Jurors in state court in Jefferson City awarded James Draeger, Valerie Gunther and Dan Anderson a total of $61.1 million in actual damages along with another $500 million each in punitive damages over claims that using Roundup on their lawns and gardens caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Three former users of Roundup weed killer have won more than $1.5 billion in a judgment against Monsanto, now a unit of Bayer AG, that a Missouri jury says must pay its victims for the glyphosate-based herbicide giving them cancer.
Jurors in state court in Jefferson City awarded James Draeger, Valerie Gunther and Dan Anderson a total of $61.1 million in actual damages along with another $500 million each in punitive damages over claims that using Roundup on their lawns and gardens caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The suit is one of many in recent days in which juries have ruled against Monsanto over claims concerning the carcinogenic properties of its Roundup formula. This latest suit is one of the largest to be handed down against a U.S.-based corporate defendant this year.
(Related: In 2021, a court ruled that Monsanto showed “willful” disregard for human safety by selling cancer-causing glyphosate.)
Will Monsanto survive the litigatory pressure?
Though Monsanto has won other similar such cases in the past, the fact that it lost this big one along with numerous others recently, has caused speculation that the now-German-owned drug and agriculture chemical company may need to alter its legal strategy.
The jury, based in Cole County, Mo., ruled that Monsanto is liable for claims of negligence, design defects and failure to warn plaintiffs of the potential health damages of using Roundup, the primary active ingredient of which is glyphosate.
Each of the three plaintiffs was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma which is said to have been caused by the simple use of Roundup on their family properties. The weed killer is highly toxic, we now know, and Monsanto is known for hiding and covering up the damning science against its products.
Monsanto is appealing the ruling, which could end up resulting in reduced punitive damages. It all depends on what happens and whether or not the case makes it to the Supreme Court, which reportedly will not allow punitive damages to be this high based on court guidance.
Bayer, which purchased Monsanto a few years back, continues to claim that decades of studies support the safe use of Roundup.
The case marks the fourth straight loss for Bayer in court this year. Union Investment, one of Bayer’s top 10 shareholders, recently called on the company to try to engage more directly with plaintiffs to settle cases rather than see them through to court.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs are celebrating the victory, as is their lawyer, Bart Rankin, who said in a statement that this is just the first case among many to be won on behalf of thousands of plaintiffs all across the country.
In many ways, Monsanto has turned out to be a toxic asset for Bayer, which everyone cringed at when the company took over the chemical giant. With so much evidence floating around out there about the dangers of glyphosate, it is almost shocking that Bayer made the decision to buy at all.
Nevertheless, suits against Bayer continue to flood the courts, and the company has said in a recent statement that it plans to present stronger arguments in the appeal that it says will overturn the judgment.
“It said in the recent trials that have gone against the company, courts have improperly permitted plaintiffs to misrepresent the European Union’s renewal process for glyphosate and the safety assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” Reuters reported about the matter.
Last week, the EU Commission said it would renew approval for glyphosate based on the safety assessments of the European Food Agency and European Chemicals Agency following the failure of EU member states to provide a clear opinion one way or another about the herbicide’s continued use.
More of the latest news about the downfall of the chemical industry can be found at Collapse.news.
Despite Cheerios being so popular among children and adults alike, and being a super easy snack given to toddlers as young as 9 months old, this “whole grain cereal” brand is the opposite of healthy. The oh so familiar crunchy O’s are made out of almost nothing but cane sugar and cornstarch. Not exactly health foods, if you ask me. Or do you see vegetables, fruits, healthy fats or protein on that list? I thought not.
Even more alarming, Cheerios and its similarly popular food friends, Oreos and Doritos, also contains glyphosate residue.
What is Glyphosate?
Glyphosate is a herbicide that, when applied to the leaves of plants, kills broadleaf plants and grasses and is used to ripen fruits and regulate plant growth. It is also an active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. This chemical is used up until shortly before harvest on various crops. Monsanto is infamous for its genetically enhanced (GE) foods, but they use this herbicide even on non-GE foods, such as corn, peas, flax, sugar beets, potatoes, rye, millet, canola, sunflowers, lentils, and soybeans. Glyphosate is categorized as a carcinogen according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1)
This doesn’t sound like something you want on your plate, or in your bowl.
Currently, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not test for glyphosate in your food. Though the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was supposed to start testing in early 2016, it was put on hold later that year. (2)
Instead, some private organizations took the matter into their hands. Food Democracy Now and The Detox Project have done some testing on 29 different foods and have found glyphosate residue on some popular products, including General Mills’ Cheerios, Oreos, Doritos, Stacy’s Pita Chips, Ritz Crackers, and Kashi Soft-Baked Oatmeal Dark Chocolate Cookies. (3)
Glyphosate is found in many other popular American food products, such as instant oatmeal, bagels, coffee creamer, PediaSure Enteral Nutritional Drinks and even organic bread, cage-free eggs, and organic wines. European products are not an exception either, some best selling German beers were tested for glyphosate residue as well. (4, 5, 6, 7) Shouldn’t we all have cancer by now?
In an ideal world, you wouldn’t be consuming any glyphosate at all, but only natural whole foods. Though the world is not ideal, the US is still being too generous with its standards. US regulators set their Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) standards at 1.75 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/bw/day). This is much higher than the 0.3 mg/kg/bw/day set by the European Union (EU). Independent agencies such as the US The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH) recommend 70 times lower levels at no more than 0.025 mg/kg/bw/day ADI. (8, 9, 10)
Why You Should Be Concerned About Glyphosate
Glyphosate is not currently being monitored by the USDA nor the FDA, yet it can be found in your food on a daily basis. So basically, the food you eat is not tested as to whether or not it’s harming your health.
According to the IARC, glyphosate is a carcinogen. Research has found that glyphosate can disrupt your microbiome leading to an imbalance in your body. Glyphosate may lead to disease, including some serious health conditions, such as autism, obesity, IBS, colitis, Crohn’s disease, allergies, heart disease, depression, ALS, MS, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and cancer. (1, 11, 12)
What You Can Do About Your Health
Eliminating or greatly reducing your processed food intake is the best step as the highest levels of glyphosate are found in these products. Aim to eat organic and non-GMO whole foods. This would include fresh greens, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, and whole grains. Some other easy fixes would be to shop locally. Get to know your farmer and grocer, joining a CSA, grow your own food and stick to home-cooking as much as possible. These are all ways to ensure your and your family ’s health.
On the subject of world ending machinations by the ruling elite, news Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg want to save is could spell “The End.” The men who pull all the media, political, and business levers in much of the world, they now want to pretend to save us from ourselves by backing GMOs and other questionable technologies. Read on to discover what these gatekeepers have in store now.
A Business Insider story by author Aria Bendix caught my eye this morning by framing Bill Gates and his compatriot billionaires as “planet saving” heroes. According to the story, the same men who have made trillions off super-capitalism, and created a cabal that controls many governments, they’re now investing in six agricultural startups through Breakthrough Energy Ventures. One look at the investors should send shivers down any reasonable person’s spine. Let me frame this for you, painted with a sarcasm so I retain my sanity.
Gates Loves Us to DEATH
Everyone knows how much Bill Gates loves humanity, he’s sold trillions of dollars worth of software, tablets, crummy smartphones, and even Monsanto poisons to us over the past few decades. But who among us can even fathom the warm and fuzzy adoration His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia feels for the world? Why look! Right alongside Gates, Al Talal, and Amazon’s Bezos, there’s Richard Branson, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, and Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein, just to mention a few of our most loving philanthropists. Yes, my friends, we are doomed by their fuzzy malevolence for certain.
The “mission” of Breakthrough Energy Ventures is to “commercialize energy innovation at scale,” at least according to the group’s narrative. I guess this means the fund is not about philanthropy after all (sorry, I am growing to hate these people). Let’s get to the point here, I do not want to waste your time or mine. Gates and these others are engaged in profit-making on a scale the Roman emperors would not have fathomed. Let me quote from The Guardian story and a statement by Seattle-based Agra Watch – a project of the Community Alliance for Global Justice on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Monsanto play:
“Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well being of small farmers around the world… [This] casts serious doubt on the foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa.”
In this story from way back in 2010, Gates’ investments in the faceless agri-giant Cargill were also brought into the light. Furthermore, the Microsoft zillionaire was being portrayed as humanity’s savior through GMOs and agri-tech back then, as well. But let’s concentrate on Gates and these other loving caretakers today.
Believeth in Me
In a blog post by Gates recently, the world’s second richest man (on paper) talks about cow farts and soil being huge where excess greenhouse gasses are concerned. Reading Gatesnotes, I get the chills when I realize how crazy this evil genius and his billionaire pals have become. Instead of pointing to the fossil fuel dependency of our food production, Gates goes deep into technobabble to conceal many facts, and to set the stage for what these psychopaths really have in store for the world. Before I get to this, read this from the revealing “We should discuss soil as much as we talk about coal.” Gates just plays out his hand by recommending GMO solutions he and these others are investing in.
“Microscopic nitrogen factories that replace fertilizer: What if we could fertilize plants without releasing so much harmful nitrous oxide into the air? BEV is invested in a company called Pivot Bio that has genetically modified microbes to provide plants with the nitrogen they need without the excess greenhouse gases that synthetic alternatives produce.”
Take note here, this “movement” by the elites is alternative climate change adjustment outside what we generally consider “alternative energy” solutions. This is because big oil and big energy are involved with Gates, Bezos, and Bloomberg in funding these GMO innovations. Also consider, to date the multinational agrichemical companies make profits from both the herbicide-resistant seeds and microbes Gates brags about, as well as from the herbicides some are designed to resist. But this is not what is so horrific about their plan for humanity. New “strains” of good old fashioned lima beans and cucumbers should not be our major fear here. Total food dependency should.
Do you think it is interesting that all of Bill Gates’ solutions for us involve playing God? Not once have I read anything from this man or his contemporaries about returning to nature or modifying our habits. Take his story The Future of Food. Again we read Gates recommending companies he has invested in as the solution to all our problems. A company called Beyond Meat is but one example of how Gates backed mad-science is always preferable to mother nature. And this takes us to the real mission of our billionaire benefactors. Total control over what we, eat, drink, breathe, buy, and sell. A movie some of my Baby Boomer readers may remember, Soylent Green starred superstar Charlton Heston as a man caught up in corporate control of a food supply based on recycled human flesh. Before you call me crazy or a conspiracy theorist, read this Bloomberg story about Gates, Cargill, and Sir Richard Branson backing the growing meat made from cow stem cells grown in the lab.
