by Joseph M. Mercola
September 30, 2014
I've previously written about how your environment and lifestyle,
particularly your diet, has a direct influence on your genetic
For example, research using identical twins have shown
that diet trumps genes in terms of the level of health you achieve.
The science of
epigenetics also challenges the conventional view of
genetics, proving that the environment determines which traits a
gene will express, and that your fate is in no way written in stone
even if you have genetic predispositions.
Findings such as these offer tremendous amounts of hope for every
single one of us, as it removes us from the position of victims of
our heredity, and makes us masters of our own health and well-being.
Alas, as expressed in the featured article 1 by Jonathan Latham, PhD,
it has become increasingly clear that there's collusion going on
between our government, industry, and scientists, to hide the
that everything from human health and intellectual capacity to
various addictions are indeed caused by the environment in which we
Science Increasingly Used as a Tool for Social Control
Latham starts off by discussing a truly blatant example of this type
of manufactured PR.
A recent study 2 found that 98 percent of all
variation in educational attainment (i.e. whether you complete high
school or college) is accounted for by factors other than your
"This implies that most of student success is a consequence of
potentially alterable social or environmental factors," Latham
"This is an important and perhaps surprising observation, of high
interest to parents, teachers, and policymakers alike; but it did
not make the headlines.
The likely reason is that the authors of the
study failed to mention the 98 percent figure in the title, or in
the summary. Nor was it mentioned in the accompanying press release.
Instead, their discussion and interest focused almost entirely on a
different aspect of their findings: that three gene variants each
contribute just 0.02% (one part in 5,000) to variation in
Thus the final sentence of the summary concluded not with a plea to
find effective ways to help all young people to reach their full
potential but instead proposed that these three gene variants
"provide promising candidate SNPs (DNA markers) for follow-up work."
This is as spectacular a mis-description of a scientific finding as
is to be found anywhere in the scientific literature. But the
question is why?"
Why indeed. Well, the answer becomes rather obvious when you
consider the factors at play. First of all, there's the issue of
pure ego and self preservation of geneticists.
Study after study
demonstrates that genes actually have precious little to do with
anything that happens to you.
It doesn't seem to matter what's under review, be it disease,
behavior, or more nebulous areas such as your ability for
"happiness" - the link to specific genetic variations remains
stubbornly elusive. If gene variation is truly irrelevant, then the
entire field of genetic research becomes superfluous...
But as Latham points out, the full answer to this question is more
"interesting" than mere conflict of interest on behalf of scientists
trying to keep their field alive. Government and a number of
industries also have a vested interest in genetics, as gene
variation removes responsibility from their respective shoulders.
According to Latham:
"[O]ver the last 15 years, close to half the budget of the NIH has
gone to genetic analysis of human populations. That is likely in
excess of $100 billion dollars in the U.S. alone.
The tobacco industry also pioneered 'behavioral genetics'. The idea
that even addiction to cigarettes was a genetic phenomenon (and not
a characteristic of cigarettes or tobacco) originated with the
The consistent aim behind promoting genetics,
according to a memo written by Fred R. Panzer, Vice President of
Public Relations for the Tobacco Institute, was to change the focus
of attention "from one product to a type of person."
Science of Human Health in the Grip of Hidden Political Forces
In his article, Latham makes a strong case for the idea that our
health science is,
"in the grip of hidden political forces."
similar to what I discussed in my article, "'Expert' Detractors on
California Prop 37 are Shills for Big Biotech." In it, I reveal how
for-profit corporations hire "third party experts" to bring their
message to you, especially through the media.
This, my friends, is a commonly used form of propaganda, perfected
by the tobacco industry. It's nothing but advertising masquerading
as "information," or worse, as "independently-verified evidence."
essence, it's a hidden form of social control, where the opinion of
the masses is steered by industry - and/or government forces.
