation. GMO labeling legislation is pending in more than a dozen states.

Some food would be exempt from the labeling mandate: food served or sold in a restaurant for immediate consumption, as well as alcoholic beverages and farm products sold at farmer's markets, roadside stands and pick-your-own farms.

Still, supporters hailed the bill as a victory for consumers.

"We're not banning anything, we're not restricting anything, we're not taxing anything," Senate Republican leader John McKinney said at a press conference on the Capitol steps several hours before the vote. "We're just saying let moms anddads know what's in the food their buying for their young kids. … That's not a lot to ask."

Genetically altered ingredients are found in many processed foods. Through gene-splicing and other techniques, farmers have modified crops to better resist diseases. The bioscience industry, food makers and the federal government say such foods are safe, but activists worried about long-term health consequences have led the push for labels.

"This is a public health issue," Senate President Donald Williams said during the debate. "The step that we are requesting, the mere labeling of food, is a very modest step … but it is a very important one so consumers can take action to protect their health and the health of their children."

The bioscience industry says GMOs are safe and vows to fight labeling laws.

"There's a lot of emotion that's surrounding this bill right now," said Paul Pescatello, a board member of Connecticut United for Research Excellence, which advocates on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, research institutions and agriculture concerns in the state. "There's a lot of science out there about GMO foods and GMO crops, and people should look at the science, they should read the science, they should understand the science and then … make a decision."

Requiring labels on GMO foods could raise constitutional issues around free speech, Pescatello said. "There's an implication that there's something wrong with GMO foods, that there's sort of a scarlet letter attached to it," he said.

But proponents of the labeling law say it allows consumers to make up their own minds. Some members of Congress are pushing for federal legislation and in March, Whole Foods Market, the giant supermarket chain, announced it will require all GMO foods sold in its stores to be labeled by 2018.

Source: http://articles.courant.com/2013-05-21/news/hc-gmo-labels-conn-0522-20130521_1_gmo-foods-labeling-bioscience-industry

___________________________________

Portland voters overwhelmingly say no to fluoride

The city of Portland voters did not approve the measure to add fluoride to the drinking water.

With 100% of the votes tallied in Multnomah County, opponents of the plan garnered 60.69% of the vote. In Clackamas County, the win for opponents of fluoride was narrower: 53-47.

This is the first time in more than 30 years Portland voters weighed in on the fluoride issue.

Records obtained from the Secretary of State’s office show fluoride supporters spent $877,109 on the campaign, while opponents spend $280,704.

39% Yeh'd. 

Congratulations Portland! 

Source: http://www.koin.com/2013/05/21/portland-voters-overwhelmingly-say-no-to-fluoride/

Amazing news! GMO Labeling Bill Passed CT Senate and Portland, OR says no to Fluoride!

Alien-Looking Skeleton Poses Medical Mystery

A teensy skeleton with a squashed alien-like head may have earthly origins, but the remains, found in the Atacama Desert a decade ago, do make for quite a medical mystery.

Apparently when the mummified specimen was discovered, some had suggested the possibility it was an alien that had somehow landed on Earth, though the researchers involved never suggested this otherworldly origin.

Now, DNA and other tests suggest the individual was a human and was 6 to 8 years of age when he or she died. Even so, the remains were just 6 inches (15 centimeters) long. 

"While the jury is out regarding the mutations that cause the deformity, and there is a real discrepancy in how we account for the apparent age of the bones … every nucleotide I've been able to look at is human," researcher Garry Nolan, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford School of Medicine, told LiveScience. "I've only scratched the surface in the analysis. But there is nothing that jumps out so far as to scream 'nonhuman.'"

Analyzing the tiny human

Nolan and his colleagues analyzed the specimen in the fall of 2012 with high-resolution photography, X-rays and computed tomography scans, as well as DNA sequencing. The researchers wanted to find out whether some rare disorder could explain the anomalous skeleton -- for instance it had just 10 ribs as opposed to 12 in a healthy human -- the age the organism died, as its size suggested a preterm fetus, stillborn or a deformed child, and whether it was human or perhaps a South American nonhuman primate.

The remains also showed skull deformities and mild underdevelopment of the mid-face and jaw, the researchers found. The skull also showed signs of turricephaly, or high-head syndrome, a birth defect in which the top of the skull is cone-shaped.

The genome sequencing suggested the creature was human, though 9 percent of the genes didn't match up with the reference human genome; the mismatches may be due to various factors, including degradation, artifacts from lab preparation of the specimen or insufficient data.

The team also looked at mitochondrial DNA, or the DNA inside the cells' energy-making structures that gets passed down from mothers to offspring. The so-called allele frequency of the mitochondrial DNA suggested the individual came from the Atacama, particularly from the B2 haplotype group. A haplotype is a long segment of ancestral DNA that stays the same over several generations and can pinpoint a group who share a common ancestor way back in time. In this case the B2 haplotype is found on the west coast of South America.

The data from the mitochondrial DNA alleles point toward "the mother being an indigenous woman from the Chilean area of South America," Nolan wrote in an email.

More mystery

The jury is still out on the mutations that caused the deformities, and the researchers aren't certain how old the bones are, though they estimate the individual died at least a few decades ago. In addition, they didn't find any of the mutations commonly associated with primordial dwarfism or other forms of dwarfism. If there is a genetic basis for the deformities, it is "not apparent at this level of resolution and at this stage of the analysis," Nolan wrote in a summary of his work.

In addition, even if they found those mutations, they may not explain the anomalies seen in the skeleton. "There is no known form of dwarfism that accounts for all of the anomalies seen in this specimen," Dr. Ralph Lachman, professor emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine, and clinical professor at Stanford University, wrote in a report to Nolan.

This wouldn't be the first time alien-looking remains have been brought to the attention of science. The alienlike skulls of children were discovered in a 1,000-year-old cemetery in Mexico. Researchers who examined the skulls said they had been deliberately warped and illustrated a practice of skull deformation that was common at the time in Central America.

"It's an interesting medical mystery of an unfortunate human with a series of birth defects that currently the genetics of which are not obvious," Nolan wrote of the Atacama skeleton.

The research was featured in film "Sirius," a crowd-funded documentary that premiered on April 22 in Hollywood, Calif.

Source: http://news.discovery.com/human/alien-looking-skeleton-poses-medical-mystery-130430.htm