The Devil at Davos
Today, the world is almost totally dependent on products and services under the control of the richest 1%. They control our electricity and our transportation. They control the markets for the clothes we wear, for the diamonds we buy as engagement rings, and they run the politicians who rewrite our truth and decide our futures. None of us like admitting this, but the truth of elitist control of our lives is unarguable, equivocally true, and we all know it. The only facets of our existence we can control involve primal survival when all is said and done. And our survival is inextricably linked to food, air, and water. These people are at work making our planet into a concrete jungle where every square centimeter holds a profit for them. The Amazon is disappearing. Oil consumption is higher than ever before. The planet is polluted to a point some experts warn is a tipping point. And now the same people who have profited from our births, lives, and deaths, they claim they will “help us” some more by creating artificial or modified food! Before I continue, please read the “cabal” commitment statement:
The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is committed to building new technologies that change the way we live, eat, work, travel and make things so we can stop the devastating impacts of climate change. We believe that forging deep partnerships between governments and our members will lead to more investment earlier and more energy solutions for more people faster.
The lesson I would like to spur the reader with is that the moment these aristocrats of industry tell us they’re “for us” is the moment we must put the magnifying glass on them. For supportive evidence of this, I present the case biofuels mess Gates colleague and Breakthrough Energy Ventures backer Vinod Khosla brought to the state of Mississippi. In this one, Kosla supposedly tried to create the “Exxon of biofuels” with a venture called KiOR, which went bankrupt leaving IPO investors holding worthless stocks. Kosla and these other globalist elites have more up their sleeves, but let’s move on to examine what they mean when they say “deep partnerships” with governments. Right here, ponder for a moment what these globalist elites discuss in the mountains of Switzerland when they meet at Davos. Then, try and imagine their warm adoration for all of us.
Engineering Humanity
In October of 2018, a few months ago, the EU announced a joint investment with Gates and his pals. The partnership reminds me of the state of Mississippi’s investment in Khosla’s bio-fuels shell game that ended up costing everybody involved, only the stakes are much higher in the European sideshow. It is with this “investing guarantee” that I am torn between whether or not Gates and his colleagues are just downright crooked and evil, or incompetent and wanting company. Take Khosla and another startup called Jawbone, which hit the dead-pool running in 2017 after snagging over $930 million in funding from Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and others. Moving over to the alternative energy side, another massively funded and state-supported startup called Abound Solar went belly up after $641 million in funding, as well as backing from the U.S. Department of Defense. BP Alternative Energy Ventures was involved in that one too, in case you are looking at interesting connections. Other promising startups like Aquion Energy (Bill Gates), held great promise once, which leads me to another theory of mine on these technocrats and globalist billionaires. I think they are hedging all their bets to downright own us.
Researching the Investment Fund (EIF) I immediately keyed on the fact the the SME’s the fund is supposed to help, they represent 99% of all business conducted in the European Union! You read this correctly. The fund established to help small business with capital, it’s also backing Bill Gates and the people with huge vested interests in doing BIG business. Now Gates and his Breakthrough Energy Ventures are hand-in-hand and positioned to control whatever emerging technologies rise up to challenge their HUGE businesses. In a brilliant (and evil) move to control these industries from the onset, Gates and the others can either buy into the next solutions or literally cause them to die. This is what I believe KiOR was all about, but nobody has proven anything but mismanagement and too much hype there. But watching how the stock market is played these days, it is not inconceivable that these billionaires are playing every angle to suck money out of the system. Now factor in the obscure dealings of this huge investment bank, and the risk this Wall Street Journal story says EU citizens may be exposed to. Author Max Colchester refers to something called “financial engineering” when he describes exactly the kind of guarantee Gates and his billionaire buddies just got from the EIF. I’ll address the potential of this Gates and Co. engineering project in a later report. For now, I must sum up on the major concerns here.
Fiddling as the World Burns
The liberal world order I constantly reference to is not some Illuminati conspiracy theory or an invention of my overactive imagination. This white paper from the World Economic Forum I found from the Global Agenda Council unabashedly admit the post-World War Two order that has run things since 1945. This Global Agenda Council, for those unfamiliar, is chaired by Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institute and Karen Donfried of the German Marshall Fund of the US. The paper produced by these world order leaders, reveals the real agenda behind the investments of these billionaires I’ve discussed. To encapsulate:
“The US is leading a revolution in energy – with profound implications for America’s standing in the world, its relations with other major powers and for global order. In less than a decade, US oil and gas production exploded as new technologies released abundant fuels from shale rock formations across the country. This revolution and other global factors contributed to a nearly 50% decline in the global price of oil since June 2014.”
While Gates and the others profess their undying commitment to saving us from bad old climate change, their friends at the rulemaking end of the liberal world order are bragging about America’s newfound “energy security,” based on the most unsustainable policies possible. Furthermore, the colleagues of our billionaire benefactors are unashamed to be the cause of Cold War II, as this statement shows:
“As the United States emerges as a major player on the global energy supply market, it can exert influence in ways that weaken some of its most important adversaries.”
This is the narrative of many of those attending the infamous World Economic Forum, let me remind you. The paper calls on the American people to defend this liberal world order with any “military, political, economic, and cultural means necessary.” Robert Kagan is also on the Council of Foreign Relations and writes a column for Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post. And the paper delivered at the World Economic Forum contains hidden warnings for the people of Europe to pay attention to.
“People in other nations need accelerators and venture capital, but above all, they need a culture that accepts both the frequent flame-outs and the creative destruction that entrepreneurial innovation generates.”
A New Final Solution
Does this sound like a preparatory strategy paper to assist this liberal order and these billionaires? “Frequent flame-outs” may not be something the already crippled EU economy is ready for. I’ll leave you to read about the liberal order bragging that one-third of Kenya’s gross national product flows through a startup called M-Pesa, which was initially funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK, which works with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and even USAID through DAI Global in Bethesda, MD. Readers will also be interested to know that Bill Gates Tweeted how wonderful M-Pesa is:
“Kenya’s M-Pesa proves that when people are empowered, they will use digital tech to innovate on their own behalf.”
In 2015, DAI received $272,429,308 of contract funding from USAID, and another £58.3 million from the U.K. Department for International Development. The Venezuelans say DAI is a CIA front organization, and my research turns up nothing to prove the contrary. This WikiLeaks cable labeled “Secret” reveals USAID and DAI cooperating to create insurgency in Venezuela when Chavez was still alive back in 2006. I’ll not delve in too deeply here, since our focus is on Gates and the other billionaires. The point is, the collusion between the technocrats, government agencies, the deep state, and their higher order partners is not obscured.
When Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and his captains came up with what was called “The Final Solution” – there must have been some rationale that justified such horrors as eradicating a people to solve the “Jewish Question.” Today, the code name for the planned murder of all Jews within reach of the Third Reich could be applied to the deep planning of these elite globalists. They control the media, the money flow, industry, government, and pull levers on all aspects of life in the west. All that is left is food and water. And with the control of these commodities we can simply be rounded up and herded to slaughter like animals. Think about it. This is not a stretch of the imagination. What other purpose is there? What alternative end do you think these powerful men seek? Oh, I left out their God fearing devotee consciences. We all feel this devotion daily here in Greece. Soon, very soon, I fear the warmth will reach deep into the Americas and the rest of Europe.
Let me hear your thoughts, while you still have a voice.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” https://jou
In the barrage of information you come across daily online, how do you know what’s true and what’s nothing more than hearsay, gossip or all-out lies?
“If you’re relying on Snopes as your arbiter of truth, however, you’re in for a surprise: Snopes engages in massive censorship of natural health and general promotion of industry talking points. What started as a tool to investigate urban legends, hoaxes and folklore has manifested into a self-proclaimed “definitive fact-checking resource” that’s taking on topics like whether or not vaccines can cause autism.”
In their purported fact-checking of a report by CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Snopes spewed propaganda, not real facts, in an attempt to discredit the report and the potential vaccines-autism link
Snopes wrote the article without contacting Attkisson, who went on to state that they also listed claims she never made, then declared them to be false, and even were incorrect in one of their own claims
It’s dangerous to rely on any one source or group of individuals as authorities on truth, as it sets up the path for inevitable censorship
Industry propaganda and censorship of health and media information that strays from the mainstream is a growing problem
In your search for the truth, always follow your own guiding light — not one maintained by Snopes or any other internet watchdog or censorship authority that tries to lead you down their own biased path
In the barrage of information you come across daily online, how do you know what’s true and what’s nothing more than hearsay, gossip or all-out lies? Some people use Snopes as their go-to source for online fact-checking, believing it to give the unbiased and credible final word on all those widely-circulated stories.
If you’re relying on Snopes as your arbiter of truth, however, you’re in for a surprise: Snopes engages in massive censorship of natural health and general promotion of industry talking points. What started as a tool to investigate urban legends, hoaxes and folklore has manifested into a self-proclaimed “definitive fact-checking resource” that’s taking on topics like whether or not vaccines can cause autism.
Yet, in their purported fact-checking of a Full Measure report1 by award-winning investigative reporter and former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson,2 Snopes simply spewed propaganda, not real facts, in an attempt to discredit the report and the potential vaccines-autism link. In the end, though, they actually ended up confirming the main point of Attkisson’s report. For this, Attkisson wrote, “Snopes gets an ‘F’ for predictable propaganda in [the] vaccine-autism debate.”
Snopes Attempts to Discredit Investigative Report on Vaccines-Autism Link
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, is a pro-vaccine expert witness the U.S. government used to debunk and turn down autism claims in vaccine court. “Zimmerman was the government’s top expert witness and had testified that vaccines didn’t cause autism.
The debate was declared over,” Attkisson reported. “But now Dr. Zimmerman has provided remarkable new information,” she said in the Full Measure report, adding:3
He claims that during the vaccine hearings all those years ago, he privately told government lawyers that vaccines can, and did cause autism in some children. That turnabout from the government’s own chief medical expert stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate. If the public were to find out …
And he has come forward and explained how he told the United States government vaccines can cause autism in a certain subset of children and [the] United States government, the Department of Justice [DOJ], suppressed his true opinions.”