If people can be made to believe that their genes are the primary
drivers of disease, poor mental health, and even educational
achievement, then those in control need not change a thing - toxins
need not be removed from their products and the social control
mechanism that is our U.S. educational system can remain unaddressed,
It's well worth noting that evidence for genetic
causations of any kind remains stunningly absent.
Claudia Chaufan and Jay Joseph wrote: 3
"[T]hese variants have not
been found because they do not exist."
It's quite clear that money and politics can and are dictating the
conclusions of scientific research.
I've discussed this in a number
of articles that address how dramatically funding will skew a
Using the featured study as an example, the
funding for the genetic research into a person's ability to attain a
higher educational status was funded by a genetic epidemiology
project called the Social Science Genetic Association Consortium (SSGAC),
which obtains its money primarily from the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) and the
The Consortium performs research
under the founding premise that most outcomes in life stems from
your genetic makeup.
As Latham states:
"Consequently, the aim of all its projects is to physically locate
these specific genetic factors on human DNA.
But the actual Rietveld
result implies that such genetic predispositions are pretty much
irrelevant, at least as far as educational attainment is concerned.
Thus we can say that SSGACs' founding premise is not in alignment
with the data.
But that just brings the question back one stage further: why is the
U.S. government funding excessively genetic determinist projects such
as this in the first place? The probable answer is that the U.S.
education system has many problems, which are exemplified by its low
rankings on international scales.
There is a danger that blame for
these problems might be laid at the door of the secretary for
education, the administration, or the President. This possibility
could be neatly sidestepped, however, if educational attainment was
Essentially the same political logic applies to any human disease or
disorder, or even any social complaint.
If the disorder, for example
autism, can be shown (or even just suggested) to have a partial
genetic origin then a barn door is opened for any accused vaccine
maker, or polluter, or policymaker, to evade the blame - both legally
and in the perception of the public."
Genetic Causes for Cancer Could Save Industries Billions of Dollars
As an example of what we're talking about here, take a look at
While a lot of research money is funneled into
genetic research, virtually nothing is spent on determining the
extent to which our food and environment triggers the disease.
stated earlier, your genes will express or suppress genetic data
depending on the environment in which it finds itself, meaning the
presence or absence of appropriate nutrients, toxins, and even your
thoughts and feelings, which unleash hormones and other chemicals in
Research into the health of our ancient ancestors
suggests that cancer is indeed a manmade disease, in large part
caused by environmental factors such as:
Were this to be officially acknowledged to be at the heart of our
cancer epidemic, people would likely demand a complete overhaul of
most industries that provide us with everything from food and
clothes to personal care products, furnishings and more.
really wants to take that bull by the horn, and our flawed system
allows these industries to pad the pockets of politicians and
regulators who make sure they're protected from invasive scrutiny.
The power and influence of some industries, such as the
pharmaceutical industry, is so robust that our government has even
enacted laws that prevent or severely limit you from suing
pharmaceutical companies and vaccine makers when their products
cause harm or death...
Even worse, parents who object to the use of
toxic chemotherapy on their children with cancer can have all of
their children removed by the state.
I predict that future
generations will surely view this as an incomprehensible violation
of human rights.
50 Industry Groups Form a New Alliance to Manipulate Public Opinion
Another example of the social programming that is currently in full
swing is the use of front groups by industries with something to
For example, more than 50 front groups, working on behalf of
food and biotechnology trade groups -
Monsanto being the most
prominent - formed a coalition called
Alliance to Feed the Future.
This alliance, which is being coordinated by the
Information Council (IFIC), was ostensibly created to "balance the
public dialogue" on modern agriculture and large-scale food
production and technology, i.e. this group will aim to become the
go-to source for "real" information about the junk being sold as
However, the groups comprising this new alliance actually represent
multi-national food companies, biotech industry, and chemical
companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
revenue from food related sales every year. This hardly makes them a
reliable source of independent information, yet unless the public
becomes widely aware of this ruse to confuse them, they will likely
succeed in their mission to manipulate public opinion about food.
In a report titled,
Best Public Relations Money Can
Buy - A Guide to Food Industry Front Groups, Michele Simon, JD, MPH, a policy
consultant with Center for Food Safety also reveals how the food and
agricultural industry hide behind friendly-sounding organizations
aimed at fooling the public, policymakers and media alike.
These front groups are specifically created to mislead you about the
product in question, protect industry profits, and influence
This amount of collusion is clearly not
necessary for a food or product that is truly safe and has great
intrinsic value, but it must be done for inferior and/or dangerous
products that cannot stand up to closer scrutiny by truly
What's more, a large number of front groups have been created in
order to have more seats at the Codex meetings, essentially giving
chemical companies and major food manufacturers a much louder voice,
in order to control the decisions made.
And the decisions made at
Codex affect food regulations across the world, not just in the
To learn more about these front groups, please see my previous
Front Groups Exposed - 50 Industry Groups Form a New Alliance
to Manipulate Public Opinion About Junk Food, GMOs, and Harmful
- A "Full-Blown Enlightenment Malfunction"
As Latham states,
"an extra-scientific explanation is required to
explain why very large sums of taxpayer money have funded human
genetic research in the face of such negative results."
"extra-scientific" explanation by Latham is that,
"most of science is
essentially now a top-down project."
This definitely appears to be the case in medical science, where the
majority of research is funded by the very companies and industries
that stand to gain from a particular result.
Publication bias - the
practice of selectively publishing trial results that serve an
agenda - along with outright scientific fraud, has become a cancer
at the core of evidence-based medicine. I am a big believer in the
scientific method, provided it's applied appropriately that is. And
that's the key issue here.
In order to qualify in the first place, the research must be
unbiased, unprejudiced and free from any significant conflicts of
interest. Sadly, this is not the case with most of modern
medicine - especially not when it comes to drug research.
But as the
featured article points out, scientific inquiry into genetic causes
are equally problematic.
In fact, the ramifications may be even more
far-reaching than that of
corrupted drug science.
"There persists a romantic notion (retained by many scientists) that
science is a process of free enquiry... But free enquiry in science
is all but extinct," Latham writes.
"In reality, only a tiny
proportion of research in biology gets done outside of
straightjackets imposed by funding agencies... The consequences of
this dynamic are that individual scientists have negligible power
within the system; but more importantly it opens a route by which
powerful political or commercial forces can surreptitiously set the
science agenda from above.
In the case of medical genetics that power has been used to deform
our understanding of human nature itself.
Thus public money has bought not scientific 'progress' but the
domination of intellectual enquiry by an entirely malevolent
project, conceived fully outside of science. This project was
intended only to ensure political paralysis and the consolidation of
economic power and whatever agenda scientists thought they were
following was entirely incidental.
What we observe is in fact a
full-blown enlightenment malfunction."
You Can Take Control of Your Health
Ideally you're already leading a healthy lifestyle, eating right,
exercising and managing stress, but if you're not, it's never too
late to start.
Each tissue only uses about 10 percent to 20 percent
of its gene complement, and you want to be sure that those genes are
the most advantageous ones possible for your health.
You can begin
to "remind" your cells to express in a healthful way, long before
you manifest a disease, by encouraging your genes to express
positive, disease-fighting behaviors by leading a healthy lifestyle.
As Latham says:
"[D]espite the almost daily PR barrage of genetic determinist
headlines, our fate is not written in our DNA and the state of
public understanding can in principle be reversed.
The hopeful truth
is that there are compelling reasons to remove subsidies for junk
food, pesticides from the food and water, toxins from the workplace,
and social and economic injustices from society, and that when we
do, things will improve."
However, I suggest you don't wait for such changes to occur.
take matter into your own hands, educate yourself about health, and
do that which is within your own power - which is a lot, by the way.
When it comes to epigenetic expression, keep in mind that diet is
only part of the equation.
You can also turn your genes on and off
with your emotions, and exercise has a direct impact on DNA as well.