Zimmerman declined to be interviewed for the report, but referred Attkisson to his sworn affidavit, dated September 7, 2018, in which he stated that, in 2007, he told DOJ lawyers he had “discovered exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.
“I explained that in a subset of children … vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation … did cause regressive [brain disease] with features of autism spectrum disorder,” Zimmerman wrote.
This reportedly “panicked” the DOJ, which subsequently fired him, saying his services would no longer be needed, but essentially attempting to silence him. According to Zimmerman, the DOJ then went on to misrepresent his opinion in future cases, making no mention of the exceptions he’d informed them of.
“Meantime, CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] – which promotes vaccines and monitors vaccine safety – never disclosed that the government’s own one-time medical expert concluded vaccines can cause autism – and to this day public health officials deny that’s the case,” according to the Full Measure report.4
Attkisson’s report also reveals how Congressmen who wanted to investigate the autism-vaccine link were bullied, harassed and threatened. Dan Burton (R-IN), Dr. Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Bill Posey (R-FL) are among 11 current and former members of Congress and staff who told Attkisson they were warned by PhRMA lobbyists to drop the vaccine safety issue.
Snopes Gets an ‘F’ for Fact-Checking
In an article that attempts to fact-check Attkisson’s investigation, Snopes calls out many of the claims as false while clearly attempting to “debunk” vaccine-autism claims. However, in a rebuttal, Attkisson explains that Snopes earned a failing grade for its reporting.
“[T]he Snopes article debunks claims that were never made and uses one-sided references as its sources – other propagandists – without disclosing their vaccine industry ties.”5
For starters, Snopes labeled Zimmerman as a supporter of vaccination, as though this was something that Attkisson hid. In contrast, this point was central to Attkisson’s story and a large part of what makes his statements regarding vaccines and autism so noteworthy. Some of the additional egregious tactics Snopes used to try to discredit Attkisson’s report included the following:6
Snopes claimed Attkisson’s reading of Zimmerman’s sworn affidavit was flawed when she “simply quoted from the affidavit”
Snopes states that Zimmerman’s view is “not held by many scientists,” but did not survey several reputable scientists who hold the view
Snopes fails to address what its headline promises: the question of whether the government censored its own expert witness’ opinion
It’s important to note that Snopes also wrote their article without contacting Attkisson, who went on to state that they also listed claims she never made, then declared them to be false, and even were incorrect in one of their own claims, specifically that the existence of a potential link between vaccines, mitochondrial disorder and autism was not news at the time of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services omnibus autism proceedings in 2007.
“In fact, this suspected link was not previously known before the so-called ‘omnibus’ groups of vaccine-autism cases litigated a decade ago, and it is not widely known among doctors or the general public today; at least as of recently. That’s why it has proven to be so newsworthy,” Attkisson wrote, adding:7
Snopes demonstrates reckless disregard for the truth when disparaging my reporting by falsely stating that it contains ‘misleading claims’ …
Refuting claims never made in my report and putting out one-sided vaccine propaganda makes one wonder whether Snopes author Alex Kasprak even read or watched the report he attempts to criticize, or just blindly printed the propaganda provided to him by vaccine industry interests.”
Snopes Author Uses Industry Sources for ‘Facts’
November 16, 2016, Snopes looked into claims made by Food Babe that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might have shut down its residue testing of glyphosate due to complaints from Monsanto. “False,” Snopes declared.8 Ironically, the page declared that no corporate influence played a role and “the broad scientific consensus is that [glyphosate] is not a risk.”
Yet, a Twitter exchange clearly showed that the fact-checker for Snopes, Kasprak – the same author who wrote the critical review of Attkisson’s investigation – got his information about glyphosate’s safety from Kevin Folta, Ph.D.9
Folta, a University of Florida professor and a vocal advocate of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), who vehemently denied ever receiving any money from Monsanto, was caught lying about his financial ties to the company in 2015. The most flagrant piece of evidence against Folta shows that not only did he solicit funds from Monsanto, but he did so with intent to hide the financial connection between them.
Ironically, getting back to Attkisson’s case, the Snopes report ended up confirming exactly the point she was trying to make, stating, “Zimmerman, a scientist with serious credentials who was once a government expert on vaccines, believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of preexisting mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD [autism spectrum disorders].”10
“Snopes fabricates claims that were never made, debunks the fabricated claims,” Attkisson wrote, “and then ultimately agrees that the report I produced was accurate.”11
Snopes Founders Embroiled in Controversy
It’s dangerous to rely on any one source or group of individuals as authorities on truth, as it sets up the path for inevitable censorship. Even under the best circumstances, everyone is subject to their own biases, but in the case of Snopes, it was founded on fabrications from the start.
Snopes was created in 1995 by Barbara and David Mikkelson, who posed as “The San Fernardo Valley Folklore Society” in the beginning in order to gain credibility. Such a society does not exist as a legal entity, according to an investigation by the Daily Mail.12
The company soon expanded, but ultimately its founders divorced – amid claims that David Mikkelson embezzled company money for prostitutes and Barbara Mikkelson took millions from their joint bank account to buy property in Las Vegas.
According to Daily Mail, Mikkelson’s new wife, Elyssa Young – a former escort, self-proclaimed “courtesan” and porn actress who ran for Congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004 – was then employed as a Snopes administrator, even though the company claims to have no political leanings.
In response to the allegations, Forbes published an article weighing whether it was just another case of fake news, but ultimately was astonished by the lack of transparency given by the company’s founder when asked for comment, who stated that he was unable to respond due to a confidentiality clause in his divorce settlement. According to Forbes:13
This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact-check the fact-checker, the answer is the equivalent of ‘its secret’ …
At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact-checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” … we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.”
Hardcore Censorship of Alternative Health and Media in Progress
Whether it be the recent flu shot stunt at the Golden Globes or the industry-driven “facts” published by Snopes, it’s clear that industry propaganda and censorship of health and media information that strays from the mainstream is a growing problem.
In a 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation Survey on Trust, Media and Democracy, 73 percent said they believe the proliferation of “fake news” on the internet is a major problem, and only half feel confident that readers can get to the facts by sorting through bias.14 And the fact is, fake news is a real problem. But it’s important to do your own research before believing even “fact-checked” sources like Snopes.
NewsGuard is another outlet to be wary of. The entity is setting itself up as the self-appointed global arbiter of what information is “trustworthy” – based on nine “credibility and transparency” factors – not only for information viewed on private electronic devices, but also for information accessible in public libraries and schools.
Once you’ve installed the NewsGuard browser plugin on your computer or cellphone, the NewsGuard icon rating will appear on all Google and Bing searches and on articles featured in your social media news feeds.
These icons are meant to influence readers, instructing them to disregard content with cautionary colors and cautions, but I believe the true intent will be to bury this content entirely from search results and social media feeds.
It is very likely Google, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms will use these ratings to lower the visibility of content – making nonconformist views disappear entirely. It’s a concerning prospect, especially since NewsGuard received much of its startup funds from Publicis Groupe, a global communications group whose history of clients includes the drug and tobacco industries.
Now more than ever, it’s important to be aware of what companies may be filtering your news media and how their own agenda may color what you see. In your search for the truth, always follow your own guiding light – not one maintained by Snopes or any other internet watchdog or censorship authority that tries to lead you down their own biased path.
For additional research on the underreported adverse effects of vaccination visit the GreenMedInfo database on the subject.
Dr. Mercola is the founder of the world’s most visited natural health web site, Mercola.com, a NY Times best-selling author, and a thought leader in the field of alternative and integrative health. Read his full biography on his website.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
As one of the world’s most common herbicides, marketed by what is now the world’s largest chemical corporation with Bayer’s purchase of Monsanto, glyphosate (the main chemical in “Roundup”) is present in just about everything.
Believe that cotton is sterile, or feminine hygiene products are clean? They aren’t. One thing about biochemistry that industry influenced scientists don’t want to admit is that extremely low levels of some chemicals can still produce important, noticeable effects, and depending on the person, all kinds of things could happen.
Have you ever had the intuition that the processed food, “gas station” food, all that stuff you eat is toxic in a way you don’t quite understand? Well here’s something your conscience may have been trying to tell you: this herbicide is present at certain levels in almost every single “processed” food product you can think of.
Even supposedly natural products are often found to be contaminated with it. Soil that a farmer wishing to grow organic produce on, that he purchased or obtained somehow with the little money he had to make a living, could already have been used and contaminated with glyphosate. Minerals and vitamins present in soil at much greater levels in past centuries have been depleted, leading to what some people believe is a catastrophic, collective potassium deficiency, a vital electrolyte necessary for healthy brain and muscle function.
Months after merging with Bayer in a bid to bury a brand that has become as toxic as its products, Monsanto has lost its appeal in a historic lawsuit that found its Roundup herbicide responsible for a man’s cancer.
In August, a San Francisco jury awarded former school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages in a lawsuit alleging Monsanto’s glyphosate weed killer Roundup was responsible for his non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The verdict further confirmed that Monsanto “acted with malice” in concealing the carcinogenic risks of its products for decades.
California state judge Suzanne Bolanos has rejected Bayer’s request for a new trial, instead opting to reduce the punitive part of the damages from $250 million to $39 million, equivalent to the amount the jury had awarded Johnson in compensatory damages. This adds up to a mandated payout of $78mn.
In addition to spraying Roundup and its analog Ranger Pro 30 times a year, Johnson was doused with the weed killer twice in on-the-job accidents and developed lymphoma within two years of the first mishap. As much as 80 percent of his body is covered in lesions, and his doctors did not think he’d live to see the jury verdict.
Johnson is satisfied with the verdict and hopes it leads Bayer and consumers alike to behave more responsibly. “I’m hoping that it snowballs and people really get the picture and they start to make decisions about what they eat, what they spray in their farms,” he told the Guardian. He hopes to see warning labels on Monsanto products, but isn’t holding his breath.
The confirmation of August’s verdict opens Bayer up to thousands of similar suits from plaintiffs with similar claims. The World Health Organization deemed glyphosate “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, yet Johnson and others like him were told in training sessions that the weed killer was “safe enough to drink.”
Evidence emerged during Johnson’s case that Monsanto was not only suppressing research that confirmed the link between its products and cancer, but may actually be paying for its own “ghostwritten” research that would portray Roundup favorably.
Monsanto was sold to Bayer in June for $63 billion, and the massive new firm immediately chose to retire the Monsanto name. With a sordid history that includes Agent Orange and genetically-modified seeds in addition to glyphosate, the brand name had become too toxic.
(ANTIMEDIA) — Last week, a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to a groundskeeper who repeatedly used glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup herbicide, while working at a school. The man, Dewayne Johnson, developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is linked to glyphosate exposure according to three expert scientists who testified in the case, and the jury found the widely used herbicide contributed to his condition.
The use of glyphosate has exploded in recent decades, with 1.8 million tons sprayed in America since 1974. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world.
In light of the jury’s decision and increasing evidence of the dangers of the chemical, here are seven products that have been documented to contain glyphosate. Though they certainly do not have the same potency as Johnson was exposed to and it is not yet clear how consumption of food grown with glyphosate affects human health, consumers should nevertheless be conscious of what they are being exposed to:
1. Honey – In 2016, FDA chemist Narong Chamkasem found varying levels of glyphosate in different types of honey. Though many variants of the honey tested had trace amounts, others had significant amounts, and most of those samples were from the United States.
2. Granola – An internal analysis conducted by FDA chemist Richard Thompson found glyphosate in samples of granola he brought to the lab from home. The FDA has not yet released his findings to the public but may do so later this year or early next year. He noted in an internal email that broccoli was the only item that did not contain the chemical.
3. Wheat crackers – Another sample Thompson found to contain glyphosate were wheat crackers. Though the lab work is yet to be released, internal emails show he said there was a “fair amount” of glyphosate in everything he tested. A separate analysis by Anresco laboratories in 2016 suggested glyphosate was present in popular cracker brands like Triscuit and Ritz, though those findings were questioned by the Genetic Literacy Project, which has in turn been criticized as a pro-Monsanto and GMO mouthpiece.
4. Cheerios and other cereals – According to the same Anresco report, as summarized by Huffington Post, “Glyphosate residues were found in General Mills’ Cheerios at 1,125.3 parts per billion (ppb). Glyphosate was also detected in Special K cereal.”
5. Oatmeal – Chamkasem, who detected glyphosate in honey, also conducted an analysis that found residues in oatmeal, but the FDA reassigned him shortly after that research and said those findings were not part of the agency’s official glyphosate residue assignment.
6. Corn – Richard Thompson’s analysis found glyphosate in corn meal he tested, which is unsurprising considering the growth in popularity of Roundup Ready corn, though the FDA has said no illegal levels of glyphosate have been found in the crop.
7. Soy – A 2014 study published in Food Chemistry by researchers from the Arctic University of Norway found high levels of glyphosate residue in genetically modified soybeans, which have come to dominate the market. As Smithsonian Magazinenoted in 2016, “By the early 2000s, Roundup Ready had come to dominate American soybean production, accounting for four-fifths of the nation’s output.”
Though it remains to be seen how much consumption of food tinged with glyphosate affects human health, it is clear that the chemical is showing up in humans. A 2017 study from the University of California, San Diego found levels of glyphosate in older Americans have skyrocketed. “What we saw was that prior to the introduction of genetically modified foods, very few people had detectable levels of glyphosate,” said Dr. Paul J. Mills, lead author and UC San Diego School of Medicine professor of Family Medicine and Public Health. “As of 2016, 70 percent of the study cohort had detectable levels.”
Glyphosate has been shown to suffocate human cells in laboratory research and is associated with various ailments when humans are directly exposed to it, as Dewayne Johnson was. There is less evidence showing the harmful effects of glyphosate in food, but much of the research on its safety has been funded by industry and companies like Monsanto. Advocacy groups have claimed the U.S. “safe” limits are higher than other countries.
Regardless, as Mills said,“Our exposure to these chemicals has increased significantly over the years but most people are unaware that they are consuming them through their diet.”
If the proposed Monsanto-Bayer merger goes through, the new company would control more than 25 per cent of the global supply of commercial seeds and pesticides. Monsanto held a 26% market share of all seeds sold in 2011. Bayer sells 17% of the world’s total agrochemicals and also has a seeds sector. If competition authorities pass the deal, the combined company would be the globe’s largest seller of both seeds and agrochemicals.
It marks a trend towards consolidation in the industry with Dow and DuPont having merged and Swiss seed/pesticide giant Syngenta merging with ChemChina. The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector.
In response to the Monsanto-Bayer merger, after it was announced in 2016 the US National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued the following statement:
“Consolidation of this magnitude cannot be the standard for agriculture, nor should we allow it to determine the landscape for our future… We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies… [there is an] alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America.”
For all the rhetoric that we often hear about ‘the market’ and large corporations offering choice to farmers and consumers, the evidence is restriction of choice and the squeezing out of competitors. Over the years, for instance, Monsanto has bought up dozens of competitors to become the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds with seed prices having risen dramatically.
Consolidation and monopoly in any sector should be of concern to everyone. But the fact that the large agribusiness conglomerates specialize in a globalised, industrial-scale, chemical-intensive model of farming should have us very concerned. Farmers are increasingly reliant on patented corporate seeds, whether non-GM hybrid seeds or GM and the chemical inputs designed to be used with them. Monsanto seed traits are now in 80% of corn and more than 90% of soybeans grown in the US.
By its very nature, the economic model that corporate agriculture is attached to demands expansion, market capture and profit growth. It might bring certain benefits to those farmers who have remained in agriculture, if not for the 330 farmers in the US who leave their land every week (according to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service).
But in the US, ‘success’ in agriculture has largely depended on over $51 billion of taxpayer handouts over a 10-year period to oil the wheels of a particular system of agriculture designed to maintain corporate agribusiness profit margins. And any ‘success’ fails to factor in all the external social, health and environmental costs. It is easy to spin failure as success when the parameters are narrowly defined.
Moreover, the exporting of Green Revolution ideology and technology throughout the globe has been a boon to transnational seed and agrochemical manufacturers, which have benefited from undermining a healthy, sustainable indigenous agriculture.
Britain is a leader in intensive, corporate-dominated agriculture. But is this the model of agriculture the world should rely on?
Let us turn to campaigner and environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason to appreciate some of the consequences of this model. She has just written an open letter to Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Advisor to the UK government. Although written to Davies, the letter is intended for the four Chief Medical Officers of Health for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland and Public Health England.
Her letter is essentially a plea to highly placed officials to act.
Mason provides a stark reminder of the impacts of the agrochemical/agribusiness sector, its political power and its effects on health. She draws attention to a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, which states unequivocally that the storyline perpetuated by the likes of Bayer’s Richard van der Merwe (in this piece) saying we need pesticides and (often chemical-dependent) GMOs to feed the world is a myth.
The report is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”.
The authors of the report call for a comprehensive new global treaty to regulate and phase out the use of dangerous pesticides in farming and move towards sustainable agricultural practices. They say:
“excessive use of pesticides is very dangerous to human health, to the environment and it is misleading to claim they are vital to ensuring food security.”
Mason notes that chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. Certain pesticides can persist in the environment for decades and pose a threat to the entire ecological system on which food production depends.
One of the report’s authors, the UN expert on Toxics Baskut Tuncak, wrote in the Guardian:
“Our children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It’s on their food and in their water, and it’s even doused over their parks and playgrounds. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most ratified international human rights treaty in the world (only the US is not a party), makes it clear that states have an explicit obligation to protect children from exposure to toxic chemicals, from contaminated food and polluted water, and to ensure that every child can realise their right to the highest attainable standard of health. These and many other rights of the child are abused by the current pesticide regime. These chemicals are everywhere and they are invisible. The only way to protect citizens, especially those disproportionately at risk from exposure, is for governments to regulate them effectively, in large part by adhering to the highest standards of scientific integrity.”
Mason offers Sally Davies and her colleagues evidence that suggests rising UK Mortality rates point to a critical, unprecedented health epidemic. Arguing that the heavy use of agrochemicals in the UK is a major contributory factor, she notes Cancer Research UK (CRUK) is protecting the agrochemical industry due to its strategic influence. As a result, the mainstream narrative on cancer focuses on the role of alcohol (see this also) and ‘lifestyle choices’ while sidelining the strong evidence that agrochemicals are having.
Rosemary Mason asks Sally Davies if she is aware that the UK Department of Health is working with industry, again citing evidence in support of her claim.
As someone who has written extensively on the adverse impacts of glyphosate, Mason refers Davies to research that links Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup with liver damage.
If the National Health Service in the UK is experiencing a crisis – as indeed it is – due to rising rates of morbidity (not withstanding the effects of poor funding and creeping privatisation), surely these spiralling rates of diseases must be addressed. And where better to start by shining the light on agrochemicals rather than blaming individuals for lifestyle choices and alcohol consumption?
For instance, a report by ‘Children with Cancer UK’ in 2016 said there were 1,300 more cases per year of cancers in children, particularly in young adults, compared with 1998. While the medical correspondent from The Telegraph has mentioned pesticides as a possible cause, a spokesperson from CRUK said there is no evidence of environmental factors.
Among the various statistics Mason provides are those indicating that colon cancer had risen by 200%, thyroid cancer has doubled, ovarian cancer is up by 70% and cervical cancer is up by 50% since 1998.
Yes, despite the evidence, the corporate media in Britain is silent about pesticides, which partly results from the corporate sponsorship of the UK Science Media Centre; so any science against the corporations can be suppressed by interested parties, including AstraZeneca, Coca Cola, Syngenta, BP and Monsanto.
While Mason produces figures to show the massive increase in a range of agrochemicals over the years, the Chief Scientist for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Professor Ian Boyd, points out that once a pesticide is approved there is no follow up. There is also no follow up as to the impacts of not just one chemical but the cocktail of agrochemicals out there and how they interact when in the human body and within the environment.
And let’s not forget that many of these agrochemicals were fraudulently placed on the commercial market in the first place without proper testing.
Readers can read Mason’s letter in full here, where she also discusses a potential UK-US trade deal with the US and the impacts on the lowering of food and environmental standards and subsequent relations with the EU.
Alternative approaches and solutions exist but the political influence and financial clout of transnational corporations means that ‘business as usual’ prevails.
The original source of this article is Global Research
“Sixty percent (60%) of Americans with a chronic condition is almost impossible to grasp because it’s a mind-boggling statistic. How is this possible? And, why so many?”
Pesticide suicide refers to toxic chemicals mucking up the health of animals, plants and insects. This worldwide causatum may be totally out of control or maybe not; nobody knows for sure. Therein lies the scary part.
However, what is known is not encouraging: “Industrial toxins are now routinely found in new-born babies, in mother’s milk, in the food chain, in domestic drinking water worldwide… Humans emit more than 250 billion tonnes of chemical substances a year, in a toxic avalanche that is harming people and life everywhere on the planet.” (Source: Scientist Categorize Earth as a Toxic Planet, Phys Org, February 7th 2017) For obvious reasons, it is not at all comforting to hear Earth referred to as a “toxic planet.” Indeed, it would be insulting, if not true.
In that regard, there may be connecting dots around “toxic planet.” A huge increase in the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases has been reported in the United States over the last 20 years during the same time frame as pesticide/chemical usage has become ubiquitous. (Journal of Organic Systems) At the beginning of the 20th century infectious diseases like tuberculosis, pneumonia, and diarrheal disease were the leading causes of death. By the 21st century mortality by infectious diseases was replaced by chronic illnesses like heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Regrettably, there is a pronounced trend in America. A Rand Corporation study states that 60% of Americans have one and 40% have multiple chronic conditions. (Source: Incidence and Prevalence of Chronic Disease, Autoimmunity Research Foundation)
Sixty percent (60%) of Americans with a chronic condition is almost impossible to grasp because it’s a mind-boggling statistic. How is this possible? And, why so many?
Whether pesticide suicide (inclusive of all chemicals) is reality is not known 100% certain. But, the indicators aren’t hopeful. The rate of growth of chronic problems increasingly suggests serious problems exist within ecosystems, border-to-border from Maine-to-California and Canada-to-Mexico. Of course, given enough time, truth is revealed via ecosystem breakdowns (already starting) and/or advancing cases of autism, gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis, Crohn’s disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, or none of above, which would, in part, be indicative of no ecosystem toxicity.
Further to the point, Jennifer Hsaio’s article, “GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful,” Harvard University, August 19, 2015: “According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the health effects of pesticides are not well understood, but their use has been associated with conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and neurological effects.”
Once again, the phrase “pesticides are not well understood.” Yet sprayed coast-to-coast to kill things. “Health effects of pesticides not well understood,” prompts a logical response: Is society totally delusional, deranged, crazed? Answer: Yes, it probably is! How can a well-adjusted society permit use of chemicals manufactured to kill things helter skelter throughout the countryside when… “Health effects of pesticides are not well understood?”
The following quote from Julian Cribb’s Surviving the 21st Century (Springer Int’l Publishing, Switzerland 2017) likely tells the story:
“The evidence that we ourselves— along with our descendants, potentially for the rest of history— are at risk from the toxic flood we have unleashed is piling up in literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research reports. Despite this mass of evidence, the public in most countries is only dimly aware, or even largely unaware of what is being done to them. The reason is twofold: First, most of these reports are buried in scientific journals, written in the arcane and inaccessible language used by specialists. The public may hear a little about certain chemical categories of concern, like pesticides and food additives, or the ‘dirty dozen’ (Stockholm C0nvention 2013) industrial super-poisons, or ‘air pollution’ in general. However, these represent only a scant few pixels in a much larger image now amassing in the scientific literature of tens of thousands of potentially harmful substances which are disseminating worldwide. Second, the proportion of chemicals which have been well-tested for human safety is quite small…” (Page 108)
In short, humanity is poisoning itself with a massive flood of chemicals all across the world, dripping wet with toxicity, and shockingly, nobody is really sure of the impact! Yet, there are dizzying numbers of academic research papers, literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific research that discuss the issue. Duh!
Still, by all appearances, in the public domain, absolutely nobody knows for sure what’s going on, which is a national tragedy, as well as a facsimile of the “unknown” world at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Yet, chemicals may be more ubiquitous worldwide than Fukushima Daiichi, who knows for sure? Could be a tie.
One of the chemicals that is most newsworthy, most discussed, and most entangled in controversy is glyphosate, which is one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. for agriculture, forestry, lawns, gardens, and industrial weed areas. In fact, since 1974, glyphosate usage has increased by leaps and bounds. Two-thirds of the total volume applied from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in the past 10 years alone. Glyphosate agricultural usage in the U.S. in 1974 was 1400 (1000 lb) growing to 249,906 (1000 lb) by 2014.
“Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops now account for about 56% of global glyphosate use. In the U.S., no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use. This is likely the case globally, but published global pesticide use data are sparse. Glyphosate will likely remain the most widely applied pesticide worldwide for years to come, and interest will grow in quantifying ecological and human health impacts. Accurate, accessible time-series data on glyphosate use will accelerate research progress.” (Source: Charles M Benbrook, Trends in Glyphosate Herbicide Use in the United States and Globally, Environmental Sciences Europe, 28:3 January 2016)
Monsanto sold the first commercial glyphosate product in the U.S. in 1974. The brand name is Roundup. Subsequently, many crops have been genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant or GE-HT. But, does GE-HT herbicide-tolerance really work?
It was only a few weeks ago that the EU granted glyphosate a new five-year lease throughout Europe, closing one of the most bitterly fought pesticide relicensing battles ever, as 1.3 million EU citizens endorsed a petition to ban the product. “But the enzyme-blocking chemical has also become a mainstay of modern agricultural techniques that farmer’s unions see as environmentally friendly, even as critics condemn it as a ‘pesticide treadmill’ of danger to plants, animals, and people.” (Source: Arthur Neslen, Controversial Glyphosate Weedkiller Wins New Five-Year Lease in Europe, The Guardian, Nov. 27, 2017) Are farmer’s unions correct or are 1.3 million petitioners correct?
Still, there may be serious problems with GE-HT: According to the following article: Genetically Engineered Crops, Glyphosate and the Deterioration of Health in the United States of America, Journal of Organic Systems, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2014: “A huge increase in the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases has been reported in the United States (US) over the last 20 years. Similar increases have been seen globally. The herbicide glyphosate was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating with the advent of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both. Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”
“The World Health Organization recently announced that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen… Although studies have shown conflicting conclusions about the link between glyphosate and cancer in humans, glyphosate has been linked to cancer in rats and mice and experiments in human cells have shown that exposure to glyphosate can cause DNA damage,” Ibid.
GE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they’re engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed. “Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds), called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, and that’s the key to understanding how it causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals,” (Source: Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Autism and Other Chronic Disease, Mercola, June 9, 2013)
According to The Institute of Responsible Technology d/d May 10, 2013: “It was ‘supposed’ to be harmless to humans and animals—the perfect weed killer. Now a groundbreaking article just published in the journal Entropy points to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and more specifically its active ingredient glyphosate, as devastating—possibly ‘the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies. That’s right. The herbicide sprayed on most of the world’s genetically engineered crops—and which gets soaked into the food portion—is now linked to autism … gastrointestinal issues such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, cancer, cachexia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and ALS, among others.” Prompting the logical question: What chronic health-related problems are not listed?
For more details about pesticide issues as discovered by The Institute of Responsible Technology, Jeffrey Smith interviewed Stephanie Seneff, PhD, Senior Research Scientist at MIT. Dr. Seneff has been involved in research at MIT for over three decades. A video by The Institute of Responsible Technology follows:
According to Dr. Seneff: Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds), called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, and that’s the key to understanding how it causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals. The bacteria in your body outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. For every cell in your body, you have 10 microbes of various kinds, and all of them have the shikimate pathway, so they will all respond to the presence of glyphosate!
Glyphosate causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s function and lifecycle and glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. At that point, your body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens. Once the chronic inflammation sets in, you’re well on your way toward chronic and potentially debilitating disease.
According to The Detox Project: Anresco Laboratories has found glyphosate in a range of U.S. food products, and the chemical also tested positive in urine, conducted by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), using validated LC-MS/MS method.
Here’s the problem, as stated by The Detox Project: “The cultivation of Roundup Ready GMOs has considerably increased food contamination by glyphosate. Roundup Ready plants do not degrade glyphosate but tolerate it, so they accumulate Roundup residues during their growth. As a consequence, glyphosate has among the highest maximum residue limits for pesticides with up to 500,000 parts per billion authorized in some GM feed. A recent study on 10 batches of GM soybeans from Iowa found glyphosate at an average concentration of 11,900 ppb (maximum of 20,100 ppb). According to Monsanto, residues levels of up to 5,600 ppb in GM soy represent ‘extreme levels.”
In the main, this article has dealt with one chemical, i.e., glyphosate, at the expense of further investigation of the entire complex of chemicals. That’s an encyclopedic task over decades just to get to the bottom of whether pesticide suicide is truly a reality. Therein lies the horrifying, frightening aspect of a world ubiquitously covered with chemicals. By the time you know for sure, it’s late.
Meanwhile, a Rand Corporation study states that 60% of Americans have one and 40% have multiple chronic conditions: “Nearly 150 million Americans are living with at least one chronic condition; around 100 million of them have more than one. And nearly 30 million are living, day in and day out, with five chronic conditions or more. (Source: Chronic Conditions in America: Price and Prevalence, Rand Review, July 2017)
Recently, the Lancet sent me an article on its Dementia Commission:
“After decades of neglect, dementia was thrust into the international spotlight in 2013 with the G8 Dementia Summit in London, UK, followed 2 years later by the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia. Against this background, The Lancet launched a Commission to review the available evidence and produce recommendations about how best to manage—or even prevent—dementia. “
Tell you what, Lancet, since your article emphasizes “leaving no one behind,” I would suggest that since this commission appears to not address the fact that the wholesale use of pesticides, Glyphosate in particular, is most likely one of the main causes of the disease, then your “leaving no one behind” statement really means to leave no one behind in actually getting the disease, not eradicating it.
Here is the interesting part of the article:
“Although the symptoms of dementia generally occur in later life, the underlying brain pathology develops many years earlier. As outlined in the Lancet Commission, dementia is likely to be a clinically silent disorder that begins at midlife (about age 40–65 years) and the terminal stage manifests as symptoms of dementia. This hypothesis suggests a window of opportunity to intervene by addressing dementia risk factors in middle age. The Commission adopts a life-course approach and identifies nine potentially modifiable risk factors at different stages of life that, if eliminated, might prevent more than a third of cases of dementia: low educational level in childhood, hearing loss, hypertension, obesity, smoking, depression, physical inactivity, social isolation, and diabetes.”
Seriously? Consumption of pesticides doesn’t even rate a mention? Dementia is not a socioeconomic or psychological condition, but a physical one, with a physical causation, and the commission does not even address this adequately in the article. What it appears to be doing is substituting a lot of symptoms for cause.
Dr. B.J. Hardick gives us a realistic look at the dementia epidemic:
“Every three seconds someone is diagnosed with dementia, which now affects 5.3 million Americans and more than half a million Canadians. Alzheimer’s steals more than just memories. It hijacks one’s personality, thoughts and emotions—the very essence of who you are. Early-onset dementia (before age 65) currently represents about five percent of cases, and rising, hitting many in their 40s and 50s.”
Instances of dementia have risen dramatically since the introduction of Glyphosate in our food supply since 1994.
NOTE: Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia.
The correlation between Glyphosate usage and dementia cannot be disregarded, as it is only basic logic: If a person is exposed to a toxic chemical that causes dementia early in life and it takes several years for the symptoms of the disease to manifest, guess what? The more that chemical is used, the greater the instances of the disease will occur. You can cry correlation does not equal causation until the cows come home, but if the correlation is strong enough, guess what? It cannot be ignored and must be addressed based on the preponderance of evidence linking it to causation. To not do so and list symptoms as cause is like throwing darts at everything but the bull’s-eye on a target and claiming to hit it.
“We know dementia starts in the brain 30 to 50 years before symptoms appear. Science is just beginning to wrap its head around the various factors contributing to the amyloid plaques so characteristic of those with Alzheimer’s disease. Research confirms that many of the chemicals we’re exposed to in our food, water and air have direct links with Alzheimer’s.”
The link between the increased use of Glyphosate in our food and the rising tide of dementia cannot be simply dismissed. To do so is criminal.
If the Lancet is any indication, it appears that the medical community is intent on making sure that dementia will be “leaving no one behind” as it fails to address this damning correlation.
Glycine is a neurotransmitter, but glyphosate fools the receptor and then doesn’t behave as expected.
Glyphosate wreaks havoc on human physiology in multiple ways, leading to a nearly complete explanation for the strong correlations between the rise in glyphosate usage on crops and the increased incidence in a host of chronic modern diseases, including diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, adrenal insufficiency, anemia, spina bifida and autism.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the pervasive herbicide, Roundup. Glyphosate’s inventor, Monsanto, has assured us that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to humans. This is blatantly untrue. Glyphosate’s toxicity is insidious, and it comes about mainly because glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. When you replace glycine, an amino acid, with glyphosate, a synthetic amino acid, in a protein, often the protein no longer works as intended. Sometimes it can’t be broken down and it accumulates in the brain, causing neurological disease. Other times, it is inactivated as an enzyme or it can’t attach to a membrane. Glyphosate also pretends to be glycine at glycine receptors. Glycine is a neurotransmitter, but glyphosate fools the receptor and then doesn’t behave as expected. This wreaks havoc on human physiology in multiple ways, leading to a nearly complete explanation for the strong correlations between the rise in glyphosate usage on crops and the increased incidence in a host of chronic modern diseases, including diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, adrenal insufficiency, anemia, spina bifida and autism. In this talk, I will try to keep the scientific jargon as simple as possible, while presenting an amazing story about biochemistry gone awry.
Has anyone taken note of the numerous wildlife die-offs that have been reported over the past few years? If you think that may be an “off-the-wall” exaggeration question or statement, well, there’s an online website that painstakingly chronicles what’s been going on, which I’d like to introduce to you.
Additionally, there have been 970 million butterflies – the exquisite Monarchs, in particular – that have been killed since 1990, apparently from pesticides and herbicides. Are GMO farming practices to blame?
We need to become better stewards of flora, fauna, and soil, I truly believe, and not poison everything with chemicals.
What will Planet Earth be like when it becomes devoid of marine, land, and avian wildlife? Think about that, especially as you begin the new gardening season for 2016 and any temptations to use toxic chemicals for gardening, pest control, or whatever.
If you want a nutrient-rich vegetable garden, you need healthy soil to grow nutritious crops. The more worms in your garden, the healthier the soil is [1], I feel. For many years, I used to purchase Lady Bugs and Praying Mantises at garden centers, and then let them loose in a few areas of my garden.
I always included plants that would attract bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds. Here’s a resource of plants to grow that invite those lovely visitors to your garden. These plants attract beautiful song birds, especially Gold Finches! They love to feast on Echinacea flower heads.
Do we really need all those lawn chemicals, chemical fertilizers and plant enhancements?
How about pest control chemicals? What about buzzing, stinging insects and the numerous pesticides to deal with them?
To help readers get out from under toxic garden chemicals, I’ve prepared a beginner’s list to point you in a more Earth-friendly direction, which I hope can start you on the path to chemical-free gardening. Mother Earth will appreciate that, and so will your pets and kiddies, too.
Dealing with Rabbits, Squirrels, and Deer in Flower Beds and Gardens
Personally, I’m exasperated with all of the above, who play havoc with my front and back patio gardens. What really works at keeping them out of the garden are two things: Dried Blood Meal and Dried Bone Meal.
I sprinkle both around the perimeter of the flower beds and then sprinkle a little in the center.
However, after a few days of rain, I need to reapply the blood meal, which keeps the deer off my hostas. I even sprinkle a little blood meal into the large patio planters and pots filled with plants. That keeps the squirrels from tearing plants out of their pots. Plus, both act as organic plant supplements too.
Want to become a beekeeper, even in the city? Here’s how to go about it. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a hotel restaurant has rooftop gardens, which include beehives [2] too!
We and the planet can’t afford to lose our food crop pollinators: the bees, butterflies, and bird populations, or other wildlife. Nothing pleases me more than to sit on my back patio and see the deer on the back common or either the red or gray fox saunter by. Wildlife is a gift from above, so is the Earth below our feet.
One of the great saints of Christianity, St. Francis of Assisi, composed an exquisite canticle to Nature—The Canticle of the Sun, [3] in which he refers to the varied features of Nature, e.g., sun, moon, stars, wind, air, etc., as his sisters and brothers. What a lovely way of thinking about Nature, especially when Nature is being assaulted on all sides by technology and chemicals.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
(ZHE) If we had a dime for every kooky conspiracy theory we’ve heard alleging some vast corporate conspiracy to exploit the treasures of the earth, destroy the environment and poison people with unknown carcinogens all while buying off politicians to cover their tracks, we would be rich. The problem, of course, is that sometimes the conspiracy theories prove to be completely accurate.
Lets take the case of the $60 billion ag-chemicals powerhouse, Monsanto, and their controversial herbicide, Roundup as an example. For those who aren’t familiar, Roundup is Monsanto’s blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U.S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical.
For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use. As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)…More on this later.
But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the ‘extensive’ work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product’s active ingredients.
“EPA’s minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product – here, Roundup. Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate. As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup.”
Meanwhile, if that’s not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she “cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer” because “[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup.”
And just in case you’re the super skeptical type, here is Farmer’s actual email, from back in 2009, which seems pretty clear:
“you cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer..we have not done carcinogenicity studies with ‘Roundup.’”
And while the revelations above are quite damning by themselves, this is where things get really interesting.
In early 2015, once it became clear that the World Health Organization’s IARC was working on their own independent study of Roundup, Monsanto immediately launched their own efforts to preemptively discredit any results that might be deemed ‘inconvenient.’
That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn’t possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists. Instead, they decided to “ghost-write” key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just “sign their names so to speak.”
“A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections…but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.”
Finally, when all else fails, you call in those “special favors” in Washington D.C. that you’ve paid handsomely for over the years.
And that’s where Jess Rowland, the EPA’s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he’s fully exploiting his role as the “chair of the CARC” to kill any potentially damaging research…”if I can kill this I should get a medal.”
All of which begs the question of whether the D.C. swamp is just too large to be drained.
Scientists Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff have just gotten the fifth peer reviewed paper on Glyphosate published. Its named “Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins”. The interview on that has been covered in the previous blog.
The latest bombshell to come from Anthony Samsel is from the sixth paper, which is not yet published, but whose supporting data is already making waves – various popular vaccines are contaminated with glyphosate.
How? Well, vaccine makers sometimes use animal byproducts in vaccines, products such as chicken egg protein or gelatine that comes from bones. And if those vaccine makers are using animals that come out of factory farms, chances are they are fed GMO and glyphosate laced feed. If so, they would pick up Glyphosate into their system just as we humans do. Therefore, egg protein and gelatine made from these animals may also contain glyphosate, which in turn would then contaminate the vaccines that use these products. Finally, people, or animals, vaccinated with these products would have glyphosate directly injected into them, and will in due course have glyphosate initiating a cascade of diseases.
Anthony Samsel was not passing opinion on this. Rather, he collected vast samples of these popular vaccines and got them tested by multiple labs in USA for presence of Glyphosate, and found, as he suspected, the vaccines to be largely contaminated by it.
This 5 minute video covers only that part of the talk.
He has already alerted his Senator, as well as various Government and international organizations such as CDC, FDA and WHO.
What is the situation with Canada? It depends on where the vaccine makers have their plants. I don’t know if they have many in Canada. But the issue remains the same. Vaccine manufacturers might be using animals from factory farms, and may never have considered the issue of glyphosate contamination.
For Canada, the most important task would be to take samples of all vaccines and have them tested for presence of glyphosate.
For Canadians, it should trigger a grassroots movement demanding postponing all mass vaccination till we have the issue sorted and till we have forced the vaccine makers to use animals fed organically and tested to be glyphosate free.
I intend to use the content of Anthony Samsel’s letters, add my bit on Canada, as well as video such as this one, to alert our Canadian counterparts.
I request all readers of the blog to share it, and also consider writing to your local representative in the Government, or to the medical establishment, to consider taking a serious second look at this new information of glyphosate poisoning of some of the popular vaccines. The idea is not to ban vaccines per se, but to force the producers to use animals that are not fed GMO and glyphosate laced feed to start with, and to clean up their vaccines. Vaccines are meant to protect people, not poison them or make them sick.
Sample letter sent by Anthony Samsel
page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
Reference
Links to Anthony Samsel’s five peer reviewed papers can be found at ResearchGate, by typing in his name and browsing through his publications. Alternately, they can also be downloaded from here:
Designer Species – Recreating the world in our own image…
The game is rigged. The fix is in. Has been for a while, we’ve just been bandied about and hoodwinked into thinking that we can change the fact that corporations in league with the corporate government really do not care about our health or our very existence other than our worth as worker bees and “consumers” of whatever garbage they want to put on our plates.
The “label it” campaign was a farce, ripe for deception. It did, however, prolong our hopes until a more deceptive form of genetic engineering would take the stage and flood the kitchen with manufactured food-like organisms that have been designed to fly completely under the radar and any phony labeling laws. Eat up, America. Just don’t ask what it is you are putting in your mouths.
The ‘New And Improved’ Genetic Engineering
What we have seen thus far in the field of genetic engineering has been just the awkward beginnings of a plan to re-engineer the world and all of its various organisms into a ‘new and improved’ version (didn’t they say that about the last con they were selling?), created in a lab and designed to replace all that is natural.
According to proponents of this scheme, the world and its life forms as they exist are inconvenient, imperfect, not acceptable, and drastically need revision in order to be sustainable, green, healthy, and oh yes, let’s not forget, able to ‘end hunger’ and ‘feed the world.’ Lies. All lies.
There is an exciting new player in the ever-expanding field of genome editing. In a study reported in the January 2013 issue of Science, two groups—Cong et al.1 and Mali et al.2—explored the limits and adaptability of a prokaryotic RNA-based system for mammalian genome-wide editing. This new method of genome engineering is derived from an adaptive immune system known as CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) that bacteria and archaea use as a means to protect themselves against foreign invasive elements. These two studies show that the CRISPR system is an efficient method to alter mammalian genomes. At present, four types of discrete systems have been shown to generate, to different degrees of specificity and efficiency, genome-wide editing: three distinct protein-based nuclease systems,3,4,5 a chemical-based nuclease system,6 an adeno-associated virus (AAV)–based system,7 and now a protein RNA–based system.1,2
Resistance Is (Almost) Futile – Monsanto Is Upgrading The Borg
The first step in flooding the world with this new RNA technology lies in pesticide sprays.
It’s called the “BioDirect” initiative and it will eliminate costly resistance to glyphosate, eradicate vexingly resilient insects with “biopesticides” and even modify the genetic code of a plant by simply spritzing it with an RNA-infused surfactant spray. The technology is called “RNA interference” (RNAi) and it heralds a brave new world of profitability for agrochemical corporations. It also opens a Pandora’s box full of as-yet unanswered ethical questions about genetic drift, patenting plants on the fly and, most ominously, whether RNAi can, should or will be weaponized like another Monsanto product — Agent Orange.
RNAi technology hijacks DNA’s messenger system — the ribonucleic acid (RNA) that carries out DNA’s instructions. In effect, RNAi sends human-made messages that can, in turn, alter or kill its target by scrambling cellular functions, turning off organs, dropping resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate) or altering the DNA’s command system to produce an artificial gene expression.
The real issue is whether the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides is to then start pumping out RNAi biopesticides.
RNAi pesticides appear to be next in line behind Roundup, which is coming under increased scrutiny ever since its main ingredient, Glyphosate, was declared a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
Now, instead of conceding and working with nature, they are counterattacking with RNAi technology. Why? Because sales are flagging. The market is literally oversaturated with glyphosate. And Monsanto wants to extend the life and profitability of Roundup by knocking out resistance at the cellular level.
As a result, we face the unknown consequences of introducing a tidal wave of RNA into ecosystems that are not adapted to a sudden influx of genetic messages. Just think about that for a minute. Antonio Regalado pointed out in MIT Technology Review, “RNA may be natural … but introducing large amounts of targeted RNA molecules into the environment is not.”
…With Monsanto’s scientists pushing favourable papers at the EPA and with farmers who are supportive of agrochemical options clamouring for new GMO herbicide technology, it sure seems like resistance to their solution to glyphosate resistance is futile.
And the goal for Monsanto regarding these new pesticides? Not to provide an end-fix to the problem it created, but to prolong the life of the pesticide for added company profit. The company knows the effectiveness of any new creation will not last forever.
Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, explained that RNAi was highly specific to the targeted pest. That requires added work on the front end to identify the genes for “interference.” Being specific won’t eliminate concerns with resistance, but should prolong the life of these pest control tools.
Regulations? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Regulations!
And the master plan is as it has always been – get the technology out there and into the public arena before any pesky regulatory committee needs to get paid off to pass flimsy regulations in favor of corporate interests. After all, any time you can save a buck, do so.
Nina Holland, researcher for Corporate Europe Observatory, says: “The biotech industry has waged an under-the-radar campaign to get new GM products absolved from GM regulation. The TTIP negotiations are seen by industry across the board and the US government as the perfect opportunity to block EU processes that are supposed to protect public health and the environment. The regulation of new GM techniques is a case in point.”
CRISPR-Cas9 – On To Editing Living Organisms With RNA Technology
Sprayable pesticides are just the first step. After all, who wouldn’t want a new and improved pesticide that you can simply spray on a plant and only certain plant pests bite the dust? And people will buy it hook, line and sinker. Just like they did the Roundup lie.
After that, it’s a case of ‘anything goes.’ RNA technology will be accepted. At least that is what the biotech industry is counting on. So, it’s on to crops. Why not? After all, it’s benign. Or so we think. We really don’t know, but a mere technicality such as that shouldn’t stand in the way of progress.
How will we deal with prospects for editing the genes of organisms in living environments?
In the realm of agriculture, that’s no longer hypothetical.
Since its 2013 demonstration as a genome editing tool in Arabidopsis and tobacco — two widely used laboratory plants — CRISPR has been road-tested in crops, including wheat, rice, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, oranges and tomatoes. By the end of 2014, a flood of research into agricultural uses for CRISPR included a spectrum of applications, from boosting crop resistance to pests to reducing the toll of livestock disease.
But wait! It appears that some gene edited crops are already here, and using a different technique than CRISPR, totally unregulated, and flying completely under the radar.
Meanwhile, the first commercially available gene edited crop — produced using not CRISPR but another form of gene editing known as RTDS — has already appeared: an oilseed rape created by Cibus, a San Diego–based company. The rape has been altered for herbicide resistance, enabling farmers to spray their crop with weed killer. According to Nature, Cibus is marketing the product as non–genetically modified, since only a few snippets of the plant’s existing genes have been changed and “no gene has been inserted from a different kind of organism, nor even from another plant.” Even though RTDS is a different system than CRISPR, the similarities are sufficient enough that identical policy and regulatory questions apply to both.
Labeling makes no difference at all if that label does not reflect that any genetic engineering has taken place when in reality, it has. Just another sleight of hand by our corporate manipulators. Oh, they will get around to making some sort of regulatory statement sooner or later, but rest assured, whatever they decide, it won’t be in our best interests, but in the interests of corporate profit. And only until after the damage is done and we are well on our way to being saturated in the stuff.
Pesticides, Crops, Then Critters, Oh My!
Reports suggest that an entire barnyard of edited animals destined for industrial agriculture is rapidly filling the R&D pipeline. Recombinetics, a start-up firm, made headlines with hornless dairy cattle carrying a smidgen of genes from naturally smooth-headed beef cows. The company is now working on Brazilian beef cattle with larger muscles (for more meat, which may be more tender), while other firms are developing chickens that only produce female offspring (for egg-laying) and beef cattle that only produce males (for more efficient feed-to-meat conversion).
With respect to gene drives, while agriculture remains at the periphery thus far, researchers at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering have outlined heady prospects. Gene drives could “pave the way toward sustainable agriculture,” they suggest, by reversing pesticide resistance in insects and herbicide resistance in weeds. Drive systems could also destroy or modify pesky plant pests and squelch populations of invasive species, such as rats and kudzu.
A CRISPR-tweaked farm system could have a smaller environmental footprint and even humanitarian benefits, if it means farmers don’t have to dehorn cattle or cull their male bulls.
As mentioned above, among the agricultural applications of CRISPR in the research pipeline are those that would alter the biology of insects and weeds — in some cases, editing genes to overcome resistance to pesticides and herbicides. CRISPR-assisted gene drive technology could propel such mutations through populations in the wild, creating the potential to modify entire plant or animal communities over just a few years.
Pave the way towards sustainable agriculture? Humane? Just who are they trying to kid? If Monsanto had not dowsed the world in deadly poisons, agriculture would be sustainable. Now that the ground has been poisoned, people are dying from cancer and all sorts of pesticide-induced illnesses, Monsanto and the biotech industry have the cojones to tell us that they will solve the problem by using a new and unproven gene editing technique to fix the problem created by them? Seriously? And not to mention that cows grow horns just like we grow feet. And hands. And noses. Horns are simply inconvenient for us. What’s next, beakless chickens? People with six hands so they can do more work for their employers? Humans are not exempt from the genetic mayhem by any means.
Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
A radical new approach to generating human organs is to grow them inside pigs or sheep.
The experiments rely on a cutting-edge fusion of technologies, including recent breakthroughs in stem-cell biology and gene-editing techniques. By modifying genes, scientists can now easily change the DNA in pig or sheep embryos so that they are genetically incapable of forming a specific tissue. Then, by adding stem cells from a person, they hope the human cells will take over the job of forming the missing organ, which could then be harvested from the animal for use in a transplant operation.
“We can make an animal without a heart. We have engineered pigs that lack skeletal muscles and blood vessels,” says Daniel Garry, a cardiologist who leads a chimera project at the University of Minnesota. While such pigs aren’t viable, they can develop properly if a few cells are added from a normal pig embryo. Garry says he’s already melded two pigs in this way and recently won a $1.4 million grant from the U.S. Army, which funds some biomedical research, to try to grow human hearts in swine.
Do you really think that this will stop at human organs grown in pigs? Why not just create a ‘sustainable’ human? Maybe we can create one that doesn’t need to eat real food. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” was prophetic. We are being engineered. This experiment is being conducted in plain sight with the approval of your friendly corporate government. The tools for its implementation are most likely already on your plate, in your field, in your water supply, and are flooding your body as I type.
One thing is certain – no one knows where this will lead. If anyone says they do know the long term implications of tweaking nature to suit some phony scientist’s vision of a perfect genetically engineered world, that person is a liar.
The more you hear about Monsanto the more it looks like it is being run by Satan himself. What an evil entity. Just listen to Abby Martin.
“By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. Any scientist or politician that tells you these GMOs are safe is either stupid or lying.”
– David Suziki, geneticist, environmentalist (source 1)
Jun 10, 2016
Few corporations in the world are as loathed—and as sinister—as Monsanto. But the threat it poses to people and planet could be reaching new heights, as the World Health Organization has recently upgraded Monsanto’s main product as carcinogenic to humans. With protests against the agrochemical giant held in over 40 countries in May, learn why the global movement against Monsanto is of critical importance to our future.
In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin issues a scathing expose on the corporate polluter, chronicling it’s rise to power, the collusion of its crimes by the US government, and highlighting the serious danger it puts us in today.
(NaturalNews) Nearly half a century has passed since Monsanto scientist John Franz first discovered glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, which today is sprayed heavily all over the globe, including on our food and water, and in recreational areas where people go for leisure.
However, it is only now that scientists are beginning to truly understand the way this insidious chemical affects not only wildlife and the environment, but also the human body and its intricate biological functions.
A recent review of the scientific literature conducted by independent researchers Anthony Samsel, Ph.D. and Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D. – a scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – uncovered some disturbing information about the way glyphosate interferes with the structure and functionality of important proteins in the human body.
What they learned is that glyphosate behaves as a glycine analogue that incorporates peptides during protein synthesis, according to AlterNet. In other words, the herbicide alters various proteins dependent “on conserved glycine for proper function.”
Glyphosate found to adversely impact structure and function of important proteins
When the human body substitutes glyphosate for glycine, it leads to a host of serious illnesses including diabetes, obesity, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease, among other conditions, according to the study’s authors.
“Glycine, the smallest amino acid commonly found in proteins, has unique properties that support flexibility and the ability to anchor to the plasma membrane or the cytoskeleton.
“This new direct biological evidence, taken together with correlational data, make a compelling case that glyphosate action as a glycine analogue accounts for much of glyphosate’s toxicity,” explains AlterNet, interpreting the researchers’ data.
Researchers say that when glyphosate behaves as an amino acid analogue of glycine, it can be incorporated into polypeptide chains during protein synthesis, which in turn affects the structure and function of important proteins in the human body.
Metabolic and regulatory processes may be disrupted by widely used herbicide
“Proteins fold up, and glycine is a small molecule that is often found at the folding places. Since glyphosate is much larger, it prevents the protein molecule from folding properly, leading to the disruption of function of many proteins with essential roles in metabolism and regulatory processes.”
Samsel and Seneff highlight a number of ways that this may affect humans, as well as other organisms, including the potential that “impaired fatty acid release” could lead to obesity and diabetes, because the chemical can disrupt the behavior of insulin receptors.
The researchers observed that glyphosate may prevent proteins from folding properly, causing “impaired one-carbon metabolism,” leading to neural tube defects and autism.
Researchers explain how glyphosate may cause autism, cancer and autoimmune diseases
It’s highly plausible that the herbicide may also disrupt “cell cycle control during DNA synthesis, and disregulated phosphorylation cascades,” which can end up causing cancer, complications with the lungs and autoimmune diseases.
Needless to say, the adverse effects glyphosate has on humans and other living things is absolutely frightening, and we still don’t understand the full extent of its impact. Nearly every chronic illness affecting Americans today can be traced back to glyphosate.
Yet, we can’t even get our regulatory agencies (namely the EPA) to recognize its carcinogenic effects, let alone the host of other debilitating, painful diseases it’s causing among humans.
“When a cell is trying to form proteins, it may grab glyphosate instead of glycine to form a damaged, mis-folded protein. After that it’s medical chaos. Where glyphosate replaces glycine, the cell can no longer conduct business as usual causing unpredicted consequences with many diseases and disorders as a result,” explains Stephen Frantz, Ph.D., a research pathobiologist.
While it’s essentially impossible to avoid exposure to glyphosate, you can take control of your health by boosting your immune system with clean, healthy foods such as The Health Ranger’s Organic Bee Pollen, sourced solely from carefully selected beekeepers in Spain.
Come on Portugal, you are better and smarter than that. You got rid of the farce called the war on drugs. Now you need to eliminate all companies that did this your population. And demand retribution.
(NaturalNews) Recent tests by the Portuguese No GMO Coalition showed that volunteers in the country had extremely high levels of glyphosate in their urine, placing their contamination rate well above that of many places in Europe. Every single one of the 26 volunteers had cancer-causing glyphosate in their urine; similar tests in Switzerland last year found glyphosate in only 38 percent of people. Meanwhile, testing by Friends of the Earth across 18 different European countries found glyphosate in just 44 percent of the urine samples tested.
It is not just the mere presence of glyphosate that is setting off alarm bells; the levels noted were also disturbingly high. The EU limit for acceptable levels in drinking water is 0.1 ng/ml. The average glyphosate value found in the Portuguese volunteers’ samples was 26.2 ng/ml – a whopping 260 times higher than the maximum legal limit!
Meanwhile, testing of more than 2,000 Germans found an average of 1.1 ng/ml, and the highest value noted in that country was 4.2 ng/ml. The range of values for Portuguese volunteers went from 12.5 to 32.5 ng/ml, which means that even the worst German case was better than the least contaminated Portuguese case!
Children showed the highest glyphosate levels
It is also worth noting that the youngest volunteers showed a higher average value (26.7 ng/ml) than the group as a whole, and this phenomenon was also noted in the German study. The researchers also point out that the values higher than 20 ng/ml are the highest amounts ever recorded in people who do not have professional exposure to glyphosate – a clear indication that the poisoning is coming from the food and/or water supply.
Unfortunately for the Portuguese, glyphosate is the most widely used chemical herbicide in their country. More than 1,600 tons of this toxic chemical are sold there each year. There has been a rise in its use for controlling weeds in olive groves, something that was traditionally done via mowing, grazing, or tillage. It is being overused in the country’s orchards and vineyards, and urban street spraying is also believed to play a role.
Nevertheless, similar practices also occur in other European countries, and it is not clear why the levels are so much higher in the Portuguese volunteers. The Portuguese No GMO Coalition is calling for official testing on the country’s soil, food, air, water and citizens – something that has not been done in more than a decade. The country’s Ministry of Agriculture does monitor food for more than 300 pesticide residues, but glyphosate is somehow not on its list.
Private testing shows large-scale global poisoning
This illustrates why it is so important for groups such as the Portuguese No GMO Coalition to take matters into their own hands and carry out tests to uncover just how widespread this problem is. Governments do not always look out for the best interests of their people, and concerned citizens have the power to draw attention to these problems.
A similar effort is currently underway by EPAWatch.org to uncover the presence of heavy metals in the tap water of various American cities. In addition, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, tested more than 800 foods in his cutting-edge analytical lab to determine the presence of a host of toxins. This information can be found in his book, Food Forensics.
Such efforts are doing a lot to highlight the problem of dangerous substances in our food and water supply. As people become more aware of these issues, they are starting to demand that food companies use honest labeling practices, and are trying to put an end to this large-scale global poisoning.
The news of Portugal’s far-reaching glyphosate contamination comes as the date approaches later this month for EU member states to vote on the re-licensing of glyphosate.
The Coaltion stated that, “Portugal must now face the problem and find solutions both at the national and European levels in order to clarify the reasons for such high human contamination and reduce it by several orders of magnitude.”
Despite the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer calling the chemical a “probable human carcinogen,” its use still continues mostly unabated around the world, thanks largely to the efforts of Big Agri company Monsanto, who have been known to fudge research results, smear doctors and journalists who speak out about glyphosate’s ill effects, and bribe government officials to protect their business interests.
Sources include:
Et tu German beer? This is the end of civilization as we know it!
The German beer industry is in shock after finding that 14 different popular beer brands have traces of the ‘probably’ carcinogenic herbicide, glyphosate.
The German beer industry is in shock after finding that 14 different popular beer brands have traces of the ‘probably’ carcinogenic herbicide, glyphosate – an ingredient found in Monsanto’s best-selling weed killer, Round Up. Germany’s Agricultural minster is playing down the risks in order to save one of the countries’ best-selling exports.
Glyphosate levels were as high as 30 micrograms per liter, even in beer that is supposed to be brewed from only water, malt, and hops. This finding by the Munich Environmental Institute calls into question the rampant spraying of Round Up on both GMO and non-GMO crops around the world, and casts doubt upon Germany’s 500-year-old beer purity law.
The EU Commission was looking to extend approval for the use of glyphosate in Germany, and other EU countries in April for another 15 years. The current license runs out this summer.
Following the findings by France, that glyphosate is likely a human carcinogen, as well as the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, the IARC, finding that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, glyphosate in Germany’s coveted beer is not a positive discovery for the makers of this herbicide, which include companies like Monsanto.
Who is Responsible?
Germany’s farm federation has denied responsibility, saying that malt derived from glyphosate-sprayed barley has been banned. The group admits, though, that glyphosate could have been used on farms prior to the ban, meaning barley could still be grown in glyphosate-drenched soil.
The Bremen office of the brewery giant Anheuser-Busch described the institute’s findings as “not plausible,” citing a bill of health issued by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) that the amounts of glyphosate found in beer did not pose a threat to consumers. In a statement, the Institute said:
“An adult would have to drink around 1,000 liters (264 US gallons) of beer a day to ingest enough quantities to be harmful to health.”
As with other Big Ag deniers, they seem to forget that glyphosate exposure comes from multiple sources, aside from just contaminated beer.
Findings from Munich NGO
The Munich Environmental Institute found glyphosate readings between 0.46 and 29.74 micrograms per liter in 14 different popular beers.
The highest reading was 300 times the legal limit glyphosate in drinking water in Germany, calling this contamination level, “alarming.”
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone
Tales from the Conspiratum 
